Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 799) to reauthorize and improve the program authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 799, as amended, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2007, and thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for their hard work and leadership in helping to bring this bill to the floor.

The Appalachian Regional Commission, the ARC, strives to ensure the people and businesses of the Appalachian region have the knowledge, skills, abilities, and access to services necessary to compete in basic economic activities of the United States.

Since its inception in 1965, the commission has been highly effective in meeting the goals of its mission. There is no doubt that it has compiled an impressive record of accomplishment in creating economic opportunity in Appalachia. Just as it has done since its inception, the ARC has proven it provides a fair return, both socially and economically, for the Federal Government's investment in the people of Appalachia.

Consistent with the congressional leadership and interest in energy programs, H.R. 799 authorizes the ARC to

provide technical assistance, make grants, enter into contracts, or otherwise provide amounts in the Appalachian region for energy- efficient projects or projects to increase the use of renewable energy resources.

This bill also authorizes the creation of at-risk counties, and further outlines the percentage of funds for which these counties are eligible. The authorized amounts build on the funds authorized in Public Law 107-149 and adjust the annual amounts for inflation. The bill authorizes appropriation for the commission's programs and expenses through the fiscal year 2011.

H.R. 799, as amended, has strong bipartisan support, which acknowledges the ARC as a well-run and highly effective Federal/State partnership commission.

I urge the passage of H.R. 799, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our chairman of the committee, Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for closing remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, members of the Congressional Black Caucus wish to call greater attention upon the disparities that exist in health care.

Chilren of color suffer disproportionately from a lack of health insurance.

In my State of Texas, the problem is severe.

Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the Nation, with over 21 percent of children--that's 1.4 million--lacking health care coverage.

Across the nation, more than 9 million American children lacked health care coverage in 2005.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program, called SCHIP, is critically important to prevent low- and moderate-income minority children from slipping through the cracks of our health care system.

One problem is that eligible children are not enrolling in SCHIP.

Nearly three-quarters of uninsured children were eligible for health coverage through SCHIP or Medicaid in 2004.

A disproportionate number of those eligible, but uninsured, were either Black or Hispanic.

Without insurance, children living in poverty are likely to have poorer health compared to children with insurance.

Uninsured kids are more likely to lack a regular source of health care, delay or have unmet health care needs, use less preventive care, and receive poorer quality care than children with insurance.

I urge my colleagues to remember our uninsured--especially the children--and have compassion on our Nation's most vulnerable.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to Mr. Skelton, the outstanding Congressman from Missouri.

I rise to support H.R. 2956. If we could stop this war today, it would please my constituents. And if we could do it without more violence, I would be picketing to do it.

All of us know, that have any common sense, that we cannot bring the troops home today, but we can develop a good strategy to make sure that they get the message in Iraq that we are coming home. We still have 150,336 troops over there. Are we going to stay until they all get killed?

We talk about how many have lost lives. I was a nurse in the Veterans' Administration for 15 years, and I saw the damaged lives of these veterans coming home from war. What are we doing for ourselves and the future? This is not a partisan issue, this is an issue that saves America.

Mr. Speaker, the most recent report from the Department of Defense, states there are 150,336 brave American troops in the middle of a violent civil war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the President has repeatedly made it clear that nothing will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight.

Congress cannot and should not keep waiting for the President to change course.

We must change the course ourselves, 2008 must be a year of transition in Iraq. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States.

Iraq needs to take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find its own solutions to its own problems.

Recently, the Iraq Study Group suggested that the time has since passed when one country alone could work alongside the Iraqi leadership to steer Iraq's future.

Rather, as the report says, ``the United States should immediately launch a New Diplomatic Offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region.''

This recommendation is perhaps the last- best hope for war weary Iraqis and Americans alike.

Mr. Speaker, our brave men and women are serving with great honor in Iraq. Their service has paved the way for a democratic society.

It is time for the Iraqi government to stand up, so our troops can begin to stand-down.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to commend the gentleman from Washington and Chairman Dicks and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for their good work on this underlying bill.

The amendment I offered today stems directly from concerns I have over a recently proposed rule by the Environmental Protection Agency that could radically alter the current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and adversely impact public health.

