Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, the Fifth District of Florida that I represent is made up of people from around the United States and the world. With perfect weather, low taxes and friendly residents, it is one of the fastest growing areas of the country. As you might expect, one of the cultural groups that have flocked to Florida for the last several generations are German Americans, many from my former State of New York. On Sunday, November 18, 2007, the German American Club of Spring Hill, Florida will celebrate its 25th anniversary with a dinner and dance extravaganza.

The club, founded in 1982, was organized by Friedel Rohn, along with Christa and Fritz Neumann. The first social meeting was held at the home of Friedel Rohn in January 1982 with 10 people present. The first ``official'' meeting was held in June 1982 with 22 members present. Today there are nearly 300 members and the club is still growing strong.

The first officers installed were Friedel Rohn as president, Margarethe Grabert as vice-president, Norman Armonat as treasurer and Ruth Hughes as secretary. By March of 1983, the membership had increased to 60 members. The club began hosting many functions and socials throughout the year, including its own Oktoberfest. As the years passed, more dances and social events were added to the calendar and the membership continued to increase.

In 1992, when the club celebrated its 10th anniversary, the club had grown to over 170 members. In 2002, the club's 20th anniversary was celebrated with a membership that had increased to over 235. Today the 25th anniversary will feature 285 members, with room to grow for the future. Having attended several of their club functions, I can tell you that German American Club members stayed true to their roots and know how to cook a delicious schnitzel and dance to a great polka tune.

Madam Speaker, over the past 25 years the German American Club of Spring Hill has worked to uphold the German culture, spirit, tradition and heritage. The club's members and officers have made Spring Hill and Hernando County a true home to German Americans from around the world, and are to be commended for their commitment and dedication. With the continued support of their membership and officers, I look forward to help the club celebrate their next 25 years.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.

The bill that we have before us today is one that is not just about Florida. The bill that is before us today is about the availability of any State being able to participate if they form a catastrophic fund in their State. Whether it is hurricanes in Florida or earthquakes or perhaps wildfires in California, whatever the State wants to cover in their catastrophic fund is what would be covered.

Let me point out also that this is purely voluntary. This isn't mandatory. We are not mandating States to participate. We are encouraging States to be responsible. Sometimes we tend to, especially at the Federal level, we tend to wait until something happens

and then we react. Well, we all remember how many hurricanes hit, Hurricane Katrina, but other hurricanes also in 2005.

As a matter of fact, in 2005, the Federal taxpayer alone paid $89.6 billion in post-disaster assistance. That is post disaster. That is after the fact. Wouldn't it be better to encourage States with some Federal backstop to work to have a plan there to plan and have the availability of a catastrophic fund?

I have served on the Financial Services Committee now, this is my third term. I have spent 5 years on the Financial Services Committee. I want to thank the gentleman who just walked in, Chairman Barney Frank, who has worked in a very bipartisan manner to help get this bill in the form that it is today. Later we will be seeing the manager's amendment. I certainly want to thank Representatives Klein and Mahoney and their great staffs and also Annie Woeber from my staff, who I think lives, eats, drinks and breathes this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, for too long, Congress has taken a reserved and reactionary approach to helping victims of disasters. For too long, Members have fallen back on a naive notion that a national plan would only put taxpayers at risk. We have refused to admit that in the event of a natural disaster, we either pay now or we pay later, and paying later is a whole lot more expensive.

Please consider this: in 2005 the insurance industry, not the taxpayers, paid out $61.2 billion for the 24 disasters that occurred that year; $40 billion of that went to the insured losses of Hurricane Katrina. That same year, Congress, using taxpayer dollars, awarded over $89 billion in post-disaster assistance, $89 billion that will never be recouped, that came from hardworking constituents from Illinois, for example, from my colleague who offered the amendment before, from West Virginia, from the State of the lady who is handling the bill on this side. Unless these constituents were directly affected by these events, they will never see a return of those dollars that the Federal Government provided. What is the lesson here? When Congress pays later, it's with taxpayer money that's never paid back.

