Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership on this issue, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I am happy to lend my name to it, because this amendment simply says that rural communities which have distinct needs in Head Start programs will now have a level playing field with the changes that have been made under H.R. 1429, which I strongly support.

This bill builds on Head Start's proven success in a way that is going to benefit parents and teachers who are involved in the program. We want to ensure through this amendment that those successes carry forward into rural communities, specifically as it relates to professional development, parental involvement, home visits and health screenings.

So I am pleased to lend my name to this. It is a great amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lois Rebich, the 2007 Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Rebich is an Instructional Support teacher at Ross Elementary School in the North Hills School District in Pennsylvania. She began her teaching career seventeen years ago in the Pittsburgh City School District, but has been teaching in the North Hills School District for the past fifteen years.

Through individual assistance and one-on-one tutoring, she provides support to students who have academic, behavioral or organization issues. Mrs. Rebich has excelled by coordinating her efforts with parents, teachers, administrators and other students. As one parent said, ``Mrs. Rebich does whatever it takes for the student and teacher to orchestrate a successful learning experience.''

Pennsylvania has participated in the ``Teacher of the Year'' program since 1965. The program is co-sponsored by the Pennsylvania State Department of Education and the Pennsylvania chapter of the National State Teacher of the Year. Each year one teacher is recognized for excellence in education.

I am honored to have the chance to recognize Mrs. Rebich's extraordinary accomplishment of becoming the 2007 Pennsylvania Teacher of the Year. She is representative of all the great teachers in the state of Pennsylvania. These selfless men and women spend every day educating our children and helping them to become happy and productive citizens of this great country.

Madam Speaker, this is Covering the Uninsured Week, so I wanted to take this opportunity to remind my colleagues about the 9 million children in America that live without health insurance. I also wanted to take the opportunity to remind the American people that just last month, the Democratic Congress passed a 2008 budget that includes a $50 billion increase in funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and we did it without raising a penny of taxes. By contrast, the President submitted a budget that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, would cut 1 million additional children out of the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Thankfully for the American people, Madam Speaker, Democrats rejected the President's budget in favor of one that expands health care for children.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. And I wanted to spend some time talking about what this bill actually does, because I heard some rhetoric during the debate from the other side that I couldn't believe I was hearing, because it had nothing to do with the facts of what's really in this bill. I heard Members stand up and say that the goal of the Democrats is to cut the funding for our troops and cut and run and do an immediate withdrawal. And none of that is in this bill. That is not what we voted on today.

And the great thing about democracy, the great thing about this House, the House of Representatives of the United States is that we have people who represent every side of the political spectrum. And there are a handful of Members who feel so strongly about this issue that they feel we need to immediately cut the funding and immediately withdraw our troops and bring them home. And they are very vocal. And what's interesting about that group is they didn't support this bill. The people who feel so strongly that we need to cut the funding and bring our troops home immediately voted against this bill, along with the Republicans.

So when I hear Members on the other side talk about what our goals are, and then I think of the fact that they are the ones that voted with the people who want to bring our troops home immediately and immediately cut the funding, that leads me to believe that perhaps they didn't read the bill closely enough, or maybe there's just some rhetoric that's being thrown around that they know is not true.

And what I would suggest to my colleagues, and certainly to the American people, is you look at what is in this bill. And we've talked about this before when we passed the first bill before it went to conference. We give the President more money than he asked for. The conference report that we voted today, 4 billion more dollars to go to Iraq and support our troops than President Bush asked us for. That's not cutting the funding. That is supporting our troops.

We increased funding for the Department of Defense health care facilities to make sure that situations like Walter Reed never happen again. We increased funding for the Veterans Affairs health care system to make sure that we have adequate coverage for our Nation's veterans, because, as we have talked about many times on this floor, there is no group that should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to make funding decisions.

And this bill, for now the fourth time in 4 months, we have voted to increase funding for the Veterans health care system, and not continue the past 6 years of chronic underfunding for the VA health care system.

And finally, this bill does, in fact, add some accountability to the process. The only remaining leverage that we have left in Iraq, almost 4 years to the day after we were told the mission was accomplished, that date was May 1, the only remaining leverage we have left is our presence there.

The gentleman from Connecticut talked about how he was in Iraq, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I am sure you spoke to some of the leadership over there and experienced the fact that the Iraqi government has not stepped up to manage their own affairs and administer their own government. In fact, they have failed miserably in that action, and they show no

sign of being willing to step up to the plate. And the only leverage we have to make that happen, and that is the only solution to this conflict, is a political solution. There's no military solution because, it has, as you said, degenerated into a civil war. The only leverage we have there is our presence there. And until we say, loud and clear to the Iraqi government, that our presence there is not open ended, that we do consider this to be a situation that they need to step up, administer their own affairs and run their own government, nothing's going to change. And we did have, 4 years ago today, an announcement that the mission was accomplished; and we'll be here next year and the year after and the year after, and we'll still be waiting for the Iraqi government to step up unless we take affirmative action to add some accountability, which is what we did in this bill today.

So I'm going to give it back to the gentleman so he can talk to Mr. Hodes momentarily, because I know he's chomping at the bit to say what he has to say. And I'm looking forward to hearing it myself.

