Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 841 on H. Res. 884, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Berman and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and their staffs for their support and work on this resolution. It is important for the House of Representatives to recognize the devastating toll that pneumonia takes on children around the world, and I am proud that we are considering this resolution today.

Yesterday marked the first annual World Pneumonia Day. Almost 100 global health organizations joined together to bring awareness to this terrible disease. The world's leading killer of children, pneumonia, is undernoticed, underfunded, and undertreated. This disease kills 4 million people each year, 2 million of them children. It takes the lives of more children under the age of 5 than measles, AIDS, and malaria combined. Every 15 seconds, a child dies of pneumonia.

The horror of this disease is that it is so preventable and treatable. Consider these facts:

Studies in developing countries indicate that only one in four caregivers know the two key symptoms of pneumonia: fast and difficult breathing. This leads to pneumonia going untreated, which is deadly;

Fewer than one-third of the children who develop pneumonia receive the antibiotics they need to fight the illness, even though the antibiotics are available for less than a dollar. Half of the cases of pneumonia that occur could be prevented by ensuring that these children have access to the vaccines they need.

Mr. Speaker, these facts paint a bleak picture. Millions of lives are being lost each year when they could be saved. They could be saved by international cooperation to educate and train caregivers. They could be saved if people could have access to the vaccines and medications they need.

My resolution affirms this body's commitment to saving these lives by supporting programs that focus on the protection, prevention, and treatment of pneumonia. It commends the health professionals across the globe who every day work in the world's poorest countries to treat and care for the victims of pneumonia. And it reaffirms the United States' commitment to reducing child mortality. Finally, this resolution recognizes World Pneumonia Day. In doing so, the House of Representatives joins with dozens of global health organizations working to raise the awareness of this disease and to focus resources on protection, prevention, and treatment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to encourage international cooperation to combat this disease. Lives can and should be saved. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to read the comments in a letter I received from Mr. Bradley Ball, one of my constituents in New Hampshire, because I don't think his voice is being heard on the floor today. He said that he was lucky enough to have insurance, but he had to pay for it himself, almost $7,000 a year. He said, ``So to keep my current health care policy is just less than $7,000 a year, and my copay for Thalidomide could be as low as $810 a month. That translates into $16,620, rounding off, just including that one medication in health care expenses for a year. Of course there are more. My monthly income is $1,660, $19,920 a year, through disability and pensions. How can I pay for my other expenses--heat, electricity, food, clothing, shelter, et cetera, on the remaining $3,300 I will have each year? Do I have some savings? Yes. But very soon I am going to run out of all my possibilities. What will you have me do next?''

Then he goes on to say that he could live if we could get the prescriptions for him and help him pay his health insurance. And then he says, ``I don't think that in the United States of America this is what anyone would wish on anyone else. I know you would not want to be in this situation. I don't care whether it's called a right or a privilege, the current system is broken. Please help fix it.''

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of Sergeant Joshua Kirk. Sergeant Kirk was tragically killed in Afghanistan on October 3.

On Tuesday morning, I attended his funeral at St. Michael's Church in Exeter, New Hampshire. There were so many relatives and friends in attendance for a somber and moving ceremony. His wife, Megan, a native of Exeter, and his daughter, Kensington, have lost a husband and father, and this Nation has lost a hero.

Sergeant Kirk selflessly put himself in harm's way in service to America. He and his family are owed a debt of gratitude.

Sergeant Kirk, a native of Maine, joined the United States Army in 2005. He was on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan when his base was attacked by insurgents on October 3. Kirk and seven of his courageous fellow soldiers, all based out of Fort Carson, were killed during the long battle.

Sergeant Kirk's memory lives on with his wife, daughter, mother and sisters. We will always remember his sacrifice, and theirs, and we are forever grateful for their patriotism and service to America.

