Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize May as Huntington's Disease Awareness Month. In support of those with Huntington's Disease and of finding a cure, I have cosponsored H.R. 678, ``Huntington's Disease Parity Act of 2009.'' This bipartisan legislation sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA-41) would eliminate the 24-month waiting period for Medicare eligibility for those suffering from Huntington's Disease.

Huntington's Disease is a progressive degenerative neurological disease that causes total mental and physical deterioration in as few as 12 years and currently no cure exists. Already 20,000 Americans have been diagnosed with Huntington's and 6.5% of the population, or 200,000 individuals, are at risk for this disease.

The physical, emotional, and mental alterations a victim of Huntington's Disease undergoes are extreme to say the least. Even in the initial stages, patients are unable to continue employment and they must rely on family care and Social Security Disability Income. A similar neurological disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, received a waiver for the 24-month waiting period in 2000.

H.R. 678 would help to alleviate suffering that those diagnosed with Huntington's Disease must face every day. Implementing this legislation would not only help those diagnosed with Huntington's but also the families that have been financially devestated by this degenerative disease.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in Congress and the public at large to recognize this important month.

Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Res. 438, ``Expressing support for designation of September as `National Child Awareness Month.' '' This bipartisan resolution sponsored by Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA-47) and cosponsored by me, would recognize the efforts of our community leaders as they participate in growing the hopes and dreams of our children; the future of our Nation.

September, a month characterized by the return to school, signifies the start of the new school year. All around the country, corporations and businesses gear-up to highlight our youth and support children's charities and youth serving organizations. Declaring September as National Child Awareness Month will provide an excellent collaborative platform for these charitable groups to bring national attention to issues of vital concern to our children such as education, health, social services, sports, arts, and character development.

H. Res. 438 would recognize these efforts as a positive investment for the future of our Nation. National Child Awareness Month is supported by many regional and national youth organizations among which are the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Big Brothers Big Sisters program.

Madam Speaker, I applaud my colleagues in recognizing the efforts those children's charities and youth serving organizations have put forth and also honor children for their widespread participation in these groups.

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

I join with the chairman in urging all Members to vote for this important correction piece of legislation. I say ``correction'' because, in fact, we in Congress make mistakes. It wasn't out of malice that we spent $800 billion without asking the question of where would the money for oversight come from. These kinds of things happen in every organization where you're in such a rush to do one thing that it's not until later on in the light of the next day, or in the case of Chairman Towns and myself, it's when we held a field hearing in his district in Brooklyn

and people said, Thank you very much for the money, but here is A, B, C, D--what's really happening? I commend Chairman Towns for quickly reacting to this and to some other issues that were found to be less than optimal in the stimulus package.

In the case of this legislation, H.R. 2182, we seek to empower with existing funds State and local governments to not have to reach into other money in order to do oversight. This is not to say that we wouldn't prefer that the oversight be done at all times even without Federal money, but at a time in which the stimulus needs to be spent quickly and accurately, this legislation recognizes that money in short supply in States and in cities is likely not to go into the oversight necessary.

Particularly with the chairman's initiative to ensure that transparency be greater than in any previous Congress, I recognize--and he has recognized--that if we want greater transparency, we are going to have to ensure that we not only supply the funds to do the oversight but that we supply the new technology and means to do the oversight. This legislation is deliberately intended to allow for cities and States to make investments in hardware or software that allows for them to better dig down into their procurement process, their spending, to work smarter, not just harder.

Having no other speakers at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Merchant Mariners who served during World War II. Tasked with delivering troops, tanks, food, airplanes, fuel and other supplies to war theaters, Merchant Mariners suffered the highest casualty rate of any of the branch of the service. Their bravery for our country deserves recognition.

I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 23, the ``Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2009.'' This legislation will provide certain honorably discharged U.S. Merchant Marine veterans with a monthly $1,000 benefit.

With each passing year, there are fewer surviving Merchant Marine veterans. I urge my colleagues in the House and the Senate to join me in supporting H.R. 23 to give these veterans their recognition.

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

I support H.R. 1107, a bill proposed by the Office of Law Revision Counsel to update, improve, and for clarification of title 41 of the U.S. Code.

Mr. Speaker, this, as the other speaker said, is, in fact, a very technical correction. The minority fully supports it, believes it is necessary.

It passed on March 14 out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously on a voice vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I concur with everything the gentleman from Tennessee just said. Mr. Cohen and I do enjoy

working together on a bipartisan basis on a great many issues.

Today this bill, H. Res. 14, attempts to begin, if you will, a downpayment on thanking the men and women of the Border Patrol and of ICE and other portions of Homeland Security for their tireless efforts to defend America, and particularly on an issue that I find very personal, that of human smuggling.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I wrote the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California expressing my concern after learning from a reporter that U.S. attorneys had refused to prosecute an alien smuggler apprehended while transporting a car loaded with undocumented immigrants.

