Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the administration's policies of the past 7 years have led us to this point. The American people know that prices have gone up for everything, from groceries to heating oil to gasoline, while at the same time jobs are moving overseas, the housing market is in a crisis and the economy is struggling. This is what happens when there is no oversight for 7 long years and mismanagement is allowed to run rampant.

I'm pleased that we did come together in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill. Over 117 million American families will receive rebates under this plan, including 600,000 in my own State of New Hampshire.

This bill also helps small businesses, which are at the heart of our Nation. It is a very good start, but we need to do more for senior citizens and for those who receive Social Security. We need to do more for families who need to stay warm this winter. They are the most vulnerable members of our society. They need help the most, and we know they will put the money directly into the economy.

We must continue to turn this Nation's attention towards restoring a vibrant, robust middle class.

Madam Speaker, I listened to a colleague on the opposite side of the aisle say, ``Why are we here?'' and I realized they don't really know why we're here. We're here for the children.

And then they said, ``You've been back eight or nine times.'' That's right. And we will be back always and forever until we provide health care for working families in America.

We want to protect 10 million children and provide health care insurance. They want to protect 6 million. It's as simple as that. What happens to the other 4 million? And in New Hampshire, we would have enrolled 8,000 more children. What happens to the children in New Hampshire and the children of America? Parents will not lie awake at night wondering do they now raid the rent budget or the food budget. Is the child sick enough now to go to the hospital because they don't have health care insurance?

Who wanted families in America to make this choice? Not the majority of the House, not the majority of the Senate, not the majority of the Governors, not even the health care industry. But the President vetoed this essential bill, and I'm asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in an override so that the children of America get health care.

Thank you for asking that.

I come from a family who has served. I had my father serving in World War II. My uncle was a career Air Force officer in several wars. I had a grandfather in war and my brothers who fought, and I also had my husband who was in the military, and I was proud to be a military spouse, and now a member of the armed services; and always I believed that the Commander in Chief was going to be there to protect our troops. Always I thought it would be the Commander in Chief who would be a tough advocate for us all and he would be watching out and speak to other nations in as tough a manner as necessary to protect our troops. That's what I believed. That's why I'm here on the floor tonight.

I'm here on the floor trying to understand how the President of the United States has failed these prisoners of war, these men who went to Iraq and were seized by a hostile nation, who were tortured and then had to come back and go to court to receive just compensation. And when they won, then the President of the United States stepped in, not to make sure that they received what they had won, but to make sure they didn't receive it; and that's the part I can't understand.

The President said that Iraq needed this money, the Iraqis needed it to rebuild. We give $10 to $12 billion a month to the Iraqi government. I think that the President should take a look at how the money is being spent in Iraq and see and hear the stories that I have heard as a member of the Armed Services Committee and recognize that our money's being wasted over there. And yet he's protecting their assets and protecting them when our troops were the ones who went there.

Our troops were the ones who fought for our freedom in that first gulf war, and we had troops who suffered at the end of this government.

I can't understand it. And the President was so determined to do this that he held up the authorization bill. Now what is so important about that is there are a lot of programs in there. But one thing in particular just infuriated me.

There was a pay raise for our troops, for our troops who were in Iraq right now, who were in Afghanistan and who are all around the world and America protecting us. And the story about the pay raise is relevant, also.

The President says he supports the troops, but he only wanted a 3 percent pay raise. And so when Congress voted for a 3\1/2\ percent pay raise, the President thought that was too much. He said a 3 percent was sufficient. Obviously, the President has never had to live on military pay, but I have and so many do today. And I know that 3\1/2\ percent might not seem like a lot. It certainly isn't. But they need it, and they deserved it, and they earned it.

So now we have a problem that today's troops are suffering at the hands of the President's stubbornness here, and then we have the POWs who are suffering because they're not allowed to collect what they justly earned for their suffering.

And I can't understand it, but I do know that the people of New Hampshire are furious also that those veterans who went there in complete trust and faith in this country and in the President have to be devastated now to know that if they were injured, if they were tortured abroad, that they could not be certain that the Geneva Conventions would be upheld. They could not be certain that the Commander in Chief would be there for them. They could not be certain that all of the guarantees that were made when they signed and stepped forward to service would be honored, and I think that's the real shame here today and the real disgrace here today that we are not standing up for our soldiers.

So I would say that the people in New Hampshire are insistent that those who suffered for our country need to be justly compensated.

Thank you.

First, I would like to say that I mentioned that my father's brother had served, and he was in the Air Force. He flew daylight bombing missions over Germany. He talked about the fear during the day flying those bombing missions over Germany, but he never talked about fearing the U.S. Government, that the U.S. Government would not be there for him.

Then my brother served in Germany, and my brother-in-law served in Germany. And Germany treated the United States troops very, very well in the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s. The reason for that was because we had shown that we were not the kind of country that tortured, that when we received prisoners of war from Germany that we treated them the way we would want to treat any human being.

