Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on behalf of a friend who works every day to bring wounded warriors and Make a Wish youth to our Capitol, I would like to include the following in the Congressional Record at his request.

Dedicated to Oprah Winfrey, the Promise of American . . . and what dreams, courage and faith are made of. Your life and your example, are one more watershed moment in time . . . in the healing and the growth of America! May God Bless you always, as you have blessed so many others with your kind heart. I ask that this poem penned in honor of Oprah Winfrey by Albert Caswell be placed in the Record.

`O What a Gal!

`O . . . What a Gal!

`O what a Woman, `O what a Lady . . . who so stands before us

now!

`O . . . what A Great American Tale. . . .

And `O, what a journey, through life in her profiles in

courage, so now . . .

`O, The American Dream . . .

`O, The Promise of what all of this so means . . . to be

American and so very proud!

`O, from the bottom to the top . . .

`O, as against all odds . . . even with all that

discrimination and hatred, she would not be stopped!

From fields of slavery of yesteryears,

`O . . . as her loved ones in heaven, now watch over her with

tears!

Oprah!

Teaching us all, with your lessons of life . . . of answering

its quest and its call!

To be a champion of what is right!

With your heart of kindness, all in your search of the truth

as you went out into that night . . .

All in your warmth and love, as you fought that fight!

Teaching us all . . . that, `O . . . Black is Beautiful!

All on her pilgrimage of truth and caring, sharing, loving

and teaching . . . she brought her light.

`O, the proof of what one life can mean!

An American Heroine, as now almost like an American Queen . .

.

`O, in this our world . . . and in our lives!

Will we so find the courage? . . . The Sacrifice? . . . To

Fight, To Fight The Good Fight?

To make a difference, with these our so short lives!

`O, an American hero . . .touching our hearts, bringing your

light!

Oprah Winfrey, is a Winner . . . A Light . . . A Great Beacon

of Hope . . . of which shines this night!

The power of hope and courage . . .

All determination, and faith can so nourish what is right!

`O, Win your Heart is open!

Win you believe! Win . . . your heart is Free! There's

nothing you can not so be!

Win . . . you stop to believe!

Win . . . you take from pain and heartache, and rebuild . . .

we all can be Free!

Children, Win . . . your . . . Free!

There's nothing, that you can not so do! There's nothing,

that you can not so be!

Listen my children, as your future dreams you are building .

. . remember, Oprah Winfrey!

Madam Speaker, David Obey would be the first to say our democracy is bigger than any one of us, but I come here tonight to say that in the history of Congress, he is truly one of its giants. It is hard to imagine Congress without him. He has been a giant of courage, a giant of ethics, a giant of insight and wisdom as an institutionalist who believes in this House with all of his heart and soul, and a giant in the fight for everyday citizens who often don't have a voice speaking for them.

I want to pay special tribute to Chairman Obey for what he has done so quietly behind the scenes for America's veterans. He has been their unsung hero. In the 4 years that he has chaired the Appropriations Committee--these past 4 years--we have ended up, under his leadership and in partnership with Speaker Pelosi, with 3,000 new VA doctors, 13,000 new VA nurses, and 145 new VA community clinics. All of that means better care, more timely care, more quality care for America's heroes and their families. It means respect to those who serve--respect with our deeds and not just with words.

The greatest tribute I can pay as a father to Dave Obey is he has truly made a difference for my family and for the American family. Perhaps the greatest tribute he could hear, though, is that, I would say if Archy the Cockroach and Richard Bolling were here today on the floor of this House, they would say, Mr. Chairman, job well done.

It has been a privilege to work with you and to learn from you. You will have left this country a better place. For that, we all thank you and salute you.

Madam Speaker, as I leave Congress after 20 years, I would just like to share a few personal observations about our democracy and our country.

First and foremost, I believe we still live in the greatest country in the world. We are a blessed Nation, and we have more freedoms and opportunities than most citizens of the world could ever imagine. The proof that all is not wrong in our country today is that our immigration challenge is not that people are trying to leave our country; it is that millions of people from all parts of the globe would do almost anything, including risking their lives, to come here.

Several years ago, I learned a lot about our country from a D.C. taxicab driver. In hearing his accented English late one night when I arrived at National Airport, I asked him when he first came to our country. He answered 20 years earlier. Then I asked him if he had a family, and he answered, yes, a wife, two sons and a daughter. I asked if they had come with him when he came here 20 years ago, and he said, no, they came 3 years earlier. He went on to explain. Imagine this:

For 17 years he came to our country for 10 months out of every year, working two jobs at a time, washing dishes and any other minimum-wage job he could find here. He said he would save a little bit every year for his family nest egg and enough to return to his home to be with his family for 2 months each year.

As the father of two young sons, I was floored, and said he could put millions of dollars in the back seat of that taxicab that night for me if I only would agree to be away from my wife and sons as much as he had been from his family, and it would not even be a temptation.

I asked him why he did it, and I will never forget his answer. He said, I had a hope and a dream that some day I might be able to raise my three children in a country where they could have just two things-- religious freedom and the opportunity to be whatever they wanted to be.

Now, he said, my family is together here. I am a U.S. citizen. My sons are studying to become engineers and my daughter will be a doctor.

This hardworking immigrant taught me a lot that night in his taxicab about the American Dream and what is so special about our country.

I realize our democracy is not perfect, and I am well aware of the imperfections of those of us who serve in it. But sometimes in the midst of our daily lives, we Americans need to stop and think about our many blessings as citizens of this great country. In a time of widespread cynicism toward government, I believe it is also worthwhile to ask ourselves what is the role of our Federal Government. There can be no better foundation for that answer than the Preamble to our Constitution:

``We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

As with any statement of principle, our Founding Fathers left honest room for disagreement on the specifics of interpretation, but I would like to make several personal observations.

The preamble first begins with the words ``We the people.'' Those words make it clear that the cornerstone of our democracy is the people--not politicians, not Presidents, not any institution or special interest.

I believe one of the frustrations toward government today is that ``we the people'' don't feel government is listening to or working for us. There is a sense that the voice of the special interest is too often drowning out the voice of everyday citizens.

There is much truth in that observation, and I have concerns that the recent Supreme Court decision to let corporations and unions spend unlimited, unaccountable, untraceable amounts of money in campaigns will make the voice of everyday citizens even less audible. If outright bans don't meet the limits of a flawed judicial decision, that at the very least transparency must be required. ``We the people'' have a fundamental right to know who is spending millions of dollars to influence who is elected to our Congress.

``In order to form a more perfect union.'' I believe the greatness and goodness of our country is that ours is a history of each generation trying to reach ever-closer toward the ideals of liberty and justice for all. Rights that were once just the domain of white male landowners have slowly but surely been expanded to more and more Americans. The barriers of race, religion, gender and sexual preferences have with great pain and sacrifice slowly been knocked down. This road of progress has been paved with detours and roadblocks along the way, but it has inevitably been a road of progress toward a more perfect Union.

I am proud that in 2008 our Nation broke the racial barrier for the highest office in our land. But I temper that pride in 2010 with the disappointment that the issue of race is still an issue for anyone over a century-and-a-half after the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation. Let us not, however, let the imperfections of our Union blind us from seeing our blessings and our progress toward becoming a more perfect Union.

