Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the case for adding a small amount of land to the Hoh Reservation is compelling. Because the tribe's reservation receives about 140 inches of rain per year and is located within a tsunami zone, the tribe must expand its eastern border inland from the coast so they can construct safe housing and other facilities outside of the tsunami zone.

To accomplish this, H.R. 1061 places in trust several tracts of land for the tribe, most of which are currently owned by the tribe. These additions to the reservation are separated from the existing reservation by a 37-acre parcel of Federal land that is part of the Olympic National Park.

H.R. 1061 transfers ownership of this 37-acre parcel of Olympic National Park land to the tribe without consideration. This transfer creates a contiguous, intact reservation with full access across the reservation assured in the form of a road to Highway 101.

This bill also sets an important and needed precedent by transferring these 37 acres without extorting either a land exchange or payment to the Federal Government.

There are many instances when fairness and necessity justify the transfer of Federal lands to States, localities, tribes, or other American citizens. There are also instances when roads that are vital to park neighbors and park visitors should be repaired and rebuilt even though they may be located in otherwise protected areas.

It is worth noting that the National Park Service supports transferring the land from Olympic National Park to the tribe without the need for a land exchange or compensation. I also note the absolute silence and, hence, implied support from advocacy groups to give away this 37 acres of national park lands.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable and needed piece of legislation. I commend the bill's sponsors and all those that have worked on it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this bill. We believe it should be passed and sent to the President for signature.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1405 has been adequately explained by the majority, and we support the legislation. We see no reason to oppose it.

I just want to briefly thank the chairman. I am a freshman here in this body. I appreciate the leadership that he gave and the way that he conducted the Natural Resources Committee. I understand he is going to be a ranking member or in leadership on, perhaps, a different committee. I didn't want to let this time pass and this opportunity pass without thanking him for his leadership, for his fairness and for being able to share things with young folks like myself who are new to the House. I just want to wish him all the best and thank him for his leadership.

I look forward to spending Christmas Eve here with you, unfortunately. Hopefully not.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend those individuals who were once Fellows and have gone on to serve our Nation with such distinction. I urge all Members to join me in support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of our time.

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6205, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, Private Cortes was born and raised in the Bronx and joined the Army in November of 2006. After basic training, he was assigned to the 10th Mountain Division based out of Fort Drum, New York. In September 2007, Private Cortes deployed to Iraq to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. And sadly, Mr. Speaker, less than 2 months later, on November 27, 2007, Private Cortes died when the vehicle he was riding in was struck by an improvised explosive device. Private Cortes was awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star to honor his bravery and courage.

Mr. Speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office to honor Private Cortes. This was a man who made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, fighting for our freedom and the freedom of the Iraqi people. The least we can do is honor his memory by naming this post office after him. I join all Members to join me in strong support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise today in support of S. 3794, the FOR VETS Act of 2010. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill that is long overdue. The FOR VETS Act, known as the Formerly Owned Resources for Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act--that's a great acronym right there--makes organizations whose membership is comprised primarily of veterans eligible to receive excess personal Federal property. I think it's appropriate that we draw a distinction between personal property and real property. There are major differences, and the value is certainly one of them.

Every day, Mr. Speaker, the General Services Administration, through State agencies, donates surplus goods, such as computers and home appliances, to a wide variety of organizations such as hospitals, schools, and public libraries. The FOR VETS Act simply adds veterans organizations to this list of eligible recipients who can receive the excess Federal personal property. The property being donated under the FOR VETS Act will be items that the Federal Government is no longer using. I can't imagine a more deserving segment of the population to which we should be donating this excess property.

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

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

I rise today in support of House Resolution 1743, congratulating Gerda Weissmann Klein on being selected to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, last month, on November 17, Gerda Weissmann Klein was informed that she will be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This award is the highest civilian honor that an American can receive, and Ms. Klein is very deserving.

She was born in Poland in 1924, and was taken prisoner when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939. After being separated from her parents, Ms. Klein spent the next 6 years in concentration camps--6 years.

In 1945, Ms. Weissmann was forced to walk 350 miles in a death march where roughly 2,000 women were subjected to starvation, exposure, and arbitrary execution. Ms. Weissmann was one of less than 120 women who miraculously survived the death march and were liberated by the United States forces in Czechoslovakia.

