Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the millions of Americans and the researchers that are fighting every day to end cancer. As you know, May is National Cancer Research month and all across our great Nation, men and women are working not only to overcome this devastating disease that claims half a million American lives every year, but also to prevent it.

Unquestionably, the Nation's investment in cancer research is having a remarkable impact.

Thanks to discoveries and developments in prevention, early detection, and more effective treatments, many of the more than 200 diseases called cancer have been cured or converted into manageable chronic conditions while preserving quality of life. The 5-year survival rate for all cancers has improved over the past 30 years to more than 65 percent. Advances in cancer research have had significant implications for the treatment of other costly diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer's, HIV/AIDS and macular degeneration.

However, there is much left to be done, as cancer remains the leading cause of death for Americans under age 85 and the second leading cause of death overall. We must continue to strengthen our Nation's commitment to lifesaving research for the health and wellbeing of all Americans.

I want to commend the hard work and dedication of all those who are on the front lines of the quest for the prevention and cure of cancer. Organizations such as the American Association for Cancer Research, AACR, American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network are fighting hard every day to eradicate Cancer in partnership with the American taxpayer and NIH.

I was pleased to learn that President Obama nominated Dr. Harold Varmus to head the National Cancer Institute, NCI. As NIH Director under President Clinton, Dr. Varmus was instrumental in the historic growth of this great agency. As NCI tackles the health mysteries surrounding Cancer, it is heartening to know it will be lead by such a distinguished and capable scientist.

As we celebrate National Cancer Research Month this May, I hope that this Congress will continue to make cancer research a national priority and ensure continued progress for the hope and benefit of all Americans who have or will be touched by this dreaded disease.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the thousands of Americans living with and affected by Huntington's disease. As you know, May is Huntington's disease awareness month. HD affects over 250,000 Americans, 117,000 in my great state of California.

According to the National Institutes of Health, NIH, ``Huntington's disease results from genetically programmed degeneration of brain cells, called neurons, in certain areas of the brain. This degeneration causes uncontrolled movements, loss of intellectual faculties, and emotional disturbance. HD is a familial disease, passed from parent to child through a mutation in the normal gene. Each child of an HD parent has a 50-50 chance of inheriting the HD gene. If a child does not inherit the HD gene, he or she will not develop the disease and cannot pass it to subsequent generations. A person who inherits the HD gene will sooner or later develop the disease. As a Cochair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, I urge my colleagues to support efforts by the NIH to eradicate this horrible condition.

Not only are people with HD living with constant discomfort, they are also shortchanged when it comes to receiving social security disability benefits. Individuals living with HD are continually denied disability social security benefits because of outdated medical guidelines that require a 2-year waiting period before the accrual of benefits can begin. These fine Americans have paid into the system and they should have access to these benefits. For most people a 2-year wait is nothing, for patients suffering with HD it is a death sentence.

In an effort to end this discrimination, I have joined with my colleague Bob Filner (D-CA) in sponsoring H.R. 678 The Huntington's Disease Parity Act of 2009. This legislation will revise the outdated social security benefit formula and allow people living with HD to begin receiving their benefits immediately.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the yeoman's work of Mr. Allan Rappaport and Ms. Misty Oto. These wonderful, dedicated Americans are fighting hard every day to make sure one day HD is nothing more than a footnote in a medical school text book.

Finally, I would like to thank the Huntington's Disease Society of America, HDSA. HDSA is a national, voluntary health organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with HD and their families. This wonderful group promotes and supports research and medical efforts to eradicate Huntington's disease as well assists families dealing with HD all the while educating the public and health professionals about this condition.

Colleagues of the House of Representatives, I urge you to support H.R. 678 and work with me to end the discrimination of HD patients.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor the thousands of Americans living with and affected by Huntington's disease. As you know, May is Huntington's disease awareness month. HD affects over 250,000 Americans, 117,000 in my great state of California.

