Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a moment to thank Small Business Committee Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez and Ranking Member Steve Chabot for all the great work they have done in the Small Business Committee this year.

As Chairman of the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology and a cosponsor of this legislation, I applaud their efforts on the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act of 2007. This act proposes important improvements to the Small Business Administration's small and minority business procurement programs.

Today I am proud to introduce an amendment with Congressman Peter Welch on an issue that could have a potential impact in my district. This amendment requires the Small Business Administration to conduct a study on the effectiveness of the HUBZone program in reaching rural areas. Rural areas make up a big part of my District and I want to ensure that my constituents are not overlooked when it comes to federal contracting opportunities.

H.R. 3867 will help small businesses. In the Small Business Subcommittee on Contracting and Technology's first hearing, we heard witnesses representing women-owned businesses describe how the federal government was failing to keep its commitment to them. They talked not only about how the 5 percent goal for women-owned businesses was not being met, but also about how the Women's Procurement Program, which was enacted in 2000, has yet to be implemented by the SBA. This bill will ensure the Women's Procurement Act is finally implemented.

I am pleased this legislation also expands procurement opportunities for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans. Additionally, it strengthens community development through changes to the HUBZone program and makes important updates to the 8(a) program, which is one of the most important vehicles for minority business participation in federal contracting.

The SBA Office of Advocacy has found that although minorities make up 32% of the population in this country, they constitute only 18% of businesses. It is clear we must provide additional opportunities to these small minority businesses to close this gap.

By law, federal organizations are required to support small businesses. However, over the past 5 years, total government contracting has increased by 60% while small business contracts have decreased by 55%. This suggests that the SBA's procurement initiatives are not bringing work from the large business share to the small business share, but rather are forcing small businesses to compete for an increasingly smaller piece of the pie.

It is essential that small businesses have access to the over $400 billion per year federal marketplace. The Small Business Contracting Improvements Act nicely complements H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, a bill I introduced in April that later passed the House on May 10th by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 409- 13. My bill will give small businesses more opportunities to compete for federal contracts, raising the small business federal contracting goal from 23% to 30%. This means that all of the programs included in the Small Business Contracting Improvements Act will have greater opportunities to compete for federal contracts.

Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of my colleagues who join me today in standing up for the interests of small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1483, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act. As an original co-sponsor of this important legislation, I fully support the reauthorization of the National Heritage Areas.

I am especially pleased that this bill authorizes additional funding for Silos and Smokestacks National Heritage Area in Iowa, and also pleased that the bill establishes six new Heritage Areas, because they have so much to offer. My District, the 1st District of Iowa, is home to Silos and Smokestacks, one of the 37 current federally designated heritage areas in the Nation. Silos and Smokestacks covers 20,000 square miles, and 37 counties in Iowa, and preserves and tells the story of Iowa and American agriculture, both past and present. Silos and Smokestacks also helps convey the global significance of Iowa and American agriculture through partnerships and activities that celebrate and honor the land, people, and communities of the area. Agriculture in Iowa is as crucial as it ever was, but has evolved significantly. Through museums, farms, schools, and historical societies, Silos and Smokestacks takes visitors on a tour through Iowa's rich agricultural history, shows how Iowa farmers have come to be where they are today, and supports the hope for a strong and prosperous agricultural future. I urge all of my colleagues to support our Nation's National Heritage Areas, and to vote in support of this bill today.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that President Bush has no intention of changing the course in Iraq in any way before he leaves office in January 2009. In fact, both the President and the Pentagon have recently said that they expect American combat troops to be in Iraq for another 10 years; and just yesterday the President requested an additional $196 billion to fund the war in Iraq for the upcoming year.

The Democratic Congress rejects the notion that our troops are needed in Iraq for the next decade. If the Iraqi Government knows that we are going to be there for 10 years, they have absolutely no reason to make any of the tough political compromises that they promised they would make when the troop escalation began earlier this year. Instead, we support a responsible redeployment out of Iraq so that the Iraqis can finally take control of their own fate and so that we are no longer sending more than $2 billion there every week.