For the first time, this bill and the manager's amendment provide a national plan to protect against losses. H.R. 3355 provides incentives to States to join a national consortium to issue catastrophic bonds. These bonds act as an alternative to costly reinsurance. It also provides some loans to the States that take the time to plan for their insured needs.

The amendment that we have at the desk today also relates to when a natural disaster strikes. How many natural disasters have we heard about, whether it's a tremendous snowstorm in the Northeast, whether it's a hurricane, whether it's an earthquake in California, where price gouging takes effect?

My amendment says, in order to qualify for the loans and Federal catastrophe fund under the bill, the various States would have to establish anti-price gouging laws for post-event materials, that's goods and materials that people need after a catastrophe. The amendment defines price-gouging as a supplier charging a price he knows is greater post-event than he charged pre-event, notwithstanding any reasonable business increases.

Certainly, this kind of an amendment would help stem the double- whammy of a natural disaster. You might, for example, have your home damaged, and then when someone comes in to put a blue tarp on the roof, the price is outrageous, or even the delivery of goods and services after such a disaster. We need to protect homeowners from people who would rip them off, people who are simply trying to rebuild their lives after such an event.

I urge the Members to support the anti-price gouging amendment that is before us today.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Klein of Florida to the Amendment Offered by

Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman from Florida, with whom I have worked so closely on this issue, and I obviously disagree. We disagree because I would like to have this as absolutely a mandatory part of participation, and he would prefer to have it as a suggestion.

I still believe that we need to make this mandatory. It's like, you know, somebody once said, the Ten Commandments are now a suggestion, they're not commandments. I don't want to just suggest it; I want to make sure that the price-gouging language is strong so that we do protect people at that time of a natural disaster.

Most States do have good price-gouging laws already on the books. I'm not very happy with the term ``encourage.'' I think we need to mandate this as part of the process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I am very fond of the gentleman from Connecticut, and I know his heart is in the right place. He has been very supportive of many of the things that are proposed in this Chamber, and on many, many issues we agree; however, this is an issue that we do not agree on.

Study, study, study. Let's just study it again. That is what Congress has done for so many issues for so many years. Another colleague of ours, Jo Ann Emerson, came to Congress a little over 10 years ago taking her husband's place in Congress. He had passed away. The reason I mention this is her husband chaired a study group on this very subject in 1995 or 1996. How much longer do people have to believe that Congress is going to do nothing other than create another bound study that is going to sit on somebody's bookshelf someplace and not accomplish one darn thing? This isn't just about Florida. It is about every State that faces natural catastrophes. It is about finally having a solution.

The gentleman from Connecticut was elected to serve in the House. Quite honestly, there are many times when, on this very floor, we all say, I don't care what the Senate is going to do. Well, it just so happens that a bill recently was introduced, very similar to this bill, by Senator Nelson and a neighbor of the gentleman from Connecticut, Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton, so there is a companion bill over in the other House. While that companion bill is not bipartisan, it is some movement. It is acknowledgement to the people out there who are paying outrageous insurance rates that Congress is finally stepping up and doing something and not just creating another study killing who knows how many trees. I know the gentleman from Connecticut is an environmentalist. I would think he would want to save a few trees.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman's amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am very much opposed to the motion to recommit.

States have comprehensive plans controlling development. What States don't want is the Federal Government telling them what to do. There are excellent new building requirements, new building codes that are in place to ensure that anything that has been built since 1990 is built to much stronger standards.

On the insurance costs: let's face it, ladies and gentlemen, if this bill doesn't pass and a catastrophe happens, the first thing that will be the bill du jour is to bail out California if there is an earthquake, Florida if there is a hurricane, or any other State where tornadoes hit down. If you voted for TRIA because it was the right thing to do to stabilize the reinsurance market for terrorism insurance, then you should vote for the bill and against the motion to recommit. This is an attempt to stabilize the insurance market; it is not an attempt to take over the insurance market.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the rule that we have before us today. Primarily, I'm opposed to the measure's unclear wording that could easily lead to wide-ranging and serious consequences.

