Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, for 10 days, moms, dads, and grandparents have been lying awake at night, waiting for the inevitable warning call of sirens to pick up their children and run to the nearest bomb shelter.

No one should live with this type of fear. No one should live with the fear that missiles could rain down and destroy their homes and lives at any moment. Yet, this is the reality that many Israeli families are living right now.

For 10 days, Israel has been defending itself from attacks launched by Iranian-backed terrorists. Let's be clear: Israel has the right to defend herself and its homeland from terrorist attacks.

Israel is one of the United States' greatest allies in the Middle East, and we cannot waver in our support of Israel during this challenging time.

Today, I am standing with the people of Israel, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

My hope is that peace and calm can quickly be restored in the region. Until that happens, we must continue standing in solidarity with the Nation of Israel and its people.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to stand against our enemy. To clarify, our enemy isn't the President or the President- elect.

Fear is our enemy. Fear tells us what we want to hear. It incites anger and violence and fire, but it also haunts us into silence and inaction.

What are you afraid of? I am afraid of what people will say or think. I am afraid of being devalued. I am not afraid of losing my job, but I am afraid that my country will fail. I am afraid patriots of this country have died in vain. I am afraid my children won't grow up in a free country. I am afraid injustice will prevail.

But truth, truth sets us free from fear. Truth doesn't guarantee bad things won't happen, but it does promise to always prevail in the end. It has no shadows where darkness can hide. With truth comes love, and we could use that right now.

My vote to impeach our sitting President is not a fear-based decision. I am not choosing a side; I am choosing truth. It is the only way to defeat fear.

Madam Speaker, is this a country, is this an America that we want to give to our children, a country of lawlessness, of might makes right, of mob rule?

Previous generations of Americans have laid down their lives to answer ``no'' to that question. I do not want to be the first generation of Americans so selfish as to answer ``yes.'' Nothing is more important to me than preserving this constitutional Republic as a Representative.

Article II of the Constitution states: ``Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors,'' meaning that it is the duty of the State legislatures to select their electors in a manner they stipulate. It is right here.

The Founders of our Republic did not want to federalize elections, which is why they reserved the selection of electors to the State legislatures.

Historically, when Congress intervened in the electoral process, it was in the Civil War. It was when States were sending multiple slates of electors. But that is not the case today.

Of the six States actively being contested, five have Republican legislatures; five are controlled by one party; five have the authority to get together and to vote to change the elector that they sent to us.

How many of the six did? Not one.

Pennsylvania did not get together and vote as a body and send us a new slate of electors. They did not send us a bill or a resolution citing injustice at the State level.

None of them.

Are they cowards? Do they not know the Constitution? Have they not read

it, like you and I? Or are they merely passing the buck?

Here is the reality. Look, I believe this was not a fraud-free election. I believe that there were problems in Pennsylvania and in Georgia. But the Constitution gives us the right to fix that at the State level, not throw out the electoral college. We do not want to absolve the responsibility of the people in those States to hold their own lawmakers accountable.

I, as a Washington State Congresswoman, don't know better than the people in Pennsylvania and Georgia.

Folks, we can't vote to undermine the electoral college today. We have to uphold it.

Mr. Speaker, I supported H.R. 91, the Columbia River In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites Improvement Act, because it is important and necessary for the in-lieu fishing sites along the Columbia River to be properly maintained, safe and sanitary for tribal use. These sites, which are federally controlled, were set aside by Congress to provide fishing access to tribal fishermen whose traditional fishing grounds were displaced after the construction of dams on the Columbia River. Because these sites are federally maintained, the bill's authorization is necessary to assess the sanitation and safety in order to improve these sites tribal use. This bill, however, does not make any determination of the sites' boundaries nor should it be interpreted as doing so, but should only be taken to ensure tribes have access to traditional fishing areas on the Columbia River by the four Columbia River Treaty tribes.