Madam Speaker, House Democrats are committed to bringing our troops home, but we can't do it alone. I hope this outrageous funding request serves as a wake-up call to my Republican friends and starts a new dialogue to bring our troops home.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this very important issue, and I want to congratulate and thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Boswell, for his persistence in seeing this bill to its conclusion and, again, thank the ranking member for the bipartisan support for this bill.

One of the most moving experiences I've had in this body is standing on the floor when we first spoke about this bill and heard overwhelming support and great personal testimony from people on both sides of the aisle.

I want to put a human face on the bill we are talking about. This is Joshua Omvig, and these are his parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig. I've known Randy and Ellen for almost 20 years. They're warm, caring, decent Iowans who loved their son and who are with us here in spirit as this bill makes its final journey through Congress on its way to the White House.

Joshua was a brave young man who served in a military police unit in Davenport, Iowa, which is in the First District that I happen to represent, and Joshua's face has become a national face for the issue and the crisis that brings us here today.

People who deal with post-traumatic stress disorder, especially PTSD involving veterans, will tell you this is the hidden combat wound. When these veterans return with PTSD, they can be walking on the streets of your city, your town, your community; and you will not know that they are suffering because of the nature of the disease.

What's even more significant is that people suffering from PTSD are frequently the last people to know they've got a problem, and that's why this bill is so important, so that people coming back and veterans who are suffering from PTSD get the resources, the early screening and the early prevention and intervention necessary to make a difference in their lives and to save the next Joshua Omvig who faces this struggle without the necessary resources and support.

I'm proud to be part of this overwhelming bipartisan effort in the House of Representatives to take care of our wounded veterans, our aging veterans, and our new veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. You've heard the statistics about the overwhelming nature of this problem among current combat veterans. That's why this bill is so important, and I ask my colleagues to join me today.

I rise to speak in support of H.R. 327, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this crucial legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from Iowa, Congressman Boswell, and I am very pleased that the Senate has acted and that the House is again passing this bill today.

Named in honor of 22-year-old Joshua Omvig, an Army Reservist from Iowa who tragically took his own life after serving an 11-month tour of duty in Iraq, this legislation is an essential and overdue step in ensuring adequate mental health care for our troops who return home from serving in combat zones. The need for this legislation could not be more urgent, as more and more soldiers are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from PTSD, TBI, and other combat-related mental health problems.

This bill is very near to my heart, as I know Joshua's parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig, very well. It is my hope that the passage of this bill in the House today means that the tragic death of their son will not be in vain.

I would like to thank Congressman Boswell for his leadership on this bill, and the Omvigs for their tremendous advocacy and commitment. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill today, and I urge President Bush to swiftly sign this bill into law so that we can give all of our returning veterans--who have sacrificed so much for our country--the mental health care and treatment that they deserve.

That is an interesting point, because we have been hearing all week how some people with incomes as high as $85,000 will be covered. How does that square with the comment you just made that 90 percent of the people under the program are making less than $45,000?

I don't understand, because you mentioned three key Republican sponsors of the SCHIP bill in the Senate, one my Senator and my constituent from Iowa, Senator Charles Grassley.

And I'm looking at today's Congress Daily and there's a quote in here from Tom Reynolds, a Representative from New York, and he says, I want Republicans at the table and then I want to write a decent bill that will serve poor children first.

But it sounds to me like Republicans were at the table for months helping craft a bipartisan compromise bill that put the needs of poor children first. So I'm confused.

I appreciate that and I thank the gentleman, and I think that the heading of the chart that you're standing next to summarizes what this really boils down to, because there's been a disconnect between what the President says about his commitment to children's health care and what his actions represent.

I'd like my colleagues who are here tonight to take a walk down memory lane with me, because many of us got our motivation to run for office as a result of the 2004 Presidential elections. And if you remember back with me to September 2, 2004, at the Republican National Convention, this is what our President George Bush said about his commitment to children's health care.

He said, America's children must also have a healthy start in life. In a new term, we will lead an aggressive effort to enroll millions of poor children who are eligible, but not signed up, for the government's health insurance programs, the very same programs we're talking about here tonight.