This bill would prohibit discrimination, which is a good thing, on extremely hard-to-define measures such as an individual's perceived characteristics. I think it's the perception and the ``perceived'' language in here that is very troubling to me as a former small business owner with up to 15 employees. It would be impossible for employers to operate a business while having to worry about being accused of mistreating someone based on the employee's ``perceived characteristics.'' This ill-conceived, vague language is nothing more than a golden ticket for America's trial lawyers. This loose wording is also an invitation for accusations by disgruntled employees who want to take advantage of a poorly constructed law.

Like all of my colleagues, I believe congressional policies should strive to promote a tolerant society. I believe many Members, including myself, would vote for it without the ``perception'' language in it.

The gentleman from Massachusetts spoke before very eloquently, as he always does, and he said, our laws should not say that gay people are bad people. That's not what this bill says, nor has any bill that has come before us ever said that. When people that I come in contact with begin to disparage individuals who may be gay, I point out to them that, you know, you don't know whether your Aunt Jen, our son Bill, your grandson Paul or your granddaughter may be gay, so it's inappropriate.

You know, it's inappropriate to make disparaging comments about anyone who is gay because people really don't know the people around them, whether they are or whether they're not, and it's really none of their business.

However, when that quest for intolerance in this bill leads us to costly and irresponsible ends, I think we must rethink the legislation. At a time when America faces so many challenges, the last thing Congress needs to be doing is finding a way to hand trial lawyers an avalanche of litigation to cash in on. I urge my colleagues to oppose this poorly drafted legislation. Let's go back to the drafting board with this.

Offered By: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

Amendment No. 12: Page 22, line 11, strike ``and''.

Page 22, after line 17 insert the following new

subparagraph:

(F) prohibit price gouging in any disaster area located

within the State; and

Page 24, after line 3 insert the following new paragraph:

(3) Price gouging.--The term ``price gouging'' means the

providing of any consumer good or service by a supplier

related to repair or restoration of property damaged from a

catastrophe for a price that the supplier knows or has reason

to know is greater, by at least the percentage set forth in a

State law or regulation prohibiting such act (not

withstanding any real cost increase due to any attendant

business risk and other reasonable expenses that result from

the major catastrophe involved), than the price charged by

the supplier for such consumer good or service immediately

before the disaster.

Page 24, line 4, redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph

(4).

Page 24, line 8, redesignate paragraph (4) as paragraph

(5).

Page 24, line 10, redesignate paragraph (5) as paragraph

(6).

Madam Speaker, throughout America, small businesses and entrepreneurs work each day

to help our nation prosper. One of these companies, R.J. Nathe & Sons of Dade City, Florida is celebrating their fiftieth anniversary this year. As one of the outstanding corporate citizens in Pasco County, the Nathe family deserves recognition for fifty years of giving back to the community.

In October of 1957, cousins R.J. Nathe and Walter Gude decided to go into the land clearing business, naming the company Nathe and Gude Landclering. Using an initial family loan to start the company, the cousins went out and put a down payment on two used bulldozers and two old pickup trucks. Reaching out to the growing citrus crop industry in Central Florida, they had plenty of proposed work until a bad freeze stopped their growing business in its tracks.

Once the cousins got back on their feet, they soon realized that while land clearing would make them money, the real business potential came from logging the timber that came off of the land they cleared. Over the years the business diversified even further to include extensive cattle and citrus operations.

When they incorporated the firm in 1980, the cousins decided to shorten the name to Nathe & Gude, Inc. in 1993 the Nathe family split with Gude, allowing Gude to take the cattle operation and the Nathe family keeping the original logging and land clearing part. The following year J.R. brought his five sons into the business and changed the name to R.J. Nathe & Sons, Inc. A very important part of the growing business is J.R.'s wife, Patsy, who keeps everyone coordinated and productive.