Mr. Chair, I've been a strong supporter of VAWA, consistent with my vote to advance this important bill to assist victims of domestic abuse. However, H.R. 1585 in its current form is not perfect and I have serious outstanding concerns with the provisions relating to Second Amendment protections. I urge my colleagues to work in a bipartisan effort to address these concerns so

we can have a final bill that respects Americans' constitutional rights.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, February 25, 2019 I am not recorded on two votes because I was unavoidably detained due to weather impacting my commercial flight.

If I had been present, I would have voted: yes, on Roll Call 88 and on Roll Call 89.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to get to be here on this floor, and I get to share my story.

In mid-2013 my husband, Dan, and I went in for our 20-week ultrasound as excited first-time parents. We were not prepared for what we were told. We were told our unborn baby had a zero percent chance at survival. There were no kidneys. It was a condition called bilateral renal agenesis, or Potter's syndrome. As a result, our baby would either miscarry or be born unable to breathe because her lungs wouldn't develop. She would literally suffocate upon arrival if we brought her to term.

I, of course, was encouraged from physicians to abort my baby. While there are many reasons that lead women to make that decision, Dr. Jennifer Gunter, who is a women's health advocate, asserts that ``terminations after 24 weeks are for severe fetal anomalies.''

Now, our baby's diagnosis wasn't just severe; it was without any glimmer of hope. Being told that that wriggling, alive, kicking child in your stomach will certainly die doesn't just take the breath out of your lungs, it is like hell screaming in your face, and it leads to fear.

Miraculously, our doctors were wrong. We pushed forward with that pregnancy and were successful. We had seen something that had never happened before: my baby developed lungs in utero without kidneys. It was an impossible outcome to the medical world at that time.

In good faith, our doctors had given us their honest, professional opinions. But guess what. Doctors aren't infallible.

While we wouldn't have known this if we hadn't tried to overcome this diagnosis--and through divine intervention and some amazing doctors who were willing to charter new waters, literally--we now get to experience our daughter, Abigail, who is holding the Bible for the swearing-in standing next to me and Speaker Pelosi, a healthy, happy 5-year-old who is a big sister. She says that some day she is going to be the boss of Mommy's work.

Look out, Speaker Pelosi.

So since our story became public, I have talked to moms all over the world who, like me, carried their babies into the second and third trimesters hoping to deliver and then are given devastating diagnoses. But what if the doctor is wrong about their babies, too?

Abigail was the first to survive her condition, but because of her breakthrough, she is not the only survivor now.

Radical legislation in New York and Virginia has recently brought late-term or partial-birth abortion into the spotlight. But what if we used this discussion to go on the offensive against the potential disease instead of attacking the pregnancy itself?

Some parents have been presented with scary prenatal tests that can produce false alarms. These same earnest, loving, would-be parents have made permanent decisions based on what could be incorrect information.

What if the baby won't have that significant health condition or disability after all? Or even if she does, what about the loving families eager to raise a child in anticipation of her living a full and fulfilling life?

We got to hear Frank Stephens, an exceptionally joy-filled disability champion with Down syndrome, describe, at a congressional hearing, how he is a medical gift to society in that his extra chromosome might lead to the answer to Alzheimer's. Science bears this out.

Our society celebrates the term, ``diversity.'' Shouldn't that mean full diversity, which includes all physical and mental abilities, or disabilities as some call it?

We step onto very shaky ground when we start deciding who lives or dies based on one's abilities or, possibly, lack thereof in utero because, despite our best intentions or the best intentions of the messenger--doctor or otherwise--there is a limit to what science can predict.

That is not naivete speaking. That is coming from the mom of a child who was given a zero percent chance of survival based on, at the time, sound science.

Now this kiddo has a full, adult life ahead of her, and those of us who know her are privileged, immeasurably.

Do you know what? Every single child, regardless of their ability, has that same potential if we only give them that chance.

I believe that care, understanding, and compassion are needed at every stage of a woman's maternal journey. But to me, that means empowering mothers to dwell in the realm of the possible, not the impossible, even if it has never been tried before.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Barton for his leadership on this.