But I just want to be crystal clear, this bill, in no way, represents a cut in funding for our brave men and women who are serving us in Iraq. It has more money in it for our troops, direct aid for our troops, than the President asked for. Make no mistake about that.

So at this point I would yield back to the gentleman from Connecticut.

I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding.

I want to talk about what these charts mean that the gentleman from New Hampshire is holding up next to where he is speaking. These are examples of generals, people who have seen firsthand what is happening on the ground in Afghanistan, people with the utmost military experience, who have said clearly, without ambiguity, that the President's course of action is wrong. And the course of action that we took today here in this House is endorsed by these generals. And this is a further example of the President's not listening to anybody but himself and his very, very close circle of advisers, any of whom, if they differ from him, find themselves reassigned or out on the street. And for some reason, the President doesn't listen to his generals. He doesn't listen to the Iraq Study Group.

You will recall, and I would like to remind my colleagues, that he said, when the Iraq Study Group formed and was going about their business of studying this situation and coming up with their report, that he was going to pay attention to what they said and take some of their advice. Well, unfortunately, the report came out and was promptly discarded by the administration, and they did nothing about what was in the Iraq Study Group.

Now, some of the things that were talked about that we should engage in diplomacy with countries like Iran and Syria, we know where the President stands on that. He is not going to change with that. The Iraq Study Group recommended that we do set a timeline on our activities to increase our leverage with the Iraqi Government, as I talked about earlier. But the President chose to discard that. He chose to discard what his generals on the ground said. Those that disagreed were reassigned, and some of them now, as Mr. Hodes has pointed out, are saying that what we are doing is the right course of action. But what is most important and what is most relevant for what we did today in this House, the President is ignoring the American people.

We have all seen the polls about where the American public feels about this. But we shouldn't legislate by polls; we should legislate based on we are elected Representatives of the American people. There are 435 districts in this House, each of whom has a voice, and it is our responsibility as Representatives to go back into our districts, listen to what our constituents have to say on these issues of critical importance, return here on a day like today, debate the issue the entire day, come back at 11 o'clock at night and we are still debating the issue. But we took a vote and we had to put it on the line, yes or no, where do you come down on this issue? The Congress has spoken. At least the House has spoken. The Senate is going to speak in the next day or two.

And I want to make one thing clear. Let there be there be no discussion about this. If the Senate passes the conference report, which we expect, and sends this bill to the President, as Mr. Hodes said, he has a decision to make. He can either sign that bill and provide the troops the funding that they need to continue the mission, or veto the bill and deny them the support that they need. That is his choice. The Congress has spoken on that.

So when any Member of this House has one of their constituents come up to them and say, well, when are you going to give our troops the money that they need to continue this fight? Well, we did it today. The answer to that question is we did it today. The Senate is going to do it tomorrow, perhaps the following day.

Then the President has a decision to make. And if he chooses to veto that bill, the troops' funding will be delayed. But that won't be because of us. That will be because of a decision that was made down the street at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I wanted to change the subject here just momentarily here, if I could, here at the end and just mention something, because unfortunately, since we're not in session on Monday due to the unfortunate funeral that many of our colleagues are going to be attending for one of our colleagues, I wanted to mention the fact that Monday is going to be Paul Hayes, the House reading Clerk's last day. Paul has been here for 20 years, and to many viewers around the country of C-SPAN, he is the voice of the House of Representatives. I was going to do a 1 minute on Monday, but I will just do it today because we're not going to be in session on Monday and just say what an honor it has been for me, Paul, to be able to spend a few months as a Member with you here.

I was a staffer, as Mr. Murphy knows, on Capitol Hill for 6 years in the early 1990s, and we used to watch Paul Hayes at work. And it has just been a great experience for me to come back as a Member of Congress and briefly be able to, for about 4 months, to be able to serve and work with you, Paul. So I just wanted to say congratulations, and we wish you all the best.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from California for their very eloquent remarks.

This is a very special day for me. I grew up in southwestern Pennsylvania, right across the river from Springdale, Pennsylvania, where Rachel Carson was born and raised and where she is truly a legendary figure. She is an icon in western Pennsylvania, and this is a very special year for Rachel Carson's memory because May 27, 2007, would have been Rachel Carson's 100th birthday.

And she has received tremendous honors throughout her life. We do have, as the gentleman said, bridges named after her and schools and other things. But I can think of no greater representation for the beginning of Rachel Carson and the beginning of the modern environmental movement than to have the post office in her hometown of Springdale named after her. And, ironically, Springdale itself last year celebrated its centennial, so she was born in the very early days of Springdale. And this bill has widespread support throughout the district that I represent, the Fourth Congressional District where Springdale is located, but also throughout all of western Pennsylvania and all of Pennsylvania. And I do thank the gentleman for his kind remarks. But I wanted to talk a little bit about Rachel Carson.