One of the U.S. soldiers who was there to liberate the women was Lieutenant Kurt Klein. Klein and Ms. Weissmann soon fell in love and were later married.

Since moving to America after the war, Mrs. Weissmann Klein has worked tirelessly to promote Holocaust education and remembrance, teach tolerance, and combat hunger. She has written multiple books about her experience as a Holocaust survivor, and, to this day, she works to promote tolerance and educate people about the horrors of the Holocaust.

It is with great honor I commend her on being selected to receive this award and thank her for the work she has done.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have been very critical of a lot of resolutions that have come to the floor recognizing things like the Hollywood Walk of Fame. But there are certain people, certain things that rise to a level of excellence that are so extraordinary that they deserve the recognition of this Nation and of this body, and I find that this fits that category. So it is my honor to join in strong support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say the majority has done a wonderful and thorough job of describing the justification for this bill. I commend Mr. Posey, our colleague from Florida, for introducing this bill and urge support of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill is amnesty. We should not be rewarding illegal behavior. We should be prioritizing Americans. And we should be prioritizing the millions of people who are not willing to break the law. They are trying to do it legally, lawfully, sometimes waiting 20 years to go through the process. We need to fix legal immigration, not reward illegal behavior.

Further, while I have the greatest respect for the leadership within the committee, I need to say that in the 23 months that I served on the Subcommittee on Immigration, it is an embarrassment that we met 12 times and never discussed this. Never, never did we have a substantive hearing or discussion on this bill.

Yet under martial rule we bring it here to the floor with a very short time span, in the middle of the night here and try to slam this through. That is fundamentally wrong to the process; and when the process is wrong, you get a bad result. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

My understanding is that you are actually a board member of the Congressional Hispanic Institute, is that correct?

My understanding is that actually 13 of the 28 sponsors of this bill are on the board of this, is that correct?

My understanding is that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute is an independent 501(c)3.

My question, my concern about this is I have one about recognizing sports folks--and that's a separate issue. He has certainly accomplished so much on the golf course and off the golf course. I admire the work that you have done in this Congress.

But it does seem to be a huge conflict of interest to sponsor a bill recognizing Chi Chi Rodriguez, who then, in turn for his accomplishments for youth programs of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. Isn't that a conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California would engage with me here, I do have a few more questions, and I appreciate the dialogue and the passion you have for this.

One of my concerns is that it actually, I think, detracts from the idea of the accomplishments of Chi Chi Rodriguez and also the good work that I am sure that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute has done. But to say that there is nothing in receipt, that it's all about giving and no receiving, it seems to me, on the appearance of it, that there is a huge conflict of interest. For Members of Congress, who serve independently on a 501(c)3, they serve independently with this organization, with a fiduciary responsibility to that organization, to use the office of being a Member in Congress to advance legislation that is surely, surely going to benefit the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

I would be happy to yield some of my time to address this.

Reclaiming my time, for the record, I have absolutely no doubt that the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute does good. You have mentioned some scholarships. I have looked at the Web site. There is no doubt. There is no question in my mind. My question is, why this particular foundation, one that you serve on the board of directors.

This country has thousands of foundations that do good work. But if the threshold here, and my understanding is the institute raises in the neighborhood of 6 to $7 million----

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a colossal waste of time to recognize sports heroes. That is a separate subject. That is a separate subject. Last week I voted against Joe Paterno, for goodness' sakes, one of the great football coaches in this country. Chi Chi Rodriguez has accomplished amazing feats. There's no doubt in my mind about this. But I feel as if the floor of the House of Representatives is being used for Members' own personal benefits to actually move forward their own foundation. And that is the concern.

There are thousands, as you just agreed to, thousands of foundations that do great work, that inspire kids and youth. That's part of what makes this country such a great country. But the only reason this bill is moving forward today, the reason it's coming to the floor of the House, is that we have 13 Members of Congress who serve on the board of directors of this, which seems like a conflict of interest.