According to the National Institutes of Health, NIH, ``Huntington's disease results from genetically programmed degeneration of brain cells, called neurons, in certain areas of the brain. This degeneration causes uncontrolled movements, loss of intellectual faculties, and emotional disturbance. HD is a familial disease, passed from parent to child through a mutation in the normal gene. Each child of an HD parent has a 50-50 chance of inheriting the HD gene. If a child does not inherit the HD gene, he or she will not develop the disease and cannot pass it to subsequent generations. A person who inherits the HD gene will sooner or later develop the disease. As a Cochair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, I urge my colleagues to support efforts by the NIH to eradicate this horrible condition.

Not only are people with HD living with constant discomfort, they are also shortchanged when it comes to receiving social security disability benefits. Individuals living with HD are continually denied disability social security benefits because of outdated medical guidelines that require a 2-year waiting period before the accrual of benefits can begin. These fine Americans have paid into the system and they should have access to these benefits. For most people a 2-year wait is nothing, for patients suffering with HD it is a death sentence.

In an effort to end this discrimination, I have joined with my colleague Bob Filner (D-CA) in sponsoring H.R. 678 The Huntington's Disease Parity Act of 2009. This legislation will revise the outdated social security benefit formula and allow people living with HD to begin receiving their benefits immediately.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the yeoman's work of Mr. Allan Rappaport and Ms. Misty Oto. These wonderful, dedicated Americans are fighting hard every day to make sure one day HD is nothing more than a footnote in a medical school text book.

Finally, I would like to thank the Huntington's Disease Society of America, HDSA. HDSA is a national, voluntary health organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with HD and their families. This wonderful group promotes and supports research and medical efforts to eradicate Huntington's disease as well assists families dealing with HD all the while educating the public and health professionals about this condition.

Colleagues of the House of Representatives, I urge you to support H.R. 678 and work with me to end the discrimination of HD patients.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee of jurisdiction, I have been trying to work in a bipartisan effort with this bill. I want to support this bill even though it has an $85.6 billion price tag. But sadly, the fact is that, just trying to do some of those little things that the American people want us to move forward, commonsense things, like making sure that the $85.6 billion, that no portion of that is going in to financing illegal behavior such as illegal employment, sadly, the Rules Committee has said we don't have time to bother with assuring the American people that their money is not going to be spent in the commission of a crime of illegal employment.

It is bad enough, Madam Speaker, that we have a bill that does not specifically require anyone who gets Federal funds or Federal grant guarantees to do the thing that you and I do as Members of Congress, the Federal Government does, that every contractor does since President Obama has mandated; this bill doesn't require that the recipients of Federal funds under this program have to make sure they check the employment status of somebody before they start paying them with Federal funds. Common decency.

But what is worse than that, Madam Speaker, is the Rules Committee has denied both sides of the aisle the ability to vote on this issue. The Rules Committee has denied us the ability, as Republicans and Democrats and Independents, to go on record with the American people and say, look, we want to make sure that your money is not spent for illegal activities such as illegal employment.

I tried to work across the aisle on this issue. I have worked with Chairman Gordon on this issue. All we asked was the common decency to give Democrats and Republicans the ability to go on record and do a little thing that the American people have been demanding for much too long, and that is, when you spend money, even if it is more than we want, make sure that you are not financing the violation of Federal law. That is all I asked. But the Rules Committee couldn't find the decency to allow a bipartisan vote on something that is so commonsense, so common decency, as to make sure that we keep our promise to the American people, that we uphold the Constitution, and make sure that our Federal funds are not engaged in illegal activity.

Madam Speaker, sadly, that is where I am today. I like a lot of this bill. But if you ask me to go back to San Diego and face off my constituents--right, left, Republican, Democrat--how can I look at them with a straight face and say, I've done everything I can to make sure your money is spent appropriately and legally. Sadly, this rule does not require that little bit of common decency of making sure the constituency gets legal expenditure of their $85.6 billion. That's the price tag of not being bipartisan leadership.

Madam Chairman, I regretfully stand up today in opposition to this bill, and it is not because of major portions of the bill. I want to say first of all, I want to thank the chairman for his effort here in getting as much of a bipartisan bill as possible. He worked hard on this, and not just this bill, but I think through the entire years he has been chair, he has really made an effort to do what a lot of people talk about in this town but very few are willing to do, and that is make that bipartisan effort.

