Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize the students, faculty, and administration of Fox Chapel Area High School in Pittsburgh, PA, for their participation in the Library of Congress' Veterans History Project. On March 16, 2012, the students of Mrs. Jen Klein's Advanced Placement Government class hosted local veterans to be interviewed about their service in the military.

Nine veterans visited Fox Chapel Area High School where students collected first-hand accounts of their experiences serving in the military, including World War I, World War II, and the Korean War. These stories will become a part of the permanent collection at the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. Along with the veterans' biographical data, their personal stories will be preserved so that future generations can understand the sacrifice and commitment they made for our country.

The Veterans History Project of the Library of Congress American Folklife Center was created by Congress and signed into law in 2000. To date, over 74,000 records have been collected from veterans across the country. As the largest oral history program in United States history, this program relies on volunteers throughout the nation to collect and preserve the first-hand interviews of America's wartime veterans. Because of their participation, the students of Fox Chapel Area High School's names and interviews will be a part of the permanent collection.

The Veterans History Project gives our servicemen and women the opportunity to share their stories of service to our country in a way that no one else can. As the future leaders of America, these students exemplify the best that our schools have to offer. For their outstanding work and dedication to this project, I would like to commend and thank the following students of Fox Chapel Area High School:

Alexander Carlier, Ishan Chatterjee, Zachary Ferguson, Ben Freeman, Alexander Fox, Alexander Goodwin, Sarah Henry, Steven Ho, Loteta Lee, Johnny Lou, Jack Millard, Minu Nagashunmugam, Cristian Nicolescu, Sarah Ogren, Erin Ross, Nicole Segall, Ryan Shymansky, Andrew Tabas, Carly Trakofler, Connor Whelan, Samantha Wiley, Hannah Davis Leizerowski, Emily Owens, Tanner Patsko, Morgan Tucker, Emma Thompson, Josh Norkevicus, Erin Zoller, Ana Roc Martinez, Graydon Leonard, Gisselle Manson, Benjamin Klaas, Chloe Artice, Jacob Snyder.

Mr. Chairman, in March, ``NBC News'' ran a story about a soldier who was charged $41 for a three-second voicemail he left his wife from a pay phone in an airplane in Germany.

This is simply outrageous.

For servicemembers in transit to and from deployment, a quick phone call from an airport pay phone is often their only link to loved ones at home. Because public phones in foreign airports may not accept prepaid calling cards, servicemembers have to accept whatever cost the pay phone service charges in that particular airport. It is important that we help provide that crucial link for our servicemembers during this time of transit.

My amendment would direct the DOD to submit a report on the feasibility of providing telecom services to servicemembers in transit to overseas deployment and to investigate allegations of overcharging servicemembers. The brave men and women of our Armed Forces deserve better than $41 3-second call.

I encourage all Members to support my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would create thousands of jobs for hardworking Americans, but it would also increase our energy independence. Canada has already confirmed its intention to build the pipeline. The only question now is whether or not our Nation will benefit from the jobs, economic growth, and energy security that comes with construction of the pipeline.

We cannot allow this opportunity to pass us by. The project would be developed in keeping with all environmental

regulations and constructed with the safest and most advanced pipeline technology available. What's more, the Keystone pipeline takes advantage of Canada's vast oil resources that are the second-largest on the planet.

The time for delay has long since passed. The House legislation would advance the approval and construction of the pipeline passed by the House on multiple occasions with bipartisan support. The Keystone pipeline has the potential to become a viable, long-lasting, sustainable source of energy for the future. Construction of the pipeline would provide a steady source of energy for our country, decrease our reliance on volatile oil markets, and provide the certainty that comes with steady jobs for tens of thousands of Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the pipeline is going to be built. What is left to decide is whether Americans will benefit from it. I strongly urge the conferees on the Surface Transportation reauthorization committee to include the Keystone pipeline in the final bill, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to advance our Nation's energy independence.