I am so excited that we are here today to celebrate this. I have spent months of my life in a NICU for my own medically complex child, and I have stood bedside-to-bedside with many a family as they have faced the reality of having a sick kid and they have hit hard economic times. I can put too many faces and names to the reality that little kiddos often can't get the care they need, and today we are taking a step to fix it. I am so excited about this.

One in 25 children in the U.S. is medically complex. That means they have diagnoses like cancer or end-stage renal disease or congenital heart disease or other diagnoses that require consistent critical medical care. They need the expertise.

Out of those 3 million medically complex kiddos, 2 million of them rely on Medicaid, which means what we do with Medicaid significantly impacts them.

They are also less expensive than the other folks on Medicaid, so we can go a long way to make sure of getting them care.

So in order to enhance the critical care for these 2 million kiddos, the ACE Kids Act would create networks, anchored by children's hospitals, to help coordinate care, allowing families to seamlessly pursue the best doctors and facilities, even if it takes them out of State, and that is the key.

Right now under Medicaid, you can get stuck in your ZIP Code. So maybe there is a specialist for your child's rare disease in another State. Well, if you are on Medicaid, you are limited.

We are breaking open that limitation today to allow those kiddos to cross State lines and pursue the best doctors regardless of where they are. This just makes sense.

Here is the great thing: the efficiency and the better coordination is going to improve outcomes, number one, that is the best thing. But the next best thing is this is even going to save money, because we are not going to build that expertise in every single community, we are going to get those kids where they need to go.

It is really going to cut down on duplication and it is going to increase efficiency and it is going to be the right thing. So this is a win-win proposition. I am so excited about this.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

And, again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and Ms. Castor for their leadership here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Burgess for his tireless commitment on this issue. It is not just the gentleman's career, but it has been something that the gentleman has fought for here in Congress as well, and I am very grateful to be standing here today. I also want to thank my co-conspirator, Diana DeGette, for her work on this bipartisan legislation that has more than 180 cosponsors.

So why is this bill important to you, Mr. Speaker, or to those who are listening? Well, you either are a mom or you have got a mom. This bill impacts you.

I stand in strong support of the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act, a bill to save mothers' lives and prevent more parents, husbands, grandparents, and children from the profound loss of their mother.

Today in the 21st century United States of America, the U.S. is ranked fourth globally for maternal mortality. Many are shocked to learn that the

U.S. not only has the worst maternal mortality rate in the entire developed world, but that these rates are on the rise. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we are worse than Iran.

Every year, between 700 and 900 maternal deaths occur in the United States, and I have seen tears brought to the eyes of many a colleague when they learn that more than 60 percent of these deaths could have been prevented, according to the CDC. It is difficult to imagine the grief felt by these families when a life is cut short and they learn that it could have been prevented.

As a mom, as an American, and as a lawmaker, we must do better. Combating maternal mortality must become a national priority, which is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The Preventing Maternal Deaths Act represents the biggest step taken by Congress to date on this issue. It would enable States to establish and strengthen maternal mortality review committees, which bring together experts in public health, in maternal health, and in infant health to investigate each and every pregnancy-related death to understand what went wrong and how to save future mothers' lives.

Currently, the available data is woefully inadequate, which hinders our ability to understand why moms are dying and why certain women are more at risk. Right now, African American women are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes, and women living in rural areas are also facing higher risk. This bill will not only improve data collection, but it will empower States to participate in national information sharing, increase collaboration, and develop best practices.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to dedicate this bill to the mothers whom we have lost, moms like Kira Johnson who lost her life just hours after giving birth to a healthy baby boy.

I will never forget hearing from Kira's husband, Charles, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue. He is a single father of two boys and now lives by the motto: ``Wake up, make mommy proud, repeat.''

Stories like Kira's have struck at the hearts of many of us and have compelled us to action today. Today, we honor the lives of these moms and the loved ones who remember them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying thank you to the members of the Natural Resources Committee and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for helping move this bill forward in a truly bipartisan manner.

My bill, H.R. 5317, repeals the antiquated 19th century law--from 1834, to be exact--that prohibits distilleries on Tribal lands. This prohibition was enacted at a time when the Federal Government took a more paternalistic stance with Indian Tribes. While many of the provisions in the larger statute have since been repealed, somehow the distillery prohibition remains.