Sadly, Madam Chair, I have to oppose this bill for one major issue, and that is this bill does not take the effort to make sure that the billions of dollars in this bill do not go to illegal employers who are creating a crime problem in my district and around this country. All we have asked for is the ability to assure our constituency that none of the tax money that we are putting into this bill at this effort will be diverted into illegal activities such as hiring people who are not legally present in the United States.

As every Member of Congress knows, the Federal Government requires that all Federal departments, including Members of Congress, use E- verification system to ensure or at least make the effort to avoid the situation where Federal tax dollars are being diverted into illegal employment.

The President of the United States this year initiated a program of requiring contractors to use the E-Verify system to make sure that those tax dollars didn't go to contractors who were illegally employing. All we asked with this bill was that we include a provision that allows us to be able to ensure our constituency that the same can be said with this expenditure of billions of dollars.

I have to say, I really feel remorse for having to stand up now because it has been such a great effort to try to get it across and do the right thing. All I can say, Madam Chair, is I hope the chairman, who knows how we feel about this, is successful in the future as this bill moves forward at including the provision for this in this bill that all employers, all contractors, all grantees, do the right thing and the appropriate thing by using E-Verify to make sure that Federal funds are not used in illegal activity.

So as we move forward, I would ask that the chairman's mark be looked at as an opportunity to include the E-Verify requirement; that when we go to conference, the E-Verify requirement be looked at as a possibility at that level; and before we go to final adoption, that we include the E-Verify in this, because I think after what has happened in the last few weeks, with the outrage across this country, both sides being very upset, the major thing they are upset about is that Congress is not taking the opportunity to do those little things that common sense and common decency say we should be doing as legislators and addressing the real source of the illegal immigration problem, and that is the illegal employment. And if we cannot find enough intestinal fortitude to require those who are getting Federal grants and Federal guarantees to play by the rules and make sure they are not hiring illegals, how can we go home to our constituency and say we really do care, let alone we've done enough.

I ask, Madam Chair, that we sadly vote against this bill, even with all of its great packages, until the essential part of this is done, and that is requiring that everybody who gets a loan guarantee, everybody who gets a grant, anybody who gives a job out under this bill needs to make sure that it is going to an American or a legal resident who has the right under the law to be employed in this country. Until we do that much, we really don't have the right to ask the American people to pay for this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Robert H. Anderson, Lt. Col., USMC (ret.) who sadly passed away in November 2009. Lt. Col. Anderson was laid to rest Friday April 2, 2010 in Arlington National Cemetery.

Lt. Col. Anderson was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for heroism during World War II. He became a Corsair pilot and was in nearly every major battle in the Pacific including Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, Tarawa, Guam, Peleliu, Tinian and others. Between these battles, he fought kamikazes that were attacking our ships, flew reconnaissance missions, and escorted bombers, protecting them from Japanese fighter planes. During one of his escort missions he was hit with anti-aircraft fire and told to bail out. He jettisoned the canopy but at the last moment he decided that he would take his chances and try to get back to his base in Okinawa. He successfully landed on the runway at Okinawa with no canopy, no landing gear and much of his plane and controls damaged.

Throughout his life, Lt. Col. Anderson demonstrated his commitment to serving his country. After World War II, Lt. Col. Anderson served in the Marine Corps Reserve testing new jets, training pilots and keeping his skills sharp in case he was needed in combat again. He served one weekend a month and two weeks twice a year until Vietnam. He also volunteered as a recruiter for the Marine Corps Reserve and helped overhaul their public relations strategy. He volunteered for active duty during the Korean Campaign, but was not called.

Lt. Col. Anderson's service and dedication to this country warrants the highest recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating this great American.

I would like to thank the coauthor of the bill, Mr. Murphy, and especially Chairman Towns and Ranking Member Issa for bringing this item up today. I appreciate the ability to address it.

Mr. Speaker, all across America, Americans are speaking out loudly. In fact, there's a degree of dismay for those of us in Washington when we go home to see the outrage that is coming out from the average taxpayer in this country. I think we are just now really realizing that there is a justification for the outrage and the strong feelings. Basically, as we tell the American people that they must give more and that we are going to take more, they are saying, No way. You have not earned the right to be trusted with our tax money.