Every year around this time, the President submits a budget, the House and Senate debate their own budgets and, well, nothing happens. Congress has not adopted a budget in over 1,000 days, and it's been 15 years since Congress passed all of its appropriations bills on time. This is simply unacceptable, and that's why I ask my colleagues to join me and the bipartisan cosponsors of the No Budget, No Pay Act.

This bill is simple. It says that if Congress can't complete its work, if the budget and appropriations bills are not done on time, then congressional pay would cease and Members of Congress would not be paid until those bills are enacted. Members could not receive their lost salaries retroactively. Once pay is withheld, it's gone forever.

Somehow, I think if this bill were law, Members would find a new urgency and finally find a way to get their work done on time.

I thank the gentleman from California and my friend from New York (Mr. Tonko). We have a discussion going now about manufacturing in America. And our colleagues understand the relationship that exists between manufacturing and R&D, research and development. And it's critical that we look at those together, because of the discussion that we're having in this country about why, over the past several decades, we've lost so much in manufacturing, we've lost our core manufacturing businesses.

I come from western Pennsylvania. We have seen the steel industry over the past several years. Although there is a resurgence today, it's been many, many years since we lost a lot of that steel industry that we had in western Pennsylvania, and it was the core base of employment for generations in the Pittsburgh area.

Across the country, we've seen our manufacturing industry decimated by foreign competition; and the reason R&D relates to this, as the gentleman certainly knows, is it's a continuum. And at first, when America lost its manufacturing lead to other countries, we still kept the innovation; we still kept the R&D. But the continuum that exists between someone in America coming up with an idea, an invention, turning that, through R&D, into a real product, a real innovation, we have always been the leaders in that in America. Americans have led the way with innovation, with creation, with technology, and then turning that into the

manufacturing sector, turning that towards product development, manufacturing, exportation to other countries, creating a base of people who are going to use that product.

The whole continuum is something that we have seen over the last several years through foreign competition. We've lost our lead in a lot of those things. And because of our failure to invest in research and development, because of our failure to keep up with the foreign competition, we've lost even more than just the manufacturing sector. We've lost our competitive edge on the innovation side as well.

That's why it's so critical, even in the times that we face now, severe fiscal restraint, a recession that we are finally recovering from. We have to continue to make that investment in R&D because, as the gentleman from New York said, if we don't do it, other countries will--and they are. And if we expect to compete in a global economy, if we expect to get back our lead in manufacturing, which we are starting to do, it has to begin at that first stage of innovation, of research and development, creating new products, leading to new ways of manufacturing, more cost-efficient ways of manufacturing.

We're going to be able to do it, and we're starting to see the resurgence in America specifically because we understand that continuum that exists. It would be a tragedy for workers in this country to begin moving in the other direction.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

I wanted to transition into talking about the trade deficit that we're facing in this country. But before I did that, I wanted to close the loop with what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Garamendi have been talking about for my colleagues.

I hear a lot back home. You'll have town hall meetings, and you'll have discussions with people about federally funded research. It seems as though there's always an example somewhere of a research project that seems on the surface to be unjustifiable, and in some cases, people will argue it's ridiculous that we're funding certain things. I just wanted, for my colleagues, to give a couple of examples of federally funded research that has paid huge dividends for everyday life.

There was in the late 1970s and early 1980s a big national story about federally funded research that studied the eyesight of eagles. At the time, it was considered to be a mockery--it was of no use to society, and it was a waste of money. Well, lo and behold, what did we get out of that research? We got night vision goggles for our troops who were serving overseas on the military battlefield. We got soft contact lenses. We got so many innovations from that type of research. The touch screen on our everyday iPad was federally funded research out of the University of Delaware, of course many years after what I'm speaking of. The GPS system, which so many of us rely on, was from federally funded research. The Internet was created, as we all know, through the Pentagon and federally funded research.