If you want to address that, I would be happy to yield more time to you to address it.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman addressing the questions. I really do. One of the concerns that is there is if you look at the opportunity, if you will, to attract corporate money to this. I went to the Web site today. These companies donate in excess of $200,000 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute: AstraZeneca, Exxon Mobil, Toyota, Wal-Mart. These are companies that donate over $100,000, according to the Website: AFL-CIO and affiliate unions, Altria Group, American Petroleum Institute, Anheuser-Busch, AT&T, Change to Win and affiliate unions, Comcast Corporation, Dell, Lilly, Lockheed Martin, Motorola, PepsiCo, Southwest, State Farm Insurance, Telemundo, Time Warner Cable, the Coca-Cola Company, UnitedHealthcare Foundation, Univision, UPS.

The purpose of this bill, according to the resolution, the very last line here, is to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make available an enrolled copy of this resolution to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, of which 13 Members of this body sit on the board of directors, and to the Chi Chi Rodriguez Youth Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, just to finish the conclusion of that thought, the reason, at least from my vantage point, and I would hope that you would address this, the reason that this resolution is moving forward is that there is a benefit to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. They can use this as a tool to go out and solicit more money, more support, and grow their own personal foundation. It's not something that's afforded to other foundations. And the only reason this is moving forward is because we have 13 Members in this body that are cosponsors of this legislation that sit on the board of directors. And that is of deep concern.

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from California pointed out is true. Previously I had sponsored and voted for resolutions regarding sports folks. I finally realized this is a colossal waste of time. I took a pledge that I was no longer going to do it. I did it in the past. It was wrong. We have people unemployed. We have people who can't meet their mortgages.

I have come to find I think they are absolutely a colossal waste of time. Even though they're a lot of good people, but we're not recognizing taking care of the people's business. That's my own personal belief.

But to clarify the question that you had, yes, I did do that in the past. I

wish I hadn't, but I'm a freshman. I made a mistake, and I'm moving forward.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 946, the Plain Writing Act of 2010.

Madam Speaker, we all want Federal agencies to communicate information about benefits and services in plain language. Overly bureaucratic language can confuse the public and prevent individual citizens from receiving benefits and services Congress intended to provide them. If we could get government agencies to write in plain language by issuing a congressional fiat, this problem would have been solved, I am sure, a long time ago. This bill is unlikely to accomplish its purpose, but

it is likely to incur a cost of about $5 million annually, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This is the heart of my concern.

The bill directs senior agency officials to make certain that the agency is communicating clearly with the public. Federal employees are to be trained to write plainly, and documents produced by the agency are to be drafted using writing that follows ``best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.'' Thus, even the bill's definition of the term ``plain writing'' is not necessarily clear.

Madam Speaker, at a time of record budget deficits and amid our Federal Government's fiscal woes, we should not be spending another $5 million to direct the Federal Government to do something that it should already be doing. Federal agencies that deal with the public should obviously be communicating the benefits and services they provide in clear, understandable language. It should not require legislation to accomplish that goal, and it is not clear how the legislation would actually achieve that. Federal agencies already receive funds to communicate about their programs and throwing more money at the problem is unlikely to improve the situation.

I urge Members to oppose H.R. 946.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I have the greatest respect for Chairman Clay and for Congressman Braley. I think their goals and intentions, the stated objective is admirable. It is laudable. It's something I'm sure we can all agree with. We should be writing in plain, clear language.

There are two challenges. The thing that just makes me smile about this is that this language was put together. It passed in the House. It goes over to the Senate. The Senate comes back and says your definition of plain language is not clear. In fact, they came back--and this is what it says right in the bill that they sent back to us, the term, quote, plain writing, end quote, means writing that is clear, and then it continues on. This is not necessarily going to solve the problem. This is not going to solve the problem.

And yet in a time of record budget deficits, we're 13-plus trillion dollars in debt. We're spending $5- to $600 million a day just in interest on that debt. This bill suggests and authorizes that we're going to authorize $50 million over the next 10 years, $50 million to say, Go write in plain language.

Well, let's be plain and let's be clear. We've got a debt crisis in this country. That's plain. It is clear. We all understand it. Our Federal Government should not be spending $50 million over 10 years directing agencies to say, Write more plain, clear language. Why they need $5 million a year to try to implement this is beyond me, but enough is enough. We cannot afford this.

Tell and direct and insist that every agency and every document be instituted in plain, clear language, and if the head of that agency can't achieve that goal, then they should fire somebody and get somebody who can do that.

