Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in welcoming our distinguished guest, President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan, to the United States.

Mr. Chen Shui-bian was elected president of the Republic of China on Taiwan on March 20, 2000. Since his election, he has shown true leadership in improving Taiwan's economy, instituting further democratic reform, and strengthening Taiwan's role in the international community.

I am confident that President Chen will further strengthen Taiwan's strong ties with the United States. Taiwan has been a key ally in our efforts against global terrorism, and has pledged assistance to the rebuilding of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I also trust that President Chen will soon begin a dialogue with the leaders of the People's Republic of China with the interests of the 23 million people of Taiwan in mind. Taiwan is a sovereign nation and must make its own decisions about its future without coercion from the People's Republic.

I applaud President Chen's insistence on his people ``walking their own road, their own Taiwan road.'' President Chen is a dynamic leader with a vision for Taiwan's future, and I join my colleagues in wholeheartedly welcoming him from one democracy to another.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Veterans Health Care Facilities Capital Improvement Act of 2003. Every American knows that the face of health care has changed dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military and veterans' health care. This legislation is vital because it will improve, renovate, and update patient care facilities at Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. More important, this legislation demonstrates the continued support of Congress for our nation's veterans by providing the best health service facilities possible.

My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June 19, 2001, the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to improve veterans' heath care in the Chicago area, each of which recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The CARES study also recommended increasing the level the cooperation between North Chicago VA and the Navy's Great Lakes Naval Hospital.

H.R. 1720 will assist the VA in cases where the department enters into resource sharing agreements with the DoD. H.R. 1720 is critical to this mission because the legislation includes a modest adjustment of the definition of what constitutes a ``major'' construction project. This legislation will raise the threshold for ``major'' construction projects to $6 million, and thus allow cooperative sharing agreements between the VA and DoD continue moving forward with minor projects without being subjected to burdensome bureaucratic time tables. Avoiding delays and moving forward with capital improvements to VA health care facilities will save valuable resources and time, which will continue the quality of services offered our Nation's active and veteran population.

In the case of the North Chicago VA Medical Center and Great Lakes Naval Hospital, integration of the two medical facilities is practical and urgent. These facilities both sit underutilized and less than a mile away from each other. Combining these two facilities, state of the art, Federal health care center will maximize the use of tax dollars, enhance the training opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel, and, most important, bring the health care we promised our service men and veteran population into the 21st century. Changing the definition of ``major'' construction may allow the VA to move forward with plans to redesign and construct operating rooms and the emergency room at North Chicago.

I would like to thank the chief sponsor of this bill Representative Rob Simmons, and Chairman Chris Smith of the VA Committee for their work and dedication to America's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1720 will allow the VA to continue moving forward by providing our Nation's veterans, and in some cases our active duty personnel, with new improved health care facilities. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to raise my voice in opposition to what Prime Minister Mahathir said. He is a racist, a bigot, and an anti-Semite who represents his country very poorly, a country which depends on international trade.

Madam Speaker, let me read some of the names of Malaysian companies who depend on U.S. trade. It is these companies whose livelihoods are now threatened by the remarks of their own Prime Minister: Telekom Malaysia, Maxis, Celcom, Digi, Time dotCom, Jaring, Celcom Berhad, Mimos Berhad, and Proton, all of whose business in the United States is now threatened by the remarks of the Malaysian Prime Minister.

If the Malaysian Prime Minister continues, he threatens Malaysian jobs in Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Seremban, Ioph and Kuching. It is something that he should think very clearly about, understanding that so many people in his country depend on trade with the United States.

We have been very disappointed by this speech and very disappointed also by the reaction of one of our friends in the Middle East, Egypt, and the comments of their foreign minister, who, when he read Prime Minister Mahathir's statement, said, ``I saw nothing controversial in the statement.''

Now, we are subjecting Malaysian exporters to a withering analysis, and their dependence on the U.S. market is now in jeopardy. I would hope that the Government of Egypt would think twice before that same kind of analysis applies to their own exports. For us here, the message should go forth to the Malaysian Government: Your exports are now at risk, and jobs which depend on the U.S. market are in jeopardy. Continue down this road, and you continue down a road of unemployment for Malaysian jobs.

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in international diplomacy when we set aside diplomatic language and speak the truth from the heart.

Last week, Malaysia's Prime Minister Muhammad Mahathir took the coward's way out to blame his misrule on the Jews. He said, and I quote, ``The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them. They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they may enjoy equal rights with others.''

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Malaysia is an anti-Semite, a racist, and a bigot. He should not be welcome again in the United States. By following the path of Hitler and Stalin, the international community should work against Malaysian exports until this prime minister steps down.