The smuggler, Mr. Antonio Amparo-Lopez, had attempted to escape the arresting Border Patrol agents and, upon his recapture, the Border Patrol learned that this smuggler had 21 known aliases, had been arrested and deported more than 20 times without ever having been prosecuted once.

Mr. Speaker, this is what the Border Patrol once faced, is something that the Border Patrol no longer faces, and we would hope, on a bipartisan basis, would no longer face.

As I dug deeper into this, I learned that this was, in fact, at that time a common problem, and that Border Patrol agents had been forced to accept the reality that no matter how many times they did their job, often with people with large amounts of drugs, often with people who they knew were guilty of more heinous crimes, and, in fact, sometimes when they knew that people who perhaps had abandoned the human beings they were trafficking in to die in the desert, they could not take action.

On a bipartisan basis, I want to recognize the men and women of the Border Patrol for their willingness to do this job with personal danger, having had rocks pummeled at them, having been shot at.

The men and women of the Border Patrol and their allied agencies do what we ask them to do even when we do not fully support them.

The San Diego Border Patrol sector chief even told the House subcommittee in a hearing how the failure to prosecute the foot soldiers in alien smuggling organizations had created an opportunity in which ``what would happen then, we would apprehend people that were guiding people across the country, many times at risk. And without meeting prosecution guidelines, they were simply voluntarily return back to Mexico where they could continue to conduct their illicit activity. There is no level of consequences.''

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to say that is no longer the case. I join with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to say, human smuggling, whether illegal immigrants or in fact victims of kidnapping around the world for purposes of prostitution, cannot be tolerated. We must have a zero- tolerance policy, and we must support the men and women that protect our borders and our interior.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

I have one more at this time.

At this time, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to close on my side by thanking the gentleman from Tennessee. Memphis is a long way from the southern or the northern border, and yet he has helped us in moving this piece of legislation along because, in fact, our borders ultimately, once somebody is over our border in America, they can go anywhere virtually without ever being stopped. And so I thank all the Members who, whether they are a border district like myself or far inland, have seen that human trafficking is something we need to end.

And I again ask all of us to support this bipartisan legislation.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her statement.

Mr. Speaker, as I recognize the former chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut for his bipartisan work on coming to an agreement between our two bills that I believe led to the suspension today on the Senate bill.

With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker. It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, this legislation is a combination of two well thought-out compromises. First of all, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, in fact, is going to take the place of a piece of legislation that is far more reaching and, in my opinion, overreaching, that passed out of Judiciary just this past week. In fact, by making this narrower, what we do is help the whistleblowers and those who would support them, while not going too far as to cripple the legitimate enforcement by cities and States and the right for them to discover waste, fraud

and abuse themselves, make those in corrections without seeing both punitive fines and perhaps 30 percent going to plaintiffs' trial lawyers.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this narrowing is a good compromise coming from the Senate, and I want to thank all of those in both parties who worked on this. I think it makes moot the legislation that was passed under Judiciary.

Secondly, another compromise, and one that I want to speak to, this 9/11-style commission, something that, as you can see, many people on both sides of the aisle--on both sides of the Capitol--thought was necessary. Over the last period of months, we have seen the Speaker of the House going from not supporting, and supporting only that her committee chairmen do the work, to supporting the concept of a House committee, to then a House-Senate committee, and, finally, I believe today, support for something that gets it almost right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, on nearing the third anniversary of the 9/11 Commission, we should begin looking at what we did in the 9/11 Commission.

In 2007, on the third anniversary, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent commission for its work, calling the recommendations made by the commission earned and achievable, and, in fact, speaking to its bipartisan nature.

This year, as we pass legislation to make a similar-type commission to deal with the meltdown last year in our markets, I would call on Speaker Pelosi to help make the balance right.

As was previously stated, based on the current nominating system in the ordinary course, this would end up being a 6-4 split and be questioned by the American people as to whether or not it was Democratically led and Democratically dominated.

The Speaker has the ability, with her three appointments, to make this right, either by appointing one Republican and one Democrat, or, in this case, two; or I might suggest that even if she cannot find a Republican appropriate to be appointed from her allocation, that she could look to an independent or somebody independent of party politics.

I have previously supported, when asked, Sandra Day O'Connor, a retired Justice, or somebody of her stature who rises well above party politics, who may be considered to have some Republican background but who, clearly, in the eyes of the American people, would be a consensus- builder, able to look for the truth and look for compromise so as to reach the consensus, not a majority decision, but a consensus of this commission, as in almost every case--I believe in every case--the 9/11 Commission did.

I understand that this bill is the best bill we can get here today and I intend to vote for it, support it, and urge my colleagues to support it; not because I don't believe it should be above party politics and should be a 5-5 split, but because this is so much better than nothing at all and because I believe that the Speaker has it within her appointment powers to make this a perfectly good commission, one that we can all be proud of, and one that lives up to exactly what Speaker Pelosi asked for when the shoe was on the other foot after September 11, when we were looking at the need to get above party politics and we were looking to find people of stature to appoint.