So I would say to my colleagues, for those who may be skeptical that certain projects--and you know, I'm sure there are some that you can point to that haven't paid dividends, but there are some that maybe on the surface didn't sound like good ideas in the beginning that have paid huge dividends. I would go back to that example of studying the eyesight of eagles. LASIK eye surgery was the byproduct of that type of research. So investment is what we're talking about. Research and development just pays back so much more than what we're paying into it.

The R&D tax credit has to be made permanent. That is a key part of this. The manufacturing extension partnership that the gentleman was talking about is a key part of our future in this country, bringing back a resurgent manufacturing base. What happens if you don't do that? What happens if you aren't competitive in the global economy?

It's what this chart shows.

Now, this will come as no surprise to our colleagues. This is the U.S. trade deficit from 1976 through 2008. You don't even need to look at the numbers, and you can see it's heading in the wrong direction and that it has been heading in the wrong direction for a very, very long time, and there are a lot of reasons why this is.

Some of it has to do with our foreign competitors and their getting their act together and joining the world competition in a way that they hadn't before. But a lot of it has to do with our own policies and the fact that we have not invested, that we have not had a strategic manufacturing strategy in this country and that we were a little bit slow to react to what was happening overseas.

The role that we have in this House is to change that, and we have a decision to make in this country: Are we going to continue to allow this to happen and just sit back and wait while other countries continue to improve, to modernize, to become more cost-efficient, to become more competitive, and to continue to make this trend worse for the American worker? Or are we going to take action? Are we going to invest in our future? Are we going to change the way that we do our manufacturing strategy in order to incentivize making products in America?

We talked a couple of weeks ago, the gentleman from California and I, on this very floor about a provision of our Tax Code which may very well be, in my opinion, the most egregious and unjustifiable provision in the entire Federal Tax Code, which is, if you have physical assets, if you have a plant in this country, a manufacturing plant, and if you want to move that plant overseas, if you're going to close your operations, if you're going to get rid of your American workers, if you're going to move your physical assets, literally move those assets overseas, in some cases, you can get a tax deduction for the cost of your moving expenses. The American taxpayer, believe it or not, will cover the cost to move that plant overseas.

That's ludicrous. There is no reason that provision should exist, and that's one of the reasons you see the chart going in the wrong direction--because we have been slow to react. Yet we're at a turning point in this country. We have a tremendous opportunity in front of us to do the right thing, to change the policies that have led to our trade deficit and to begin turning the corner and heading in the right direction.

The gentleman has given me so much to work with here on community colleges, and then I will transition into transportation, as the gentleman would like to do.

I visited, just yesterday, the Community College of Allegheny County, outside of Pittsburgh; and they have an amazing fundraising campaign going on, because western Pennsylvanians, private industry, and the foundation community believe in the future of our country, and they believe in the future of community colleges. They have a $40 million fundraising campaign. They've already exceeded $30 million. And the discussion was about all of the wonderful things that are happening as a result of the innovations that are taking place at the community colleges, not just in western Pennsylvania but across the country.

We have energy resources in western Pennsylvania that are unique. And all the time we hear about employers saying that they have jobs available, but they can't find people who are trained to fill those spots. So being right on the cutting edge, the Community College of Allegheny County has almost two dozen new programs, new curricula

that they have established to train workers and retrain, in some cases, to fill the new spots--geologists, managers, people out there on the worksites, all types of ways, through the natural gas industry, the nuclear industry, energy, research and development, what we were talking about earlier.

Our community colleges really do play a unique role in this because of their ability to partner with local businesses, to identify the needs, to retrain workers who have lost their jobs through downsizing or changes in the workforce. It's an amazing resource for this country, and the President is right to put a focus on community colleges as part of our resurgence in this country.

Earlier, our colleague, Mr. Tonko, was talking about the Erie Canal and the foresight and the commitment that went in and just the unbelievable feat that it was to accomplish that. And I was thinking, as the gentleman was speaking, about the debate that we're having in this country about transportation and infrastructure.