Mr. Speaker, on October 15, 2003, I was recorded as a ``nay'' vote on rollcall No. 540. Please let the Record show that I intended to vote ``yea'' on this motion.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time, and I just want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his statement.

History has an uncanny way of reminding us of our motivation. General Marshall outlined a program to help war-torn Europe without knowing that 30 years later the United States would face a similar crossroad. 400,000 Americans were killed in World War II, paying the ultimate price for mistakes made after World War I. And following the second European war, the continent ran out of food and suffered from runaway inflation and turned to communism.

Learning the lessons of World War I and its failed peace, the U.S. Congress backed the Marshall Plan. The plan went far beyond feeding the hungry to laying the foundation for the postwar recovery. This plan, the Marshall Plan, was very expensive. In today's dollars it cost $105 billion. And as we face a similar crossroad, we have the benefit of history.

We know that President Truman's decision to back the Marshall Plan helped to prevent World War III. A third generation of Americans did not return to the killing fields of Europe. Today, we face a similar challenge of rebuilding Iraq and preventing a third Middle Eastern war.

This week, the House debates the Iraq supplemental. In considering $19 billion to rebuild Iraq, we face the same question that President Truman faced. Truman asked: How much should we pay to help avoid World War III? And the American people of 1947 answered: $105 billion, as approved by Congress and the Marshall Plan.

Today, we see the unfinished work of Desert Storm and we ask, how much should Congress pay to help avoid a third war in Iraq?

Let us look at the costs of these wars to bring things into perspective. We know that in current dollars, World War II cost $4.7 trillion and remains the most expensive conflict in U.S. history. So far, the war on terror costing $193 billion, including this Iraq- Afghanistan supplemental, is more costly than Desert Storm at $82 billion but less costly than other major conflicts, including Korea at $400 billion and Vietnam at $600 billion. We know the Marshall Plan's cost of $105 billion is roughly five times the $19 billion cost for Iraq proposed here.

Cost is also relative to income. Today's U.S. economy is larger than it was in 1947. The Marshall Plan imposed a heavy financial burden on the American people, 5 percent of our national income. This plan is a much lighter burden; .02 percent of America's income finances this plan. In such terms, the Marshall Plan was over 200 times more expensive than this Iraqi plan.

Under this plan, the reconstruction of Iraq has already begun. Chairman Lewis and I returned from Baghdad where we saw the main power plant returning to prewar capacity. We saw firsthand a budding democracy taking root on the front pages of no less than 120 new newspapers founded since May 1 in Iraq. Under Saddam, only half of schoolchildren attended class. Last week, 90 percent of schoolkids attended class, many with some of the 1.5 million book bags provided by the U.S. They also returned to class with 5 million new textbooks, but these textbooks were absent the pictures of Saddam and the rhetoric of hate that undermined the future of this region.

We need to work with our allies, and as oil begins to flow, a well- educated

people will return to work, but like their predecessors in Europe, our troops need to finish this mission, earning a ticket home with no future Middle Eastern war forcing a return to the killing fields of Iraq. The stakes are high. I think we should finish the job so that there is no third war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, sole-source contracting should be part of our country's past and not its future. While sole-source contracting has had some limited utility, it more often leads to questions of integrity that discredit our Federal Government. I believe that this bill should have no sole-source contracting allowed, but the base text says differently.

The text of this bill requires competitive contracting procedures to be used. But under section 2201 it provides an exception, and that exception says that sole-source contracting can be used, but only if the Congress is notified 7 days in advance.

But the bill goes on to then include a second exception which would allow sole-source contracting with 7 days notice following the award of a contract. Our experience has been that if a contract award is made, it is too late for effective oversight by the Congress. For me, I would hope that we would take up Ambassador Paul Bremer's commitment that none of the funds under this act be used for sole-source contracting. I recognize that in certain, very limited, circumstances we may need that, but only with 7 days prior notice to the Congress.

Let me speak as someone who used to work for the State Department. That prior notification provision will intimidate the bureaucracy so that only true emergency situations are brought for a sole-source contract. But if, on the other hand, we are allowing Congress to be out of the loop and only notified after the award of a sole-source contract, then hundreds of contract authorities now stationed in Baghdad will be able to do a noncompetitive contract.

Let me say very bluntly, I do not think that any of these sole-source contract opportunities will be misused by the Oval Office or the State Department or the Defense Department or the leadership of AID. But I am not so sure of the hundreds of other procurement officials that will be running this program. I fear that sometime next year one of them will embarrass the President, and I do not want our President to be embarrassed. That is why I hope that the House will adopt this amendment, and if it is adopted, we will allow a limited set of sole- source contracting but only after the Congress is notified in advance.