Over the years R.J. Nathe & Sons, Inc. has been recognized for its involvement in business and community actives. They have received numerous awards including Florida Logger of the Year in 1996, continuing on to win the Southeastern title and runner up for National Logger of the Year in 1997.

Along with timber harvesting and land clearing, Nathe & Sons now offers demolition and custom sawmilling. The business has strived to build strong customer relationships based on fairness, honesty and quality service. With a company motto of, ``Treating everyone's land as if our own,'' it is clear that Nathe & Sons has a commitment to customers that is necessary to maintain an outstanding reputation in the Dade City community. I congratulate Patsy and J.R. and the entire family on their first fifty years of service in Pasco County and look forward to working with them over the next fifty years.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of our Nation's veterans, more than 100,000 of whom live in my congressional district.

Madam Speaker, 138 days ago, 4\1/2\ months ago, this House passed the Veterans-MilCon appropriations bill; and 55 days ago, the Senate passed their version. Since that time the party in control, the Democrats, have sat on their hands refusing to appoint conferees and take action to fund our Nation's heroes. Leader Boehner has actually appointed conferees to the conference, and virtually every Republican Member has implored the Speaker to move forward. Our troops are too important to play political games.

Just this past week, I heard from a woman in my district whose son is being treated in the spinal cord injury unit down in Tampa. Let me share with you that she is not a Republican. She is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. Her comment to me was that she was ashamed that the increased appropriation that was in the very good bill that we passed here, she was ashamed that those funds have not yet been freed up.

October 1 was the beginning of the Federal year. We have veterans in need of services. We have veterans in need of increased staffing at the various hospitals. Combining these bills clearly is an effort to have people vote on something that will come back and be certainly not what the American public wanted.

You know, when your side won in November, Madam Speaker, I think Americans thought, oh, good, things will be done differently. They are not only not being done differently, they are being done worse than before. That is not what the American public wants.

The American public wants to have our military funded. They want to have our veterans, whether it is from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or those currently coming back from OIF and OEF, deserving to have good- quality care at the veterans hospitals. And to have that as a separate bill, not be held hostage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I was sitting in my office calling back some constituents. It was 7:30, and first of all, they were surprised to hear from any Member of Congress calling them back at 7:30, but I am sure everyone here in this chamber does exactly that. And I saw you coming here to inform the American public about the truth. It is long overdue.

Many of us in this Chamber had ads run against us. It was during that 2-week period after the President vetoed the bill. Now, we could have been working on a compromise, but no, there had to be time out there for the operatives to run nasty ads against people who voted to not override the President.

The President was right. This bill, the spending in the bill is out of control. It is out of control, and the American public started to catch on. Because when they started to attack me, you know, I have been called the mother of this bill. I wasn't in Congress at the time. But it was because I was willing to take that very difficult vote to allow for third-party reimbursement to come from the tobacco companies for health care costs that the money came from.

So, Dr. Price, your chart there on where the money is coming from is very, very interesting because, as you say, in 2013, if I am reading the chart correctly, that is where the funding drops off. Twenty-two million smokers would be needed to fund this program, which is far, far different from that originally envisioned and that which both sides of the aisle, the Democrats and the Republicans, worked on in 1997 to come up with the SCHIP bill.

So what exactly do we have in the bill that many of us voted against, many of us who fought long and hard for State children's health programs? What is in it? Well, it continues to allow adults to receive health care under various State SCHIP programs. It is interesting that it also will allow more illegals to participate in health care through the SCHIP program. That is not what our constituents wanted.

The Senate received a loud-and-clear message when America finally did wake up to what they were doing on the issue of illegal aliens. They virtually inundated the switchboard of the Senate. People do not want more magnets to attract illegal aliens here. But most of the State health plans, part of the pool of money that the various States got after going after the third-party reimbursement, part of that money was also for education and trying to get people to stop smoking. So isn't it interesting that with this hand we fund programs that are trying to get people to stop smoking, and yet we have a bill here that says, oh, come on, we need some more smokers to pay for this program.