Mr. Murphy and I have been able to identify one of those items that the American people have been calling for for a long time. How do we explain to our constituents that we are giving away inappropriately twice as much money as we spend to defend their neighborhoods from terrorism when it comes to homeland security? How do we have the gall to ask them to trust us with more money when we have this kind of mismanagement of public funds--not just recently, but historically. And I think this is one place we can, in a bipartisan effort, admit that Washington needs to be more responsible, needs to do more and, frankly, demand more from Washington and the bureaucracy and less from the American people when it comes to accountability.

We're talking about the fact that we need now to lower the thresholds of reporting so the problem can be more transparent. We need to make sure that we hold those who are trusted in the Departments with the American taxpayers' money to do more, report more, and be more accountable for the mismanagement of those funds. Frankly, we need to demand more recovery of the money when we detect these funds are being misappropriated.

Frankly, right now, I think the outrage across this country is something that is healthy for all of us--Democrats, Republicans, Independents. We should not be asking, Why are the American people so outraged? We're saying, Why didn't we realize this earlier and sooner so that that outrage did not just show up in screaming town hall meetings and protests around this country?

I want to thank Mr. Murphy for joining with me at showing the American people there are some of us that hear it loud and clear. We do not blame the American people for being outraged. We blame ourselves and the Washington establishment for not addressing this issue before and not moving forward.

So I, again, thank the chairman and the ranking member. I thank my coauthor on this. And I think, Mr. Speaker, this is more than just money. We're talking about we have taken hard-earned resources from hardworking Americans and we have been trusted in the past; and we have violated that trust.

This bill will start on a pattern towards earning the trust back from the American people. But we do not have a right to ask them to trust us with more money until we prove to them that we can correct this problem and take care of the money that we have already been endowed with. So I ask that this body pass this bill and address it. It's a small step in the direction that America has asked us to go to for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, the reports are in and, sadly, not only does this health care scheme cost the American people more than it provides and increases the cost of health care, but at the same time, it exempts anyone illegally in this country from having to be taxed or to buy insurance. Everyone else who is legal in the country is required to buy the insurance or be taxed. So illegal immigrants are now exempt from the responsibility; but because the majority refused to put in the E-verification, the SERVE verification to make sure that illegals don't get into the benefit package, we have created a situation where illegals now are not required to pay, but they are guaranteed, because of a lack of verification, that they have access to the system.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the fact is Joe Wilson was right: illegals do have access into a system that the President and Congress promised the American people would not be available.

Mr. Speaker, this week, each of us cast the most historic vote any of us is likely to ever make. With it, revolutionary changes have been made to the American health care system that will forever alter its very nature. This vote was a long time coming and much needed, unfortunately, what we did pass is long on promises of improved care, but preciously short on reforms that the American people really need for better and more affordable care.

It is no secret that the health care system is in need of reform. In 2007, the latest year that figures were available, total health expenditures reached $2.2 trillion, which translates to $7,421 for every man, woman and child; millions of Americans are without health insurance and San Diego doctors are finding it increasingly difficult to care for our city's most vulnerable residents. This week's debate was full of passion over many issues and arguments over the proper answer to health reform. While we can argue over many points, there is one issue where there is no debate: we need health care reform.

Studies have shown that the visit rates to emergency rooms for patients with no insurance are twice that of those with private insurance. While I support insuring all Americans can access health insurance and believe it must be the first priority of any health care reform legislation, I cannot support a bureaucratic system dictated and controlled by the Federal Government. Congress, just like the medical profession, must adhere to the Hippocratic Oath of: ``Above all, do no harm.''

Throughout the past year, I have supported many bipartisan issues that will increase health quality and access for not just San Diegans but all Americans without limiting our choice of health care options-- many of which were in the legislation we passed Sunday night. We must first allow Americans to have the same insurance as the Congress of the United States. It is not fair to stand here today and pontificate on the benefits of health care if we do not allow hard working Americans to have the same health care choices we enjoy. Citizens of this great country must be allowed to shop wherever they want in the United States for health insurance, free from the barriers of state lines. If New Jersey offers a plan that is cheaper than California, Californians should have the ability to purchase that plan. We must enact strong medical tort reforms that can save billions of dollars--$54 billion to be exact according to Congress' own Congressional Budget Office, CBO. Finally, I support strong enforcement mechanisms to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving taxpayer subsidized health care.