As I said, she was born in 1907 in Springdale. She graduated from the Pennsylvania College for Women, which currently is known as Chatham College. And Rachel Carson got her degree in English, which would serve her well in her writing career over the years. She earned her master's degree in zoology from Johns Hopkins University, so she has very strong ties to Maryland, and I am going to talk a little bit more about that because she taught zoology at the University of Maryland, right down the road from where we are right now. And while she continued her studies at the Marine Biological Laboratories in Woodshole, Massachusetts, she continued her teaching career. So in the very early days, she was getting to know the environment and getting a greater understanding of the world around her and what was to come in her life.

Now, according to Time Magazine, ``It was there in her early twenties that she first saw and became enchanted with the enormous mysteries of the sea.'' And as I talked about, this was a lifelong passion for Rachel Carson. Her early writings at the time focused on the waters and the seas, and I believe a lot of that has to do with her upbringing in Springdale, Pennsylvania, because the Allegheny River flows right through the town there, right along the river, and she spent a lot of time studying the river in her youth growing up. And the Rachel Carson homestead, which is her childhood home, has been restored. And there is an active and ongoing presence there in the town, and the stories are legendary about her spending hours and hours of time sitting there on the riverbank, studying the waters and thinking about it. And those who knew her at the time knew that that was her passion and that was going to be the direction of her career and her life.

In 1936 she went to work as a junior aquatic biologist at the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, again very suitable to someone with that level of interest and that educational background. She was the second woman in the history of the agency to hold a full-time professional position. So she was a trailblazer right from the start. And her early writings, as the gentleman from California mentioned, Under the Sea-Wind, The Sea Around Us, and The Edge of the Sea, celebrated the wonders of nature and continued her ongoing expertise and interest in aquatics and the sea. The Sea Around Us won the John Burroughs Medal, which was then the equivalent of what is today the National Book Award. So here we see the beginnings of a writing career. And this is where her English degree comes back, and she now has expertise in not only zoology and water and the Bureau of Fisheries as her profession, but she begins a long and fruitful career as an author, so she wins what is then the equivalent of the National Book Award. And within the first year, this was in the 1930s, that book sold over 200,000 copies.

Rachel Carson is most famous, of course, for her book, Silent Spring, which was published in 1962, and it criticizes the use of pesticides, particularly DDT, but not exclusively. It is widely created with launching the modern environmental movement, including Earth Day, which just over this past weekend we celebrated Earth Day all across the country while Rachel Carson is credited with the founding of that movement as well. So, again, this is a very timely measure today, and I do encourage my colleagues to support it.

I did want to mention that, unfortunately, it was not long after the publishing of Silent Spring that Rachel Carson took ill and breast cancer took her life at the early age of 56, in 1964. But that did not end the legacy of Rachel Carson. In 1980 she was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which all of our Members here know that is an incredible honor to be bestowed upon someone. And in 1999 Time Magazine recognized Rachel Carson as one of the 20th century's 100 most influential Americans, again a fantastic and well-deserved honor.

So, again, throughout western Pennsylvania this year, her 100th birthday we are celebrating Rachel Carson. And it is important, having just had Earth Day over the weekend and the increasing awareness of the environment around us, that we do allow Springdale Township, where this is a very popular measure and something that we have been waiting to see this day come. I would ask my colleagues to show their support and recognize the tremendous contributions that Rachel Carson has had not only for western Pennsylvania, not only for the United States of America, but around the world. She truly is an icon, and she truly did change the world.

So at this time I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois for allowing me to bring this bill forward. I thank the committee, and I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats in Congress have heard the call for change delivered by the American people last November. In just 3 months, we restored the necessary oversight of the administration and reformed the ethics rules of the House to lessen the influence of lobbyists and add transparency to the legislative process.

We answered the call for change in direction in Iraq and kept our promise to our Nation's veterans by voting to increase VA health care funding by $11 billion.

We passed meaningful legislation that will help middle class families, lowering the cost of student loans and prescription drugs.

And although we won't be able to dig ourselves out overnight from the mountains of debt Congress and the administration built up over the past 6 years, the new Democratic Congress passed a budget that achieves balance in 5 years without raising a penny of taxes.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the American people and changed the way Congress does business.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the career of Kathleen Kemp, Ph.D., who is retiring this year after nearly 40 years of teaching political science, the past 28 years of which were spent at my alma mater, Florida State University.

Dr. Kemp is a skilled and popular instructor who has authored many publications and won numerous awards. In 1990, I was a student in her American Presidency class. I can say without reservation or exaggeration that Dr. Kemp changed my life.

On the last day of my last class at Florida State, Dr. Kemp pulled me aside to recommend that I consider volunteering for a local congressional campaign. I took her advice and worked for the campaign throughout that summer and into the fall of 1990. Following the election, the candidate, Congressman Pete Peterson, hired me to work on his Capitol Hill staff. This opportunity, which would never have arisen without Dr. Kemp's advice, started me on a road that would eventually lead to my election to Congress. More importantly, I met my future wife, Kelly, on that same campaign and we now have two beautiful daughters.

So, Madam Speaker, I can honestly say that Professor Kathleen Kemp greatly influenced my career and had a profound impact on my life. I have no doubt that countless other students she has instructed over the years can say the same.

I thank her and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Vasken Hagopian, Ph.D., who is retiring after more than 40 years of teaching, the past 37 years of which were spent at my alma mater, Florida State University.