We are going to debate tomorrow and vote probably Thursday in this House on a very underfunded transportation bill that does not contain the same foresight that the gentleman was discussing occurred in New York. And I think about the debate that must have occurred in New York when the Erie Canal was proposed, and the cost and the expense and the manpower and just the time commitment that was necessary, a seemingly impossible task.

You think about the intercontinental railroad in the 1800s and what the country's debate, the political debate had been at that time. What must have been the debate in the 1940s and 1950s when President Eisenhower finally got off the ground the interstate highway system and began connecting our roads in a way that we'd never done before.

That's what we're facing right now. We have a system of transportation in this country to move goods from point A to point B, manufacturing and make it in America, what we were talking about. Well, if you make it in America, you have to have a way to move goods across the country. We can do that in all kinds of ways. We can do that on our waterways, through shipping, cargo ships; and we also have barges in my neck of the woods. In Pittsburgh, I have a system of locks and dams in the district that I represent, six different locks and dams that average 85 years old. They were built to last 50. Two of them have been rated by the Army Corps of Engineers as in imminent threat of failure. That is a crisis of infrastructure, and that's happening in similar ways all across the country.

You look at our aviation system. If you want to move goods by air, we have an air traffic control system in this country that is still based in technology from the 1950s. And this NextGen technology that is possible through satellite technology, it is expensive but it's long overdue, and it's a commitment that we need to make in this country, as they've made in other countries. Our competitors don't have the same bottlenecks that we do at their airports because they have more modern air traffic technology.

And then you get to our rail system. We all understand the bottlenecks outside of Chicago and other places in this country and our lack of modern investment in our rail system. But what we're going to be talking about this week in the House is our roads and bridges and a highway system. I spoke earlier about President Eisenhower's vision with the interstate highway system and the way that this bill lacks that same vision because it underfunds that investment and it doesn't require or doesn't even incentivize products to be made in America.

There are literally trillions of dollars of need in our transportation infrastructure. Certainly we don't have the ability to afford it all; but I can't think of a better way to put American workers back to work, to put American jobs back in play in the manufacturing sector, to have a resurgence, a regeneration of our manufacturing sector than through our transportation infrastructure.

I'm very disappointed at the lost opportunity that the bill we're debating presents because there are so many ways American workers can win, American manufacturers can win, and, most importantly, America can win. And we're missing that opportunity. But through the discussion that we are having today, maybe we can move this country in a different direction.

I thank the gentleman from California for leading the hour and for yielding some time.

I come from a region of the country in western Pennsylvania--the Pittsburgh area and surrounding region--that knows a little bit about manufacturing. And just as important, we know a little bit about the policies that have led to the loss of manufacturing, not just in western Pennsylvania, but in this country; policies that have given a preferred tax treatment for companies that outsource jobs, that transfer physical assets overseas and then can claim a tax deduction for the cost of moving expenses. We understand that those policies have failed. They do not lead, certainly, to job and economic growth. It's quite the opposite. But they do not help America become more competitive in the global economy, which is what this House is debating right now.

And, yes, I do serve on the Transportation Committee, and we are talking about a long-overdue reauthorization of the transportation funding reauthorization.

We also, in western Pennsylvania, we have locks and dams. The roads and bridges that we have are in serious decay. Our waterways infrastructure, just as an example, with locks and dams averages 85 years old. Locks and dams that were built to withstand 50 years before they would need to be replaced are now rated in imminent threat of failure by the Army Corps of Engineers.

On the transportation side, we in the State of Pennsylvania have over 6,000 structurally deficient bridges. And in western Pennsylvania, my region, we have 1,000 structurally deficient bridges. Our infrastructure is literally crumbling around us, and we must do something about it. And that presents a wonderful opportunity for the Make It in America agenda, because when these roads and bridges and locks and dams are rebuilt, we want it to be American workers. And when the American taxpayer pays their tax dollars to fund infrastructure improvements, we want it to be done here in America. And we're going to talk more about that tonight.