One of the fallacies that people have finally in America begun to realize is that the program, the SCHIP program, was a great program. It should be renewed. It shouldn't be expanded. It should be renewed. And we need to reach out to those that the program hasn't already touched, those low-income children out there. It shouldn't have been, and it was never intended originally to be for adults. But, quite honestly, States gamed the system. And why did they do it? Because they could get 15 percent more funding from the Federal Government than they could with the traditional Medicaid program that adults go into.

In Florida alone, we have right now 62,000 children who should be eligible for KidCare, which is the State program, but they have not signed up for it. So before we go expanding it to middle-income kids, let's capture those children in Florida, and every other State, Dr. Price, every other State that has children who still are not covered by the program, the very, very good program. Many of us actually are on the bill that would be a simple extension. And many of us are cosponsors of that which allows the program to continue for 18 months.

I hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize what America really wants. They want this great program to continue for low-income children.

Dr. Price, I appreciate your being here tonight as part of the Truth Squad to bring this information to the American public.

Many of the State programs actually had that language in there so that we wouldn't crowd out those who already had insurance and encourage them to get into the program. Many of the States had subsidies, premium subsidies so that people could stay in a family program so you didn't have to have one doctor for perhaps your 12-year-old and another doctor for the mom and dad so that there could be a family, a true family doctor there because they all were covered by the same insurance company. The problem was over time many of the States stopped promoting that. So it was just easier to enroll the children in the State children's health program, and in Florida we call it KidCare. That is an excellent point you bring up.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chair, section 2(i) of the Small Business Act states that only those lawfully in the United States shall receive funds under the Act.

My amendment establishes a Small Business Liaison to ensure that section will be followed. That's what the amendment does. It mirrors language contained in my bill, H.R. 3496, which requires the liaison to work in tandem with the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement group.

Listen up, America. We are the land of opportunity, and small business owners make up the backbone of our economy. However, Congress cannot continue to encourage and foster small businesses in our Nation, if we are not making those here legally an actual priority.

This simple amendment will ensure that small business loans and grants are going to those who follow the immigration rules that we have in place. Therefore, I urge the Members of this body to support this amendment.

And I certainly want to thank the gentlelady from my former home State of New York for working with us on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to thank the chairwoman for her cooperation on this. I think the key word, the operative word, here is obviously ``accountability.'' And I think this amendment will help to improve an already good bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to offer my resolution on the House floor today, House Concurrent Resolution 230, supporting the observance of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

The effects of breast cancer have touched almost every American, whether through losing a loved one, as I did, or going through the pain of chemotherapy and a long recovery, as millions of individuals have done.

I introduced this resolution to support the breast cancer education and outreach efforts that have taken place this October. We all know that every 3 minutes, a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and that this is the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 15 and 54. However, if this disease is detected early, the breast cancer survival rate is 98 percent.

Congress must continue to promote breast cancer awareness and support efforts to defeat this disease. My resolution expresses support for the observation of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, which is this month of October. The resolution provides a special opportunity to offer education on the importance of monthly breast self-examinations and annual mammograms. My resolution also salutes the 2.4 million breast cancer survivors in the United States and the efforts of victims, volunteers and professionals who combat breast cancer every day.

Finally, this measure applauds the national and community organizations for their work in promoting awareness about breast cancer. A woman's risk for developing breast cancer increases if family members have a history of breast cancer, particularly at an early age. However, 85 percent of women who develop breast cancer have no known family history of the disease.

It cannot be stressed enough that early detection is the best chance for survival of a person who has a breast cancer diagnosis. Women must take care of their health and be aware of their risk factors, perform self-examinations and get annual checkups. While breast cancer predominately affects women, we are regularly reminded that a significant number of men are diagnosed with breast cancer each year.