Mr. Speaker, I hope my suggestions over and above my support for this legislation will be heeded.

Mr. Speaker, S. 386, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, improves current criminal and civil fraud statutes to help the federal government bring predatory lenders and unscrupulous financial institutions to justice.

Judiciary Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith sponsored the companion legislation in the House, H.R. 1748, the Fight Fraud Act of 2009. The bill before the House today is a true example of bipartisan, bicameral cooperation.

S. 386, as amended, merges these two important pieces of legislation together to provide comprehensive and effective solutions to combating mortgage fraud, securities fraud, and other financial crimes.

In times of crisis, crime often flourishes. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina, unscrupulous people chose to exploit these tragedies to pad their pockets with money intended to help the victims.

The country's housing crisis is no exception. America's economic downturn, brought on by the housing crisis and other factors, exposed a significant amount of fraud and corruption within the mortgage, banking, and securities industries.

The drive for expanded homeownership along with unchecked lending practices and inflated property values, encouraged mortgage fraud, predatory lending, and institutional corruption.

Mortgage fraud comes in many forms, including deceptive practices by borrowers, predatory lending and institutional fraud.

And now, the fraud is spreading to schemes targeting homeowners who are facing foreclosure as a result of the plummeting housing market. Foreclosure scams are targeting cash-strapped consumers on the verge of losing their homes. Victims are lured into the fraud scheme with promises of financial assistance that never materializes.

S. 386 amends federal fraud statutes to specifically prohibit false statements by mortgage brokers and agents of mortgage lending businesses.

The bill also expands the major fraud statutes to include fraud against the Troubled Assets Relief Program, economic stimulus funds, or other federal rescue or recovery plans.

The Fight Fraud Act authorizes additional funds for federal law enforcement agencies, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

This legislation promotes the ongoing investigative partnerships between federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.

The bill also supports programs that provide critical training and investigative support services, intelligence services, research support and other resources necessary to investigating these financial crimes.

Additionally, this legislation will strengthen the liability provisions of the False Claims Act as well as make some necessary technical changes to the Act.

The False Claims Act provisions in this bill will undoubtedly enhance the Federal government's ability to recover government money and property that would otherwise be lost to waste, fraud, or abuse.

What's more, these provisions do so in a responsible manner that will not encourage the filing of frivolous or unfounded False Claims Act cases.

Simply put, the False Claims Act provisions in this bill go the proper distance in ensuring that the Act remains a viable tool in the government's continuing fight to protect taxpayer dollars from fraud.

(COMMISSION)

The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act also contains provisions to create a bipartisan, independent ``Financial Markets Commission.''

This Commission will examine the questions of ``Why?'' and ``How?'' the current financial and economic crisis occurred.

We have seen the success of past blue-ribbon panels, such as the 9/11 Commission.

In 2007, on the 3rd anniversary of the 9/11 Commission report, Speaker Pelosi praised the bipartisan, independent Commission for its work--calling the recommendations made by the Commission ``urgent and achievable'' making the country more ``unified'' and ``effective.''

Speaker Pelosi is right. A bipartisan, independent commission can produce valuable results.

Which is why I proposed a similar bill last fall and again this Congress, H.R. 74.

I view the effort to create this commission as a vehicle for this Congress to demonstrate a willingness to set aside partisanship and put the interests of our country first.

As with the 9/11 Commission, the Financial Markets Commission report should be free of accusations of political showmanship and a partisan slant that have tainted current investigations.

This Commission is not the place for partisanship OR Congressional meddling.

It is a place for the American people to get answers.

Ideally, in today's bill, the composition of this Commission would have been bipartisan down the line, with a 5-5 split like the 9/11 Commission that was adopted by a Republican Congress instead of the 6-4 divide that has come to the floor today at the direction of the Democratic Leadership.

Speaker Pelosi said in 2005, when discussing a possible Commission to review Hurricane Katrina events, a ``real commission'' is bipartisan and independent.

The decision to depart from the 5-5 model of the 9/11 commission in favor of a commission whose composition has a partisan slant is disappointing.

But I believe the credibility of this commission's report will still depend on its ability to deliver conclusions and recommendations that all the members of the commission will embrace.

I am hopeful that the members of Congress who will be responsible for appointments to

this Commission will ensure that the panel's composition is bipartisan, independent, and focused on producing a nonpartisan report--not scoring political points.

In closing, The Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 is a good government bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, in an extension of remarks on the House floor regarding H.R. 105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009, I stated that Members need to think of the future of this Nation, rise above their own self-interests, and advocate for the removal of all earmarks from all present and future appropriations bills until we get the federal deficit under control. It is a shame that the Speaker and the Democratic leadership have not been willing to take the initiative and do this on their own.