``Establish justice.'' In a society that is often critical of our legal system, I am grateful that we live in a country that presumes innocence until guilt is proven and that offers the fundamental right to a jury trial. While frivolous lawsuits do occur and should be stopped whenever possible, reason should dictate that we not limit the constitutional right of the citizen to a jury trial and that that right should not be based on one's wealth. It is not fair to begin the work of Congress in this House on this floor with the words of our Pledge, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' and then proceed on the House floor moments later to cut legal aid for low-income citizens.

``Insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense.'' In a world where evil and greed will always exist, defending our citizens' lives and property must always be a top responsibility of government. That is why I am so grateful for the noble calling of those who choose to serve our Nation in law enforcement and in military uniform. Those who defend us from criminals here at home or from threats from abroad have chosen a noble calling in life and should always be treated with our words and our deeds as the true heroes they are.

The record will show that in the past 4 years under the Democratic leadership of Speaker Pelosi and with the leadership of Chairman Obey and Chairman Filner and others, this Congress has made unprecedented strides in our investments in better health care and benefits for our veterans. We did so while recognizing that we can

never fully repay our debt of gratitude that we owe those who have served our Nation in uniform and their families.

``Promote the general welfare.'' On this principle there can be much honest disagreement, and I respect that fact. Perhaps what is most important in this idea to me is that it underscores that we Americans are not just individuals separate from one another, but that our Founding Fathers recognized the welfare of one is not distinct from the welfare of all of us. ``We the people'' truly have common bonds as American citizens.

My personal view is that government cannot ensure success for individuals. That requires hard work and solid values, and those come from our families and our faith, not from the government. Yet I do believe that the general welfare of ``we the people'' is enhanced if government and private enterprise work together to give those willing to work hard and play by the rules a fair opportunity for just a few things in life for themselves and their families.

A good job, a decent home and a safe neighborhood, affordable health care, a quality education for their children, and retirement security. Government cannot guarantee these outcomes, but it should work to provide a fair opportunity to all willing and able to work hard for them. Government should provide a helping hand to those who are willing to help themselves.

The general welfare, to me, really means opportunity. And it is my belief that the ultimate goal of government should be to provide every child in America--every child--a fair opportunity to reach his or her highest God-given potential. That is what Head Start, public school funding, college student financial aid, and many other Federal programs are all about. These programs are helping hands, not handouts. They're investments in opportunity for our citizens and our country's future.

For those who cannot help themselves because of their physical or mental health care problems, we the people are a compassionate people, and the general welfare, along with our basic sense of decency and faith, dictate that we help those who cannot help themselves. That is a proper role of the Federal Government.

For those who believe there's virtually no role for the Federal Government much beyond national defense, I would point out that our Founding Fathers realized over two centuries ago that the failure of the Articles of Confederation was that they committed ourselves to being a country of separate States, more than one union. That's why our Founding Fathers committed to adopting a new Constitution with stronger powers vested in a Federal Government. Our Founding Fathers so long ago understood that the general welfare of our citizens could not be effectively served by simply that loose association of States. There are some today who envision turning the clock back to a system that didn't work over two centuries ago and certainly would not work today in today's more complex society and economy.

Despite its imperfections, I believe the Federal Government plays a vital role in providing for the general welfare of we the people. At the same time, I would say that the general welfare of our children and grandchildren demands that the Federal Government do a better job of living within its means.

While deficits are to be expected in times of war and recession, long-term deficits must be brought down. This should be one of the highest national priorities in the years to come. After having turned serious deficits from the early 1990s into the surpluses of the late 1990s, Congress, in my opinion, made an enormous mistake in letting expire the pay-as-you-go rules, passing massive unpaid-for tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and in expanding Medicare prescription drug programs in 2003, with none of these being paid for. This is not rocket science. It is simple math. Massive tax cuts passed in 1981, in the face of a major defense buildup, led to historic, unprecedented deficits. Two decades later, the same mistake was repeated when Congress passed massive tax cuts, the first ever of their kind during a time of war. Those of us who opposed those tax cuts predicted they would lead to deficits. Those who supported the tax cuts, if you'll check the record, said they would not lead to deficits. We were right, unfortunately, and they were wrong.

It is my hope that the free lunch philosophy of no-pain balanced budgets has been discredited enough by now so the next Congress can realistically make the tough choices needed to get our fiscal house back in order. Republicans in Congress need to stop peddling the disproven that tax cuts pay for themselves. They do not. Democrats in Congress need to understand that spending must be cut, that no cuts will be done without pain, but that ultimately uncontrolled deficits will harm low- and middle-income families even more through slower economic growth and the crowding out of education and health programs by increasing interest payments on the national debt.

Most importantly, the partisan finger-pointing should stop and the bipartisan work should begin. It should begin to ensure the general welfare of we the people is served by a physically sustainable Federal debt level. The choices will be difficult, but if they are made on a bipartisan basis, the people of the country will understand the necessity of those tough choices, just as they did in 1983 when President Reagan and Speaker Tip O'Neill worked together to save Social Security.

``Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'' Our forefathers understood that freedom is God-given and should be protected as the divine gift it truly is. Our troops have, for over two centuries, protected our freedoms from threats from abroad. Here at home we must continue to be faithful stewards of the freedoms of religion, speech, press, and association.

It is no coincidence that the first words of the Bill of Rights are dedicated to the principle of religious liberty built upon the foundation of what Thomas Jefferson called the sacred wall of separation between church and State. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Religious freedom is the first freedom. It is the freedom upon which all other freedoms are built. Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson understood that religion should be based on a pedestal high above the reach of politicians.

I believe America's model of religious liberty is perhaps the greatest contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy. It has been built upon the bedrock of church-State separation. And for those who misunderstand that principle, church-State separation does not mean keeping people of faith out of government. It does mean keeping government out of our faith. All of human history has proven that if politicians are allowed to regulate and get involved in religion, they cannot withstand the siren songs of using religion as a means to their own political ends and of stepping on the rights of religious minorities by trying to ingratiate themselves with the religious majority.

If I could offer only one piece of advice to the press, the public, and to future Members who will serve in Congress, it would be to be aware of those who, whether motivated by good faith or by political gain, would try to help religion by chiseling away at the wall of separation between church and State. God doesn't need their help or government's help. If He chose to give each of us the right to believe or not to believe, it would be sacrilegious for politicians to limit that divine right.

Government can make a lot of mistakes that can be corrected, but if the Pandora's box of intermingling government and religion is ever open, it will unleash divisions among us that we cannot even imagine. Human history has proven that lesson over and over again. Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson got it right in the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, and it would be wrong to undo those words or the principle they represent.

In the short run, I have some serious concerns about our democracy. Partisanship is too prevalent, especially since solving the major challenges facing our country--the deficit, health care, energy, immigration reform, and competing in the world economy--will require bipartisanship to not only pass effective legislation but to secure public support for those laws after their passage.

Sound-bite politics of television and radio interviews and talk shows and

campaign ads make it difficult to develop responsible solutions to complex problems. Thirty-second campaign TV ads are seldom a template for responsible problem-solving. The stovepiping of news sources, where citizens are hearing the news they want to hear, reinforcing their already held views, is digging deeper the lines of political division in our country. The demonizing of those who think differently is creating coarseness in our political discourse that neither serves our democracy nor sets a positive example for our children. If adults don't treat each other with respect, can we expect any different from our children?