This issue came to my attention from the Chehalis Tribe from my home in southwest Washington. The Chehalis began the permitting process for a new economic development project on reservation land, which includes the construction and operation of a distillery.

In the midst of the project, they were made aware of the 1834 law from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who suggested that the Tribe move their project off their land or contact their Member of Congress and change the law. When they contacted me and told me what they were up against, I got to work.

I am pleased to put this bill forward today to help place Indian Tribes on equal footing with non-Tribal citizens by allowing them to pursue the very same economic opportunities as everybody else. This repeal enables Tribes to diversify their economic investments and helps provide jobs not just for Tribes, but for neighboring communities as well.

This is a matter of fairness, Mr. Speaker. Washington, D.C., shouldn't be in the business of telling Indian Country it cannot engage in a business that is allowed everywhere else and is actually helping many neighboring areas, in terms of revitalizing their local economy.

Lastly, and to be clear, while this bill provides additional opportunities for Tribes, it does not provide special treatment. Tribes will still be required to follow State and Federal liquor laws and regulations, just as they currently do for breweries and wineries.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a co-chair of the Congressional Cut Flower Caucus to recognize July as the American Grown Flower Month.

During the month of July, every State is in the season of harvesting a wide variety of beautiful flowers and blooms. This makes July the perfect month to celebrate America's flower farms in all 50 States and, specifically, Holland America Flower Gardens, located in my district.

Holland America Flower Gardens in Woodland, Washington, is owned and operated by four generations of Dobbe family members. Their expertise in flower bulbs allows for the harvesting of several specialty crops, such as lilies, freesias, peonies, and tulips. Most important, all of their vibrant cut flowers are American grown.

As a cosponsor of H. Res. 413, I support the designation of July as American Grown Flower Month and support America's flower farmers that range in size and economic production, but make up an ever-growing floriculture industry. Flowers grown in the United States create almost $42 million in economic impact daily and support hundreds of growers, thousands of small businesses, and tens of thousands of jobs in the United States.

In addition to the important economic impact, this industry also has a huge cultural impact.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 18, 2018, I am wrongly recorded on Roll Call 354. I intended to support House Amendment 925 to H.R. 6147, the Interior, Environment, Financial Services, and General Government Appropriations Act of 2019.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 23, 2018, I am not recorded on one vote because I was unavoidably detained due to weather impacting my commercial flight.

Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on Roll Call 336.

Mr. Chairman, thanks to Kurt Schrader, who has been a partner with me on this legislation for a while--actually, since before I was here, he has been working on this bill--and today is a good day.

``I would like to think that there might still be salmon and steelhead to fish for when my great-grandkids try fishing.'' That is from Bob, who lives in Brush Prairie in my district. I have heard Bob's sentiments echoed literally from thousands of folks across southwest Washington.

Unfortunately, our salmon runs are now fighting for survival. It is practically a miracle when a fish can make it upstream without getting caught between a sea lion's teeth. They certainly don't get caught unscathed.

Mr. Chairman, what we currently have on the Columbia River is an ecosystem seriously out of balance. I recently met with local fishing guides who, with despair in their voices, told me between 70 and 100 percent of the fish they land show visible signs of a struggle with a sea lion, barely escaping becoming a meal for the already engorged sea lions. We are seeing fewer and fewer salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon make it past this gauntlet of sea lions as the fish make their way upstream.

Donald from Vancouver told me the other day he reeled in a salmon-- half of a salmon. A sea lion was fighting him for the other half.

Look, we are not anti-sea lion. Oh, my goodness, no. We are just for protecting our native fish, a Pacific Northwest icon, and in order to do that, we have got to make it easier to remove some of the most egregious offenders, problematic pinnipeds.

Sea lions aren't endangered anymore. In fact, they are doing really, really well. They weigh a ton. Literally, a Steller sea lion can weigh up to 1 ton. Between the California and the Steller sea lions, their populations have increased by hundreds of thousands, and now they are overindulging on an all-you-can-eat buffet of salmon at numbers that are totally unnatural on the Columbia River system. The sea lions are winning this battle.