The Democratic leadership has made no significant effort to perform real earmark reform during this economic crisis. Rather than eliminating costly earmarks, and excess spending, under the leadership of President Obama, the Speaker and Democrats push to implement the largest budget in our nation's history; a $3.55 trillion budget that will dramatically increase the deficit and likely bankrupt our children's children. The American people are asking that the member's of this body lead us out of this crisis, but it is apparent that the President and the majority leadership can do nothing more than throw money at the wrong problems and tax and lambast those that can create the right solutions. The majority leadership needs to understand that unbridled government spending is not the answer to this crisis, and that earmarks continue to be a problem that plagues this body and not a solution.

Since being reelected to Congress last November, I have not made any earmark project requests. The projects that were included in H.R. 1105 were not done so at my behest in this Congress. As I stated before, I am highly disappointed that, faced with the enormity of the current federal deficit and the unprecedented amount of federal spending that has occurred, the House and Senate majority leadership and Appropriators did not take the opportunity to start showing fiscal restraint by removing Congressional Earmarks from the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Had I been approached by the appropriations committee prior to the passage of this bill, I would have asked for the removal of the listed projects.

This bill is another example of a missed opportunity to begin the real reform that the American public truly seeks. Members must realize that we have an obligation to the public to work to eliminate earmarks from future appropriations bills until we get deficit spending under control.

Below are two requests that were made in the 110th Congress that the Democratic majority decided to include in this spending bill. While they are projects of merit, I did not seek out support for their inclusion in this Congress.

Bureau of Reclamation--Water and Related Resources

Rancho California Water District

$50,000

The bill included funding through the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for the Rancho California Water District, which will provide for additional recycled water reuse of 16,000 acre feet (AF) per year by converting water district's west side agriculture area to recycled water systems (1 AF equates to approximately 326,000 gallons or enough water to supply two families for one year). It will also increase use of annual seasonal storage in Vail Lake reservoir by 10,000 AF per year by constructing 48-inch pipeline to transport raw water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to store in Vail Lake. It will also convert majority of agricultural delivery system from treated water potable system to recycled and raw water non-potable system by building delivery system for raw water relieving 5,000 AF/year of treated water demands

Madam Speaker, today marks the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Temecula Post Office. In 1859, at its establishment, it became only one of seven post offices in California south of the Tehachapi Mountains.

John Butterfield, an experienced stagecoach company owner was awarded a contract to deliver mail between St. Louis, Missouri and San Francisco, California. There was a time consideration in the contract requiring that each trip be completed in 25 days. On September 16, 1858, Mr. Butterfield began the first east to west journey and it was completed in 23 days and 23 hours.

Six months after the passage of the first Butterfield Stage through Temecula, U.S. President James Buchanan appointed Louis A. Rouen as the first Temecula Postmaster on April 22, 1859. Rouen served at the Magee store, near what is now Margarita Road and the Temecula Parkway. This was the first of the fourteen post office sites that have been used in the collection and distribution of Temecula's mail; the post office location changed frequently during the ensuing decades. It was located in several places including private residences, the Wolf Store, the Machado Stores, the train station, the Palomar and the Temecula Hotels, Hall's Cafe, Security Pacific Bank and the two sites operating today.

During its journey to and from Temecula, mail may have been in ships, planes, 18 wheelers, golf carts and many other conveyances including the last mule train delivery used in the United States. Mail Service in Temecula has been a significant part of the community for a century and a half. It is sometimes little appreciated except by those who serve. Following September 11, 2001 the Postal Service ran a series of reminders in magazines, papers and on television that summarize what they do for the citizens of Temecula and our Nation.

``We are mothers and fathers. And sons and daughters who every day go about our lives with duty, honor and pride. And neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor winds of change, nor a nation challenged, will stay us from our appointed rounds. Ever.''

Still standing today, the Temecula Post Office is a monument to the faithful and dedicated work of the men and women who have served the community for 150 years.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Chairman Towns for the hard work they put into this bill. I am here today to say this is a good bill on the front end. I am sad to say this is a bad bill on the back end.

What this bill does, which was worked out on a very bipartisan basis with all speaking here today, is in fact it does recognize that modern retirement plans should have as many options as possible, and certainly adding the Roth IRA option for some Federal workers is extremely good.

Additionally, the advantages for the military and military commanders to be able to look at their individual needs of their services and allow for different opting in and out patterns of course makes sense, and I appreciate Chairman Towns' willingness to work on that fix during the markup.

The majority in our committee and the minority in our committee found this to be a very bipartisan issue to

work on, and I appreciate the fact that this is good for the troops and on paper saves money. However, I have to say, the back end of this bill, sponsored by Members of the majority not speaking yet here today, is nothing but a piggy bank for other projects, for special interest projects.

The fact that this is a tobacco bill begs the question of: If we were to free up 2 or 3 or more billion dollars from a military budget in outlying years, why would this be a reason, when we have trillions of dollars of deficits, to spend money? I think the majority knows it is not.

In fact, the idea that you on paper save money by members of the government opting out of pre-tax contributions in favor of the Roth IRA post-tax contribution and thus creating additional tax revenue, at a time when we have a deficit at the highest in our history, says not one penny ever saved will in fact go to deficit reduction under this majority.