I would urge that the House adopt this amendment.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I hold in my hand a letter from Citizens Against Government Waste. While they had a number of negative opinions on several amendments here, the one amendment that Citizens Against Government Waste endorsed on this bill is my amendment, which would prevent no notice sole-source contracting.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of our committee, for giving her support to this amendment, and I would say to the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform that this amendment would send a message that the administration should use innovative techniques like indefinite quantity contracts to cover unforeseen circumstances. But it would know that in the overwhelming case, it would have to have competitive contracts and would have to go to the scrutiny of the Congress before it did any sole-source contracting.

I think to defend this President and to defend the vital work of our government in Iraq, we should send a message that all contracts should be competed and that the integrity of the process should be defended.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, history has an uncanny way of reminding us of our own motivation. When General Marshall outlined his program to help Europe, he did not know 30 years later the United States would stand at a similar crossroads. The 400,000 Americans killed in World War II paid the ultimate price for the mistakes made after World War I. And following the second European war, the continent ran out of food and suffered from runaway inflation and turned to communism.

Learning the lessons of World War I, we came forward with the Marshall Plan, and it went beyond feeding the hungry and laid the foundation for the post-war recovery. Unlocking the potential of Europe, revitalizing the economies of 17 countries, expanding foreign trade, striking a blow against communism, these were all worthy goals but they cost an expensive $105 billion.

We are at a similar crossroad now. We know that President Truman's decision to back the Marshall Plan helped prevent World War III. A third generation of Americans did not return to Europe, and today we face similar questions. In the House of Representatives as we debate $19 billion for Iraq, we consider Truman's question: How much would you pay to avoid World War III? And the answer from the American people was $105 billion.

So looking at the unfinished work of Desert Storm, how much would we pay to stop a third war in Iraq?

Well, cost is relative to income. Today's U.S. economy is larger than it was in 1947; the Marshall Plan imposed a heavy burden on our economy, 5 percent of the economy. This plan costs .02 percent of our economy. In this way, it is 200 times less expensive than the Marshall Plan.

Now, as part of this delegation, I was in Baghdad. I saw the main power plant returning to prewar capacity. I saw firsthand a budding democracy taking root on the front pages of no less than 120 newspapers. Under Saddam, half of all children did not go to school.

Last week, 90 percent of kids returned to class, many with the 1.5 million book bags provided with the U.S. flag embossed on the front. They returned to class also with five million textbooks, but these textbooks were absent the pictures of Saddam and the rhetoric of hate that undermined the future of this region.

Like their predecessors in Europe, our troops should finish this mission, earning a ticket home with no future Middle Eastern war forcing a return to the killing fields of Iraq. As the elected Representatives of the American people, we need to decide how much it costs to prevent a third war in Iraq. The stakes are very high. Leaving Iraq before our work is done guarantees that another generation of Americans will have to return to fight there. I think that is a risk that I am not willing to take.

I really applaud the bipartisan leadership that we had, especially the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) standing with us, and I thank my colleague for the opportunity to talk today.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, for example, this money is going to help support 240 health clinics around Iraq. Those health clinics will be close to where our troops are stationed. So the people of Iraq will see that we are adding to the health infrastructure of this country and know that it is because of the presence of Americans. It helps protects our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the top priority of our foreign policy must be to protect Americans in uniform abroad. Our troops need allies to help shoulder the burden in Iraq. More allies will show the Iraqi people that the world community is strengthening its support for a new Iraqi democracy.

Yesterday, the National Assembly of Turkey voted to authorize the deployment of at least 6,000 peacekeepers to Iraq. Turkey has long been a NATO ally, even as she borders Iraq, Syria, and Iran. Her soldiers fought next to ours in far-off Korea in support of the United Nations.

Despite temporary problems, I thank Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gul for adding Turkey's peacekeeping troops to our mission of building a free and democratic Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Iraq with 15 bipartisan colleagues, and I learned that 90 percent of Western reporters have left Iraq. Those who remain can only get their stories out if they report injuries to Americans. We are not allowed to learn what else is happening in Iraq.

The press does not like to report on other press, but that is a story here. Iraq had only one newspaper, Uday Hussein's newspaper. Now it has over 100, like Azzaman, Ashiraa, Ibn Al-Balad, Al-Nahdhah, Al Mutamar, and an English-language newspaper, Iraq Today. But today is also the first day of school in Iraq, and we have now bookbags given to children in Iraq. This is a bookbag filled with school supplies, notes, calculators, rulers, pens, papers, that went to 1.5 million Iraqi children for the start of school. These are also things that are happening in Iraq, but we are not allowed to hear about them from our newspapers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona. People have asked me what the trend is in Iraq, for better or for worse. I just returned from Iraq and the trend is for the better. The last time I was in Iraq, I was in uniform flying at 20,000 feet and the Iraqi Air Defense network was shooting at us. That force is now gone.