So it was a long distance from my uncle flying over Germany during World War II bombing missions with that great fear about what would happen to him and then the experience that my brother and my brother- in-law had in Germany, welcomed as allies, welcomed with the reputation that we have had of treating our prisoners of war with compassion and with a sense of humanity.

My worry now on the Armed Services Committee is that countries that wish to do us harm but might be held back from torturing our individual troops because they have a Geneva Convention to uphold, they will have world

opinion against them, because the world actually believes that we should not torture each other's soldiers. They only understand not only that we have to have some rules of engagement and war and conduct for our POWs, but we also understand that if you don't want anybody to torture your troops, that you have to respond the same way.

So we have to hold ourselves to a standard, a standard, by the way, that the United States has led and been proud to show the rest of the world and our own good behavior through history. The world understands that when you receive a U.S. soldier and you torture, you will pay a price; at least that's what they understood before.

Our soldiers understood that if they were harmed when they were being held by another nation they would pay that price. So the change now, Congressman, is what does this mean? If we don't have the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, stand up for our troops, what does that mean and how will other nations view this? That's my great worry.

Madam Speaker, for months now, economic experts have been warning that our economy was in trouble. After some disturbing signs about job losses in this country, the President finally came out and made some comments saying that there were ``mixed signals'' about the state of the economy.

These are not mixed signals about the state of the economy, and Americans understand. Americans know they are having more trouble paying for their mortgages, having trouble paying for their heating bills, having trouble paying for their gas, having trouble paying for all the costs of living in America right now.

The President should not continue to call these signs ``mixed signals,'' should acknowledge that we have some problems, and work in a bipartisan manner to straighten this out.

He might also wonder what impact the war in Iraq is having as we pour billions of dollars into Iraq and take the money from our own people and then borrow the money to continue the fight in Iraq. He might ask himself if this, too, is hurting our economy.

I ask the President to work with us to find answers for America's working people.

Madam Speaker, I first want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and all the Members who are so committed to the SCHIP program. This Congress sent the President very good legislation that would have ensured that millions of low-income children of hardworking Americans could keep health coverage, and it would allow States to enroll millions more who qualified for the CHIP program but aren't covered because the States have not received enough funding. We also had a way to pay for this.

But each time, the President has vetoed that legislation, and here in Congress a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to stand with the President blocking the way for this vital program to reach more children. We wanted to insure 10 million children. The President and the Republican leaders only want to insure 6 million children. And that is the crux of the problem here.

Today, we will extend the SCHIP program through March of 2009, but an important aspect of these earlier bills is not included. This past August, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a directive to State SCHIP directors effectively informing them that they would no longer be able to insure children in families where incomes exceed 250 percent of the poverty level, $43,000 for a family of three. This is a tragedy, and we will fix it.

I thank all those who worked so hard to produce this bill.

Last year, the class of 2006 listened as Americans spoke out demanding that we change direction in our energy policy. Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, understood that America was in an energy crisis, that we were too dependent on foreign oil, that we were unable to carry the message of conservation across this land, and that we had very poor gas mileage at a time when the technology has been in existence for many years. So Americans asked Congress to make this change, and we were sent to Washington to do that. And I am standing here today so proud to say that this is the day that we are going to answer Americans' concerns.

We have now passed a bill, or will be passing a bill, that is not one that has everything that we wanted in it, obviously, but we have the direction and we have the energy and we have the resources and we have the plan.

We are increasing the gas mileage. For the first time in over 30 years we are finally increasing our gas mileage. We are reducing our oil dependence on foreign nations. We have been forced to talk to foreign nations for our oil. That is the wrong approach in this country and an unnecessary approach. We are increasing biofuels, which will be our future, and we are growing jobs. This is critical for our economy right now. We are expecting that there will be 3 million new jobs across America because of our green incentive here.

We are increasing our energy efficiency, and we are also convincing the younger generation that conservation is our future, and that our generation is listening to their generation and protecting future Americans. I urge my colleagues to recognize what we have done here and to support every effort of the legislation, and I thank those who brought this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 246) honoring the United States Marine Corps for serving and defending the United States on the anniversary of its founding on November 10, 1775.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first start out by thanking my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Robin Hayes, for his work on this bill and his continued support for the Marine Corps. I would also like to thank Debra Wada and Joe Hicken from the committee staff for their work to bring this to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this year, the United States Marine Corps celebrated 232 years of devoted service. This year's celebration, like those of years before, commemorates generations of service to our country and reminds us of their commitment to our freedom and their selflessness. This is an enduring trait of their past, present and future.

As soldiers, our marines have fought valiantly to protect democracy and human liberty when those essential freedoms were threatened around the world. In our most dire times, the Marine Corps stepped to the forefront in places like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guam. For those from that generation who are still with us, this resolution celebrates you.