Professor Hagopian is recognized as a world-renowned expert in high energy physics. His research has involved the use of high energy particle accelerators to study the properties of fundamental particles, such as the proton and the neutron.

I first crossed paths with Professor Hagopian as an astronomy student at Florida State in 1986. I later worked with him during my time as a legislative assistant for former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida in the mid-1990's.

Over the years, students often asked him why it is important to study astronomy and related fields. Professor Hagopian would famously reply, ``You never know, one of you might end up in Congress one day and have to vote on science budgets and space exploration.'' Like most things he taught his students, he was, in the long run, proven right.

I wish Professor Hagopian well as he pursues new challenges and moves into the next phase of his extraordinary life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero, Marine SGT Michael A. Marzano. Last Tuesday, March 20, I joined my colleague, Congressman Phil English, in introducing H.R. 1594, legislation to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Hermitage, Pennsylvania in Sergeant Marzano's honor.

In December 2004, Sergeant Marzano volunteered for a tour of duty in Iraq and joined Ohio's 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment of the 4th Marine Division. He served honorably as a member of a Mobile Assault Platoon. On May 8, 2005, Sergeant Marzano was killed by a suicide bomber while taking part in an offensive against insurgents in the city of Haditha, Al-Anbar Province, Iraq.

Sergeant Marzano was the first soldier from Mercer County to die in either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. He exemplified the core values of honor, courage and commitment to a grateful nation and community. This designation will honor his memory and recognize his bravery and sacrifice. He is representative of all of Mercer County's veterans who have worn the uniform proudly, upheld the military's traditions of courage and faithful service, and stood ready, if duty required it, to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, Democrats this week complete committee work on a 2008 budget that finally moves us away from the fiscal irresponsibility, reckless spending and record deficits of the past 6 years. When President Bush first came into office, America had just had 4 consecutive years of budget surplus, forecast to continue as far as the eye can see. Now, 6 years later, Republicans have turned a projected $5.5 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion deficit. They borrowed more money from foreign nations in the past 6 years than we had in the past 212 years combined.

Fortunately, Democrats have a new set of priorities, one that moves America towards a balanced budget for the first time in 6 years.

Madam Speaker, with Democrats now in control of Congress, oversight is finally being conducted. The new Democratic Congress has already held 81 separate hearings on important issues involving the war in Iraq, including the billions of dollars that are unaccounted for. The documented pattern of neglect at Walter Reed goes back at least 3 years, yet previous Congresses did nothing. But just this week the new Congress held four separate hearings on the treatment of our wounded soldiers.

Also, this week the House held hearings on the firing of seven U.S. attorneys for purely political reasons. Partisanship and politics have no place in our justice system, and this House is going to aggressively investigate this situation.

Madam Speaker, this level of oversight is part of the Democrats' effort to bring real change to Washington. Two months into the new Congress, we are already delivering on that promise.

I thank the Speaker for this time, once again allowing us to begin the 30-Something Working Group.

We have a lot of issues to talk about. And as everyone who has followed the 30-Something Working Group over the years knows, this is our attempt to let the American people know what is happening in their Congress and what the issues are that are being discussed, and we have requested some time here to be able to go into some detail on what these issues are. And I wanted to start today by talking about the situation at Walter Reed, which I know is a subject that is of great concern to everybody in this Chamber, and it is certainly the issue that I am hearing the most about as I travel around my district. And if we have some time after we conclude that discussion, we may move on to some other issues.

But I wanted to start by talking about the situation at Walter Reed. And I have put up here for my colleagues to take a look at the Newsweek cover from this week, and we see here that this is a national story. It is the number one story in the country, and it tells the story about how we are, unfortunately in many cases, failing our wounded. You can see it on the cover.

What we are talking about with the situation at Walter Reed is we have brave men and woman who are fighting for this country, who are putting their lives on the line, who are making every possible sacrifice, and they are coming home in need of medical treatment, in many cases serious health situations, long-term medical problems, and we have not seen the best quality of care that those men and women deserve. And the situation that has been uncovered recently at Walter Reed is something that was uncovered by a Washington Post expose'. It wasn't brought to light by the people at Walter Reed, it wasn't brought to light by elected officials, it wasn't brought to light by anyone except for a series of newspaper articles.

There are two issues that we need to discuss. The second of those issues is, why did it take a Washington Post news article before people started to talk about this issue, before people started to be held accountable for this issue? Which, as I am going to talk about in the time line of events, for those of you who may wonder how this

all came about, what were the complaints, how long has this situation been known, we are going to walk through that entire time line tonight. But the second issue is, why did that Washington Post news article become the first source for all of this to happen?

The number one issue that we need to deal with as a Congress and that we can promise the American people that we are going to deal with is we need to find a solution to this problem right now. We understand there is a situation that needs to be resolved. And to be candid, the American people aren't calling for another blue ribbon panel that is going to take a 2-year study and issue a report that is 2\1/2\ inches thick and sit on somebody's desk before anything happens. They want results right now.