I know the gentleman from California understands there's a bridge project, which is leading the discussion on this, across the country. I believe it's a $400 million renovation. The gentleman can correct me.

A $4 billion bridge project. And the American taxpayer is funding the Chinese to give the steel to California to rebuild this bridge. And the infrastructure improvements that are being made, certainly we'll see some benefit, but those are American jobs. And American tax dollars are going overseas for something that could be done better and more cost efficiently here at home.

So I know the gentleman wants to talk about that, but I appreciate his leadership.

I thank the gentleman.

And I would just say briefly, I am an original cosponsor of that bill. I don't know that my colleagues are. I presume they're cosponsors.

But it's very simple, actually. All it says is we're going to do this infrastructure. We're going to come up with the resources in this country to rebuild America, to invest in our infrastructure. It's long overdue in this country. And it just says, if you're going to do that, you have to seek out American workers and American products to do that. You have to use manufacturing from American workers to rebuild our infrastructure. It just sounds so simple. And our colleagues listening today and others might be surprised to know that that's not already in the law, that we would have a preference in this country for American workers and American steel and American goods to perform our infrastructure improvements.

Right. You have to find a way to pay for it because it's only going to get worse if you ignore the problem.

Now, you might say as a family, you know what, we can't take the kids out for that steak dinner. We can't go out to see the movies this month like we were talking about. But we have to find a way to fix this leak because it's only going to get more expensive, it's only going to get worse, and it's only going to create more damage if we ignore that problem.

I talked earlier about the state of our roads and bridges, the state of our locks and dams; and the gentleman's chart shows the first word on that chart is ``airports.'' Our aviation infrastructure in this country is as out of date as any other developed nation on the planet.

Our air traffic control system literally operates with 1950s technology.

One of the debates that we are having with infrastructure and aviation is this NextGen system, which is where we would utilize what has become commonplace everywhere else in the country: the system of satellites and GPS. It just makes common sense. The reason we have such bottlenecks at the major hub airports in the country, which affect everybody in this country, is that even if you don't live in that city, you're affected by it because that plane is going to be coming to your city; and if it's delayed, it affects you. We have those delays worse than anywhere else on the planet because of the state of our infrastructure with aviation and with airports.

It touches every type of transportation infrastructure you can think of--waterways, rail, roads, bridges. It is critically important.

This is a tremendous opportunity for America. In using American workers, in using American resources, we're all going to win from this; and that's why I support the gentleman's plan.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a cause of great importance, the fight against Pulmonary fibrosis. Pulmonary fibrosis is a disorder of the lungs that, over time, deprives its victims of their ability to breathe normally. An estimated 200,000 Americans currently suffer from Pulmonary fibrosis, and 48,000 additional cases are diagnosed each year. Sadly, the disease claims 40,000 lives every year, yet there is no known cause, and even worse, no cure. Despite the prevalence of Pulmonary fibrosis, it remains virtually unknown to the public.

That is why I was proud to cosponsor the Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act in the past, and why I believe it is important to do so again in the 112th Congress. This bill would require the creation of a National Pulmonary Fibrosis Registry to collect data, expand research for prevention, and generate much needed awareness for the individuals who suffer from Pulmonary fibrosis,

and the loved ones who care for them. It would also create a national advisory board that would report to Congress, convene a national summit, and foster greater coordination among federal agencies to better facilitate information in an effort to better understand the disease.

The Coalition for Pulmonary Fibrosis is a group of dedicated individuals who together are working to raise awareness in the hopes that one day we can discover the cause of Pulmonary Fibrosis, as well as a treatment and cure. In August 2011, the Coalition held an inaugural walk/run to raise money for Pulmonary Fibrosis in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The event was a great success. Over 270 people participated, and they raised over $28,000.