On December 21 last year, 4 days before Christmas, EPA introduced a cleverly timed proposal that would essentially weaken hazardous air pollutant emission standards for major sources of pollution as defined by section 112 of the Clean Air Act. My amendment would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2008 funds by EPA to promulgate this ill-advised and environmentally dangerous proposal.

Currently, major sources, major source polluters, facilities that emit 10 tons per year of a single air toxin or 25 tons per year of any combination of toxic pollutants are required to comply with the Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards, called MACT, permanently, a policy adopted in 1995 known as Once In, Always In.''

MACT standards are technology-based area emission standards established under title 3 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendment. Compliance with MACT standards can require facility owners and operators to meet emission limits, install emission control technologies, monitor emissions and/or operating parameters and use specified work practices.

These public safeguard standards have proven most effective in reducing

toxic, harmful, cancer-causing eye pollutants such as mercury, chlorine, benzene, methanol and asbestos. If EPA's proposed rule were to take effect, industrial facilities could emit hazardous air pollutants at levels just below 10/25 major source thresholds and not be subject to the MACT standards.

This move has been criticized by the State clean air agencies, our regional officers, our major metropolitan leaders, as well as the county leaders and environmental groups. A majority of EPA's own regional offices initially excluded from viewing and providing input on the proposed policy have been highly critical of the proposed rule citing health and emission concerns.

EPA has done very little to justify such a dramatic shift in congressional intent or the agency's own long-standing interpretation. Moreover, the Agency has performed very little, if any, substantive emissions analysis, and they have performed no public health analysis for any industrial sector. In my view the Agency's proposed rule represents another installment of regulatory attacks designed to gut the Clean Air Act.

The public health of this Nation should not be forced to take the back seat to the interest of big polluters. The congressional authorities captured in section 112 of Clean Air Act are intended to ensure that major source emitters of hazardous air pollutants are required to comply with MACT standards permanently to ensure that the elimination of air toxics are achieved and maintained in the interest of public health.

In 1995, upon adoption of the ``once in, always in'' policy, EPA stated the following:

``EPA believes that this once in, always in policy follows most naturally from the language and structure of the [Clean Air Act] statute. In many cases, application of MACT will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels substantially below the major thresholds.

``Without a once in, always in policy, these facilities could 'backslide' from MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits, escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing emissions to the major source threshold.

``Thus, the maximum achievable emission reductions that Congress mandated from major sources would not be achieved.

``A once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emission reductions are permanent, and that the health and environment protection provided by MACT standards is not undermined.''

In the Federal Register, the Agency raged on and on about how great the proposed rule is for major source polluters, because it will create incentives for industry to reduce emissions.

When it comes to quantifying the implications of this proposal on the environment and public health of this Nation, the Agency is silent.

The burden of proof regarding soundness of this proposed rule rests squarely on the shoulders of EPA. Thus far, the Agency has failed, at best, to make even a lackluster case.

My constituents in Dallas and the surrounding area are already burdened by the scarlet letter of nonattainment. I refuse to let their public health be subject to another further deterioration from a proposal laced with tortured assumptions. This is an unsound policy that should be stopped.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting clean air, a healthy environment, and a strong Clean Air Act. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson amendment and the Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill.

While I appreciate the vigor of the opposing side's view on this matter, it is my respectful view that they are simply wrong on this matter.

I would like to amplify an area of concern raised by EPA's own regional offices regarding enforcement should the once in, always in policy be negated.

In a 2005 Regional Memorandum to EPA Headquarters, the regions assert the following:

A related concern with regard to the draft changes as

written is that a facility, by changing from a major source

to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid

regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against

them.

Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT

standard, and has 3 years from the date the rule is

promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and

just before the end of that time period, the facility

announces its area source status.

If an area source regulation exists, there may also be some

equivalent waiting period before the facility is required to

comply with the area source requirements.

If the facility later announces that it is after all, a

major source, then it may again enter a grace period,

possibly up to another 3 years, before it is subject to the

MACT standard requirements.