Forty-five percent of spring Chinook adult salmon disappear between the mouth of the Columbia River and the Bonneville Dam. Oregon's fish and wildlife agency has concluded after much study that the Willamette River steelhead runs are facing a 90 percent chance of extinction due to predation.

That is why we are here today, Mr. Chairman, in a bipartisan effort to save our wild fish from being decimated by animals that have migrated out of their natural habitat and whose population is ever increasing.

My bill, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act, provides Tribal and government resource managers with the means to rapidly respond and remove California and Steller sea lions from specific areas where they are posing the most harm to our salmon restoration efforts.

The Columbia River makes up the entire southern border of my district. The river is a lifeline for clean, affordable energy and brings economic benefit through both recreational and commercial fishing.

While the lethal take of sea lions is a last resort, it is necessary to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that the Northwest residents have made to protect and enhance salmon and other ESA-listed species on the Columbia River.

Nonlethal solutions like hazing and, literally, transporting sea lions hundreds of miles away and releasing them have not worked. The sea lions come right back.

In Washington State, we are forced to live with a cautionary tale of failing to take strong action. In the 1980s and 1990s, Federal officials failed to grant the same authority that we are asking for today to halt the salmon slaughter in Seattle at the Ballard Locks. By the time Congress acted, a whole run of steelhead was decimated.

Let's not allow history to repeat itself. H.R. 2083 is a much-needed solution. The bill would amend section 120 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to provide States and local Tribes with the tools necessary to humanely manage sea lions on the waters of the Columbia River and its tributaries as long as the sea lions are not part of an ESA-listed species. This is common sense, Mr. Chairman.

Additionally, this legislation allows not only the Northwest State wildlife agencies, but also qualified Tribes to obtain permits to help protect the recovery of ESA-listed salmon, authority not granted currently under the law.

Simply put, my bill cuts through the bureaucratic red tape, streamlines the permitting process, and allows States and Tribes to rapidly respond to remove sea lions from areas they pose the most threat to salmon recovery. Mr. Chairman, this is the last line of defense against fish runs bordering on extinction.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support both here in Congress and at home. As I mentioned, my friend and neighbor to the south, Kurt Schrader, has been an invaluable partner in getting this bill to the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is supported by the Governors of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission; the Washington, Idaho, and Oregon State Department of Fish and Wildlife; the Ilwaco Charter Association; the Coalition of Coastal Fisheries; and the Coastal Conservation Association of Oregon and Washington. Public utilities are among the bill's supporters.

I am also pleased a companion bill is moving through the Senate now, with bipartisan support, underscoring the urgency of this issue.

I ask my colleagues to join me today in supporting H.R. 2083. Let's make sure our kids and our grandkids and great-grandkids can experience the thrill of reeling in their first salmon on the Columbia River.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter of support from the Public Power Council and a letter of support from the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho Departments of Fish and Wildlife and the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

June 22, 2018.

To: Speaker Ryan, Minority Leader Pelosi, and Northwest

Congressional Delegation.

Re Support for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702--To reduce marine mammal

predation on endangered Columbia River salmon.

We come together today to lend our strong and joint support

for H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, bills that would reduce predation

of endangered adult salmon and steelhead. The Public Power

Council (PPC) is a not for profit association that represents

about 100 consumer-owned electric utilities in the Pacific

Northwest on issues regarding the Federal Columbia River

Power System. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission

(CRITFC) provides coordination and technical assistance to

the tribes in regional, national, and international efforts

to ensure

that treaty fishing rights issues are protected in a way that

guarantees the continuation and restoration of tribal

fisheries into perpetuity.

In the last few decades, west coast sea lion populations

have increased ten-fold. This growing population has expanded

its search for food and found it in the Columbia and

Willamette Rivers, river systems they had never before

accessed. A recent NOAA Fisheries study estimates that

pinnipeds consumed between 10-45 percent of some stocks of

returning adult salmon in 2017. It is difficult to envision a

successful recovery plan for fish listed under the Endangered

Species Act without addressing this aggressive predation on

the very adult fish that have benefitted from current efforts

only to fall short in surviving a return to their spawning

grounds.