The Pulmonary Fibrosis Research Enhancement Act is a crucial step in the fight towards increasing public awareness and understanding of the disease. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this worthy cause, and this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. I ask that the President reconsider his reported rejection of this project. This project will increase employment while reducing our dependence on overseas oil.

Canada has already made its decision. The pipeline is going to be built. The question is whether it lands on the gulf coast of the United States or the west coast of Canada. And make no mistake: If it ends up on Canada's coast, that oil will only continue westward to China and their markets. The jobs and the economic benefit of the pipeline would then be lost here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this pipeline is a foregone conclusion; who will benefit is not. This is a chance to employ Americans and help protect them in a volatile oil market.

I ask the President to reconsider his reported rejection of this project.

Mr. Speaker, the two key takeaways from the debate today are, number one, there is nobody in this Chamber--nobody, Republican, Democrat--nobody in the Senate on the other side--Republican, Democrat, Independent--nobody believes that a 2-month fix is the end result of this process. The 2-month fix is to allow the benefits to continue so that the 160 million Americans that are now benefiting from the reduction in the payroll tax continue to have those benefits while we come together and while we compromise, while we come to a long-term agreement. That's what this is all about.

The other takeaway is the majority party did not allow a vote on the Senate plan. For all the talk about how

flawed they believe the Senate plan to be, they didn't allow a vote on the Senate plan because they would have lost their position. That bill would have passed. We would be done with it today.

So when you hear Members of the majority talking about how flawed the Senate bill is and how the American people don't support it, their own Members would have voted for it, and we would have passed the bill if they would have allowed it.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Lions Club International Century of Service Commemorative Coin Act. This legislation commemorates the Lions Club's 2017 Centennial, at no cost to the taxpayer, as the cost will be paid for by sales to the public.

As former president and zone chairman of my local Lions Club in Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, I know firsthand the great work done by Lions Club International, which now has 1.3 million members and chapters spanning every corner of the globe.

The Lions Clubs focus on the five goals of preserving sight, combating disability, promoting health, serving youth, and disaster relief, for which Lions Club donated over $50 million in relief funds to Japan, Haiti, and most recently to our own southern States.

I commend the great work carried out by Lions Club International, and look forward to helping them commemorate their 2017 centennial year.

I thank the gentleman, my friend from Tennessee, and I especially thank the gentleman from Texas for his kind words.

There are other things that are more important than this--our friends in the American Legion would be the first to agree--that we are working on in this Congress; but as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, this is something only the Congress can do.

This is an important issue for the American Legion. It modernizes the charter of the American Legion, and it clarifies the local autonomy of the local posts throughout the country. This needs to be done. It is important, and it is something that we in this Chamber have come together to do. It is long overdue.

When I first introduced this bill in June, I started to talk with folks in this Chamber, and I found out that there really are things we can agree on. We've spent a lot of time over the course of the year--in fact, a lot of time today--pointing fingers at each other and casting blame and talking about all the things that we don't agree on. Yet, for our men and women in uniform, the people who are honorably and bravely serving this country, and our American veterans, we agree that they need this change and that we support them.

As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, according to the Congressional Research Service, this bill that we introduced in the House, which is the companion bill to the Senate bill on which we will vote tomorrow, has received the most cosponsors of any bill ever introduced in the history of the Congress--432 cosponsors. It's more than any bill that has ever been introduced in history. It passed unanimously in the Senate after it was introduced in October, which shows there really are things we can work together on.

Maybe this isn't the most important thing we could be doing, but it's something we need to do; and it's something we're going to do. Hopefully, it will send a message on both sides of this Capitol that we should come together and that we should put our differences aside. That doesn't mean we have to always agree, but at least let's work together, because this bill proves we can do it.

So I am proud to stand here as the author of the House companion of this bill, and I am a proud supporter of the Senate bill that we will be voting on. I'm grateful that Senator Tester took the leadership role in the Senate to get this done.