The loss of centrists--Republicans and Democrats alike--in Congress will make it more difficult in the years ahead to find the common ground of compromise. A parliamentary government can work with one party on one end of the political spectrum and another on the other end with few in between, because the party in the majority in that type of government has the power to implement its programs. However, in our American democracy, built upon the principle of checks and balances, bipartisanship is needed to pass laws on major issues and then to earn acceptance of those laws from the public.

The financial problems of major regional newspapers have reduced the impact of one of the key checks and balances of our democracy--a vigorous and free press.

The financial power of corporations, unions and special interests, especially under the Citizens United Supreme Court case, to spend unlimited, nontransparent millions in congressional races without any accountability to the public who funds those races could seriously undermine the integrity of not just campaigns but of voting decisions made by Members of Congress.

Despite all of these challenges in the short term, I am confident of America's long-term future. Our people and our democracy are resilient. When Americans face hardship, we find a way to endure and overcome those hardships. They always have. We always have and always will as a people. When our democracy gets off center, we the people find a way to bring it back in line.

In every generation, including that of our Founding Fathers, there have been predictors of doom. In every generation, they have been wrong. Americans have faced a revolutionary war, a civil war, two world wars, and a great depression. In each case, we the people found a way to meet those challenges and overcome them.

While I have met some famous people over the past 20 years of my public service, I have seen the soul and spirit of America through the lives of everyday citizens. It is they who give me faith in our future. It is the teacher who volunteers to help students after school; the military widow who asks how she can help other grieving widows; the soldier who misses the births of his two children while he is serving his country overseas; the veteran who continues giving back to country long after his or her service is completed; and the hardworking small business people--farmers and workers--who work hard every day just to provide a better life and hope for their families.

I will never ever forget Erin Buenger--a beautiful, little, red- headed girl from Bryan, Texas--in my district--who came to Washington to lobby me for better health care research for rare children's diseases. For 7 years, Erin fought bravely against a rare cancer, neuroblastoma. Yet you would never have known she had had a bad day in her life because she was so full of life. Erin won my heart. She won my heart before she died at the age of 12, but her spirit will always live on to inspire me and those blessed to know her--to inspire us to do better, to be better. As long as we have Americans with the courage, values, and heart of Erin Buenger, who personified the American spirit, our Nation's future will be bright.

I would save the last words I will speak from this House Chamber for my family. Throughout my years in Congress, it was my wife, Lea Ann, and our two sons, J.T. and Garrison, who always kept me grounded. Every day of public service has truly been an honor, and I am grateful to the people of Central Texas for that privilege, but throughout the years, it was the love from my family and my love for my family that always meant the most to me. It was their love that reminded me what life and public service should be about.

I can never say enough about the personal sacrifices and responsibilities that Lea Ann took on to make my work possible. She has been my personal hero throughout these years, and I love her with all my heart for who she is and what she has done as a wife, as a mother, as a USO cochair, and as a Boy Scout leader.

To our sons J.T. and Garrison, it is my hope that somehow I have shown them that trying to make a positive difference for others is part of our mission here on Earth, and that that mission begins with loving our families.

Serving the American family has been the privilege of my life, but the joy of my life has always been my family.

We the people are fortunate to live in the greatest Nation in the world. God has truly blessed us, and now it is up to us to be good stewards of those blessings.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my faith and my values teach me we do not punish children for decisions made by their parents. That's why I rise in support of the DREAM Act. Common sense tells me that thousands of decent, hardworking young people and our country will be better off by bringing them out of the shadows of our society and giving them the opportunity to serve the country which they call home.

In a time of hard-edged partisan politics, have we grown so coarse and calloused that we would send young people back to the countries that are foreign to them and their upbringing? We should debate how to better secure our borders. But in the meantime, in this season of hope, and love, and joy, let us turn to our better nature and let the youth among us live out their dreams. We will be all the better for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 319 and want to commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Carter) for offering this resolution and also for his tremendous leadership day in and day out on behalf of the incredible soldiers and families of Ft. Hood.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of citizens all across America, we rise today to express our deepest respect for the soldiers and families of Ft. Hood, Texas, as we approach the 1-year anniversary of the tragic shooting there. I want to reaffirm to the Ft. Hood families that they are still in the thoughts and prayers of our Nation.

It is a tragedy beyond words that Americans who were willing to risk their lives for our country and combat abroad ended up losing their lives here at home in an attack that just 1 year ago would have seemed unimaginable. While the 12 soldiers and one civilian killed at Ft. Hood last November did not die in combat in a foreign country, they gave their lives defending America, and for that, we will always consider them heroes. The spouses, children, and families of the fallen may not have worn our Nation's uniform, but they, too, have served our Nation through their deep personal sacrifice. We will never ever forget that sacrifice. We cannot bring back their loved ones, but I hope that they will forever feel the collective love and gratitude and prayers of millions of their fellow Americans.

Mr. Speaker, during this attack last year, Ft. Hood was a scene of unspeakable tragedy, but I know it as a place of great triumph--a place where service to country isn't just an idea; it is a way of life, a place where the American spirit is alive and well.

I hope the world will see the Ft. Hood I saw as its Representative in Congress for 14 years through three combat deployments. When I think of Ft. Hood, I think of soldiers, their families, their children, and their neighbors in nearby communities who care for each other and are proud to serve and, yes, sacrifice for our Nation's freedom.

Ft. Hood is known as ``The Great Place'' because that is what it is: past, present, and future. The actions of one deranged gunman should not, and will not, change that fact. The servicemen and -women of Ft. Hood, their families, and the neighboring communities are a very special, unique family. They make Ft. Hood what it is--a shining star in our Nation's defense, a star that will burn brightly for decades to come.

While we honor the sacrifice of our veterans and our troops on Veterans Day and Memorial Day, I hope Americans will remember every day how blessed we are to live in a land where our servicemen and -women and their families are willing to sacrifice so much in service to country. Let us all rededicate ourselves to honoring our troops, our veterans, and their families. Let us remember them not just on Veterans Day and Memorial Day with our words but every day.

Today, we send our prayers to those who were wounded, physically and emotionally, by the unprovoked attack last year at Ft. Hood, and we ask that God keep them in His loving arms, those who gave that day, in the words of Lincoln, ``their last full measure of devotion to country.''

Michael Grant Cahill, civilian physician assistant; Major L. Eduardo Caraveo; Staff Sergeant Justin M. DeCrow; Captain John P. Gaffaney; Specialist Frederick Greene; Specialist Jason Dean Hunt; Sergeant Amy Krueger; Private First Class Aaron Thomas Nemelka; Private First Class Michael Pearson; Captain Russell Seager; Private Francheska Velez; Lieutenant Colonel Juanita Warman; and Private First Class Kham Xiong.

While these heroes are now in God's loving arms, we here on Earth shall not forget them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5822.

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

Madam Chair, it's a privilege for me to present the fiscal year 2011 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. I believe this bill and the work we have done since January of 2007 is a work all of us can be very proud of.