Now that the allies have won, I think we should follow several key principles. One, the war on terror must be fought overseas and not in America's cities. I come from Chicago, home to America's tallest building. The Sears Tower is still standing, and we want to keep it that way.

Second, we must finish the job in Iraq; otherwise, we condemn a future generation of young Americans to refight this war. If Desert Storm had a key lesson, it is that unfinished work ensures a new Middle East war. I think we should make sure that no future generation of Americans has to fight again, and that is why we need to finish what we are doing in Iraq.

Our goals must match the best ideals of Americans: an Iraq that does not invade another member of the U.N. each decade; an Iraq that governs by the consent of Iraqis; and an Iraq that cooperates with the United Nations, not confronts it. These are worthy missions and if we accept these missions, we must accept that we need to give our troops the tools they need to complete this job.

This is a difficult job. Let us look at Iraq under Saddam. Life expectancy in Iraq totaled just 58 years. Forty-seven percent of children did not attend school. Half of Baghdad's phones did not work. Iraq had the highest infant mortality rate in the Middle East. Seventy of 90 city water systems did not work. Saddam's health budget totaled 75 cents per person per year. There was only one newspaper, Uday Hussein's newspaper.

Under the allies now, the situation has changed. Ninety percent of Iraqi school kids started class today. Power generation is up 100 percent from 1,200 megawatts to 3,700. Five million school books were delivered, but these school books did not have the anti-U.S., anti- Semitic rhetoric. Now there are several dozen newspapers. I brought them back with me. These are newspapers that did not exist before May 1, like Azzaman, al-Balad, Al Mutamar, Ashraa, and even an English language newspaper, Iraq Today.

When I was in Iraq, I learned that 90 percent of Western reporters have left Iraq and for those young reporters who remain, their editors have told them that they are only interested in one story: injuries to Americans. We are not allowed to know about anything else happening in Iraq, but there are many developments in Iraq that we should know about.

I want to tell one last story. As my colleague from Arizona said, today is the first day of school in Iraq. And we, the United States Government, have prepared a school kit with the U.S. emblem on the front. This school kit is a book bag with pens, a calculator, school supplies, all intended for Iraqi children. The U.S. Government delivered 1.5 million of these school kits to the children of Iraq to ensure a good start with the school year. This was a start of the school year which did not include half of Iraqi children; it included 90 percent. They got a good start. Each day, Iraqi children, when they open their book bag, will see the U.S. emblem on the front. And that is a powerful message that they will remember: who helped them in their earliest years in class.

I think this represents some of the best ideals of America. It is showing that we are part of the future of this country. The situation is changing and changing for the better, and I thank my colleague for having this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the 100th anniversary of Northbrook, Illinois based Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated. For the past century, Underwriters Laboratories has been among the world leaders in providing global product safety assessment programs and services.

Since it was founded in 1903, Underwriters Laboratories has published more than 880 Standards for Safety--for products ranging from fire- rated buildings to information technology equipment to electrical household appliances. Beginning with Underwriters Laboratories' first Standard for Safety, the UL 10A for Tin-Clad Fire Doors, each standard is developed and maintained with input by UL engineers in conjunction with industry, government agencies, regulatory authorities, members of academia, and consumer advocates. Nearly two-thirds of UL Standards for Safety have been accepted by the American National Standards Institute as American National Standards. Underwriters Laboratories tells me that it remains responsive to external needs by participating in more than 200 international technical committees, serving in leadership positions on many, in an effort to actively enhance safety globally and pursue harmonization of U.S. standards with international standards.

Despite its tremendous growth and technological advancement, Underwriters Laboratories has remained faithful to its original mission: public safety. I am most proud to represent Underwriters Laboratories Incorporated. I congratulate them on this, the 100th anniversary of their inception, and I thank them for their innumerable contributions to standards development throughout our district and around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I applaud his stunningly quick action with alacrity to speak on behalf of the elected representatives of the American people on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, one unelected Federal judge in Oklahoma took it upon himself to strike down a law passed by Congress, actioned by the executive branch, and two appropriations acts, and the action of 40 million Americans to sign a do-not-call registry. Never in history has so much been screwed up by such a small number of people: one judge.