As peacekeepers, our marines have stood between rebels and refugees, providing safe haven and aid in the Balkans and to nations in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. To those brave marines, this resolution is for you.

As preservists of democracy, marines have protected U.S. and foreign diplomats as they sought to restore peace and stability to war-torn nations. In places like Beirut, they often paid the ultimate price. This resolution is for them.

As liberators, Marines were the first conventional U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda and were complicit in the attacks of September 11. Our Marine Corps has lost 40 men and women during Operation Enduring Freedom. This resolution honors them.

As heroes, marines have earned the Medal of Honor 298 times, the Distinguished Service Cross 417 times, and the Navy Cross 2,168 times. But they don't do it for the medals or the ribbons. They do it for the people of the United States. To the more than 219,000 marines in the active duty and Reserves, this resolution is for you. Thank you for your service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 542) expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard, as amended.

Mr. 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 such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National Guard and in celebration of their 371 years of service. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite, for bringing this measure to the floor.

In my State of New Hampshire, the first citizen militia formed in 1623 with the settlement of Portsmouth. In 1679, the New Hampshire National Guard was formally established, marking the humble beginnings of my State's storied tradition of service.

Today, nearly 2,700 men and women continue that same tradition of service in the New Hampshire National Guard, and they, too, are distinguishing themselves on the battlefield and at home.

In New Hampshire, our Guardsmen routinely perform search and rescue operations. They respond to floods and to ice storms that threaten the region each year. And the New Hampshire Guard joined many other States that answered the call to aid victims from Hurricane Katrina.

This story of selfless sacrifice is not unique to the members of New Hampshire's National Guard, but it is one example of how all National Guardsmen put others before self, and their service and sacrifice is honored here in this bill.

Today, over 30,000 Guardsmen are serving on the ground and in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan. As we celebrate the National Guard for its 371 years of service, our thoughts are with those men and women who continue to serve bravely overseas and with their families back home. And our hearts are heavy remembering the 483 Army and Air Guardsmen that have given their last great measure of devotion. For them we vow to care for their families and honor their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3793) to amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated, as amended.

Mr. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House has a unique opportunity to clarify the law to protect the financial security of wounded veterans, their families and the families of soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty. As recently as last month, we have heard a number of cases in the media suggesting that the Department of Defense has been requiring soldiers wounded in combat to pay back part of their enlistment bonuses if they hadn't yet served their full term, or even worse, that it would require these benefits to be paid back by the grieving families of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Quite simply, this is wrong. If a soldier signed up to serve our country and is unable to serve out the full team of his or her enlistment due to wounds received in the line of duty, this soldier should not then be asked to return any part of their signing bonus. For a soldier who has faced the hardships and battle and is now facing the challenges of recovery, we should not add the additional burden of paying back money that is rightfully theirs.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, ends the uncertainty about the policy and makes clear that this Nation will never attempt to recoup bonuses and benefits from wounded veterans or grieving families. It mandates that unpaid bonuses or similar benefits are paid in full, and it requires that this financial protection be provided not later than 90 days after the death of a soldier or the departure from the military due to disability from all active duty and Reserve component members.

Finally, the act establishes firm guidelines to ensure that the military will act with fairness and equity when handling the question of such bonuses for all servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his diligence and timely work on this sensitive issue and for his commitment to bring this important legislation to the floor of the House. I strongly support H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, and urge its immediate adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the original sponsor of this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

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

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

Madam Speaker, over the last 6 years, more than 1.6 million American troops have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan to implement the Bush administration's military strategy. These troops and their families have really sacrificed, and now the majority of these families believe that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting.

The President won't listen to the generals. Perhaps he will listen to the military families. According to a new poll from the LA Times, nearly six out of 10 military families disapprove of the way the President is running the war in Iraq; 58 percent of military families, in general, think we should withdraw within a year, and 69 percent of those who have been in Iraq, their families would like to begin withdrawal within the year.

These findings come just days after the Pentagon announced a temporary tour of duty extension for all active

duty soldiers that will keep them deployed for 15 months rather than 12.

Madam Speaker, our troops and their families deserve much better than this. Let's ask the President to listen to the generals and listen to the military families.

Madam Speaker, a while ago the President of the United States looked out in front of a very elite crowd and said to all of them: Some people call you the elite. I call you my base.

You know, we should have listened a little more carefully because he really wasn't kidding. They were his base. The President has said ``yes'' to them ever since. Yes to Big Oil. Yes to Big Pharmacy. Yes to anything they want. Yes to tobacco companies. Yes to their tax cuts. And no to the middle class and no to the poor except for one yes. Yes, you can pay for them.