Thus, by continually going back and forth between major and

area source status, a facility could be a major source

[polluter] for most of its operating life and never have to

comply with the MACT standard requirements.

Again Mr. Chairman, these are not my words but those of EPA's own regional offices.

Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lies within the heart of EPA Region 6. Throughout Region 6 there are approximately 3,000 major source polluters according to EPA data.

If EPA's rule were to take effect, based on the guidance of EPA's own regional offices I just referenced, 3,000 major source polluters could continually backslide on a public health safeguard meant to minimize my constituent's exposure to toxic, cancer causing air pollutants.

Clearly, this was not the intent of Congress as reflected in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a memorandum dated December 13, 2005, from Michael S. Bandrowski, Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region IX, of the Environmental Protection Agency.

United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX.

San Francisco, CA, December 13, 2005.

Regional Comments on Draft OIAI Policy Revisions

David Cozzie,

Group Leader, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Office

of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Thank you for allowing the Regional Offices the opportunity

to comment on the draft proposed changes to the General

Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63, intended to replace EPA's Once-

in-Always-In (OIAI) policy established in a May 16, 1995,

memorandum entitled, ``Potential to Emit for MACT standards--

Guidance on Timing Issues,'' from John S. Seitz to the

Regional Air Directors. A draft copy of the proposed changes,

dated November 16, 2005, was received by Region IX on

November 30, 2005, and we shared this copy with the Regional

Offices. As sub-lead Region for air toxics, we have

summarized and consolidated the feedback received from the

Regional Offices, and are forwarding these Regional comments

and concerns through this memo. Eight Regions provided

comments. For your convenience, the original comments from

each Regional Office are included as attachments to this

memo.

Over the years, many questions and implementation issues

have arisen that have initiated the reconsideration of the

OIAI policy. The new revisions being planned by OAQPS would

essentially negate the original policy, and this change would

be codified in the 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions. This

change in policy would have major implications for

implementation and enforcement of the maximum achievable

control technology (MACT) standards. The Regional Offices,

therefore, appreciate the opportunity to review and comment

on HQ drafts before the revisions are proposed in the Federal

Register for public comment. However, we are disappointed

that OAQPS formulated revisions to the OIAI policy without

seeking Regional input and was reluctant to share the draft

policy with the Regional Offices. This trend of excluding the

Regional Offices from involvement in rule and policy

development efforts is disturbing. We are requesting that

OAQPS establish a means for Regional input during the

development of future policies and rules.

With regard to the OIAI policy, all the Regional Offices

that submitted comments acknowledged the need for a change

from the 1995 guidance in limited circumstances. For example,

if EPA finalizes the delisting of methyl ethyl ketone as a

hazardous air pollutant (HAP), it would be logical for EPA to

allow existing major sources of HAPs to reevaluate their PTE,

excluding emissions of methyl ethyl ketone. Likewise, if a

source eliminates, or significantly reduces their use of

HAPs, then it would be reasonable for EPA to allow such a

source to reevaluate MACT standard applicability. In

addition, certain pollution prevention benefits may follow in

circumstances where a source has an incentive to obtain

actual reductions in emissions of HAPs equivalent to or

greater than the level required by the MACT standard with

less burden and cost. Overall, the Regions support the intent

behind the draft proposed amendments to provide incentive to

companies for engaging in emission-reducing activities.

Several Regions also explicitly stated their support of

revising the policy through a public rulemaking process and

encouraging sources to explore different control technologies

and pollution prevention

options to reduce emissions and potential to emit (PTE). One

Region was supportive of the change in policy as drafted.

However, all other Regional Offices expressed varying degrees

of concern about allowing any source to take synthetic minor

limits at any time, for any reason. The concerns are

described below, followed by suggestions for addressing these

concerns while still encouraging existing MACT sources to

take actions towards pollution prevention. Our comments are

organized as follows:

Health and Emissions Concerns

1. Reversal of Position with Inadequate Justification

The May 16, 1995, Seitz memo regarding potential to emit

for MACT standards states: EPA believes that this once in,

always in policy follows most naturally from the language and

structure of the statute. In many cases, application of MACT

will reduce a major emitter's emissions to levels

substantially below the major thresholds. Without a once in,

always in policy, these facilities could ``backslide'' from

MACT control levels by obtaining potential-to-emit limits,

escaping applicability of the MACT standard, and increasing

emissions to the major-source threshold (10/25 tons per

year).