So, will I vote for this bill? Of course, I will. It does a lot of good things for our Federal workers. The fact, though, that the provision for family smoking prevention is not funded through the ordinary course of revenue but rather through this scheme that, depending upon how many workers choose Roth IRAs, may or may not produce the money that is about to be spent, I find wrong and I find misguided.

As the chairman said, there were a number of things we did for the military. There is more that we should do. Only the U.S. military is eligible for TSP but receives no match.

It is very clear that, in a modern military, one in which only about one in four serve until retirement on active duty, the TSP is all the military takes with them when they leave. That famous 20-year retirement does not vest in 5 years the way it does with the majority and the minority, all of us as Members of Congress; in fact, it takes 18\1/2\ years to lock in a military retirement and 20 years to appreciate it. Clearly, the military does not enjoy what we in Congress enjoy, which is TSP, with a match, and a 5-year vesting schedule so that we can take our retirement plan with us whenever we leave, in as few years as 5.

I do once again thank all the Members on both sides of the aisle that worked hard on the front ends of this bill. I believe it has merit and should be positively received and voted for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I have to say it is not the front end of this bill that anyone should object to. The part we are seeing here today is excellent. But as Chairman Lynch said, and said quite rightfully, it is calculated that this piece of legislation will save net approximately $2.2 billion for better or worse on the backs of our retirees.

It is a short-term savings, Mr. Speaker. It is not, in fact, a long- term savings. Any time you do collect money now but don't collect it later, it is going to eventually catch up. So for the short period of time in which this $2.2 billion is generated, it certainly would have been appropriate for all of us to be able to use this money in the committee for the Federal workforce. And the part that upsets me is that we are neither returning it to the taxpayers in the form of less deficit, nor are we using it for structural changes for the Federal workforce, whether uniform military or civilian. That is the only problem.

Again, what this bill does, it does well. What this bill eventually does is, in fact, fund a pet project of the former chairman, Mr. Waxman, for tobacco programs, something that has certainly been funded very well, funded on the backs of plenty of other programs. Candidly, I don't believe that this is the best use of the money at a time we are running trillions in deficits.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to vote for this bill because of all the good things it does. I also urge my colleagues to continue to look at what we owe our Federal workforce, and particularly as previous speakers have said, our uniform men and women. Men and women in uniform enter the service voluntarily. Four years, 6 years, 8 years later, they often leave. As a matter of fact, with the up-or-out program, many of them are not promoted and must leave. Therefore, they leave the military service with less than 20 years. Therefore, they have nothing. They have their GI Bill, but they have no retirement.

Only, only in the Federal uniform services do we treat people that way. The President served 1 day, and he was eligible for his lifetime benefit. I don't begrudge the President hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the rest of his life or any of the previous Presidents. But it is amazing to me that the President vests as soon as he is sworn in. Members of Congress fully vest after just 5 years; and yet, we are looking at our men and women in uniform being shot at, being injured, often being forced into early retirement or early leaving of the service with 10 or 20 or 30 percent disability, just enough they can't really do the job they came in to do, but not enough to get, if you will, a handsome retirement. They then enter the workforce later in life, and they enter with instead of a head start, with an impairment.

This $2.2 billion was only about one-tenth of what it would have taken to provide matching TSP funds for our men and women in uniform. Certainly, it is even a fraction of what it would take to give them a defined benefit plan, even close to what we here in Congress get. But certainly, as we pass this piece of legislation today as a downpayment for reform, we need to begin looking at what it is going to take to provide our men and women in uniform equal justice with the rest of the Federal workforce.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Workforce, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I'll do a very short close, if you want to reserve your time to close.

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

Once again, in closing, this is a good bill. As the previous speakers have said, we were able to fix a number of ills, including what was mentioned by the gentlelady from the District of Columbia.

What I'm sad about is that we didn't begin to make a down payment on some other important areas; certainly, most among them, our uniform services. We took the benefit of putting military personnel on to a Roth IRA without looking into whether we could do something for them.

Mr. Speaker, there's no question in this body that our men and women in uniform that are not able to retire in 20 years will leave the military only with whatever they happen to put into their Thrift Savings Plan. They're basically finding themselves encouraged to save on what is one of the smallest salaries that anyone could imagine for a particular private, corporal or sergeant. And yet, we will not even make the 3 percent match we make for ourselves here in Congress.

So I certainly would hope that, in the foreseeable future, this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, as we're doing here today, can see fit to make a bipartisan down payment for our men and women in uniform to allow their Thrift Savings Plan to have at least some match, which today it doesn't have, and leaves them often with no retirement when they leave the military.

With that, I want to thank the chairman for the markup on this bill, which was done in a very cordial fashion, pre-agreed and worked out so that it could be done efficiently and we could get the best possible bill to the floor.

I yield back.

There's no words that can express how disappointed I was to see that the notable bottom of the funding once again went to Government Oversight and Reform.