In this time of war, we have continued our tradition of a bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriation bill. It has honored in a meaningful way the service and sacrifice of our servicemen and -women, our veterans and their families.

With passage of this fiscal year 2011 bill, the Congress will have increased veterans health care and benefits funding by 70 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. In addition, we have funded a new 21st century GI education bill that 510,000 servicemen and -women, veterans, and military children have used to further their education. This is an unprecedented increase in Congress' commitment to veterans.

In our book, our veterans have earned every dime of this funding. We have, among other things, increased by 10,200 the number of permanent claims processors in the VA to reduce VA case backlogs, provided an additional 145 community-based outpatient clinics, built 92 new vet centers. This bill will add 30 mobile vet centers to serve rural communities. It allowed the Veterans Health Administration to hire an additional 18,000 new doctors and nurses.

These resources mean that our veterans have better access to the health care they need and deserve, including improved access in rural areas, increased access for VA health care for low- and middle-income vets. Additionally, these resources ensure that our veterans receive, on a more timely basis, the services and benefits that they have earned.

We have also worked hard to make sure that our military knows that the Congress respects the sacrifices that they and their families have made each and every day to keep our great Nation safe. We have heard time and time again in testimony that the best support we can give our military when

they are deployed is the knowledge that their families are cared for here at home.

We have listened and funded initiatives, such as:

$2.8 billion for new military hospitals so servicemen and -women know that their families will get the best possible health care in high quality facilities;

New child care centers to serve 20,000 military children;

Over $500 million in additional funding for barracks, because Congress needs to show our volunteer forces from day one that we respect and honor their decision to serve.

The Subcommittee for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs did not accomplish this alone. There are several key leaders that have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to support our efforts.

Speaker Pelosi promised our veterans that they would be a top priority for her, and the fact is she has more than honored that promise. Her fingerprints are on every bill that has provided for our military and veterans in the past 3\1/2\ years through our subcommittee, and I thank her for her leadership in these efforts.

Also, we would not have seen the historic funding increases that I have just highlighted were it not for the dedicated support of Chairman Dave Obey, who, in my book, is the unsung hero of America's veterans.

I must also salute, and want to salute, the VA Committee chairman, Bob Filner, for his strong leadership every day on behalf of America's veterans. He has truly made a difference.

Lastly, but definitely not least, our ranking member, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, has been a vital partner in putting together this bill, and last year's bill as well. Mr. Wamp has a genuine heart for America's servicemen and -women and our veterans, and he has championed their cause. It has been a privilege to work with him, and also with Ander Crenshaw, who has filled in when Mr. Wamp could not be with us in some of our deliberations this year. Mr. Crenshaw has truly been a partner every step of the way in putting together this bipartisan bill, and I thank him for that.

I also thank Mr. Farr on the Democratic side, the vice chairman of our subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job for our veterans and our military.

Madam Chair, I would like to highlight several key initiatives in this bill.

First, this bill continues an initiative begun last year to provide advance appropriation for VA medical care. This will allow the VA to invest taxpayer dollars more effectively and efficiently, and it is a top priority of America's veterans' service organizations.

Second, we provide $190 million to new troop housing for Army trainees, over 60,000 of whom are presently living in barracks that don't even meet minimum DOD standards. Our 18- and 19-year-old military recruits don't have many lobbyists running around the halls of Capitol Hill, but they deserve our Nation's respect and support for their decision to serve in our military during a time of war.

Third, we provide $200 million for a Guard and Reserve construction initiative, recognizing the vital role these troops are playing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fourth, the bill provides $1.3 billion in emergency appropriations for military construction of facilities in support of our military operations in Afghanistan.

Fifth, recognizing the mental wounds of war can sometimes be more painful and long lasting than the physical wounds of combat, we provide $5.2 billion for the VA to continue its improvements in PTSD and mental health care for America's veterans.

Sixth, this bill includes funding for 4,048 new permanent VA claims processors in order to help veterans receive their earned benefits on a more timely basis.

The seventh initiative I would highlight, this bill also continues to open up VA medical care to more middle-and low-income veterans by 292,000, the number of veterans receiving health care since reopening enrollment in 2009.

Finally, we want to ensure that historic increases in funding for the VA are spent wisely. To increase oversight of the taxpayers' dollars, we provide an additional $6 million to VA's Office of Inspector General.

Madam Chair, I am going to skip over some of the numbers that we have in this bill, but I would be remiss if I did not thank the committee staff, very professional committee staff, a very dedicated committee staff, for their hard work and long hours during this process: the minority staff, led by Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson and Kelly Shea; and Erin Fogleman and Gilbert DMeza from Mr. Wamp's staff; and the majority staff led by Subcommittee Clerk Tim Peterson, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, Sue Quantius and Todd Friedman and Michelle Dominguez on my staff. They don't get public credit for the work, but the work of this bill would not have been done had it not been for their professionalism, and I thank each of them personally.

In conclusion, this bill keeps our promise to our veterans. That is what the Paralyzed Veterans of America, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars have said. In fact, they state, ``We offer our strong support for the FY 2011 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill and we hope that the House will quickly pass this critical legislation.''

This bill sends a clear message to America's servicemen and -women, their families, and our veterans. We appreciate and respect their service and sacrifice.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY10.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY10.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY10.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH28JY10.004

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, before introducing Chairman Obey, I would like to join with my friend and colleague, Mr. Crenshaw, in saluting Mr. Young of Florida. While he is not here because of an illness today, he has spent a lifetime of service and commitment to our servicemen

and women, our veterans and their families.

I also see Mr. Lewis on the floor, the ranking member of the full committee, the former chairman of the full committee, the former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee. I thank Mr. Lewis also for working on this bill and for his leadership throughout his long career here in Congress in support of our servicemen and -women.

Madam Chair, it is one of two honors of my lifetime to recognize and introduce Chairman Dave Obey. I must say that in the last 3\1/2\ years, this Congress has increased veterans funding by more than any 3\1/2\- year period in history. That would not have happened had it not been for the allocations and the personal leadership of Chairman Dave Obey. And while others of us at the subcommittee level or the VA authorizing subcommittee level have been the ones sometimes recognized by veterans groups for our work over these past 3\1/2\ years, it has been Chairman Obey's leadership and partnership with Speaker Pelosi behind the scenes that have made all of these new programs, including the funding of the GI bill, that has helped over 500,000 servicemen and -women and veterans and their families.

It's been Mr. Obey's leadership that has truly made a difference in this process. Of his many great legacies of his service to this country and Congress, I hope he will always be remembered as a true champion of America's veterans.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to Chairman Obey.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has been a champion on this committee for veterans, our troops, their families, and for all of the many issues involved in this subcommittee's affairs.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a very important member of our Appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), who has been a real champion for our vets and our troops.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman both for the points he is making now and also for his focus on oversight.

As we have provided these historic increases in veterans' funding over the last several years, and as we have been working together on a bipartisan basis, I think it is also very important that we see that those tax dollars are spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively.

I have been concerned for some time that the large increases we have provided the VA health care system have not always made their way down to the individual hospitals on a very rapid basis as quickly as we would like.