Thus, the maximum achievable emissions reductions that

Congress mandated for major sources would not be achieved. A

once in, always in policy ensures that MACT emissions

reductions are permanent, and that the health and

environmental protection provided by MACT standards is not

undermined. (See page 9)

Elsewhere, the Seitz memo states: In the absence of a

rulemaking record supporting a different result, EPA believes

that once a source is required to install controls or take

other measures to comply with a MACT standard, it should not

be able to substitute different controls of measures that

happen to bring the source below major source levels. (See

page 5)

While it is true that policy is not set in stone, and that

policy decisions may be reversed, the preamble, as currently

drafted, does not set forth an adequate rulemaking record to

justify this drastic change in interpretation. In 1995, EPA

believed that the OIAI policy follows ``most naturally'' from

the language and structure of the statute, and that allowing

facilities to backslide would undermine the maximum

achievable emissions reductions mandated by Congress. Now, in

2005, EPA is claiming that ``there is nothing in the statute

which compels the conclusion that a source cannot attain area

source status after the first compliance date of a MACT

standard'' (see page 15 of the draft proposed changes). In

order to provide an adequate rulemaking record, the preamble

should more clearly articulate why EPA no longer believes

that the OIAI policy flows naturally from the statute.

2. Increased HAP Emissions Resulting from Abandoning MACT

Control Levels

The Clean Air Act requires the maximum degree of reduction

in emissions of HAPs from sources subject to the MACT

standards. The reductions anticipated through the MACT

program will not be achieved through the strategy described

in the draft rule proposal. A key concern is that the draft

proposal allows facilities to obtain synthetic minor permits

after the MACT standard compliance date by taking potentially

less protective requirements than the MACT standard would

otherwise require them to install. The proposal, as written,

would be detrimental to the environment and undermine the

intent of the MACT program.

Many MACT standards require affected facilities to reduce

their HAP levels at a control efficiency of 95% and higher.

In many instances, the MACT requirements could lead to

greater reductions when compared to sources accepting

synthetic minor limits of 24 tons per year (tpy) for a

combination of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. Clearly, the

intent in promulgating MACT standards was to reduce emissions

to the extent feasible, not just to the minor source level.

However, under the current draft proposal, the reductions

that were intended to be achieved through the MACT standards

would be offset by synthetic minor limits that allow sources

to emit HAPs at levels higher than those allowed by the MACT

standard. The cost of the increased HAP emissions would be

borne by the communities surrounding the sources. On pages 15

and 16 of the draft preamble, EPA states:

``A concern has been raised that sources that are currently

well below the major source threshold will increase emissions

to a point just below the threshold. We believe these

concerns are unfounded. While this may occur in some

instances, it is more likely that sources will adopt PTE

limitations at or near their current levels to avoid negative

publicity and to maintain their appearance as responsible

businesses.''

This statement is unfounded and overly optimistic. Regional

experience indicates that sources requesting synthetic minor

limits to avoid a MACT standard typicaI1y request, and are

frequently given, limits of at least 24 tpy for a combination

of HAPs and 9 tpy for a single HAP. The Regional Offices

anticipate that many sources would take limits less stringent

than MACT requirements, if allowed. Thus, the cumulative

impact of many ``area'' sources whose status is derived after

the MACT compliance date could be significant. This change in

policy would offset the intended environmental benefits of

the MACT standards. Although the draft changes could serve to

alleviate some possible inequity under the current OIAI

policy, or encourage some sources to further reduce emissions

to achieve area source status, EPA should look closely at

this issue to determine whether the likely benefits would be

greater than the potential environmental costs. This analysis

should occur before the proposal is put forth for public

comment. One Region suggested that EPA should not enact a

policy allowing facilities to qualify out of the MACT

standards until a strong area source toxics program is in

place, or until state, local and tribal air quality agencies

have programs that can provide an equivalent level of

protection.