We need to go into every military and veterans health care facility in this country and make a determination: Are the conditions substandard? Are there actions that need to be taken? And, if so, let's deal with that immediately. Let's not wait for the course of a long- term study. There is going to be room for that and there are going to be people held accountable, and that is not to say that we are not going to work hard to detail every single fact of how this came to be. But the most important part for our military men and women who were promised quality health care when they signed up is we need to restore their confidence and their trust in the system, which right now, justifiably, is lacking. Because we have military men and women every day who are coming back, not just to Walter Reed, but all across this country to Department of Defense facilities, and veterans who have put their lives on the line who are coming back and using the VA health care system and finding that the care in many cases, as has been described with Walter Reed, is substandard. This is outrageous and this is unacceptable, and this Congress is going to take the appropriate action to make sure that these things are taken care of and they do not happen again.

So, again, the two issues: number one, fix the problem now; number two, let's get to the bottom of why it took so long for people to be held accountable and for us to get to the point where this situation was known to the American people and especially to our brave men and women.

So I do have a time line of events that we in the 30-Something Working Group are going to turn into a chart which we will be able to display at one of our future meetings, but now I did just want to read some of these things that have happened in the past.

In mid-to-late 2004, a very senior Member of this Congress, with his wife, announced that he was going to stop visiting Walter Reed out of frustration. He said he had voiced his concerns about what he was seeing to his commanders, including Major General Kiley, over the troubling incidents that he had witnessed. And this, again, is a very senior Member of this Congress, said his efforts were rebuffed and ignored. And he has a quote that says when he brought problems to the attention of Walter Reed, he was made to feel very uncomfortable. Now, that is unacceptable, and that was 2\1/2\ years ago. So right there we have a very senior Member of Congress voicing concerns and being ignored.

In November 2005, the Congress was then of course controlled by the Republican Party, and the House Veterans' Affairs Committee announced that, for the first time in at least 55 years, veteran service organizations would no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee. So in November of 2005, we had an announcement from this Congress, then under Republican control, that we would not be investigating any situations and there would be no forum to bring before Congress complaints about what we were seeing at Walter Reed.

The pattern continues. In September of 2006, 13 Senators sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee to preserve language in the House Defense Appropriations bill that prohibits U.S. Army from outsourcing 350 Federal jobs at Walter Reed Medical Center. This is September of 2006. A similar provision was defeated by a close vote in the Senate of 50-48 during the bill's previous consideration.

Also in September of 2006, and again for my colleagues watching we are going to have a chart that will illustrate this and it be visible. But in September of 2006, Walter Reed awards a 5-year, $120 million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by a former senior Halliburton official, to replace a staff of 300 Federal employees. So those employees were replaced in September of 2006, despite the fact there had been to that point complaints by very senior Members of Congress about what was happening at Walter Reed.

I would pause there to ask my colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, if he is ready to weigh in on this issue. And if not, I can certainly continue down the time line.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy. And I wanted to, before getting into some of the quotes that the men and women who have been in Walter Reed have, over the course of time provided, I did want to continue down the time line. And I had left off with the 5-year, $120 million contract that was awarded to a former Halliburton official which led to the replacement of 300 employees at Walter Reed.

And I wanted to, then, quote from a New York Times article about that issue. It said: ``The prospect of privatization at Walter Reed led to a large exodus of skilled personnel after the Army reversed results, actually changed the results of an audit conducted that government employees could do the job more cheaply.''

So they had done a study that showed that things could be done in that manner. But they decided to reverse the results and move in the direction that we have described. And we have, unfortunately, seen the results.

I will move in, now, to some of the quotes. And it is troubling, I will tell my colleagues who are watching, to hear some of the complaints that were made. And I would remind, again, that in 2005, the Republican leadership of this Congress made a decision that they were going to not hold the joint hearings on this issue to allow some of these things to be brought to the attention, not only of the Congress, but of the American people. And it is unfortunate what the result has been, that 2 years went by and these things continued, and these quotes are the result.

And I am going to refer my colleagues to this chart as I am reading: ``The mold, mice and rot at Walter Reed's Building 18 compose a familiar scenario for many soldiers back from Iraq or Afghanistan. Soldiers and veterans at other facilities report bureaucratic disarray similar to Walter Reed's. Indifferent, untrained staff, lost paperwork, medical appointments that drop from the computers, and long waits for consultations.''

And what this describes, unfortunately, is that the problem at Walter Reed is not unique to Walter Reed, but it is a systemic problem across the country's military and Veterans Affairs facilities. And that is very troubling to me.

I have three VA hospitals in western Pennsylvania, one of which is in my district. And it is undergoing a $200 million renovation right now. And I am hopeful that we will, at that time, have the premiere Veterans Affairs highest-quality facility in the entire country.

But the systemic problem facing our military health facilities and our Veterans Affairs facilities is shown by some of these quotes. So, again, my colleagues want to refer to this chart. From California, this says: ``The room was swarming with fruit flies, trash was overflowing, and a syringe was lying on the table.'' That is from a facility in California.

From a facility in Fort Knox, Kentucky: ``The living conditions were the worst I had ever seen for soldiers. Paint peeling, mold, windows that didn't work. I went to the hospital chaplain to get them to issue blankets and linens. There were no nurses.''