Because of that and our work together, we asked the S&I staff to do this study to help us understand the process the Department's using in distributing money and to highlight areas where we can exert more oversight, if necessary, to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

The report just completed is quite large, and in the coming weeks, staff on both sides of the aisle will be evaluating it to determine how its recommendations can be incorporated into our final bill and report. And I certainly look forward to working with the gentleman on examining that report and seeing how we can incorporate some of its ideas into the final conference report on this bill.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) for the purpose of my entering into a colloquy with him.

I want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on behalf of our veterans. He's been a leader on these issues. And thanks to you, Mr. Donnelly, this bill directs $15 million that you referenced to planning the VA health care centers across the country. It's an innovative way to make more services available to veterans locally.

I understand that among the locations due to have a new VA health care center is South Bend, in the gentleman's district. And South Bend's demonstrated need for such an expansion of VA health care services was noted by the committee in its report language.

Furthermore, the committee expects that this account will be utilized by the VA as soon as possible.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), who has worked very hard on behalf of our veterans and troops.

Madam Chair, there are several other speakers on our side of the aisle who said they would like to speak, but perhaps we have progressed more quickly than they thought.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), a member of the Appropriations Committee who has been vocal in his strong support of our veterans and troops.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall), who is a leading voice of America's veterans on the Veterans' Affairs Authorizing Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy). And as he approaches the well, let me just thank him. This will be his last year to be in the House, a member of this committee. And he has been an inspiration to veterans throughout America and to every member of our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle in his championing the cause of mental health care services and other services for veterans, care for our homeless veterans. I thank the gentleman. It will be a legacy that will live on for many decades to come.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chair, I want to finish by thanking Mr. Crenshaw for, again, his leadership on this and working together importantly on so many parts of this bill, and doing so in a bipartisan manner. We thanked a lot of people in this process. It's been a work of good faith on both sides of the aisle.

I always want to save the best for the last in thanking our veterans service organizations for their partnership in putting together this legislation.

I add two letters, one from the DAV, AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars; another from the president of the National Guard Association of the United States, in support of this legislation.

The Independent Budget,

July 27, 2010.

Hon. Chet Edwards,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans

Affairs, House Committee on Appropriations, The Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Edwards: On behalf of the co-authors of the

Independent Budget, we would like to take this opportunity to

thank you for your unwavering support for our nation's sick

and disabled veterans, as well as all of the men and women

who have so honorably served this country. We appreciate your

efforts as Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee

on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs to achieve an

excellent funding level for the Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) once again this year. Through your leadership,

the VA will receive another significant funding increase for

I just want to commend the gentleman for his leadership on this effort. It is a heartbreaking tragedy every time a veteran takes his or her life as a result of their service to our country. I look forward to working with the gentleman and with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) as we go to conference committee to see that we do more than everything that is already being done to see that we prevent suicides from occurring.

If we save one life, then the gentleman's and our service here in Congress will have been time well served.

I want to commend Mr. Buyer for offering this amendment.

Without this amendment, the VA would actually be reducing at the very worst time the number of vocational rehab employees. We ought to be increasing those numbers, and that's what we will be doing with this, particularly given a lot of our troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are having difficult times finding jobs. They need this support.

The VA gets a lot of things right, but I don't think they got this part of their budget right. And I thank the gentleman for correcting it, and it's a privilege to support his amendment.

I just want to commend Mr. Buyer for his leadership. This is not the first time he has come to the floor fighting for renewable energy projects and conservation projects for the VA. And as he leaves Congress at the end of this Congress, I want to thank him for this effort. Every dollar we save by conservation investments and renewable energy investments is a dollar that's either back into the taxpayers' pocket or a dollar that goes to actually provide better health care for America's veterans. So that's why I'm enthusiastic in my support of this amendment, and I commend the gentleman for his authorship of it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to commend him and commend Mr. Buyer for this effort. These photographs are an inspiration to all of us, to our veterans, to our Wounded Warriors, but to every American. This program is an inspiration to our Wounded Warriors, our veterans, and all Americans who hear about it. I am in full support of this amendment. I also want to thank again Mr. Buyer, along with Mr. Perlmutter and Mr. Langevin, who over the last several years have been real champions, along with Mr. Buyer, of this program, and again, I'm honored to support the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am glad to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I respect the gentleman. He takes a principled position on congressionally sponsored projects, but I strongly oppose this amendment.

The Flake amendment, regardless of its intentions, would cut $163 million out of important military construction projects for the National Guard and Reserves, which are playing a key role in our war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This amendment would cut $57 million out of force protection, safety and security forces facilities, including more secure entrance gates at our military installations, fire stations to protect our troops and their families on posts.

The Flake amendment would cut $30 million from quality of life facilities--much needed by our troops and earned by our troops, deserved by our troops--barracks, youth and community centers, roads. It cuts 44 projects that are in the Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program.

One of the programs this would cut is $1 million I put in this bill as an earmark to provide for a new Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood so those soldiers, over 40,000 serving there, will not have to go through a processing center which was the site of the murder of 12 of their Army comrades and one civilian just months ago.

A ``yes'' vote on this amendment will cut these kinds of worthy projects.

Now, Mr. Flake will claim and has claimed that DOD will still have the money to spend, but that's not correct because this amendment is flawed in the way it's drafted because--well, first of all, let me say that let's at least get rid of the pretence that cutting earmarks would save taxpayer dollars if he says, well, this money could still be spent by DOD.

But the reality is, because of the flawed nature of the way this amendment was put together, it would be the best--the worst, actually, of both worlds. One, it wouldn't save taxpayers' dollars because the appropriations would go to the Department of Defense; but because it would be in an account for programs not authorized, that money could not be spent for all of the worthwhile kinds of projects that I have just mentioned.

Let me put in perspective what we are talking about here. This is a $140 billion bill. Less than three-tenths of 1 percent of this bill was designated by Members of Congress working with community leaders, military leaders, military base leaders.

If I can ask my staff for a chart, I would just like to show, in perspective, what a small part of this total bill actually goes to congressionally sponsored projects.

Now, Mr. Flake apparently has more trust in the Obama administration than I did. I don't think bureaucrats in Washington are right 100 percent of the time, and it's not wrong--in fact, it's right--to say that Members of Congress, working with military leaders and community leaders, ought to have some voice in where their taxpayers' dollars go.

Madam Chair, I want to point out this is a chart. This graph shows how much is spent in this bill. The part of the bill that Mr. Flake is objecting to is this red part right here. Probably from that side of the aisle it would be very, very hard to see it.

But I just want people to understand that the administration gets a voice on this amount of money in the bill. Members of Congress working with military leaders get a voice on this amount. This is what we are talking about.

But I want to talk and say this amount is significant because, if this amendment were to pass, and I hope it will not and I do not believe it will, it would harm important quality of life and protection projects for our service men and women. It would kill a major initiative in this bill to increase funding for the National Guard and Reserves who are playing a vitally important role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I would yield that time to my colleague Mr. Ortiz.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that, and I do respect his principled position on this, not with just this bill but with other bills.

I just want to point out the reason we don't spread out earmarks evenly among 435 Members is military bases in the United States are not spread out evenly among 435 congressional districts. So it is logical and it makes sense and it's good policy that Members that represent military bases get more earmarks than Members that don't represent military bases.

I thank the gentleman. I support this amendment.