He begins again, We will not allow a lack of attention or information to stand between these children and the health care they need. That's what our President said as he stood on the brink of his second nomination.

Now, I want to take you back to what was one of the most memorable nights of my life, my first State of the Union address, which took place right in this Chamber, January 23, 2007. I sat in here with all of my new colleagues listening to the direction from our President on what he was going to do to lead us in a new direction on health care.

What did he say on this subject? When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled and poor children. We will meet those responsibilities.

Well, his words don't mesh with his actions in vetoing this important legislation, and that is why it is important for us, on behalf of those children, America's kids, to stand up and speak out and say it's time to live up to the values that you have been talking about and deliver on the promises to insure America's uninsured children.

I want to thank you. One of the things that we rarely talk about is the human faces that Congressman Kagen was good enough to share with us from our district. And I want to share a personal experience from my own life, and I think it illustrates the importance of what we are talking about here today.

About 15 years ago when my wife and I had our three children, who were all young and in school, my wife and I got involved through our church in a mentoring program at a city center school in Waterloo, Iowa where we lived. As a result of that, I started mentoring a young fourth grade student named DeUndre, and then I got involved in Big Brothers, Big Sisters as an outreach of that program and spent a lot of time with him and his family.

When he was in sixth grade, DeUndre started complaining of pain in his abdominal area, and he ended up going to the hospital and they diagnosed him with acute large cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. They did surgery to remove the tumor, and then he spent about 6 weeks undergoing chemotherapy in the pediatric oncology unit at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in Iowa City. And I was faced with a choice, because he had nobody in his family who could go with him and be there when he was going through that ordeal. And I made a decision after speaking to my wife that it was going to be me who was there for him. And I spent that time watching young children with IV drips in their arms receiving chemotherapy, no hair, going in and out of each other's room, taking care of each other and helping each other get through a very difficult time in their lives, knowing full well that many of those kids were not going to live to see their 15th birthday.

And one of the things that I learned from that is that people like DeUndre, who depended on Medicaid to provide for their health care, were lucky because they had the resources to get a diagnosis and treatment that saved their lives. Many of the kids we are talking about in these 10 million uninsured children are in that window between those who qualify for Medicaid benefits and those covered by private pay plans. And that is why it is so critical that we perform the role that we are talking about so that those children aren't stuck without the opportunity to get early intervention, early diagnosis, and early treatment of life-threatening illnesses and diseases. It does make a difference in the lives of these kids, and that is why we are here tonight talking about this important issue.

I yield back to my friend from Minnesota.

One of the things we have been talking about is what this program would do that the President vetoed. But what we really haven't spent a lot of time talking about is what the President originally proposed, and what that would mean for existing children who are covered by SCHIP and would lose their benefit if the President's plan had been put in place. And when President Bush originally proposed his SCHIP proposal, it provided a $5 billion increase over a 5-year period, which wouldn't even be enough to maintain the current enrollment of kids under SCHIP.

I would just like my friend from Minnesota to comment about what we really haven't been talking about, and that is where the President stands when it comes to taking care of our kids.

Well, I wanted you to yield for a question, because I

think a lot of us remember those old Fram Oil commercials where you can pay me now or pay me later. And as a physician who's taken care of children, as a physician who got referrals from primary care physicians, one of the things we're always concerned about in this body is the long-term cost of health care as we move forward as a Nation and how we're going to be able to afford health care for every man, woman and child in this country.

But what I'd like you to talk about is what impact it has on our long-term health care costs when people like Cassidy don't get access to the primary care, they don't get early diagnoses, they don't get early treatment, they don't get early interventions that allow us to nip those problems early on before they turn into catastrophic illnesses where the cost is greatly escalated.

And because of your background, I would ask my friend from Wisconsin if you could enlighten us about what that means in a practical setting.

Madam Speaker, we have talked about the human face of this problem, and I just want to briefly talk about the numbers that affect a single congressional district.

In my district, the First District of Iowa, 7,000 children are covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the State of Iowa, there are currently 37,000 children who benefit from this program. This bill will allow 26,400 additional children to have the benefits of health care. But if we don't act, 37,000 children could lose the opportunity in my State to have the type of coverage we're talking about.