When Republicans took over the Congress in 1994, they dramatically reduced the size of Government Oversight. The following Congress, they did a 48 percent increase, which essentially put it back close to where it was. But not quite. After that time, increases under Republicans have been paltry--in some cases, negative.

President Obama told us it was going to be different, Speaker Pelosi told us it was going to be different. They both said oversight was important.

Now I come from a manufacturing background, and I understand what quality control is. Quality control is not in fact asking the worker if they did a good job. It's somebody independently checking, and when they find mistakes, failures, imperfections, design flaws, pointing them out and giving those on the line the opportunity to repair or to change in a way that gives real quality.

There's only one committee in the Congress that has that task. It's not Energy and Commerce--the most-funded committee; it's not Financial Services--one of the other most-funded committees. It's not even the Rules Committee. It is in fact Government Oversight and Reform.

With over 3,200 GAO individuals and hundreds of millions of dollars being spent there; with $800 billion in the stimulus package and one IG with a $450 million budget; with a $7 billion, and soon to be more, TARP, with virtually no rules and real questions about how much has already been lost, the very idea that, after President Obama includes in his inaugural address oversight, accountability, to defund that committee effectively by flatlining once again--something that, I must admit, I can see the record, and it's been done under both types of administrations, under both Congresses--clearly makes the statement that is the antithesis of what was claimed.

There will be not be transparency in the Obama administration if in fact Government Oversight isn't properly funded to do its job.

Now when I came with Chairman Towns before the committee, Chairman Towns made the request for the dollars. I didn't. Although I felt his request was modest and reasonable. I added while I was there the request for 30 more slots. Not more money, but more personnel. Because I was confident that America's volunteerism would include people wanting to come to our committees for just a stipend if we could give them a slot--an authorized-to-work-here position--and that we would find people within a limited budget. We'd be able to work within the small increase that Chairman Towns asked for.

We didn't get those additional slots. And, notably, we are the only committee I can find that effectively asked for more and didn't get it.

I'm sad to see that, because I think it is in fact an accountability of Speaker Pelosi for not keeping President Obama's promise and commitment to the American people.

I appreciate the chairman of this committee doing what he can within the funds, but I realize he does not make the actual decision. He clearly couldn't be making this decision unless he made a decision that oversight was not important. And I don't believe he did.

So someone, somewhere in this Congress has decided that oversight is in fact not important. That accountability of this bureaucracy--not of this President, as some would have you believe--but of the bureaucracy that we, the Congress, have created and maintained and fund at $3.8 trillion, and growing, is in fact what we're charged to do.

The very idea that chairmen of other committees will in fact do their legislation and then check their legislation flies in the face of experience. It takes a second set of eyes and a second set of hands that have no prejudice toward the original creation of the law.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind people that Oversight has no fundamental jurisdiction that is by any means broad. We don't. We take care of the post offices and we oversee Federal workers. What we do is research into waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal Government.

We are highly limited by the lack of personnel and the lack of dollars to do it over a $3-plus trillion market and countless billions of dollars that have already been wasted under the last administration and continue to be wasted under this administration.

I join with Chairman Towns in believing that you could have done better, you should have done better. It's not too late. Please consider doing better.

There was one thing in the previous statement that I have to take some umbrage over. I only know about the minority of Government Reform. We returned $32,000, slightly less.

Now, we returned it not because we couldn't use it, but because every committee has the reality that you can't spend the last penny. Also, because you are not allowed to go over. So the fact is we fully spent ours.

I don't know if that $700,000 statement that is made includes our $32,000 or not. I don't even know if it is accurate. My understanding is that number can't even be asserted, really, yet, because in fact there is still spending going on.

I would hope that the committee would make available the returns of all the other committees, because I rather doubt that Chairman Waxman failed to use his money. I can tell you that Ranking Member Tom Davis would have loved to have been able to do more investigation, more independent work than we already did.

In closing, I would just mention that we have added in the last two Congresses over $4 million just for global warming, the junket committee. We clearly have enough money. I ask you to reconsider.

Madam Speaker, a good bill is, in fact, not necessarily the democratic process at work. I am disappointed that the majority chose to forego oversight committee responsibilities on this TARP IG.

In an exchange of letters with the chairman, whom I respect a great deal, we have failed to reconcile that. Although this piece of legislation arrived in the House on February 9, it never got a hearing or a markup in the committee of primary jurisdiction on all of the IGs. This is not a bad piece of legislation, Madam Speaker. It could be better. It would be better if the majority did not choose to, in their own words, say that there was not time to consider these other items. Madam Speaker, something cannot arrive from the Senate on February 9 and yet have to be passed on March 25 because there was no time. We have had far greater time than we had to do it wrong in the TARP. The speakers on both sides of the aisle have made the very valid point that ``ready, shoot aim'' was the mistake of the TARP.