A related concern with regard to the draft changes as

written is that a facility, by changing from a major source

to an area source, and back again, could virtually avoid

regulation and greatly complicate any enforcement against

them. Take, for example, a facility that is covered by a MACT

standard, and has three years from the date that the rule is

promulgated to come into compliance. Three years go by, and

just before the end of that time period, the facility

announces its area source status. If an area source

regulation exists, there may also be some equivalent waiting

period before the facility is required to comply with the

area source requirements. If the facility later announces

that it is, after all, a major source, then it may again

enter a grace period, possibly up to another 3 years, before

it is subject to the MACT standard requirements. Thus, by

continually going back and forth between major and area

source status, a facility could be a major source for most of

its operating life and never have to comply with the MACT

standard requirements. The 1995 OIAI policy recognizes this

and states, ``The EPA believes the structure of section 112

strongly suggests certain outer limits for when a source may

avoid a standard through a limit on its potential to emit.''

This type of problem must be addressed if the OIAI policy is

changed.

Michael S. Bandrowski,

Chief, Air Toxics, Radiation and Indoor Air Office, Region

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor today for me to pay tribute to Mr. Jack Valenti. As it has been said, by age 15, he was the youngest high school graduate in Houston. He began work as an office boy with the Humble Oil Company, which is now Exxon Mobil, which is near my congressional district.

As a young pilot in the Army Air Corps in World War II, Lieutenant Valenti flew 51 combat missions as the pilot commander of a B-25 attack bomber with the 12th Air Force in Italy. He graduated with a B.A. from the University of Houston and an M.B.A. from Harvard. In 1952, he cofounded the advertising and political consulting agency, Weekly & Valenti, which was in charge of press during President Kennedy's and Vice President Johnson's tragic visit to Texas. He was in the motorcade, six cars behind the President, in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Within an hour of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mr. Valenti was aboard Air Force One flying back to Washington with the new President as the first newly hired special assistant to President Johnson.

Later in his position as President and Chief Executive Officer of the MPAA, Mr. Valenti presided over tremendous worldwide change in the industry. New technologies, the arrival of the importance of international markets and the tyranny of piracy radically changed the landscape of the American film and television industry. It was Mr. Valenti's leadership and personal efforts that led the confrontation with these global dangers, problems and opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, our communities and our country have always relied on the contributions of those individuals who have the ability to rise above and beyond the call of duty to make a difference in the lives of others, both personally and professionally. Jack Valenti was one of those rare individuals that demonstrated unfailing and tireless commitment to the betterment of the U.S. movie industry and the entire Nation.

Mr. Speaker, though our community is diminished by his loss, I ask that my

colleagues join me and his friends and his family in celebrating the remarkable life of this man who truly symbolized America at its best, Jack Valenti, a true and loyal Texan.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor U.N. World Refugee Day. Some 40 million people worldwide are uprooted by violence and persecution.

It is likely that in the future we will see even more people on the run--as a growing number of push factors compound one another to create conditions for further forced displacement.

People do not just flee persecution and war but also injustice, exclusion, environmental pressures, competition for scarce resources and all the miserable human consequences of dysfunctional states. We need to rise together to advocate for the plight of refugees.

We need to raise global awareness to remedy the conditions for which people are forced to leave their homes and become refugees.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone that was achieved by the oldest and largest peace and justice organization in north Texas. This year the Dallas Peace Center will celebrate its 25th anniversary.

The Dallas Peace Center is based on a vision of reconciliation to promote education, dialogue, and action for peace and justice. Along with other contributions, the Dallas Peace Center hosts forums and conferences advocating for peace in America and the world. Moreover, the center hosts community service initiatives that help promote justice in the north Texas area. The heart of the Dallas Peace Center reaches well beyond its members through its dedication and commitment to the community.

The Dallas Peace Center also meets with other organizations that promote peace including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Amnesty International. The center hosts free workshops and book club meetings so that members and non-members can learn about pertinent subject areas.

This year, the Dallas Peace Center is supporting the upcoming 3rd Women's International Peace Conference, which will bring women leaders from across the world to Dallas to engage in dialogue leading to peace.