There is no definition in the bill of what clear and plain writing is. To say that it is clear does not solve the problem, and so the Federal Government, every time it runs into trouble, what does it do? Let's throw more money at it. We can't afford $50 million over the next 10 years to write plain language. That's plain. That's clear. And that's why we should oppose this bill.

I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, Americans lost one of our finest early Tuesday morning when the Blackhawk helicopter carrying Chief Warrant Officer Three Matthew Wagstaff of Orem, Utah, went down in Afghanistan.

His family released a statement that reads, in part: ``Matt died doing what he loved to do, and that was to fly. He was a tremendous husband, son, brother and uncle, and he served his country well.''

He was just married to his wife Tiffany in January, and was anticipating a visit home next month to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where he was based. His wife and parents, Ronald and Suzanne Wagstaff, flew to Dover Air Force base in Delaware Wednesday morning to receive him and return him home for burial.

At 34 years old, CW3 Wagstaff had served for ten years as a Blackhawk helicopter pilot and was an active-duty member of the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He had recently re-enlisted knowing he would most likely be called up for a second tour in Afghanistan, having already served a third overseas tour in Iraq.

A friend of the family shared that CW3 Wagstaff joined the military with a passion to fly helicopters, and that he was one of several pilots asked to fly Blackhawks in the original ``Transformers'' movie in 2007. He flew his helicopter in the action scenes in Los Angeles over Dodger Stadium, through alleys, and over rooftops. The friend went on to say that CW3 Wagstaff ``felt like he was making a difference,'' adding that his missions in Afghanistan included bringing injured soldiers out of combat zones.

A graduate of Orem High School and Utah State University, CW3 Wagstaff was among nine NATO service members killed in the crash near the town of Qatal in Zabul province. The soldiers were aboard an International Security Assistance Force helicopter. The cause of Tuesday's crash was not immediately known.

Our hearts and prayers as Americans go out to the Wagstaff family for their willingness to send their husband, son, and brother to serve us all. We honor and appreciate him for his service, and his unselfishness in offering the ultimate sacrifice for his country and those whose lives he blessed both in and out of uniform. May God bless him, his family, and all those who join us now in mourning his passing.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

We have so many good Federal workers who wake up every morning and do good jobs. They go to work. They are working hard to make this country great, and we applaud them for that effort. Unfortunately, there is a small percentage of people who are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. It happens to be that nearly 100,000 Federal workers are not paying about a billion dollars a year in taxes.

The proposal that we will be able to vote on today will allow us to mandate and make sure that Federal workers who fall into this category of serious delinquent tax debt are fired if they don't pay their taxes.

The principle is simple: If you're on the Federal payroll, you should be paying your Federal taxes. Now, there is a provision in there that says if you're on a pathway to actually making whole and you're having your wages garnished and you're trying to get whole, then fine. We're obviously not going to fire you. Yet, according to the data from the IRS, the numbers are quite staggering--100,000 people. If you're taking those taxpayer dollars, you should be paying your taxes.

Interestingly enough, on January 20 of this year, President Obama gave a speech. He was talking about Federal contractors. I want you to listen to the words of the President, who I happen to agree with in this case; but I also want you to think, when they say ``Federal contractor,'' they should also say ``Federal worker.''

In quoting President Obama: ``It is simply wrong for companies to take taxpayer dollars and not be taxpayers themselves. We need to insist on the same sense of responsibility in Washington that so many of you strive to uphold in your own lives, in your own families, and in your own businesses.''

He went on to say: ``All across the country, there are people who meet their obligations each and every day. You do your jobs. You support your families. You pay the taxes you owe because it's a fundamental responsibility of citizenship; and yet, somehow, it has become standard practice in Washington to give contracts to companies that don't pay their taxes.''

The President is right. Everywhere that it says ``Federal contractors,'' it should also say ``Federal employees.'' This is simple. This should be bipartisan. Everybody should unite behind this because, unfortunately, there are too many people who are on the payrolls who are taking taxpayer dollars but who are not paying their fair share. They have good-quality, high-paying jobs. Please support this measure as it comes up today, and let's do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, rhetorically it was asked, Where was I? Where was I?