I don't believe that this will be an impossible situation. What I do believe is that the democratic process here in the House has been violated once again. Perfectly good, by their own statement, amendments were suggested by the Republican minority on the Financial Services Committee. Yet they were rejected, not based on their merit but based on that it would have taken more time. They would have had to send it back to the Senate. The Senate would have had to have a deliberative process.

Madam Speaker, we are not allowed here in the House to speak ill of the Senate--of the other body--or of the President and the Vice President, but I think we certainly can speak that, if we can be told there is not time to get it right, the Senate should be asked, couldn't they, in fact, be given the time--a day or two or three--to look at amendments that we have considered and that have been rejected on time. I know that is not going to happen. I know that this bill will pass either unanimously or with substantial approval, but this is yet another example of a body who has not recognized that a crisis is not an excuse to move legislation, no matter how well-intended, prematurely or as less than what it should be.

I enjoy working with the chairman of the committee. I believe he is a good man who wants to increase transparency and oversight. I believe we have missed an opportunity here today to do that little bit better that we both promised to do when we were elevated to these positions. So, Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. I will vote for this bill because it is more good than bad, but it could have been better.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the Majority has unilaterally elected to forgo Oversight and Government Reform Committee consideration of this legislation, which will affect the billions of dollars disbursed under the troubled asset relief program (TARP). Despite the Majority's pledge of openness and transparency, they have chosen to discharge this legislation from our Committee and deny the Members of our Committee, and the citizens they represent, a voice in this important legislation.

The TARP suffers from a serious lack of transparency and accountability. As of February 6th of this year, the Treasury Department has committed $300 billion in taxpayer funds to our nation's financial institutions in the form of preferred shares and warrants, loans and insurance against losses. While the Treasury Department currently monitors aggregate monthly levels of some banking activities, it does not require any recipient of TARP funds to disclose the details of any individual transaction that the recipient would not have entered into but for the receipt of TARP money. In other words, we do not know whether $300 billion of taxpayer money has changed anyone's behavior. As a result, neither the Treasury Department, nor Congress, nor the general public truly knows the outcome achieved by the injection of taxpayer funds.

Given the magnitude of the TARP program and the critical importance of focused oversight of this program, avoiding consideration of this legislation in an open, bipartisan process, goes against our shared desire to bring transparency to this massive expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The House received this legislation on February 9, 2009. Since that time, the Oversight Committee has had the benefit of hearings, testimony, policy developments, and institutional action, all of which could improve this legislation. For example, at our hearing on March 11, ``Peeling Back the TARP: Exposing Treasury's Failure to Monitor the Ways Financial Institutions are Using Taxpayer Funds Provided under the Troubled Assets Relief Program'', Special Inspector General Barofsky agreed with the need for greater transparency in the TARP program, and Democrats and Republicans had suggestions that could have improved this bill.

For example, if given the opportunity, I would have offered an amendment to this legislation to deliver true transparency in the TARP program, by requiring all data disclosed by TARP recipients to be disclosed in a standard, consistent, and structured format. This is essential to ensure transparency and accountability for TARP funds. Without this amendment, TARP recipients will be able to continue reporting data on how they have used taxpayer money received under TARP in any data format they choose, obscuring important information.

During a hearing before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee, Mr. Kucinich and I pressed the SIGTARP on his ability to sift through the survey responses he has received from TARP recipients. We pointed out to him that merely relying on ``narrative responses'' in a non-standard format from banks would not deliver the kind of transparency and accountability the American people demand. Rather, we have to insist on access to the raw data in order to achieve complete transparency. Mr. Barofsky said that he doesn't have the resources to sift through such data. I agree. However, putting the data in a standardized and machine-readable format would allow investors, regulators, and the public to use innovative technology solutions to sift through these mountains of data.

In addition, I would have offered an amendment to this legislation that would increase the SIGTARP's hiring flexibility so that he would have sufficient latitude to hire the qualified experts he needs. These changes would have enabled SIGTARP to more effectively executive its responsibilities in oversight of the program. Unfortunately, due to the Majority's stifling of debate on this legislation, we will not have the chance to discuss these important ideas.

One conclusion we have learned from the rush to legislate on the TARP, the stimulus bill, appropriations bills, and various bailouts, is that citizens want expedient, but well considered, solutions before we act. Unfortunately, yet again, it appears that transparency, oversight, and Member participation have taken a back seat to political expediency.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to an individual whose dedication and contributions to the United States Marine Corps are exceptional. Our country has been fortunate to have dynamic and dedicated leaders who willingly and unselfishly give their time and talent to keep this country free and safe. United States Marine Colonel Christopher E. O'Connor is one of these individuals. On April 2, 2009, a retirement ceremony honoring Col. O'Connor will be held in Miramar, California. As a thirty year service veteran, Col. O'Connor deserves our thanks and gratitude as we honor him for his distinguished career.