So as troubling as the situation at Walter Reed is for those of us who are now delving into the details and learning the unfortunate facts, it is even more troubling to think that these are problems that are happening all across this country.

Well, the level of frustration I think that we are all feeling builds every day as more of these facts come out. And I think the most upsetting part is the fact that these are situations that were known within the military health apparatus, and nothing was done about it.

Complaints were made from patients. Complaints were made from families. Complaints were made, as I talked about earlier, not just from Members of Congress, but from very senior and influential Members of Congress, all of which were ignored.

And continuing with our around-the-country look at some other things that have happened, if my colleagues could refer to this chart.

This comes from Fort Campbell in Kentucky where they said: ``There were yellow signs on the door stating that our barracks had asbestos.'' This was an open and operating military facility.

From Fort Irwin in California: ``Most of us had to sign waivers where we understand that the housing we were in failed to meet minimal government standards.''

It is very troubling for me, and I am sure for my colleagues listening, to read and to hear these quotes and think of the fact that there is no group of people that should stand ahead of our men and women in the military and our military veterans when it comes time to allocate Federal resources. And we have a Federal budget that is approaching $3 trillion, and we certainly spend a lot of that on the Defense, and rightly so, Department of Defense. And to hear these situations taking place, it is just very upsetting.

So, continuing, for my colleagues, to refer to the chart again: ``Behind the door of Army Specialist Jeremy Duncan's room, part of the wall is torn and hangs in the air, weighted down with black mold. When the wounded combat engineer stands in his shower and looks up, he can see the bathtub on the floor above through a rotted hole. Signs of neglect are everywhere. Mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses.''

And I will move to the last chart we have with these quotes, and then we can discuss it a little further. This is from building 18, which is the subject of the Washington Post report on Walter Reed which began this whole investigation: ``Life in building 18 is the bleakest homecoming for men and women whose government promised them good care in return for their sacrifices. `I hate it,' said one soldier, who stays in his room all day. `There are cockroaches. The elevator doesn't work. The garage door doesn't work. Sometimes there is no heat, no water.' ''

Well, I do want to assure my colleagues and the American people and reiterate what I said earlier that by far the more important thing here is fixing the problem. We have outlined, I think, in pretty graphic detail what the problem is and the scope of the problem. We are not just talking about one facility at Walter Reed, although that has been the source of the beginning of this story. We are talking about facilities all across this country. And we do need a top-to-bottom review of every single facility. Let us find every problem that exists and let us fix it right now. That is the number one issue.

And we are not as interested in casting blame in this situation. There is no question people need to be held accountable for this problem. And the hearings that we have had and the hearings that this Congress is going to continue to have with the Armed Services Committee, with the Veterans' Affairs Committee and with the Government Oversight Committee, we are going to get to the bottom of how this could possibly have happened, why it happened, who is responsible and who should be held accountable. But, again, that is the secondary issue. The primary issue is fixing the problem now. And I want to assure the American people, as I am sure my friend Mr.

Murphy does, that this timeline that I was reading from is going to stop in March 2007, as far as the situation being ignored and the situation not being brought to light. This is a new day. It is a new Congress. And we are going to take action. And it is unfortunate, and I am regretful that it took this long. But we are here now, and the situation that we are describing is not going to be easy, but we have a commitment in this Congress for Members like Mr. Murphy and myself that place no greater priority than finding the resolution to this problem and to our Nation's military men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. You talked about investments, making investments in our troops and making investments in our veterans. As you know on this 30-Something Working Group, I have spent a lot of time talking about our Nation's veterans and our VA healthcare system, and I am going to spend a lot more time talking about our VA healthcare system, because, as I said, there is no group that should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to make funding decisions.

I wanted to talk a little bit about the decisions that have been made in past years. We have talked about this before, and I have another chart here that I would like my colleagues to take a look at. This is the underfunding, the chronic underfunding of the VA healthcare system.

We have talked before about the fact that President Bush has delivered seven State of the Union addresses now and he has only mentioned veterans healthcare in one of those seven State of the Union addresses.

I think as a Congress we have a responsibility when we talk about supporting our troops and we talk about supporting the brave men and women who we are sending off to battle, who were promised quality healthcare in

the VA health system when they signed up, we have an obligation to fund all of them at levels at which they can obtain this quality healthcare.

So let's take a look at what has happened in recent years. I refer to the chart.

In January of 2003, President Bush's budget cut veterans healthcare and eliminated 164,000 veterans from the roles of eligibility for VA healthcare. That was in January of 2003.

In March of that same year, this Congress's budget, the Republican budget that cut $14 billion from veterans healthcare, passed. 199 Democrats voted against it in this Chamber, but, unfortunately, at that point the Democrats were in the minority and they couldn't prevent these cuts. We have seen what the result has been of that $14 billion cut.

In March of 2004, the Republican budget that shortchanged veterans healthcare by an additional $1.5 billion passed Congress, and this time 201 Democrats voted against it. But, again, being in the minority, Democrats were unable to prevent those cuts, and we have seen the result.