And so the President of the United States, with his helpers on the other side, have made it extremely difficult for the middle class and the poor not only to pay for their energy bills, not only to pay for all the other essentials, but now to take their children to the doctor or to the hospital.

What is wrong with us that we are having an argument about whether children should be insured and how many children should be insured?

I'm a former social worker. Every single day of my life I had stories, tragic stories, stories that should embarrass all of you that you're standing here fighting against these children, and how hard it was for these families to get their prescriptions, how hard it was for them and how they had to decide exactly at what temperature do you take a child to the doctor, at 101, 102 or 103 degrees, because we don't have the money, and so we're not going to take our child to the doctor unless we absolutely must.

And yet we stand here tonight and the President tells us that he is going to not allow this program. Why? Why? Because we put a tax on the tobacco company. Shame on all of us that are standing in the way of the children of this country. There's just no excuse for it.

And how many children are we talking about? Somebody on the other side said there really aren't that many children, maybe 1 million. Well, the Congressional Budget Office said to the Senate Finance Committee in July or August that there are about 5 to 6 million children.

The Democrats are dead on target with this, and the American public knows that and stands with us.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 768) honoring the life of Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Tommy Makem was one of the greatest Irish-American performers to ever grace the stage. Not only have his works inspired generations of artists, but his determination and success broke down barriers that had long been raised to Irish Americans. Tommy and the Clancy Brothers, with whom he played for many years, were instrumental in breaking down these cultural divides.

Tommy lived a truly remarkable life. He arrived in America in 1955 to pursue a career in acting, having just won the All-Ireland Championship in acting. Like so many immigrants before and after, Tommy arrived with very little, carrying with him only a makeshift suitcase, a pair of bagpipes and proof of his health. However, it did not take Tommy long to find a life in America.

In 1956, he joined with the Clancy Brothers--Patrick, Tom, Bobby and Liam--and they began performing together. In 1961, Tommy performed at the Newport Folk Festival and, along with Joan Baez, he was heralded as ``the most promising newcomer.'' In 1963, Tommy and the Clancy Brothers performed at the White House at the request of President Kennedy. They continued to perform together for years and played venues from Carnegie Hall to the Ed Sullivan Show, until Tommy embarked on a solo career in 1969. For decades, he continued to compose and perform. He would later reunite with the Clancy Brothers in 1988 for a reunion concert. In 1999, Tommy was awarded the World Folk Music Association's Lifetime Achievement Award.

Tommy was not just a musician, he was so much more. Tommy was an author, a philanthropist, a businessman, an inspiration and, most importantly, he was a loving father, grandfather and husband.

Tommy passed away earlier this year on August 1 in Dover, New Hampshire, where he lived for many years. He left behind a daughter, Katie Makem-Boucher, and two grandchildren, Molly Dickerman and Robert Boucher, and three sons, Shane, Conor and Rory, whom with his nephew, Tom Sweeney, continue the family folk music tradition. They will remember Tommy for the living man he was and for the impact he had on their lives.

Upon his passing, condolences streamed in from all over the country, as well as the world. The Makem family has said that while many talked about his music, most noted what a generous and kind man he was.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and honor the life of a truly remarkable man, an immigrant who touched the lives of so many.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman from Louisiana have any further speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees included language from the Senate stating that ``the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.'' I voted for the motion because the brave men and women of our military have done an outstanding job. They have served our country extremely well under difficult circumstances, and they have done everything that we have asked of them.

Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is not the job of the United States military; it is the job of the Iraqi Government and people. The Bush Administration assures us that Iraq is not a failed state, so our troops should be allowed to leave. We need to set a firm timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, so that Iraq's political leaders know that they will need to take responsibility for their own future.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are painfully aware that the 110th Congress inherited a failed energy policy. They feel the pain at the pump, they feel the pain in their heating bills, and they know our country is dependent on foreign oil. They know that is dangerous for us. They know that the oil will run out some time, and they know that fossil fuels are damaging our environment and causing health problems. They know that Congress has not increased miles per gallon standards for 32 years.

Now Americans want to know what Congress is going to do. Americans want to know if we are going to continue to fiddle, to delay, to stall, as some in Congress wish to do, or will Congress be bold and show leadership?

This 110th Congress must confront these problems or history will judge us harshly. The leadership is here. The time is now. The bill is good. I urge my colleagues to step up and forward into our future by voting ``yes.''

Today we will vote on a comprehensive energy bill, finally. This country has waited 32 years for an increase in mileage standards. Thirty-two years. We have also waited for Congress to focus on renewables, green jobs and energy conservation in buildings and appliances. This bill will do that. This bill will also help free our Nation from dependence on foreign oil.

When Newt Gingrich was sworn in as Speaker, we were 41 percent dependent on foreign oil. We are now 61 percent dependent on foreign oil. This is a risk to our national security. This bill will help our pocketbooks, it will help our environment, and it will help our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''