I rise in strong support of the conference report on the National Defense Authorization Act. This bill is what Americans have been waiting for. There's a military pay raise of 3.4 percent to say thank you to our troops. We prohibit fee increases on TRICARE patients for 1 year, something many of my constituents have worried about; increases the size of the military and relieves the burden on so many of our troops. It provides money for the National Guard and for Reserve construction projects, saying thank you to the National Guard and recognizing their hard work. It prevents permanent bases in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm also pleased that my amendment to repeal the National Security Personnel System has been included in the conference report. The Department of Defense employees will be returned to the previous system, the one that 80 percent of them liked and approved because it was a fairer system.

I thank Chairman Miller for yielding me time and for his leadership on this bill.

Madam Chair, as a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, I rise to express my support for the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act.

With this legislation, we are investing in our students. We are providing needed dollars to improve our early education programs and to rebuild our schools. We simplify the student aid application, the dreaded FAFSA. We invest $40 billion in Pell Grants. We do this, and we produce a savings of $10 billion over the next 10 years. I am pleased that we also recognize the important work done by the local nonprofits in our communities by ensuring them a continued role in the servicing of student loans.

In my home State of New Hampshire, we have one of these local nonprofits, the New Hampshire Higher Education Assistance Foundation. NHHEAF is a well-respected member of our community, and it provides many jobs. I am proud that, through our working committee, we were able to ensure that NHHEAF continues to provide services to our students and to their families through both loan servicing and new grant programs provided for in this legislation.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I urge a ``yes'' vote so we can help American students and their families.

Mr. Speaker, here's the problems Americans are facing today: no money, no insurance, get sick, disaster; preexisting condition, no insurance, get sick, disaster; laid off, no insurance, get sick, disaster; employer drops coverage, no insurance, get sick, disaster.

This is what the Democrats are trying to fix. This is what the public option and the exchange will fix. It allows people who like their insurance to keep it, and it will cover those who do not have insurance. The Republican health plan very simply is: just don't get sick.

Mr. Speaker, whose side are they on? Whose side are they on? This is the same party that in the 1960s told the country that Medicare would destroy the country. Whose side are they on? We are on the side of the American people. In 2007, three out of 10 young adults had no health insurance, none. Whose side are they on?

We will eliminate the doughnut hole with this bill, the doughnut hole that sticks so many senior citizens with full prices for their prescriptions. We'll take care of that with this bill. Whose side are they on? We'll end medical bankruptcies. So many people have lost their homes because of illness. We'll take care of that. Whose side are they on? They are making these false claims that the government will come between you and your doctor. Insurance companies come between you and your doctor right now.

They say that you'll wait in line. Don't believe it. Don't believe it. We're finally putting people in line and saying, You can walk in and make an appointment just like they can. Before I yield back, I have one last question: Whose side are they on?

The Democratic Party has a new and better idea about health care. The Democratic Party, under the leadership of Barack Obama, is going to give Americans and American businesses what they've been asking for--begging for--relief from the problems in our health care system.

For the first time, people who are considered uninsurable will not have to worry about how they're going to get the money to go to the doctor to take care of their child. They will be insured. Everybody in this country will be insured. There will be the insurance companies, but there will also be a public option so people who can't find health insurance who do not have jobs will be able to be insured.

I find it interesting that the opposing party talks about no competition and no choice. I have seen too many constituents who have no choice; they can't go to the doctor, they can't get surgery because they don't have health insurance. And I have also seen the so-called ``competition'' refuse to insure some of my constituents because of preexisting health conditions. So what we have now is the ability to keep your insurance. If Americans want to keep their insurance, they should, but if they don't, or they can't, then they finally have a public option.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this health insurance plan.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ban the use of open-air burn pits overseas after 12 months. Such a dangerous waste disposal method should only be used temporarily while a permanent and safe alternative is developed. The amendment specifically prohibits the burning of medical and hazardous waste or solid waste containing plastic in open-air pits. The burning of such wastes produces chemicals that have proven toxic to humans and represents an unacceptable health risk.

The U.S. military has been disposing of hundreds of tons of war zone waste through burn pits. All who live and work on these bases are routinely exposed to the smoke from these pits, which includes waste from medical facilities, dining facilities, maintenance facilities, as well as trash. To imagine the scale of these burn pits, the one at Balad Air Base in Iraq has increased from 2 tons per day early on to several hundred tons per day.