On behalf of the 30th Congressional District of Texas, I am elated to congratulate such an invaluable asset to the Dallas community on its 25th anniversary. I thank the members of this center on their dedicated service to Dallas and the great State of Texas and I wish them many more years of prosperity.

Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize a landmark that was achieved by an organization that addresses critical issues of hunger in the north Texas area by securing wholesome foods and grocery products for distribution through a network of charitable organizations. This year the North Texas Food Bank will celebrate the completion of its Oak Cliff warehouse project in time for its 25th anniversary.

The North Texas Food Bank was founded in 1982 and in the first year of operation the food bank distributed 400,000 pounds of food. The food bank is committed to serving the community and has continuously done so by reaching out to all of Texas and the entire Nation.

Recently, the food bank completed an extraordinary renovation and will now be able to store and distribute more food within its 72,000 square foot facility. The food bank is now equipped with an entirely new shelving system, two large freezers and a refrigerator that can hold 400 pallets of food.

Even during all of the reconstruction, which took more than a year, the food bank continued its commitment to food distribution. With the new renovation, the food bank has the capacity to move 50-55 million pounds of food through the warehouse and bring the community into the warehouse.

I am delighted to congratulate the North Texas Food Bank on its 25th anniversary and expansion. The North Texas Food Bank is an important asset to the Dallas area, and their dedication and hard work is seen throughout our community. I would like to thank Jan Pruitt, the Chief Executive Officer, the volunteers and members of the North Texas Food Bank on their dedicated service to the Dallas community and I wish them many more years of success.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee--Congressman Edwards, Chairman Obey, and my colleagues for passing the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations for FY 2008.

This bill is the largest increase in veterans funding in the 77-year history of the Veterans Administration.

As a result, this measure supports high priority programs such as Homeless Veterans Care, Mental Health Care, and Long-Term Care.

As a former psychiatric nurse at the Dallas Veterans Administration Hospital, I know firsthand the disparities contributed by lack of funding.

I am particularly pleased to see the bill provides increased funding for homeless veterans programs, three centers for Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to become fully operational this year. It also matches the VA's request to fund programs for minority contractor procurement and streamlines the VA billing system.

The Dallas VA has been a leader in outreach to homeless veterans, who comprise almost a fourth of the homeless adults in the Nation.

The North Texas VA Health Care System in Dallas was the first to establish a comprehensive homeless program, which helps homeless veterans with mental and physical illnesses. Dallas is one of eight cities in the country with a veteran's homelessness program targeted towards women.

I am also pleased with the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY 08 funding because it includes funds for mental health centers. I have continually advocated for increased access to mental health care by returning veterans through the science committee.

This bill also grants the Veterans Administration request for administrative functions, including operation of Veterans Administration Medical Centers, quality of care oversight, informational technology--hardware and software, legal services, billing, coding activities, and procurement.

Funding for administrative functions is especially important to decreasing claims backlog for veterans waiting for disability and other benefits by adding more than 1,100 new claims processors. The funding also makes five polytrauma centers and three Centers of Excellence for Mental Health and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) fully operational this year. These centers will afford care for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Subsequently, sufficient funding for procurement and billing activities is in particular important to Dallas, since the Dallas Veterans Administration actively encourages large businesses to partner with small businesses through subcontracting plans.

This bill makes available resources to support military construction projects and ensures America's servicemen and women have more effective training facilities, and better housing, health care and day care facilities. I would like to take this opportunity to once again commend my colleagues, Congressman Edwards and Chairman Obey for providing a comprehensive Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations for FY 2008 possible.

Offered By: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Amendment No. 7: Page 111, after line 17, insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support a comprehensive program of embryonic stem cell research.

In my 14 years with the Committee on Science and Technology, I have exhibited a firm and consistent commitment to scientific research. That includes stem cell research.