It is important to remember that American health care is in many ways the envy of the world. From our first class medical facilities to our world renowned life science enterprise, we are the leader in innovative care and solutions. These innovations are allowing Americans suffering from major illnesses to live longer, healthier lives. For instance, in a single decade, from 1993-2003 U.S. heart disease deaths dropped by 22 percent. However, for all these benefits there is work to be done but not at the expense of destroying the entire health care system.

The health care bill that was signed into law will destroy our already fragile economy and lead to government control of health care. Under this new law, there will be more than $520 billion in tax increases, including a $27 billion employer mandate tax and $15 billion individual mandate tax. With 1 in 9 San Diegans out of work, this will exacerbate the problem.

There are many examples in this legislation of government control but one striking example is the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission. The creation of the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB,) which for the first time will give unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats the mandate to make important decisions about the future of the Medicare program. The cuts they propose would be in addition to the over half trillion dollars of Medicare and Medicaid cuts already in this bill.

We all agree that Medicare reform is needed but the IPAB actually carves out large areas of the Medicare budget from potential savings, leaving draconian cuts in the reimbursement of life saving and life enhancing drugs as a likely outcome. As Co-Chair of the House Biomedical Research Caucus, I have seen the great promise that developments in medical technology can mean for American seniors. Just last summer, the existing Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendations on mammograms, confusing millions of Americans in the process. Can you imagine if those recommendations had the force of law? As science progresses to further embrace the benefits of personalized medicine, we need to make sure that the unchecked decisions of a federal board in Washington do not unwittingly sabotage the doctor- patient relationship. I am very troubled by this provision, and I want to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fix it or repeal it before it becomes effective.

In order to pass this legislation, many back room deals were cut. From the ``Cornhusker Kickback'' to the ``Louisiana Purchase,'' many states were taken care of in order to secure support. However, California was once again left on the outside looking in. This bill does nothing to fix the Geographic Practice Cost

Index (GPCI), which to date finds San Diego doctors being paid at a rate of rural practitioners; all the while they continue to practice in a high cost area. Additionally, this legislation does nothing to fix the sustainable growth rate problem that finds California doctors facing continuing cuts in Medicare payment rates year after year and threatens patient's access to care.

I was in favor of rejecting this plan and coming back to the table and develop a proposal that fully addresses medical malpractice awards so we can save health care costs, allow United States citizens to purchase their health care across state lines and provide tax credits so hard working Americans, not Washington D.C., are in charge of their health care.

A strong and accessible health care system is one of the most fundamental components of a strong economy. I am committed to working in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to put in place real reform that will protect the doctor-patient relationship but will not bankrupt our economy in the process. American families deserve better than socialized health care and I plan on helping to deliver it. I will continue to work with my colleagues to reform a broken health care system in a way that is sustainable, protects the promises we have already made to our nation's seniors and does not infringe on our liberties.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4214, designating the facility of the United States Post Office located at 45300 Portola Avenue in Palm Desert, California, as the ``Roy Wilson Post Office.''

I think my illustrious colleague from Missouri said it very well. I think there is no reason to repeat more. Mr. Wilson served his community in many ways. As a former county supervisor myself, I think it is very appropriate to recognize how important that level of government, the county government, especially in California, is, and the many years of service that Mr. Wilson gave his community, not just as a county supervisor but in many other forms that are quite appropriate.

I am proud to join the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlelady, Mary Bono Mack, from California, in supporting this resolution.

I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, in the spirit of cooperation with the leadership, I will at this time yield back my time, and I ask for support of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to join with my colleague from Missouri in supporting this bill. I really think that we need to see more bills like this. Plain language sounds so simple, but for so long the American people have been asking for Washington to do what it tells everyone else to do, and that is reform itself. You shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to be able to understand what the government is telling you or doing, and sadly that has been historically the fact. And I want to thank the author of this bill for bringing this forward.