Through no one's malicious intentions, students--our veteran servicemen and -women or their children using the new 21st Century GI Bill--are being punished for mistakes that they did not make, perhaps paperwork mistakes by a school administration or by the VA. The result can be that sometimes students can have halted their additional GI benefits in order to continue college. So this is really an important issue. I salute the gentleman. We are going to see that this issue is solved with his leadership, and I look forward to working with him.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman. I will support his amendment.

I want to make it clear there is nothing, to my knowledge, in this bill intended to allow the exercise of eminent domain without payment of just compensation, but I believe in the principle of just compensation, and I would be glad to support the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I will support this amendment, Madam Chair.

I do want to clarify that there is no funding in this bill of any type to fund any kind of facility to house detainees from Guantanamo. Having said that, I would be glad to support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

I want to salute the gentleman's focus, his genuine commitment on the important need of providing long-term care for our veterans and wounded warriors with traumatic brain injury.

I care deeply about this. We all care deeply about it. In fact, several years ago I personally put the money in our VA appropriations bill to build a new polytrauma center where there was not one in the entire southwestern part of the United States.

I wish the gentleman could agree to work with the majority and the minority, the conference committee, to try to find a way to also work with the VA to find a way to address the very important needs that he is wanting to address.

If he's not willing to pull this amendment down, I must reluctantly rise in opposition to it for several reasons:

First, the VA is studying this issue right now, and we ought to sit down with them and find out what they have learned and what they think are the best ways to use taxpayers' dollars to address these needs.

Secondly, I don't know if we need four of these long-term centers or six or eight or 10. Rather than spending money on four centers, perhaps it would be better to do smaller renovations on 10 to 20 centers where our traumatically injured veterans could receive care closer to the homes of their loved ones.

Third, I don't know what the full cost of this is going to be. The $9.5 million doesn't, I don't think, even come close to providing for the full cost of the construction of these four projects. Perhaps the gentleman could help illuminate for all of us both the cost of the construction plus the cost of the operations of those centers. And there are a lot of unanswered questions, important questions, such as: Where would the staff come from to man these centers? Would they come from existing VA facilities? I don't know. Perhaps there are good answers to those questions. I just don't think the committee has them at this point.

Finally, there are pay-fors on this. The consequences of how this gentleman would pay for these would be that we would have a domiciliary extended-stay unit would not be replaced in Butler, Pennsylvania; a kidney dialysis unit expansion would not occur in Richmond, Virginia; an ambulatory surgery center would not be completed in Albuquerque, New Mexico; an urgent care center will not be renovated at Castle Point, New York; and a psychiatric residential rehab facility will not be replaced in Perry Point, Maryland.

It was not the intention of the gentleman to try to prevent these five important projects from being completed, but it is the consequence of his amendment as written.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I would be glad to yield.

Reclaiming my time, if Mr. Bilirakis would be willing to ask unanimous consent to bring down his amendment, I will make my genuine commitment to work with him, because I salute him for pointing out the important need that needs to be addressed here.

I'll work with Mr. Crenshaw, the acting ranking member, Mr. Wamp, the ranking member of the subcommittee, and we will get together with the VA and try to find a pay-for that doesn't take away from awfully important projects such as Mr. Scott's in Virginia and others.

If the gentleman will yield, I appreciate that. I will work in good faith. And let's see if by working with the VA, the majority and minority, see if we can find a way to most efficiently and effectively take care of these great Americans that have suffered such a sacrifice on behalf of our country, and do so without impacting these other important projects throughout the country.

I just want to commend the gentleman. This is such a good amendment. Sometimes common sense can prevail, because it certainly makes no sense to take drugs that a veteran is using, prescription drugs used in a VA hospital, and then have a half a bottle or three-quarters of a bottle of those pills left, have to throw them away, and then go directly to the pharmacy at the VA hospital to get those exact same prescription drugs to take for use at home.

So this is going to save taxpayers money. And every dollar that's saved can be put back into much-needed medical care for our veterans. So I am thrilled to support the gentleman's amendment and salute him for working on this.

I once again on this amendment want to thank the gentleman for bringing this before the House. This could save up to $55 million in taxpayer funding according to the Inspector General. It's a good amendment, and I am glad to support it.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I will salute the gentleman from New Jersey for focusing on the need to fund our State veterans cemeteries. I believe in those cemeteries. I think they're an important partnership between the Federal Government and our State governments. So I have absolutely no objection to his wanting to try to find additional funding for State cemeteries.

However, I will object and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because of the way in which he pays for it. While not intended in any way, it just turns out the money that he would be taking out of the VA minor construction project would come out of these specific projects:

A domiciliary extended stay unit will not be replaced in Butler, Pennsylvania; a kidney dialysis unit expansion will not occur in Richmond, Virginia; an ambulatory surgery center will not be completed in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and an urgent care center will not be renovated at Castle Point, New York.

So you have an amendment that won't even guarantee that even one dime of this amendment's funding will go to State veterans cemeteries in New Jersey. In fact, the last list I saw the VA has put out officially has the New Jersey project significantly down the list. But regardless of that, I think it's just not right to take funding out of these much- needed health care construction projects.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for any time he would care to consume.

I would like to now yield time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Chair, do I have any time remaining?

Let me just conclude by saying no one objects to the gentleman's goal. We would be glad to try to work in good faith to see if we can find another pay-for to improve funding for our veterans cemeteries. But I will strongly object and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because of the damage done to veterans at these facilities that need the care that they would otherwise not get if this amendment is passed into law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill which will provide our service men and women the vital support they need to carry out their missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill also strongly supports America's veterans by including $13.4 billion in funds for Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange. And I thank Chairman Obey for his strong support of this provision.

Last October VA Secretary Shinseki announced that the VA had found linkages between agent orange and three additional diseases, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease and B cell

leukemia. This presumption allows veterans who served in the Vietnam War and who have these diseases to have these benefits expedited.

Rick Weidman, director of government relations at the Vietnam Veterans of America, says this bill ``provides some measure of justice to these very ill Vietnam veterans and their families by making the funds available for vitally needed health care and just compensation to replace their lost earnings due to these illnesses.''

Passage of this bill, Madam Speaker, would mean that 86,000 Vietnam veterans or their survivors, at long last, who were previously denied disability compensation, would now be eligible for retroactive payments. In addition, the VA anticipates that approximately 67,400 new claims will be filed.

It is important that we pass this bill in support of both our active duty service men and women and our veterans to send a clear message that our country is grateful for those who serve today and will never forget those who served in years past.

I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I had the humbling privilege of representing Fort Hood, America's largest Army installation, for 14 years, through three combat deployments. It is now next door to my district in central Texas.

Fort Hood has sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan than any other military installation in America. And despite that sacrifice, sadly, the soldiers and families at Fort Hood had to face an unbearable and unspeakable tragedy at the hands of a terrorist in our midst who killed 12 Fort Hood Army soldiers and one Army civilian just several months ago.

The soldier processing center through which soldiers go--often the last building they see before they leave Fort Hood, and it's the first building they see when they come home from being a year away from their family serving in Iraq or Afghanistan--is a soldier development servicing center there.