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702, introduced in the first session of

the 115th Congress, address this concern by building on

existing authorities that allow some lethal take of sea lions

near Bonneville Dam by appropriate tribal and state entities.

Fisheries biologists estimate predation would greatly

decrease by incorporating all management activity in the

areas of high predation between the mouth of the river up to

the dam.

These bills are widely supported in the Northwest. In

addition to this joint support from CRITFC and PPC, regional

governors from both parties, along with other industries who

rely on healthy salmon and steelhead runs, have come together

to back these bills. We are hopeful the proposals will

receive broad bipartisan support in the House of

Representatives and Senate.

This situation continues to expand supporters of this

legislation among diverse interests in the public, private

and nonprofit sectors. Our joint support represents that

healthy salmon and steelhead runs are critical to the future

of the Columbia River treaty tribes and utilities. This bill

would give fisheries managers greater tools to appropriately

reduce predation of these endangered fish. Again, we support

H.R. 2083 and S. 1702 and urge their expeditious passage

through Congress.

Sincerely,

Scott Corwin,

Executive Director, Public Power Council.

Jaime A. Pinkham,

Executive Director, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to one piece. I keep hearing that this isn't a silver bullet. No one is claiming that this is a silver bullet. This is a step in the right direction to protect endangered salmon runs that are critical for commercial, recreational, and Tribal resource use. This is really iconic to the Pacific Northwest, and it is part of our heritage. It is something that we would like to pass on to our kids and our grandkids. Passing this bill today allows us to do that.

Ratepayers are so committed to this. In the States of Washington and Oregon, ratepayers who fund the Bonneville Power Administration and the dam--the hydro system--spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year. If you get it all together, it almost cracks $1 billion annually that is spent in mitigation efforts to protect the species that are impacted.

As ratepayers, we spend a lot of money to protect and support these runs because it is so specific and unique to our way of life. This is a critical thing for us. It is one of those things where you literally can stand on the shore of the Columbia River and you can watch sea lions toss salmon, and you watch them play with salmon. You can come across carcasses of salmon on the river with a single bite mark taken out.

I walked across and found a sturgeon longer than my arm with a single bite mark taken out of her stomach. Basically they took the eggs--they took the caviar--and then let it go.

We look at that and we think we, as ratepayers, because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to protect these runs and bring them back into fuller health, to watch these animals not even eat a full meal but just play with them, it makes you sick, Mr. Chairman.

So if you are someone who believes in protecting species and having a balanced ecosystem--this isn't about picking one species over the other. This is literally us trying to restore some balance here. It is one of those things where you would have to fight hard to find a reason not to support this.

When very liberal Governors and very conservative Republican Governors come in and ask us to pass this legislation, it should cause you to stop and pause. This is one of those things that this body should be about, and today is a good chance to take a step forward in protecting these wild runs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act that just unanimously passed the House. I was proud to support it.

This bill recognizes the sacrificial service of the 7,000-plus servicemen and -women who received a Purple Heart after being wounded in battle and continue to serve on Active Duty. My bill, included in this passage, takes the rightful step to waive the funding fee on all VA home loans for Active-Duty Purple Heart recipients. With this bill, we will save servicemembers thousands of dollars and help their families achieve the dream of homeownership.

U.S. Marine Corps Major Byron Owen, who was wounded twice in Iraq and once in Afghanistan, explained it best when he shared his experiences with my office. He said: ``I was medevaced out of Iraq in 2006 and had to undergo months of therapy to return to service. Why should I have to pay 20 grand to get a VA loan when someone with a noncombat-related disability gets to waive it? Some of my friends are amputees still serving in uniform. They're paying the funding fee. Does that seem right?''

Major Owen, I hear you--and, no, it is not right. That is why I am proud to have introduced this bill and voted with my colleagues to support Active-Duty Purple Heart recipients with the passage of H.R. 299.