And one thing we can't do is we can't turn our back on those kids. We can't collectively fail to have that smile from doing something right that we all believe in, taking care of the most vulnerable people in our society, making sure they have their basic needs met. That is a responsibility we all have as parents. That is a collective responsibility we have as a Nation to the children of this country. And when we come into this Chamber every day, that should be the foremost thing in our minds: providing basic needs and making sure that they are met and empowering people to meet those needs on their own.

So with that I want to thank my colleagues for joining us here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, last week President Bush told the American people that the status quo would continue in Iraq for 10 months. Last year, the American people demanded a change of course in Iraq. They wanted us to begin the process of bringing our troops home. The President's response: a troop escalation plan that sent an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

At the time, he said that if the Iraqi Government did not meet certain economic and political benchmarks, they would lose the support of our Nation. After months of delay, September became the moment of truth; and despite the fact that the nonpartisan GAO report found that the Iraqi Government had failed to fully meet 15 of the 18 benchmarks, the President said the troop escalation plan is going to continue until next summer.

Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the President's only plan for Iraq is to stay the course until he can hand off the war to his successor.

The time for stalling is over. Staying the course is no longer acceptable. It is time for Republicans to join us in charting a new course.

Mr. Speaker, it is getting harder for American families to make ends meet, especially when it comes to the rising cost of health insurance.

New census data shows that the number of Americans without health insurance nationwide rose by nearly 2 million in 2006. In addition, the number of children without health insurance grew by 700,000 to nearly 8.7 million children. These new numbers mean that one in nine American kids don't have health insurance, including 22 percent of Hispanic children and 14 percent of African American children.

These numbers are appalling for a Nation as wealthy as ours. That is why the Democratic Congress passed the CHAMP Act; to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program for 6 million children and to provide 5 million more children with health insurance, covering a total of 11 million children. But President Bush has threatened to veto this critical bill, despite strong bipartisan support among Congress and Governors.

Mr. Speaker, these new census numbers can't be ignored. It is time to stop playing politics with children's health insurance. It is time for the President to support and sign the CHAMP Act.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 782, I was questioning former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during a hearing investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of Corporal Pat Tillman, in the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, and was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H. Res. 568, a bill honoring and expressing gratitude to the members and families of the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard. My introduction of this bill last week coincided with the long-awaited homecoming of the 1-133rd, known as the ``Ironman Battalion,'' after a long and extended deployment in Iraq. I am glad that the House has moved swiftly to consider this important resolution, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it today in order to pay tribute to this incredible group of Iowans.

Last Wednesday was truly a momentous day in Iowa as the members of the 1-133rd were reunited with their friends, family, and loved ones at a homecoming ceremony in Waterloo after more than a year of service in Iraq. The members and families of the 1-133rd have been in Iowans' thoughts and prayers, and this day of reunion and celebration had been eagerly awaited, since the Battalion left for Iraq last spring.

Iowans' admiration and love for the members of the 1-133rd was palpable in Waterloo as an overflow crowd of an estimated 8,000 people packed Riverfront Stadium to welcome the hundreds of men and women of the Battalion home. As the Battalion drove the final miles from Ft. McCoy in Wisconsin, Iowans lined the road to wave at the 1-133rd and waved American flags from overpasses. Sadly, the day was also made bittersweet by the absence of 1-133rd members SGT 1st Class Scott Nisely and SGT Kampha Sourivong, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country when they were tragically killed during combat operations in Iraq on September 30, 2006.

Many of my colleagues here may already be familiar with the men and women of the 1-133rd if they saw the Memorial Day special edition of ``60 Minutes'' that was dedicated to telling the story of the Battalion. While it is impossible for those who have not served in Iraq to fully understand the experiences of the 1-133rd there, or to comprehend the sacrifices that they and their families have made on behalf of our country, this program gave Americans a small glimpse of the challenges the members of the 1-133rd and their families faced throughout their long deployment, as well as into their incredible perseverance.