At the request of the Pentagon, I want to thank Chairman Obey for putting our request for $16.5 million into this amendment. First, because that center was old and antiquated, inefficient and too small, but most importantly because the soldiers at Fort Hood who've sacrificed so much for our Nation's defense in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be asked to process through a building where 12 of their fellow soldier comrades in that installation were brutally murdered at the hands of a domestic terrorist.

I thank Chairman Obey for putting this in. It is a meaningful, dignified way to show support for our troops. And I support this amendment and ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support it as well.

I want to thank Chairman Ortiz for the time today and, most importantly, not only for his service in the U.S. Army as a soldier but for his leadership as a key subcommittee chairman on the House Armed Services Committee. The gentleman from Texas works every day to support our soldiers, not just with his words but with his deeds, and I'm deeply grateful for that.

Madam Speaker, this resolution honors the 235th anniversary of the United States Army, and I rise today on behalf of a grateful Nation to say thank you to every Army soldier, past and present, for their service to our Nation. We express our gratitude with the humility of knowing that we could never fully repay the debt of gratitude we owe our soldiers and their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our Nation.

When I drive past Arlington Cemetery each morning on my way to the U.S. Capitol, I'm always reminded of that sacrifice, sacrifice of those who, in the words of Lincoln, gave their last full measure of devotion to country.

When I met with several young amputees and double amputees earlier this week at a charity event for wounded warriors, I was reminded that the personal sacrifices of war do not end with the signing of a ceasefire agreement. When I visit the Waco VA hospital in my district, I'm reminded that the mental wounds of war can sometimes be as serious and as long-lasting as the physical wounds of combat.

One of the greatest privileges of my life was to represent for 14 years Fort Hood, Texas, which is now so ably represented by my colleague and friend, Congressman Carter. Fort Hood is the Army's largest installation, and I had the privilege of representing it through three combat deployments.

When I think about our Army soldiers and their sacrifices, I cannot help but think about the young soldier, probably no older than 20 years old, I met in December of 1995. My wife was just three days away from giving birth to our first son J.T., and as an expectant first-time father, I could not help but be excited as I talked to this young soldier sitting next to his young, pregnant wife, talking about how excited I was to become a father.

This soldier, who was about to deploy for Bosnia, said without an air of complaint in his voice: Sir, I missed the birth of my first son because I was serving in Iraq, and I will miss the birth of my second child because I will be serving in Bosnia. He said, Sir, I'm proud to serve my country.

Madam Speaker, one cannot put a price on the sacrifice of a young father missing the birth of his two children. There are no makeup days for missed births, birthdays, anniversaries, and graduations. That is why we are so deeply grateful to our soldiers and their families.

To the spouses, children, parents, and loved ones of our Army soldiers, I say, you are the unsung heroes of our Nation's defense. Whether you have worn our Nation's uniform or not, you have truly served our country. For those family members who have lost loved ones in combat, we know you continue to sacrifice each and every day of your life.

Were it not for the U.S. Army and the magnificent men and women who have served in it and are serving in it today, the world would be a much different place, a less stable, a less free place.

Just a few weeks ago, I had the honor of meeting Len Lomell. Most Americans have not heard the name of Len Lomell. He lives in Toms River, New Jersey, with his wife. My wife and I took our two young sons, J.T. and Garrison, to meet with Mr. Lomell because in my book, he is a true American hero. As an Army soldier on D-day in 1944, Len Lomell joined with Earl Rudder and the Second Battalion Army Rangers and climbed up that difficult, life-threatening cliff in the face of German gunfire and grenades to try to knock out the five massive German guns that could have put at risk the entire Allied invasion of D-day.

Len Lomell, along with one other soldier, went out scouring for the guns because they had been moved, unknown

to Army intelligence, been moved away from that cliff that we know as Pointe du Hoc. It was Len Lomell who found those guns, and while nearly 100 Germans were standing just a few yards away, took thermite grenades and put those grenades in two different trips back to those guns, put thermite grenades in those gear mechanisms of those guns and, in doing so, decommissioned all of them.

The great historian Steven Ambrose said that, next to Eisenhower, Len Lomell had more to do with the victory of D-day than any living person in this world.

I have to wonder would the world be different today had it not been for that great Army soldier Len Lomell and all the soldiers who served with him and all the soldiers who served before him and those great ones who have served after him.

Madam Speaker, we can never repay our soldiers such as Len Lomell, or the young soldier I met at Fort Hood, or Robert L. Howard, who died in my hometown of Waco this past December and was buried just 4 months ago in Arlington Cemetery after earning the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and eight Purple Hearts in his five tours of duty in Vietnam.

We cannot repay the 82,000 U.S. Army soldiers serving in Iraq today or the 57,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, but let us always honor them, not just with our words and resolutions such as this one today, but with our deeds and our budgets every day.

Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality housing and health care for our troops and their families and first-class education for their children. Our Nation has a moral obligation to stand up for America's veterans because they have stood up for us.

A grateful Nation wishes our Army a happy 235th birthday. May God bless all our soldiers--past, present and future--for risking their lives to protect our divine gift of freedom.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, Members, my amendment is a simple, commonsense protection for

children and families. It requires anyone seeking to benefit from the terms of an FHA mortgage to certify under penalty of perjury that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. This amendment ensures that taxpayers will not be on the hook for loans made to convicted child sex offenders.

There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2 years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex offender registries and community notification systems for sexually violent offenders and those committing offenses against children.

While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe, I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor.

A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment report. There are still private market alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment continues that pro-family stance.

The certification requirement in this amendment is a strong enforcement mechanism which will not put additional burdens on small businesses.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment to protect our communities and to prohibit those who have committed a sex offense against a minor from benefiting from government-backed FHA loans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking the chairman for his kind comments and for his leadership for our country.

Madam Speaker, America is a better country today because of the life and service of Dr. Hector P. Garcia. And we will be a better country tomorrow if every school child hears his story. It is the story of an immigrant child who worked hard, became a physician, and dedicated his entire life to his family and service to country. It is a story that one person can make a difference. It is a story of the timeless values of hard work and service to others. It is the quintessential American story of love of country, expressed through a lifetime of service to others.

One of the greatest privileges of my lifetime was to know Dr. Hector Garcia. He left the world a better place, and his life story continues to inspire everyone who hears it. And it is my hope that every school child in America will hear his story, a true champion of our Nation's never-ending quest for equal opportunity for all.

As a child growing up in Corpus Christi, Texas, Dr. Garcia's hometown, I lived on the same block. At the time, I did not know he was a World War II hero who earned a Bronze Star and the rank of major. I did not know this champion in the cause of American's Hispanic veterans. Yet as I grew older and learned of Dr. Garcia's heroic lifetime of service on the battlefields of war, in the halls of Congress, and in the offices of his medical practice, his life's story became an inspiration that led me to public service.

Had it not been for Dr. Hector, as we called him, I probably would not be in Congress today. For that I am personally grateful. But I am even more grateful for how he made a difference in our Nation's history. May God bless and forever keep in his loving arms Dr. Hector P. Garcia.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

Madam Speaker, Americans need and deserve health care reform. Without it, the quality of our health care system will go down and costs will continue to go up. The present trend of fast rising health care costs and increasing numbers of uninsured is unsustainable. If left unchecked, these problems will bankrupt more businesses, hard-working families, hospitals, and, ultimately, state and federal budgets.