My colleague, Ms. Baldwin, mentioned Jo Ann Davis. Jo Ann Davis certainly was a very, very brave lady who fought breast cancer. Actually, she fought it twice. She won the first time, and it came back. We all remember her in this Chamber and we remember her desire to make sure that a cure is found. If Jo Ann Davis were here today, she would not only vote in favor of this, but she also would be speaking on behalf of it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representative Baldwin and the 129 Members who co-signed this very important piece of legislation with me. I certainly urge all Members to support H. Con. Res. 230 to ensure that the House continues to bring awareness to this important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1010, I am not recorded because my card did not register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, each year the President of the United States presents the Presidential Award for Excellence in Science and Mathematics to outstanding teachers in the disciplines of math and science from the 50 States and 4 territories. This year, Patricia Tate from Lake County, FL, is one of the three math finalists for the award from the State of Florida.

Established in 1983, the Presidential Award for Excellence is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The award recognizes outstanding kindergarten to 12th grade math and science teachers in each State who are models for their colleagues and leaders in the improvement of science and mathematics education.

For the past 42 years Patricia Tate has taught math at the high school level. A current teacher at South Lake High School, she teaches AP Calculus, trigonometry, integrated Math III and Algebra II. In addition to her classroom experiences, Patricia goes out of her way to volunteer as a mentor for other Lake County math teachers. She has also been an online guide for Connected University and has taught at Lake- Sumter Community College.

An avid fan of math from an early age, Patricia really took it on as a passion while her older brother was in college. When he returned home during vacations, he would work with Patricia on math, challenging her to solve more and more complex problems. It was through these exercises that she saw the educational and teaching possibilities that math could create.

Patricia has seen a marked change in the way students are taught throughout her forty-plus years in the classroom. Instead of using the blackboard as the primary tool of instruction, as she did for many years, today Patricia uses multimedia presentations and PowerPoint presentations to reach the current tech-savvy student body. While the classroom experience has gotten more challenging over time, she still enjoys getting letters of appreciation from former students who valued her math teaching and want to thank her for making a difference in their lives.

While Patricia will not find out if she is a winner until next March, I can tell you that her record of accomplishment teaching math to high school students is unmatched in my congressional district. Patricia Tate serves as a role model for other teachers throughout Florida. I wish her the best of luck in the competition and hope that she continues her exemplary work on behalf of Lake County students.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to sometimes look back and see how we got to where we are.

On March 13, 1996, I was in the Florida Senate. I pulled up an old newspaper article that talked about ``the million-dollar team of tobacco lobbyists figured they had their votes yesterday to override the Governor of Florida. Then Senator Ginny Brown-Waite of rural Hernando County stood to address the chamber. Her vote was crucial to the tobacco companies who wanted to scuttle Florida's tough anti- tobacco law. They thought they had her. But they didn't know that in the last 26 years she had lost her mother, father and sister, all smokers, to cancer.''

I stood up and said, and it's quoted in here:

`` `I can't sit here any longer and play the tobacco game,' Brown- Waite said in a hushed emotional voice. `I was awake all last night laboring over this.' ''

``Minutes later, pro-tobacco forces withdrew their motion.''

Ladies and gentlemen, the reason I am bringing this up is this is where the money came from for the original SCHIP bill. It was because of overturning that vote and other States then followed to go after the tobacco companies for funds for third-party reimbursement. That's where the money came from for the SCHIP program. I was proud of that vote. I was very, very proud of that vote. I think the tobacco companies, for a long time, lied to the American public.

So after that, that was in 1996, after that, in 1997 Congress created the SCHIP bill. Great use of the tobacco litigation third-party reimbursement money. Great, great use for it. In Florida we created our own program from it.

But what we have here today is kind of what a farmer in my district once told me. He said, You can take horse manure and roll it in powdered sugar and it doesn't make it a doughnut. That, ladies and gentlemen, I think is kind of what we have here today.

It's a magnet for illegal aliens. We have income disregards in here that will encourage States to disregard anything at all. There are no guidelines. They can disregard any form of income, child support, child care costs, anything that they want to get to that 300 percent of poverty level.