Iowans who watched the ``60 Minutes'' special featuring the 1-133rd saw the story of their friends, neighbors, and loved ones who chose to serve and sacrifice when their country called upon them. We saw the daily threats of roadside bombs, insurgents, and snipers faced by the members of the 1-133rd in Iraq as they helped deliver fuel to coalition forces. We saw families adjusting back home, and banding together to help one another. We saw the hardship and heartache that was experienced by the members and their families when they received the news that their tour of duty was to be extended from April until this summer. We saw children born while fathers were overseas, and we saw the lives of our fellow Iowans cut tragically short. For me, the program reinforced what I had already learned about the members of the 1-133rd from my frequent communications with their commanding officer, LTC Ben Corell: that they are men and women of great strength and character who selflessly and bravely put their lives on the line every day for their country in Iraq.

Throughout their long tour of duty in the al-Anbar province of Iraq, one of the most dangerous parts of the country, the 1-133rd detained over 60 insurgents. They completed over 500 missions providing security for convoys, and logged in over 4 million mission miles. In addition, they have delivered over one-third of the fuel needed to sustain coalition forces in Iraq. Their crucial service, and their extended deployment, are also reflective

of the critical and increasing role of the National Guard in our defense missions overseas. Their contributions to the U.S. mission in Iraq are indeed impressive and commendable, which is why I believe that the entire country should honor and thank the men and women of the 1- 133rd for their service and their sacrifices there through the passage of this resolution.

The 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard is notable for other reasons as well. They are the longest-serving Iowa military unit since World War II. They are also part of the Army National Guard unit which has served the longest continuous deployment of any Army National Guard unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The men and women of the 1-133rd have made me and so many other Iowans and Americans proud through their work and their sacrifices in Iraq, and I hope that it also gives them and their families pride to reflect upon their accomplishments. I feel incredibly honored and privileged to represent them in the U.S. Congress, and I am so pleased today that the entire House of Representatives will commend and thank them for their service through the passage of H. Res. 568.

I am proud to have introduced this bill with the support of 70 bipartisan original co-sponsors, including the entire Iowa Congressional Delegation. The strong support this resolution has on both sides of the aisle is reflective of the pride and gratitude that Americans feel towards our National Guard troops, and all of our men and women serving in uniform.

I would like to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton and his staff, and Majority Leader Hoyer and his staff, for helping to facilitate the swift consideration of this bill by the full House. The United States will be forever indebted to the members and families of the 1-133rd for their service and their sacrifices in Iraq, and I hope that this resolution comes to serve as a genuine expression of thanks from a grateful state and a grateful nation.

Again, I would like to commend and thank this incredible Battalion for their work, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H. Res. 568 today to honor and express gratitude to the men and women of the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, is one of the most important and worthwhile programs in our government. It was created with broad bipartisan support by Congress in 1997, and provides critical health care benefits to children whose parents either cannot afford insurance, or hold jobs where health insurance benefits are not provided. Today, 6 million children and low-income families have health care because of this SCHIP program.

This week, Democrats in this body introduced legislation known as the CHAMP Act, which would reauthorize SCHIP, preventing it from expiring on September 30, leaving these 6 million children without access to health care.

The CHAMP Act would also extend SCHIP coverage to 5 million additional uninsured American kids, and ensure that States have the tools to reach children who are eligible for the program, but are not enrolled.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the CHAMP Act. By passing it, we will reauthorize SCHIP to protect health care benefits for up to 6 million children currently receiving them, and provide it to an additional 5 million who desperately need it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the members of the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard home to Iowa after a lengthy deployment in Iraq, and to honor and thank them for their service there.

Today was a momentous day in Iowa as the members of the 1-133rd, known as the ``Ironman Battalion,'' were reunited with their friends, family, and loved ones at a homecoming ceremony in Waterloo. This day of reunion and celebration has been anxiously awaited in Iowa since the battalion left for Iraq last year. An overflow crowd of thousands packed Riverfront Stadium to welcome the hundreds of men and women home. As they drove the final miles from Ft. McCoy in Wisconsin, Iowans lined the road to wave at the 1-133rd.