In March of 2005, continuing, President Bush's budget shortchanged veterans healthcare by an additional $2 billion for 2005 and cut VA healthcare by $14 billion over the next 5 years. 201 Democrats voted against that.

So I think, Mr. Murphy, you would agree that you see a trend developing here over time of just cut after cut after cut to the VA healthcare system, and that is, A, not fair and not just, but it is also not sustainable, without encountering the types of problems and the systemic difficulties that we are seeing across the VA healthcare system.

So in the summer of 2005, after serious Democratic pressure, months and months of pressure and warnings that the shortfall was going to be detrimental to the VA, the Bush administration finally acknowledged that their previous budgets had been inadequate and the shortfall had been $2.7 billion. The Democrats fought all summer to get this resolved. It is a disgrace that it had to come to that. We never should have been in that position.

Then, after months and months of this discussion, in March of 2006, almost a year earlier from today, President Bush's budget cut veterans funding by an additional $6 billion over 5 years. Keep in mind, this is in the context of not mentioning veterans in his State of the Union addresses when he comes before this Chamber and outlines to us what his priorities are within his budget for the coming year. Veterans are not even mentioned. And I can see why. I wouldn't mention it either, if I had the same type of record on veterans healthcare as the President has. So in March of last year he proposed $6 billion in cuts over 5 years.

Well, something happened in November of 2006. As we all know, the American people spoke up and said they were fed up with this and weren't going to take it any more. I know I heard loud and clear throughout my campaign and certainly on that election day in November that veterans funding was a big part of why the American people were frustrated with the decisions of this administration and the decisions of this Congress up to that time.

As we have talked about many times, I said that my number one priority in considering the budget for the current year, which was left undone by the previous Congress, was veterans healthcare funding. I said I would never support a budget that did not at least maintain the current level of services for VA healthcare funding in the continuing years, and certainly in the current year.

Thankfully, under the new leadership in Congress we passed a budget for fiscal year 2007 that increased veterans funding by $3.6 billion. I won't go back and read the numbers again, but you remember hearing about a lot of billions of dollars of decreases, $14 billion over 5 years, $6 billion additionally over 5 years in previous Congresses.

The first budget we had to pass in this Congress, in the climate of enormous pressure for fiscal responsibility, we had to cut over 60 programs to find the room in the new pay-as-you-go budget scoring to pay for this, because we are not running the country on a credit card as we have in years past. We are fiscally responsible and we do have an obligation to find the funding to pay for our priorities. And we did that. We found $3.6 billion to increase funding for veterans healthcare.

I think in the time to come, very shortly you are going to see a further demonstration, a very strong demonstration from this Congress in a very difficult climate of our commitment to funding VA healthcare. That is going to be something that we are able to demonstrate to the American people, and to keep our promise to do what we said we were going to do and to do what the American people expected us to do.

But the unfortunate reality, Mr. Murphy, is that these funding cuts from the past have had a terrible effect on the institutions, both in the VA and also the lack of attention in the Department of Defense health facilities, and has led to some very, very serious problems, as outlined by the Washington Post. But those issues have consequences, and they are in the past. We have a responsibility now in the new Congress as leaders and as the elected group from the American people that is charged with dealing with this to take action. As we have said many times tonight, we are going to take action.

I appreciate the gentleman mentioning that.

I wanted to finish the time line. I want to make sure to get that in before we run out of time here, and then maybe move on to one other issue.

In September 2006, we talked about the replacement of the 300 employees by the former Halliburton official.

In October 2006, the Secretary of Defense's wife, Joyce Rumsfeld, the then-Secretary of Defense, was taken to Walter Reed by a close friend who was also a Walter Reed volunteer. When hospital officials found out that this was the case, Mrs. Rumsfeld's friend was banned from entering or continuing to volunteer at the hospital.

So the implication was they did not want them to see what was happening at the hospital. That is from a Washington Post article. I would not have mentioned that were it not printed in the Washington Post, that the Secretary of Defense's wife had a close friend volunteering at Walter Reed, and they were asked not to continue volunteering, again the implication that they would not like what they would be seeing there.

Then, moving to February 4, 2007, getting up almost to current time. The number of Federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed by this time, a month ago, had dropped from 300 to fewer than 60. This is before The Washington Post article came out, immediately before. The remaining 60 employees, 50 of them were private workers. That is from the Army Times where we get those statistics.

And then everything begins to change.

February 19, The Washington Post expose comes out detailing mistreatment of veterans and housing on the grounds of Walter Reed Army Medical Center. That is the turning point. Unfortunately, we heard about the 2004 visit and the complaints registered by a senior Member of Congress. We heard, in 2005, the then-Republican Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman announced they were not interested in hearing from our Nation's veterans anymore; they were not welcome to address the committee to talk about some of these issues.

The Washington Post article comes out February 19, one week later, February 26, the soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were told that they were to wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m. This was new. More importantly, they were told that they were no longer allowed to speak to the media. I think we can see why that is.

So that is the time line of events leading up.

Let's look at what has happened this week. This is Wednesday, March 7.

Well, on March 5, in the new Congress here, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began holding hearings to investigate the Walter Reed scandal; again, in the context of the previous Congress, that was unwelcome.