This is not about supporting the President and the override. Lord only knows, this President knows he can not rely on my vote because I have stood in this Chamber and voted to override his veto of the stem cell bill. I disagreed with him on many, many issues.

Madam Speaker is absolutely right. This is about the children. Like her, I'm a mother and a grandmother. Wasn't it interesting that she couldn't use the word illegal. It was undocumented. Whether she prefers to call

them undocumented or illegal, this is a magnet which will draw even more people illegally, I don't have a problem using that word, illegally into our country.

If children really are what my friends on the other side of the aisle care about, then why did they hold up this vote for 2 weeks? Now kids, on November 16, unless we can really, really compromise, they will be without health care. I think that is cruel. I think we need to get serious.

I told Majority Leader Hoyer this morning that this bill is just so outrageous. I almost wish I could turn back the clock and change my vote. I never thought I would say that. I absolutely, Mr. Speaker, never thought I would say that. I was very proud of that vote.

We need to make sure that we do cover kids and that we get serious about seriously negotiating a good bill, not a bill called a doughnut.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This very important bill will play a key role in protecting our homeland.

As events abroad have taught us all too frequently, homegrown extremists and terrorists pose a serious and deadly threat to the general population. The recent attacks in Great Britain, as well as the foiled plot in Germany, prove that we must prevent the spread of violent radicalization within our own borders. They do it there; we certainly need to do more here.

Here at home our intelligence and law enforcement officials have done an exceptional job of keeping America safe from such threats. Over the last 1\1/2\ years, we have seen plots against the Sears Tower in Chicago, Ft. Dix in New Jersey, and JFK Airport foiled by our Nation's vigilant network of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

The bill before us will serve to strengthen those homeland defense efforts by preventing ideologies that promote violence and terrorism from taking root in American soil.

We know that al Qaeda seeks to spread their evil philosophy everywhere, even into the minds of our own U.S. citizens. To combat radical Muslim extremists' ceaseless efforts at expansion, this bipartisan bill will create a commission to study violent radicalization and work with all levels of government both here and abroad to examine strategies to deal with this phenomena. This bill has an estimated cost of approximately $20 million. This number pales in comparison to the cost in human suffering and economic devastation a homegrown terrorist attack might bring.

As Americans, we must never give up fighting the forces of hate and violence espoused by al Qaeda, and I believe this bill is a valuable weapon in that struggle. I commend the chairwoman and Ranking Member Reichert for their tenacity in bringing this bill to the floor, and I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my overwhelming support for H.R. 327. This bill addresses a glaring need for mental health support at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Medical personnel easily identify and treat physical injuries related to combat. However, more difficult to identify are those brave men and women that bear the mental scars of war. Posttraumatic stress disorder is a very real and potentially deadly condition if not properly treated.

The reality is we as a Nation ask a great deal of the men and women who serve in our Armed Forces. They deal with extreme conditions, heavy body armor and separation from their families. In addition, these soldiers are constantly looking over their shoulders not knowing when or where the next attack or IED will come from. Many times, they witness firsthand the deaths of those they serve beside.

Under these extreme conditions, it is no wonder that those who have served so bravely come home and find it very difficult to put these experiences behind them. PTSD is gaining more attention, and rightly so.

As a member of the House Veterans Affairs' Committee, we are seeing more servicemembers returning home with these types of stress disorders. If not properly treated, those suffering from PTSD may turn to drugs or alcohol to cope. Some may even take their life.

That is why the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act is such an important piece of legislation. It ensures when a veteran is having trouble with any mental illness they have a place to turn. It ensures that at each VA medical facility there is a designated suicide prevention counselor who will engage in community outreach to veterans and improve the coordination of mental health services.

The bill also makes available mental health care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is also a toll-free hotline for veterans staffed by appropriate mental health personnel.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 327 provides a necessary service to our Nation's veterans, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this measure.