Nearly all of the scientific societies are strong supporters of this legislation, and many have contacted me urging support of S. 5. The bill supports the development of techniques to derive stem cells from non-embryo sources for the improved understanding of and treatments for diseases.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that will enable critically important, ethical stem cell research. The President vetoed such legislation in the past, and I hope that he will listen to the majority of Americans and support this measure.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the ``Welcome Home a Hero'' program at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The ``Welcome Home a Hero'' program is a daily gathering of volunteers to celebrate the homecoming of soldiers returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. This program is one of the Nation's foremost morale builders for our troops with over 150 civic organizations, governmental departments, and businesses volunteering during its 3-year tenure. This tremendous effort has made the ``Welcome Home a Hero'' program one of the largest ongoing community service efforts in north Texas. These committed volunteers have given of their time so that our troops, as well as their families, can see how proud we are as a community, and as a nation, of their service and sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, the north Texans that participate in the ``Welcome Home a Hero'' program are the first people the troops see upon their return to the United States, and they speak on behalf of all Americans in thanking them and celebrating the safe return of each soldier. On June 12, 2007, the 500,000th soldier will come home for a well-deserved 2

weeks of rest and recuperation, and I am proud to share that the ``Welcome Home a Hero'' program at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport has been selected by the U.S. Military to host this celebration. I extend my personal gratitude to the program's volunteers for their efforts in supporting our dedicated men and women in uniform who are proudly serving our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I am indeed honored to pause and pay tribute to these wonderful volunteers and valiant soldiers who represent the very best of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 421.

This resolution recognizes the brave ``Mercury 13'' women who in the early 1960s undertook the human exploration of space.

The members of the ``Mercury 13'' include Myrtle Cagle, Geraldyn ``Jerrie'' Cobb, Jan Dietrich, Marion Dietrich, Mary Wallace ``Wally'' Funk, Jane Briggs Hart, Jean Hixson, Gene Nora Stumbough Jessen, Irene Leverton, Sarah Lee Gorelick Ratley, Bernice Trimble Steadman, Geraldine ``Jerri'' Sloan Truhill, and Rhea Hurrle Allison Woltman.

The ``Mercury 13'' women successfully passed the same physical and psychological tests as those of their male counterparts, the ``Mercury 7.''

Just before leaving for the next phase of training at the Naval Aviation Center in Pensacola, Florida, they were told not to come.

In 1961, their efforts marked a milestone in American history and these women paved the way for those who would follow in their footsteps.

The Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas has been the leading NASA center for more than 40 years and continues to encourage women to participate in the area of space exploration.

H. Res. 421 is an important way to help young women understand the importance of space and science.

As of today, there have been 34 women in space, and although this is a great accomplishment, there should be more.

It is my hope that this resolution encourages girls to pursue what they may feel is impossible.

The ``Mercury 13'' continue to inspire women of all ages to go above and beyond, so that they can fulfill their dreams. The sacrifices of these women deserve to be honored.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 446, honoring the life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra and expressing condolences on his passing.

Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra was a member of the Mercury 7, who were named by NASA in April of 1959.

He piloted the six orbit Sigma 7 Mercury flight, the Gemini 6 flight and was Command Pilot on the Apollo VII.

Walter Schirra became the first man to fly in space three times after being pilot of the Apollo VII. Schirra received numerous awards and honors while being a member of NASA. Schirra logged more than 295 hours in space.

After he left NASA in 1969, he worked as a television commentator during the Apollo moon landings, was an engineering consultant and worked on corporate boards.

Not only was Walter Schirra an astronaut, but he was an advocate for students who want to pursue careers in science and engineering.

He helped to found the Mercury Seven Foundation, which creates college scholarships for engineering and science students.

The passing of Walter Schirra has been a huge loss to the space community and America as a whole.

His contributions will never be forgotten, and he leaves a strong legacy of bravery and service. I urge support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1467, the 10,000 Trained by 2010 Act.

The bill requires the National Science Foundation to award competitive grants for research to improve health care information systems.

As our health care information moves from paper to computer-based storage methods, it becomes increasingly important to develop systematic methods for organizing and sharing biomedical information.

Digital medical records must be transferable, and above all, patient confidentiality must be ensured.

H.R. 1467 would fund scientific and engineering activities to improve education in the health care information fields. The funding would be used to develop innovative approaches in health care information; and help students earn advanced degrees in these fields.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would promote technologies that will save us taxpayer dollars over the long term. I urge my colleagues to support