I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the good work being done in Pennsylvania to help children and teenagers cope with the loss of a loved one.

For more than a decade, Highmark Caring Place centers in Pennsylvania have worked with hundreds of schools and businesses throughout the commonwealth to promote better strategies for helping young people deal with the death of a loved one. This type of tragedy is a burden faced by too many young people. One out of every twenty children will lose a parent, and one in seven children will lose someone close to them--such as a brother, sister, or grandparent--before they reach the age of 18.

As the holiday season approaches, the pain of losing a loved one often grows as memories of past holidays are revisited. Many grieving children will feel alone and afraid, and although it is often believed that children are less affected by loss and more able to easily continue with their lives, the opposite is true. These children need the caring support of family, friends, and others to help them understand and cope with their feelings.

Since its founding in 1997, Highmark Caring Place has served over 30,000 people and in 2008 alone, provided the equivalent of $428,000 in volunteer service hours. The program brings together grieving children, their families, and trained volunteers to share meals, talk and play games, and engage in group discussions with other families coping with the same experience. These programs are free of charge to the community and open to anyone.

On November 17, Pennsylvanians will mark Children's Grief Awareness Day, a day of remembrance initiated by school students across the commonwealth to bring attention to their classmates coping with a loss. Thousands of students will wear blue to show solidarity with, and support for, their peers. Others will hold assemblies, bake sales, and presentations to raise awareness. I commend these students for their initiative and the compassion they are showing for their peers.

Through their programs and the generosity of their volunteers, Highmark Caring Place is truly making a difference in the lives of grieving children and their families. I wish to express my sincere gratitude for the work they do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment. Forty-nine of the 50 States are required to balance their budgets. And while I'm certain that State legislatures will agree that it's always a difficult process, somehow they annually meet their obligations while achieving balance. The Federal Government should be able to do it, too.

But States aren't the only place Congress can look to for examples. Every family and every business in America has to balance expenses and income. They have every right to expect the Federal Government to do the same; but, unfortunately, Congress has let them down time and again.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come to fix the problem. Constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget have been introduced in Congress for

the past 75 years. Most recently, in 1995, the House passed a balanced budget virtually identical to the one we're debating today, and it passed this House with bipartisan support, 72 Democrats and 228 Republicans. And because that amendment failed by one vote in the Senate, our national debt has now surpassed $15 trillion. The situation has only gotten worse, and the stakes today are much higher than 1995.

This vote is an opportunity to prove to the American people that this Congress can work together and that we are finally committed to balancing our budget and putting our country back on fiscally solid ground.

Madam Speaker, today the House considers the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. I'm a proud cosponsor of this bill because it will protect Americans' Second Amendment rights by allowing citizens who have a valid permit to carry a firearm in any State in the country with a concealed carry law. The Second Amendment applies to law-abiding citizens all across America, and this reciprocity act will protect Americans' rights as they travel throughout the country.

Law-abiding citizens in western Pennsylvania should be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights even when they leave the Commonwealth's borders. All Americans have an individual right to bear arms that is protected by the Constitution.

I urge my colleagues to support the Second Amendment and vote for the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act.

Madam Speaker, I spoke in favor of repealing the 3 percent withholding provision when it

passed the House just last month, and I am pleased the Senate has not only passed it but has added important provisions to help our brave men and women in uniform find work when they return home.

The amended bill provides retraining assistance to unemployed veterans as well as tax credits to businesses that hire unemployed veterans, which is a segment of our population that has been especially hard-hit by our sluggish economy. An estimated 12 percent of veterans who have served since the attacks of September 11 are unemployed. This is far above the national average and is not what our Nation's heroes deserve.

Our servicemembers have gone above and beyond for their country, and this legislation is one way for Congress to honor their sacrifice and to help them succeed here at home. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in its favor.