Sadly, today was also made bittersweet by the absence of two members, Sergeant 1st Class Scott Nisely and Sergeant Kampha Sourivong, who were tragically killed during combat operations in Iraq in September 2006.

It is impossible for those who have not served in Iraq to fully understand the experiences of the 1-133rd, or to comprehend the sacrifices that they and their families have made on behalf of our country. However, I am glad that the Memorial Day special edition of ``60 Minutes'' gave Americans a small glimpse of the challenges that members of the 1-133rd and their families have faced throughout their long deployment, and more importantly into their incredible perseverance.

Iowans who watched the ``60 Minutes'' special featuring the 1-133rd saw the story of their friends, neighbors and loved ones who chose to serve and sacrifice when their country called them. We saw the daily danger faced by the 1-133rd in Iraq as they helped deliver fuel to coalition forces. We saw their families missing them and adjusting back home. We saw the hardship and heartache that was experienced by the members and their families when they received the news that their tour of duty was to be extended from April until this summer. And we saw the lives of our fellow Iowans cut tragically short.

For me, the program also reinforced what I had already learned about the members of the 1-133rd from my frequent communications with their commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Ben Corell, that they are men and women of great strength and character who selflessly and bravely put their lives on the line every day for their country in Iraq.

The contributions of the 1-133rd have indeed been crucial to the U.S. mission in Iraq. Throughout their tour of duty in the al Anbar province, one of the most dangerous parts of the country, the 1-133rd detained over 60 insurgents. They completed over 500 missions providing security for convoys, and logged in over 4 million mission miles. They have delivered over one-third of the fuel needed to sustain coalition forces in Iraq.

I hope that it gives members and families of the 1-133rd pride to reflect upon their accomplishments and to know that they are part of the longest-serving Iowa military unit since World War II, and part of the Army National Guard unit which has served the longest continuous deployment of any National Guard unit in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. They have made me and so many others proud through their work and their sacrifices in Iraq, and I am incredibly privileged to represent them in the United States Congress.

I believe that the entire country should commend and thank these members and the families of the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard for their contributions to the U.S. mission in Iraq. That is why today I introduced a resolution in the House to honor and thank them for their service and sacrifices there. The strong bipartisan support this resolution has from 70 original cosponsors, including the entire Iowa congressional delegation, demonstrates the pride and gratitude that Americans feel toward our men and women serving in uniform.

I look forward to the swift passage of this resolution in the House of Representatives, and I hope that it comes to serve as a genuine expression of thanks from a grateful State and a grateful Nation.

We will be forever indebted to the members and families of the 1- 133rd for their service and sacrifice. Again, I would like to commend and thank this incredible battalion for their work, and join their families, friends and neighbors in welcoming them home.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 175, which helps children of fallen soldiers access military death benefits. I would like to express my deep appreciation to my friend, Congressman Latham, for taking the lead on this issue. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation.

On June 5th, 2006, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jaime Jaenke was killed in Iraq when her Humvee was hit by a roadside bomb. Ms. Jaenke, from Iowa Falls, was the first female from Iowa to die in the Iraq conflict.

Jaenke left behind a daughter, Kayla, who is cared for by Jaenke's parents. She had designated her mother, Susan, as the beneficiary of a $100,000 death benefit intended to help survivors. However, under law, only spouses or children are allowed to receive the benefit, so it must be kept in a trust for Kayla until she turns 18.

But the Jaenkes need the money now. They incurred unanticipated expenses such as hiring a lawyer to get legal guardianship and obtaining health insurance for Kayla. They also had funeral costs and other expenses, even as their horse stable was losing money.

Congressman Latham's resolution would express the sense of Congress that courts should have the discretion to redistribute death benefits to caretakers if the service member left clear intent for the use of these funds. This would be a Godsend to the Jaenkes and the at least 143 identical cases where other families are affected by these same circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to act, and they need to act fast, to help the families of those who have given so much for their countries. These families already have to face the anguish of losing a son or a daughter. They should not have to worry about the financial strain of dealing with unexpected expenses. I urge all of my colleagues to send a strong message to our military families that we understand the need for flexibility in protecting these families from unintended consequences.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment by the gentleman from Texas, which would prohibit funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for the new Environmental Science Center at the University of Dubuque in Iowa. When opened, this Center will provide State, regional, and national benefit through educating undergraduate and graduate level students in the environmental sciences, and helping to create the next generation of science professionals.