I hope that this is the beginning of the melting of the gridlock of always trying to not change the way Washington operates. I hope this is the beginning of saying, before we ask the private citizens to change the way they live their lifestyle, the way they act, before we start asking the private sector to reform their way of operation, we should lead through example by changing the way Washington operates and the way the Federal Government relates not just to its services but to its constituency. And I think this bill does that.

I think one of the greatest frustrations that we find in the American people today is the fact that they feel that Washington is disconnected. And a bill like this points out how disconnected, that when we can't even send out notices to inform our citizens of what is going on, what they need to do, or what is possible--we can't even do it in plain language. We have to do it in a legalese that may sound good here in Washington, but it is not understood out in the real streets of America.

So I ask my colleagues, again, to use this as an example of just the first of many. And so we can look at not just reforming how we communicate, but how we govern, how we represent, and how we tell the American people we really do finally care enough to change the way we are operating, and that for once, Washington is going to lead through example rather than edict.

I would again compliment the author and the Representative of the majority for bringing this forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I would like to thank the author. And let me clarify: there are many of us who could explain what the turkeys are talking about in Texas, but I don't think it is appropriate on this floor.

But I have to say that you are right, so much of this documentation is written where the public can't understand it. And, to be blunt about it, as somebody who has worked in government since I was 24, they don't want the public to understand. They purposely think that legalese and elite discussion and text is some way to be able to safeguard traditional government structures; and I think that this breaks down that, and I think you would agree.

I will say this as a former mayor. If a city manager sent out a letter to a constituent of a mayor or city council member in the manner that the Federal Government sends it out, that city manager wouldn't be employed for very long. I think that is the same standard that we should hold for the Federal Government. If it isn't appropriate for our council members or mayors or our school district representatives to send out those kinds of information, to have that kind of relationship between the constituency and the taxpayer and the government, then, doggone it, it shouldn't be appropriate for the Federal Government to think that somehow we are so high and mighty that we can't break down and finally start using plain speech and straight talk. And I think that is what your bill starts with, and I think it is a step in the right direction. I just hope to see us follow through.

And I will say this personally: my wife is a tax consultant, and I would love to see the day that we make the IRS and tax consultants obsolete so I can see more of my wife during certain times, put them both out of business. And maybe this is one step there.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Reclaiming my time, I would actually even ask the gentleman to take a look at the fact that it is sad that in the United States, that if you go to the translated interpretations of our government regs, they tend to be much more simply put and much easier to understand than the so-called English legalese that is being put out there. So I think the challenge is really one that is long and weighty, and so I thank you very much for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to use this instance to thank Chairman Towns. At a time when the American people are crying out for bipartisan effort, I think his leadership on a very critical committee, the Oversight Committee, has been stellar in a manner that the rest of America I think would love to see the rest of this town operate as well as your committee does, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very much for that bipartisan effort, including everyone in the process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I call on all of us to vote together to support this bill and to use it as a marker for more progress at clarifying and opening up the government process and allowing the average citizen to participate. And the only way to do that is for Washington to change the way we do business.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, this is a classic example of trying to work together to open up the system, allow the transparency that the American people are demanding, and I strongly support its intention and its execution.

Madam Speaker, you may remember, when we got here in 1995, that there were Members of Congress who could not understand the concept of sending electronic emails between offices or outside. It was alien to Washington to be so technologically plugged in. It just shows you how times have changed. Now we're finally starting to address the technology. I think the gentleman from Missouri even recognized that we need to really push harder at opening up the system, embracing the new technologies that allow not only the public to know better, but also the representatives of the public to be able to function in a much more efficient manner.

This bill is truly one that we have been trying to work on for years. It's one that was controversial in certain circles, but I think it's one that we need to move forward with. I hope, again, that this is another one of those steps that the Government Oversight Committee is looking to to set an example for the rest the Congress and the rest of Washington to find reasons to get to ``yes,'' to find reasons to work together, and to find reasons to do it better. I think that that is one thing we can do here.