Protecting telemarketers under the first amendment is like protecting the classroom bully who insists that it is his first amendment right to harass all of the other children in class. I think the judge in this case has wondered if the Congress has been clear in this case. Well, Congress is going to be blisteringly clear; and we are going to follow this up, if this bill does not pass the Senate quickly, with appropriations action to make sure that in this Congress, in this year, we keep the do-not-call registry online, that we do not force any other Americans to reregister, that we keep those who signed up on the list, and that we protect that sacred zone of privacy in Americans' homes so that they can have dinner with their wives and kids and not be harassed by these calls.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the ranking member and the chairman for this quick action, and I urge rapid adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

We celebrate this week the 20th birthday of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus founded by my predecessor, John Porter, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). We think about the Lantoses and other families who were saved by Raoul Wallenberg, the living history and symbol of civil rights at the end of World War II. We think about one of the founders of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and remember him largely for his legacy in human rights. We think about one of the founders of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and we think about his remembrance for human rights, and we are so lucky today to be in the presence of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, who is our generation's symbol for human rights.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) for putting this resolution together, the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), and of course the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for bringing this so quickly to the floor during His Holiness' visit to Washington.

The fourteenth Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, and he has been leading a nonviolent struggle for freedom for his people for 40 years.

In 1959, the year I was born, he was forced to flee his Tibetan homeland and resettle in northern India. From Dharamsala, India, the Dalai Lama and his Tibetan government in exile have established a democracy under which the Tibetans in exile are free to practice their religion and lead a democratic life. However, while the Dalai Lama leads a small contingent in Dharamsala, there are over 6 million Tibetans living inside China, and his struggle is their struggle.

In 1989, the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in recognition of his work seeking a peaceful resolution of the Tibet problem. Congress has a strong history of supporting the Tibetan people. In 1987, it was the human rights caucus which hosted him on his first visit to Washington. At that time he unveiled his five-point peace plan. Congress and the U.S. Government continued to be supportive of the Tibetan cause for religious freedom, and we have established U.S. offices to help the Tibetan people, and we are encouraged by the recent dialogue between His Holiness and the Chinese government.

Representatives of His Holiness the Dalai Lama have twice traveled to Beijing and Lhasa to bring further progress on the Tibetan issue. Hopefully the day is coming when Tibetans in exile can return to their homeland and Tibetans in Tibet can enjoy a freedom of religion and a rich cultural history upon which is a key value of our country.

I want to recognize the leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) who has been a dear friend of the Dalai Lama when it was a bit more of a lonely struggle, and I salute her leadership and the visit of the Dalai Lama.

Mr. Speaker, I will offer a technical amendment tomorrow that calls on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to submit a report to Congress reporting on resource sharing agreements for services, programs and facilities the department undertakes with the Department of Defense (DoD).

Every American knows that the face of health care has changed dramatically over the past decades. This is no less true for military and veterans' health care. It is clear from all the studies undertaken by the departments of Defense and Veterans' Affairs that the integration of health care services--where possible--will enhance the quality of care for the men and women who are serving our country today and those who served our Nation in the past.

My district is home to the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital. During the last Administration, officials made two attempts to close the North Chicago VA Medical Center. On June 19, 2001, the VA released its Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) study. The CARES study developed four options to improve veterans health care in the Chicago area, each of which recommended the preservation of services offered at North Chicago. The CARES study also recommended increasing the level of cooperation between North Chicago VA and the Great Lakes Naval Hospital, located less than a mile apart.

Integration of the two medical facilities is both practical and also urgent in North Chicago, Illinois, where the Great Lakes Naval Training Center Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans Medical Center both sit underutilized and in such close proximity. Combining these two facilities in a state of the art, federal health care center will maximize the use of tax payer dollars, enhance the training opportunities for young naval medical corps personnel and, most importantly, bring the health care we promised these men and women into the twenty-first century. By directing the VA to report to Congress on the issues facing resource sharing, Congress will be able to better understand and utilize resource sharing agreements when moving forward with the cost shaving approach.

I have met with Secretary Principi and Secretary Rumsfeld to discuss enhanced cooperation and health care resources sharing between the DoD and the VA. Both secretaries are committed to providing our men and women in uniform, veterans and retirees with world-class health care in an efficient manner. Both agree that cooperation between the two agencies, when possible, will enable the departments to meet the growing needs of active and retired soldiers.

As an officer in the Naval Reserve and fellow veteran, I understand the sacrifices made by the men and women who wore their country's uniform. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I would like to thank Chairman Walsh, ranking member Mollohan, and the staff of the VA-HUD subcommittee for their help with this amendment. I hope to continue working with them on this issue as this bill moves into a conference committee with the other body.