We simply must protect our troops who have had repeated exposure to this. We do not wish to see an Agent Orange situation develop here. And so I ask that we set some limits on the burning of these pits.

These pits pose a very serious health risk to our troops. Of the nearly 2 million servicemembers who have deployed, a significant portion has been exposed to the fumes and smoke from such burn pits. Up to now, we have continued to dispose of solid wastes this way. But 6 years in Iraq and 8 years in Afghanistan is far longer than anyone can possibly justify as an emergency measure. I understand that sometimes they may have to do this for 3 or 6 or even 12 months, but it has been 8 years!

In the past, we've been to slow to acknowledge the health effects of Agent Orange and Gulf War Illness. We cannot let that happen to our servicemembers again. For decades, it was impossible for them to access the VA medical services they needed and deserved because there was no recognition of the damage Agent Orange had done. We saw this again, after the Gulf war. In 2008, a study by the National Academy of Sciences validated what veterans of the Gulf War already knew--that Persian Gulf War illness is very real.

There is a good reason why it is illegal to have open-air burn pits for disposal of medical and hazardous wastes in our country: they pollute and degrade the environment, and harm people's health. If we wanted to burn those chemicals here in America and expose people here, the EPA would swoop down, and we'd be penalized because you can't do that. And why can't you do it--because it's dangerous to our health.

If we support the troops, don't we also support their health? Don't we have the same concerns about their health when they're supporting our country and fighting overseas as we do when they live here in our communities? When they deploy, our servicemembers put their lives at risk to fight for us, and do not deserve to suffer this added, unjustifiable risk. Preventable environmental hazards must not result in ruined health or lost lives.

This amendment takes a critically important step toward addressing the health risks that burn pits pose to our troops. It has been endorsed by the American Legion, DAV, IAVA, MOAA, the National Guard Association, Veterans and Military Families for Progress, and the VFW. And I thank my friend, Mr. Bishop, for being a leader on this issue and standing up for our troops.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Safety in Defense Contracting Act of 2009. When our servicemembers or civilian personnel put their lives at risk while deployed overseas, they should not have to worry about the safety of their living and working quarters. Unfortunately, due to shoddy contractor work, they do. American personnel have been injured or killed by electric shocks. That same deficient work has resulted in hundreds of fires, one which destroyed the largest dining hall in Iraq. Gross negligence by contractors is unacceptable.

That is why I am introducing the Safety in Defense Contracting Act to protect our military and civilian personnel by debarring grossly negligent or reckless defense contractors found guilty of causing death or injury to our personnel. Such contractors do not deserve further government contracts worth millions of dollars for performing the same work.

To make matters worse, defense contractors who are guilty of dangerously deficient work have been receiving award and incentive fees. My bill denies them these fees. They should no longer be rewarded for poor performance at the expense of the taxpayers. It will take time to rebuild our contractor oversight capabilities, but I ask my colleagues to join me in this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Military Overpayment Fairness Act. Payment errors are common in all military branches and the burden of having to quickly repay an overpayment can place a significant strain on military families.

When I had a meeting with National Guard families and asked for their most significant problems, they spoke to me about the hardships caused by overpayment errors. I heard the story of a National Guard Sergeant from New Hampshire who was injured in Afghanistan and hospitalized in Walter Reed. Due to an error by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), he received four months of pay in error. He immediately brought these overpayments to DFAS's attention. DFAS assured the service member that there was no error and that he was entitled to all of the money he received. The service member disputed the payments several times, but was told they were correct. Then, a year later, DFAS reversed itself and suddenly notified him that he had been overpaid. They began deducting at the rate two-thirds of his monthly paycheck. To make matters worse, by this time he had enrolled in college and still had the continued, added burden of house payments. This and other similar stories show the severity of this problem in my home state of New Hampshire and across the nation.