Madam Speaker, I have to say while speaking on this item that it's sad that, on the down side, we have been trying for over a decade to do something the new President has talked a lot about, and that's using e- technology for electronic medical records. And the fact is, the Federal Government has been trying to develop that for our veterans and our active duty military for over a decade and still has not been able to implement it. So I hope this is one step towards becoming comfortable with reviving, restoring, and really redesigning the way we approach e- technology and new technology and that we will embrace it rather than being terrified by it, like some people were in the nineties when we showed up.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to close by thanking the ranking member and full committee chairman for allowing the minority to participate in the formation of this bill. There are so many committees that aren't allowing the minority to participate. I think this is really a nice example of the cooperation that I think the American people want to see and don't see enough of. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing us to participate in the process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the United States mandates on the Federal Government the responsibility of holding a census every decade. It is an essential part of our constitutional obligation, and actually a building block for our representative form of government. It also has evolved into a process to be able to assess how Federal funds and programs should be distributed.

The integrity of the census is so important that over the decades methods have been proposed how to improve and to secure the census numbers. Today we are actually talking about one aspect of the effort to improve the validity of these numbers and the integrity of the numbers, and that is to do an outreach to the communities of the Native Alaskans and American Indians. These are communities that tend to be more isolated than the general population and tend to be more suspicious of any government action, especially the Federal Government. And, frankly, the way the Federal Government has treated these two groups historically, I think we all say that a lot of the skepticism of the American Indian and Native Alaskans is well founded.

But this program is well based in a proposal to use the traditional respect for elders, the high regard and status of elders in the American Indian and Alaskan Native community really as a building block to build the understanding that this process is not just important to the Federal Government, it is not just important to the general population, but it is essential to those individuals who reside on Indian reservations and in Alaska.

This proposal is actually a great way to be able to bring this message that the census is for you, too, even if you are on a reservation. I think it is a very good way of doing it.

I have to say there are many things that the Federal Government does where we mean well, but we don't take the time to understand the individuals that we are trying to serve. We don't take the time or make the effort to understand that the Federal Government too often asks for one size fits all as somehow the perfect answer. This program customizes an approach to reflect those traditional customs and the heritage of our Native American and Native Alaskan populations.

I think that the integrity of the census is something that we don't talk enough about except when we have scandals and problems of groups and people being involved with it that basically are questionable at the time and pull a pale over the entire census process. This process is one I think where we will be able to look back and say there was a bipartisan effort not to try to manipulate the numbers or the process, but to allow the numbers to be true and well founded. I strongly support this concept.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).

Madam Speaker, I would like to close by thanking my colleague from California. I want to thank him for a lot of reasons, but it was nice that you proposed a 2-page bill, not a 2,000-page bill. It was nice that you gave us over a week to be able to review it rather than a few hours. And it is darn nice to see that we can have a bipartisan effort and get something passed in this Congress that doesn't cost $1 trillion. So thank you very much for taking a leadership role on this thing. Maybe we can get the leadership on both sides to recognize that maybe this is the process we ought to follow more often.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 915, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Too quickly we forget those who have served all over the world. Sadly, we even forget the magnitude of the wars they fought. So often in the United States, we think about Europe in World War I and service there, but this truly was a world war. It was a war that transformed not only Europe, but Asia and Africa. We forget about that. We forget that the wars were not just fought in Flanders Field, but fought in villages and on three continents. And we not only saw the battles of Americans in the skies of France, but we also saw, like my mother's side of the family, Australians fighting in Turkey; the battles in Saudi Arabia; the concepts and the battles in Africa. These are things that we don't read about and think about, but it truly was a world conflict involving millions and millions of men and women around the world.

This memorial in the heart of America is so appropriate for us to stop and think about the fact that although a lot of Americans had second thoughts and misgivings about our venturing overseas, the first major venture that we had seen in that century following the last venture, which was actually very close to our neighborhoods.

So I think it is quite appropriate that today, where America finds itself today involved around the world, that we've got to remember that we didn't start this. We inherited the fact that World War I was truly when America stepped forward, and not just declaring ourselves a world power, but one that would stand up and fight for freedom whenever and wherever it was threatened.

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