Following his commission through the NROTC Program at the University of Rochester and his education at the Communications and Electronics School at MCAGCC Twenty-nine Palms, Col. O'Connor has served in many capacities over the years. The Marine Air Support Squadron where he served as an Air Support Control Officer in the Direct Air Support Center (DASC), the Aviation Department's action officer in the Aviation Logistics Branch of the Department of Aviation at Marine Headquarters, and operations officer of the 1st Marine Aircraft Wing Aviation Support Element Kaneohe are just three of many assignments Col. O'Connor has been entrusted with.

Receiving his wings in 1985, Col. O'Connor became a CH-53 helicopter pilot and transferred to Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 463. Col. O'Connor would leave HMH 463 to deploy to the Philippines but later return as Commanding Officer of the squadron from October 1997 to May 1999 in Kaneohe, Hawaii. In August 2006, Col. O'Connor assumed the position of Commanding Officer of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Not only does he supervise over 3,000 Marines, Sailors and Civilian Marines with an operating budget of over $217 million but he is also responsible for Air Station assets of over $2 billion.

Col. O'Connor's tireless passion for service has contributed to the betterment of this country. His decorations include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with gold star, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and Navy Achievement Medal. I am proud to call Chris a fellow community member, American and friend. I know

that many citizens and servicemen are grateful for his service and salute him as he ends his term.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in recognizing Women's History Month. This is important. We recognize a great many days and months here in the Capitol, and sometimes we get disparaged for it. But I think when we look at the important role and the partnership since Colonial times until this very day that women have spent and made in our history, we do so without it being properly marked in history.

One needs to dig a little deeper in order to see the equal participation of women. Our Founding Fathers did not make the decision to go to war without the support of their families because their land, their property, and their very lives were at stake when they made that decision.

Since 1987, this country has recognized Women's History Month in this month, and we should. National Women's History Month has also received the support of Federal, State, and local officials that allow for public fora to raise the awareness and perhaps to inspire a next generation of women to do all that they can do, be all that they can be, and participate in ways that women throughout our history have, and more.

So I join with my colleagues, and particularly my California colleague, Representative Woolsey, in asking that we take a moment to recognize Women's History Month.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe today as we move this important piece of legislation recognizing Women's History Month that we realize that women have played an important part in both parties and in all the major issues of our time. Certainly when we view Susan B. Anthony through the role she played as a strong women's suffragette and as a strong advocate for women's rights, the right of life, a strong pro- life advocate, we realize that women have played an important role in political decisions, decisions of war and peace and in development of so many things in our country. And they continue to do so today.

So, I would hope that as we recognize Women's History Month, we recognize that women are just as independent in their politics, in their desires and in their beliefs as any man would ever hope to be, and that we not falsely determine that somehow women will save the planet where men won't, or that there aren't women developing innovative solutions including next generation nuclear, wind and solar, and, beyond that, solutions that haven't even been talked about on the House floor.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back the remainder of my time.

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

I want to thank my partner in this bill, Adam Schiff. For three Congresses in a row, we have worked together and enjoyed a luxury of riches. The bill passes unanimously on suspension, only to be not quite broad enough to appeal to some people in the Senate. I think many of those questions were worked out by agreement in the last Congress, and I believe we have a real chance of moving this bill into law in this Congress.

I thank Mr. Johnson and the ranking member, Howard Coble, for both being cosponsors of this bill. I believe we have made some technical adjustments that will inspire not just the three districts of California, but also Massachusetts, New Jersey and some of the other major areas in which these types of legislation have run into a lot of problems, particularly the fact that we have amended the bill to support those jurisdictions which adopt local rules even if they would otherwise not be eligible that would allow for this type of specialization.

On that word, I want to make sure that everyone in the Congress understands, on both sides of the dome, that when we say specialization, we are not trying to create a specialty court; just the opposite. We are trying to save the district court as we know it. I have had a number of patents properly adjudicated both as a defendant and as a plaintiff, and what I have discovered is that the judges, given the tools at the district court level and given the opportunity to practice more frequently, or at least having at least one judge who has practiced more frequently, they will adjudicate these cases properly. They will make good Markman decisions, and they will in fact understand the nuances of patent. Without that expertise lying in each of the district courts, particularly the large ones, we undoubtedly will continue to have cases which get ping-ponged around and which get decided, unfortunately, incorrectly the first time and only decided correctly after they have come back from the Fed circuit.

So as many have called for the creation of a specialty court similar to the appellate court, the Fed circuit, we are trying here through this patent pilot to do just the opposite: to retain at the district court closest to the people the opportunity to have their patents heard, but to provide them the additional tools necessary to do it, and as was said very kindly by both Mr. Schiff and Mr. Johnson, to give them the frequency of those judges who would like to have that frequency of doing more than one case every seven years. So with that, I again urge passage of this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would make myself the last speaker, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

I yield myself 30 seconds to again recognize that this bill has passed this House overwhelmingly repeatedly. This time I believe we have perfected on a bipartisan basis with a companion, including Senator Specter in the Senate, the ability to move this as a separate freestanding bill quickly, and then I look forward to working particularly with Adam Schiff on these many other pieces of legislation and other reforms that we have talked about at length, and of course with the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.