Look, I'm just a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. I actually stand with some Democrats and the President in supporting the idea and the notion that, if you're a Federal contractor and if you don't pay your taxes, you should be dismissed as a contractor. In fact, you shouldn't get a contract. Let's have the guts to have that same standard for Federal employees. That's where the hypocrisy comes in. The President was very clear. I read his comments about taking care of Federal contractors. The same standard should apply to the Federal employees. To suggest that, well, we'll go ahead and grant them some special exemption, absolutely not. I think we need to hold them to a higher standard, do the same for contractors and do the same for the Federal employees. That's the right thing to do. Like I said, I didn't create this mess, but we are here to help clean it up.

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

Mr. Speaker, this one hits close to home. I lost my mother to cancer at a very young age, to breast cancer. My father a few months ago was diagnosed with colon cancer. Difficult to watch and to see. But I rise today in strong support of this House Resolution 1522, expressing support for the designation of the last week of September as National Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Week and the last Wednesday of September as the National Previvor Day.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to commend my colleague from Florida who introduced this resolution not only as a Member of Congress, but as a cancer survivor and a previvor herself. For her courage and example, we appreciate it. I also thank Chairman Clay for his leadership and the ability to work together and to bring this resolution to the floor.

This resolution gives this body an opportunity to raise awareness of hereditary cancers of all kinds, informing as many people as we can of the possibility that they or a loved one may have a genetic predisposition for cancer that can lead to preventive strategies that may significantly reduce the chance of an individual dying from cancer.

Even though it was before my allotted age of 50 when I was supposed to do some screening, I recently went and got a colonoscopy. I will spare you the details of that procedure, but I can tell you that it is well worth it to not only have the peace of mind but to do the responsible thing for our families and get checked for these types of cancers that can go undetected with, really, no symptoms. I am glad I did it, and I am grateful for the medical practices that we have in this country to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, an astounding number of women in this country, approximately one in eight, will suffer from breast cancer at some point during their lives. This year alone, an estimated 209,000 women will be diagnosed with the potentially deadly ailment. While the number of deaths attributed to breast cancer has declined since 1990, roughly 40,000 women are still expected to die this year from the disease. Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in women under the age of 54. When my mother passed away, she was only 52 years old.

Mr. Speaker, while not as common as it is in women, let us not forget about the men who also will suffer from breast cancer. While less than 1 percent of new breast cancer cases are found in men, this number was still almost 2,000 in the year 2008.

Along with breast cancer, ovarian cancer poses another major medical threat to women in this country. Each year in the United States, over 21,000 women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and approximately 15,000 die from the disease. Ovarian cancer accounts for roughly 3 percent of cancer diagnoses in women in the United States. It is the ninth most common cancer among women. The greatest risk factor is family history of the disease.

Mr. Speaker, approximately three-quarters of a million people in this country are carriers for a gene mutation that causes a predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Women that have one of these mutations face nearly an 84 percent chance of suffering from breast cancer at some point during their lives.

Furthermore, women who have the BRCA genetic mutation have up to a 50 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer. Roughly 5 to 7 percent of breast cancer and 10 to 14 percent of ovarian cancer cases are hereditary. More than one-third of Jewish women diagnosed with ovarian or primary cancer at any age or diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 have been found to be the carriers of the inherited BRCA mutation.

Mr. Speaker, the other purposes of this resolution is to recognize those known as previvors. According to the nonprofit organization FORCE, cancer previvors are ``individuals who are survivors of a predisposition to cancer but who haven't had the disease.'' These individuals have a known predisposition for cancer such as a family history or hereditary genetic mutation and must live with a unique set of emotional and medical issues. Previvors are forced to make extraordinarily difficult medical management decisions throughout their lives, the likes most of us will never know.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend my colleague from Florida for introducing this resolution. I applaud her brave fight against breast cancer and for her continued campaign to increase cancer awareness and to combat this horrific disease.

I urge all Members to join me in strong support of House Resolution 1522, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have any additional speakers.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge us all to support and pass this important resolution. This is something that should truly unite us in this fight. We continue to build awareness and encourage people to get checked. And our hearts and prayers go out to those loved ones who are suffering from this, but there is great hope.

I urge my colleagues to get behind this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.