March 6 and 7, yesterday and today, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee held hearings on the Walter Reed scandal, and today there was also an Armed Services Committee hearing. So we have three separate committees looking into this, actively reviewing the situation and actively looking for answers and actively looking for results.

So I would refer, once again, anyone interested in learning more about this story to the Newsweek article, and I once again put this chart up. It is a great article. It gives a good summary of the situation, and I would ask the American people and our colleagues to just continue to seek answers. We are going to do our best to get to the bottom of this. We are going to do our best to make sure that this system is resolved, and unless Mr. Murphy wants to talk about this, I was going to, in our short time, move into one other issue because it is budget season.

And we actually had booked this time to talk about the budget, and then these issues were developing this week.

That is a chart that we are going to be seeing a lot more of, and I did want to make one point about that.

Those 81 oversight hearings on what is happening in Iraq, those are not make-work hearings. Those are not hearings just to hold hearings. Those are serious issues that this Congress is looking at.

This is in the context of being told, the American people were told, that the oil proceeds in Iraq would pay for the cost of the war. You have a couple of issues. One is the oil proceeds. We do not have any accounting of where a lot of them are going. They are disappearing into the black market. They are certainly not paying for the cost of the war.

The second issue is, we have paid almost $400 billion as a Nation on the Iraq War of our money, the American people's money, and as you have outlined, we have lost billions of dollars in Iraq that is completely unaccounted for. You certainly know about that from the Government Oversight Committee, and I am sure we will talk more about that.

In just the few minutes that we have remaining, about 4 minutes remaining, I did want to talk about budget season. Here we are in the spring, and as our loyal constituents and people who follow the 30 Something Working Group will know, we do talk about the budget at some length and rightly so, because the budget has not been managed well over the past 6 years.

We have an administration that came into office. We had just had four consecutive years of budget surpluses that were forecast as far as the eye can see, and in the last 6 years, we have had six consecutive budget deficits that are now forecast as far as the eye can see. There has been a $9 trillion swing in the 10-year forecast from a $5.5 trillion surplus over 10 years to a $3.5 trillion dollar because of the fiscal mismanagement that we have seen over the past 6 years. The President just submitted to us his 2007 out-of-balance budget.

So I will use this as a teaser for perhaps our next 30 Something Working Group because we will not be able to get into it as much as we would like, but for those watching, I would just say that we are going to talk at great length about some of these issues in the coming weeks.

We were going to talk about foreign-held debt today, and I have a chart that I would refer my colleagues to. This President has added more than $1 trillion of foreign-held debt to America's balance in just 6 years. He did more than his 42 predecessors combined in just 6 years. The history of the country up to his administration had put less in foreign-held debt than he did in just 6 years.

So let us take a look at who is holding this debt. I get this question all the time because I talk about the deficit and the debt and who is holding it. Japan holds $644 billion in American debt right now. China holds $350 billion of American debt. That is after only 1 year earlier it was $250 billion. So the Chinese have added $100 billion in American-held debt. The U.K., $240 billion, and you can see the other countries down here, Hong Kong is on there. Of course, they are now part of China. This was a historical chart.

So we have a lot of work to do to restore fiscal responsibility, but we are going to be talking in the weeks ahead in how we are going to do that with this Congress.

We have already taken the steps to move in that direction with the pay-as-you-go budget scoring, and you are going to see some things happening with the budget that have not been done in 6 or 7 years because we do have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible. The American people sent us here to do that.

So with that, I would ask Mr. Murphy if he does not have any comments, he has got his e-mail chart there.

I think they are out celebrating.

But thank you for saying that.

I thank the gentleman and today is my birthday. It is my 39th birthday, and I was happy to spend it here with you tonight talking about the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 9 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 95th birthday of the Girl Scouts of the USA. I wish to recognize the incredible contributions Girl Scouts have made to the United States over the past 95 years.

Since their inception in 1912, the Girl Scouts have used different skill-building exercises and instruction to inspire over 50 million young women of this country to reach their full potential as members of their communities and as citizens of the United States. With the acceptance of the Girl Scout Promise, young women around the world make a commitment to respect themselves and others, to help people at all times, and to be honest and caring in all that they do. Today, over 3.5 million Girl Scouts are working with each other and their communities to help build a brighter future for all of us.

This Saturday, young women from over 200 Girl Scout troops in my district will gather for a Girl Scouts of the USA birthday party. I am honored to have the privilege of joining them for this special celebration and I look forward to proudly thanking them for all of their hard work. These young women are truly an inspiration to me, to the Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania, and to all American citizens.

Madam Speaker, the new Democratic Congress continues to listen to the concerns of middle-class Americans.

We know that average American families have actually lost ground over the past several years, even after several years of economic growth and high corporate profits. Wages are stagnant, personal debts are at an all-time high, and individual savings are at an all-time low. Higher education and health care costs are skyrocketing.

Last week, the Democratic Congress took a step towards helping middle-class families by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which helps Americans join together to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions.

Once again, our legislation passed with bipartisan support, and once again, it will benefit working families across this country. This is just one more example of how the new Congress is leading this Nation in a new direction, just as the American people asked us to do last November.