The need for greater science education has received a lot of attention in recent years, and is an integral component of ensuring America's global competitiveness. As a Member of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Caucus, I believe strongly in the need for investment in science education, and I recognize the direct role that the Environmental Science Center plays in keeping America competitive.

The University of Dubuque has offered an interdisciplinary major in Environmental Science since 1980, with many graduates currently working in scientific fields. The environmental science program at the university is unique because of its hands-on focus and strict scientific training. In nearly every course, a field laboratory provides direct, applied experiences for all types of students. Furthermore, University of Dubuque's tri-state location affords students the opportunity to work with three State natural resource agencies--Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Even as an undergraduate, students are able to receive a regionally based scientific education.

The new Environmental Science Center will allow the university to expand on its proven record of educating national scientific leaders. The Center will specialize in hands-on, applied learning for current science teachers, environmental agency personnel, undergraduate environmental science majors, and education majors to teach the next generation of American scientists. A failure to fund the Environmental Science Center would be a step backward for America's scientific proficiency.

This funding is consistent with the President's goal to, ``encourage innovation throughout our economy and to give our Nation's children a firm grounding in math and science.'' [President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, February 1, 2006] America needs facilities like the University of Dubuque's Environmental Science Center to provide a grounding in science, and help move America forward.

I strongly oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas, because it will set America back in terms of global competitiveness and will endanger programs that will educate the next generation and allow them to

compete with the likes of China, Europe, Japan, and Asia.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall 564, the Brown-Waite of Florida Amendment, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 565, the Campbell of California Amendment No. 51, I was not present. If I had been there, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my concerns about the way taxpayer funds have recently been spent at the General Services Administration (GSA). Today, the House is expected to pass H.R. 2829, a bill which makes appropriations for financial services and general government for Fiscal Year 2008, and which provides funding for the GSA.

If any agency should be trusted to spend American taxpayers' money responsibly, it is the GSA, the federal government's premier acquisition agency. Unfortunately, reports that current GSA Administrator Lurita Doan used federal government property and resources to engage in partisan campaign activities with political appointees of the GSA provide evidence that the head of this agency has placed the interests of the Republican party over the interests of the American public.

On January 26, 2007 Ms. Doan attended a meeting at GSA at which J. Scott Jennings, the Special Assistant to the President and the Deputy Director of Political Affairs at the White House, gave a 28-page PowerPoint presentation which reviewed the 2006 election results and outlined the Republican party's top targets in upcoming elections. According to several witnesses who attended the meeting, after this presentation Ms. Doan asked the more than 30 political appointees in attendance how they could use GSA resources to help Republican candidates win future elections. This presentation and Ms. Doan's comments are not only blatant violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activities of Executive Branch employees, but are also a gross abuse of taxpayers' money and trust.

Ms. Doan has appeared twice before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and claims that she cannot remember Mr. Jennings' presentation, or the comments she made. Despite the fact that the Office of Special Counsel found that Ms. Doan ``violated the Hatch Act's prohibition against using [her] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election when [she] solicited over thirty subordinate employees to engage in political activity,'' she also claims that she cannot answer questions about the legality or appropriateness of the briefing. In light of Ms. Doan's lack of contrition and apparent confusion about what constitutes an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars, it is understandable that many of us in the Congress would be concerned about the way the funds we are appropriating today to GSA will be used.

While I support the passage of this bill, I believe that we must continue to work to ensure that appropriated GSA funds are spent on legal and legitimate purposes--like managing federal buildings, buying government equipment and supplies, and working with other agencies to purchase goods and services for the government. I hope and trust that the funds we are appropriating to GSA today will be spent legally and responsibly, and I look forward to continuing our Congressional oversight of the GSA.