I am introducing this legislation to ease the burden on servicemen and women by requiring DFAS to take into account the finances of members of the Armed Forces when pay errors are made. This bill gives the Department of Defense the flexibility to negotiate the terms of repayment, taking into account the finances of the service member, to avoid causing service members undue hardship. In addition, the bill states that not more than 10 percent of a service member's pay can be deducted monthly for an overpayment. Currently, up to two-thirds of a service member's salary can be deducted. The bill delays repayments if service members are wounded, ill, or deployed. It also has a five-year statute of limitations. These provisions should encourage the Department of Defense to improve its accounting practices.

The men and women that serve our nation have already sacrificed for our country--there is no excuse for placing undue financial burdens on these men and women as a result of poor accounting practices. I was proud to introduce legislation to address the hardships caused by these errors. I look forward to its consideration in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Thompson and his staff for their hard work on this very important bill. I would also like to thank my colleague Mr. Chaffetz. We share a deep concern and respect for the privacy of individuals.

When this full-body imaging technology was first introduced, the TSA said that it would only be used as a secondary screening method for those people who set off the metal detectors. Now it has become very clear that the TSA intends for this technology to replace metal detectors at airports all over the country. The New York Times reported as much in an April 7, 2009, article.

The Chaffetz/Shea-Porter amendment would ensure that full-body imaging remains a secondary screening method. It would also ensure that the people who do go through it are well informed and are given the option of a pat-down.

Mr. Chair, we do not take this amendment lightly. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am very aware of the security threats that are facing our country. We, too, want to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA have the tools they need to prevent future terrorist attacks. However, the steps that we take to ensure our safety should not be so intrusive that they infringe upon the very freedom that we aim to protect.

Two weeks ago, I went to Washington National Airport to view one of these machines. I saw how the technology is being used. I saw the pictures it produces and the inadequate procedures TSA has put into place to protect our privacy. The images are incredibly revealing as I will show you here. This is a gross violation of a person's right to privacy. It is also illogical because, if we allow this intrusion into our lives, then there should be this same scan at every single train station, at every building that we enter and on every single bus that we board.

So I ask that my fellow Members join me in voting for this resolution and for this amendment.

I always supported the efforts in Afghanistan. But last weekend I went to Afghanistan. And as much as I want to support the country and I want to support this bill, I cannot. The problems there are overwhelming. Ninety percent of the women are illiterate and a huge majority of the men. Twenty-five percent of the children die before age 5. Thirty years of war has devastated any possibility of leadership in that country. Women area abused and beaten. Drug addiction is rampant. There is corruption in the government and corruption in the military.

In Afghanistan we were told it would take 10 to 15 years to turn this country around--10 to 15 years. So we either go full throttle or we just say, okay, because we can't just string it along like we did in Vietnam. Their needs are far more than one country can give. If other nations would stand up and do what we have done and give the same commitment of their people and their talent, Afghanistan could turn this around. And we could help them. But the world won't adopt Afghanistan. And we cannot be a single parent there.

Our focus now has to be Pakistan, the greater risk.

And so I will not be able to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009. This legislation is an important first step in reforming the defense acquisitions process.

We know that due to insufficient oversight, acquisition programs have continued to skyrocket in costs. The cost growth of weapons systems acquisition has been a huge drain on taxpayer dollars--with minimal growth estimates of at least $166 billion. A 20 percent improvement in these numbers could save the taxpayers up to $30 billion.

This legislation ensures accuracy in performance assessments by designating an official to conduct performance assessments. In addition, it establishes additional annual reviews from oversight officials for problem contracts. These reviews, coupled with additional congressional oversight of the ailing programs, will help keep programs on track.

Finally, this legislation creates a better system to track cost growth during early contract development. By the time system development begins, 75 percent of the costs are already in place. By regulating cost growth in the early development, we will have true cost estimates and we can seek alternative solutions if it's necessary.

This legislation puts in place essential internal controls to the defense acquisition process. I will continue to advocate for fiscally responsible programs that provide optimal equipment for our Nation's military.

I thank the chairman and all those who worked on this bill.