This is why I had wanted to vote for health care reform, and this bill has a number of positive provisions in it that I support, such as providing tax cuts for small employers offering health insurance, creating a private health insurance exchange, helping seniors with their prescription drug costs and preventing discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.

However, I cannot vote for this bill, because at a time of unprecedented federal deficits, we simply cannot afford all of its new spending. I believe it would have been better to have passed a less expensive bill and less expansive bill, one that could have united, not divided, our Nation. In the long run, for health care reform to work, it must have the support and confidence of the American people.

I realize it is easier to criticize than to write comprehensive health care reform legislation. I also realize that some of the criticisms lobbed at this bill are without merit, such as the false suggestion that it contains death panels. Nevertheless, I believe we could have passed a less complicated, more affordable bill this year that would have garnered widespread support across our country.

Over the past year I have listened to thousands of constituents from all walks of life across our district on the issue of health care reform. What I have heard is that people generally like the quality of their present health care and don't want big government or big insurance companies to stand between them and their doctors. They also believe we must do something to make health care more affordable for families and businesses. I agree.

Above all else, what I heard from my constituents is that they have to tighten their belts in this difficult economy, and they want the federal government to do a far better job of living within its means. There is great wisdom in that observation, and I believe we have a moral obligation to not drown our children and our economic future in a sea of national debt.

Unlike the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed in 2003 without being paid for, I support the principle that health care reform should be paid for. I hope the Congressional Budget Office is right when it says this bill will reduce the deficit, but, frankly, I am skeptical that anyone can predict with absolute certainty the cost of such a complex, far-reaching bill over a period of 10 to 20 years.

That is why I had urged that this bill include a fiscally responsible trigger mechanism in it that would cut spending if actual costs exceed projections, if cost savings are not fully realized or if projected new revenues are overestimated. The President mentioned such a trigger in his address to Congress last year, and a trigger was included in some parts of the bill. However, I am disappointed that my common sense proposal for a trigger covering all of the bill's costs and revenues was not included. Today, most Americans simply do not believe this bill will reduce the deficit and health care costs. I hope they are wrong, but I fear that they are right.

A less expensive bill, with a fiscally responsible trigger in it, would have also reduced the need for the additional taxes and Medicare reductions included in this bill. Once the new revenues and Medicare savings have been used to pay for the new spending in this bill, it will be that much harder to find ways to reduce the massive federal deficits our Nation is facing for the foreseeable future.

If left unchecked I believe huge federal deficits will harm our economic growth and our children's future. Increasing interest payments on our $12.7 trillion national debt will lead to higher taxes and crowd out vital education, health care, infrastructure, national defense and job training programs that are so important for hard-working families and our country.

Reining in massive federal deficits will require tough choices, the same kind of choices families and businesses have to make every day. Given this year's deficit will be approximately 1.3 trillion dollars, I simply believe we cannot afford all of the new spending in this bill.

If this bill becomes law, my hope is that Congress will protect its positive provisions but reduce its scope and costs to get our country back on track toward a balanced budget that can ensure economic opportunity for future generations of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay respects to my former colleague and friend, Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson was bigger than life, and he was as real as the Texas day is long. I considered it a privilege and a joy to know him as a colleague and as a friend. Most Americans will forever know Charlie Wilson from the movie ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' I have been asked by people who knew that I knew and served with Charlie whether he was really as colorful as he was portrayed to be in that movie. My answer is that that movie was the only time ever that Hollywood had to tone down reality in order to make it believable.

I have no idea whether Charlie ever read Shakespeare, but whether he did or not, the truth is, he personified Polonius' wise observation in Hamlet: ``This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.'' It makes me wonder if somehow Polonius didn't know Charlie Wilson.

Charlie Wilson was not false to any man, any person or any constituent, not ever. He was the real thing, and I think in this sometimes cynical world, that is what all of us blessed to know him as a friend found so very endearing about him. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a number of Charlie's former colleagues who had served with him, members of the Texas delegation, have asked that we include their remarks with respect to Charlie, his life and his spirit.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the remarks of Ralph Hall who also served many years with Charlie, and I would only just summarize one statement made by Ralph about his good friend Charlie. He said, He was a courageous and kind man with a strong sense of justice that compelled him to work for the good of others.

Thank you.

While he was known as Good Time Charlie--and yes, he did enjoy life-- the truth is that Charlie Wilson spent his entire adult life in the serious business of public service to our Nation. He graduated from the Naval Academy and then served our Nation as a lieutenant and as a naval intelligence officer. At the age of 27, he was elected to the Texas legislature where he was known as the liberal from Lufkin, supporting such progressive causes as the minimum wage, Medicaid, and the Equal Rights Amendment.

In 1972, he was elected to Congress where he became known as a champion of a strong national defense, a friend of average working families, and yes, someone who played a key role in bringing down the Communist Soviet Union. Who would have ever guessed, my friends and colleagues from Texas, that Charles Hazard of Trinity, Texas, many years ago, killing his 13-year-old neighbor's dog, would lead to the mighty Soviet Union falling someday. History is an interesting thing, and Charlie Wilson certainly will always be a part of it, as playing a key role in one of the most monumental achievements in our Nation's history.

Charlie Wilson did what every one of us, Republican or Democrat, would dream to do and would dream that it be said about us at the end of our public service careers: Charlie Wilson made a difference. He made a difference for his State of Texas, for his beloved constituents in east Texas. He made a difference for America, and, yes, he made a difference for the world.

To his widow, Barbara, and to his sister, my dear friend Sharon Allison in my hometown of Waco, Texas, I hope they know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. I thank you and your family for sharing with us and for sharing with the world this great treasure that God brought into this world. His spirit will be with us always. May God bless Charlie Wilson and the great land that he loved.

Madam Speaker, getting sailing lessons from the captains of the economic Titanic may be interesting but not very helpful. Let's get serious. Allowing the U.S. Treasury to default on our Nation's debt for the first time in history is not a responsible option. It would devastate our economy, our stock market, and our children's futures. Republicans know it, and Democrats know it. We all know it.

The responsible action is to start getting control of our deficits today, and we can do that by passing the pay-as-you-go law. Pay-as-you- go is a principle that citizens understand and live by every day. It's a principle that helped Congress in the late 1990s turn the largest deficits in American history, created by some of those who have just spoken, into the largest surpluses in American history.

Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership killed the House pay- as-you-go rule that had worked so well. It killed it in 2002. And what happened? The largest surpluses in our history turned into the largest deficits in American history. The Republican-led Congress passed massive unpaid-for tax cuts and the largest expansion of Medicare without paying for a dime of that. Those two actions alone added $6 trillion to our national debt over a period of just one decade, $6 trillion, most of which was borrowed from the Chinese and other foreign governments. It's time to put some discipline back into our Federal budget processes, and that is what pay-as-you-go is all about.

I am proud to have initiated the effort to make this law, this PAYGO, not a temporary law but a permanent law. Had we done that in the 1990s, we wouldn't be facing the terrible deficits that we hear decried today. Pay-as-you-go works for families, pay-as-you-go works for businesses, and then in the 1990s, it worked for the American people in the Federal budget. And when we pass this into law, it will work once again and help us get these intolerable Federal deficits back under control and preserve our children's futures.