Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the vast majority of border crossings are made for legitimate purposes. As we seek to secure our borders, we cannot afford to strangle them. With 22 percent of our Nation's exports and imports crossing our land borders, we need to have adequate systems in place to ensure that legitimate trade and travel are not unduly impaired. SENTRI is one such system that has been used successfully in my district of El Paso, Texas, in putting together dedicated commuter lanes. These lanes reduce waiting times at the border for prescreened, low-risk, frequent border crossers.

The Filner amendment would provide needed funds to reduce the backlog of people applying to enroll in the SENTRI program. In my own district, we need some of these very same funds to replace equipment in our enrollment centers that often break down and other legitimate purposes to increase the legitimate flow of traffic back and forth between our borders. The sooner we can screen people out who pose no threat to our security, the more we will be able to concentrate our limited resources on those that may pose a threat to our national security.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the Filner amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1460. The provisions of this legislation remove barriers to small business ownership for veterans. H.R. 1460 allows veterans to use their education benefits to pay for non-degree or non-credit courses of entrepreneurship, enabling them to learn the skills that they will need when starting and running their own businesses. The bill additionally amends the Small Business Act to give small businesses owned by service disabled veterans the opportunity to secure sole source contracts from the Federal Government. By giving those participating in a veteran's rehabilitation program the chance to name self-employment as their vocational goal, H.R. 1460 makes entrepreneurship a viable career option for many for whom it was not before.

The passage of this legislation would mean a lot for those veterans who, like so many other Americans, dream of working for themselves. The opportunities that H.R. 1460 provides for self-employment are especially meaningful when salaried jobs can be so difficult to find. Large numbers of veterans live in my home district of El Paso, Texas where we unfortunately also have a high unemployment rate. A community like mine is a prime example of why we must provide veterans with the tools they need to become successful entrepreneurs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep disappointment with the tax bill recently signed into law by the President. While providing approximately $350 billion in tax cuts, this law neglects many of our hard-working, low-income families. At the same time that the bill provides tax cuts of $93,500 to the 200,000 taxpayers making over $1 million in our country, this bill leaves behind 8 million children by denying their families full access to the child tax credit.

This law fails to apply the child tax credit to some of America's neediest families--those earning between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. Of the 8 million children left behind in this tax law, 1 million live with parents who are on active duty service or are veterans. The children of our working families, especially those of our armed services, deserve our greatest support.

There are approximately 16,500 military families with children at Fort Bliss in my district. Anxiously awaiting news about the status of the members of the 507th Maintenance Company in late March, these families understand, more than most, what it means to sacrifice for our nation. These are the families of the brave men and women who fight to defend our freedoms, and they certainly do not deserve to be left out of this tax cut. I urge my colleagues to pass legislation immediately to extend the child tax credit to families making between $10,500 and $26,625 a year. Let us send a message to our hard-working families that they count too and that we recognize their efforts.

It is my sincere hope that we can work together to provide our hard- working families with a fair and equitable child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that true head-to-head facilities-based competition benefits consumers. This is certainly true in the cable industry, where prices in areas where there are two facilities-based cable systems competing head-to-head are 17 percent lower than in areas where there is only one cable system.

In the world of residential high-speed Internet access, facilities- based competition is coming. Right now, cable dominates the market. Cable serves about two out of every three broadband consumers. One reason cable dominates the market is because cable broadband is essentially unregulated, where as broadband provided by telephone companies, called DSL, is regulated as if it were regular telephone service.

The Federal Communications Commission is in the process of creating regulatory parity between the two competitors. I encourage the FCC to continue down this road towards regulatory parity among broadband providers. We are seeing the benefits of this deregulation already. For example, Verizon just announced a 40 percent price cut in the cost of their DSL product. Consumers will have a real choice between two distinct head-to-head competitors.

In the regular telephone world, however, the FCC decided not to stimulate head-to-head facilities-based competition. Instead, the FCC left in place rules that permit a competitor to use the existing telephone network at a substantial discount, up to 55 percent. The problem with this is that it lacks a sufficient incentive for a competing telephone company to build any facilities because it costs less to use the existing network at these below-cost prices. Regulatory pricing arbitrage does not result in true competition. The FCC needs to stop making the incumbent telephone companies subsidize long distance carriers' entry into the local markets. If the long distance carriers want to use the incumbent's network, they should do so at a reasonable price, not one that shifts money from the local telephone company to the long distance carriers. This system cannot be maintained.

The FCC should adopt rules that give incentives for long distance carriers and others to build their own infrastructure. Then, there will be true head-to-head facilities-based competition. Consumers will benefit with lower prices, better service and more choices.

In addition, there are national security and safety benefits to multiple networks. If one network is knocked out, communications can be routed over the other network.

I urge the FCC to adopt rules that ensure the existence of true, head-to-head facilities-based competition for all types of communications services, especially voice telephony and broadband.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep disappointment with the tax bill recently signed into law by the President. While providing approximately $350 billion in tax cuts, this law neglects many of our hard-working, low-income families. At the same time that the bill provides tax cuts of $93,500 to the 200,000 taxpayers making over $1 million in our country, this bill leaves behind 8 million children by denying their families full access to the child tax credit.

This law fails to apply the child tax credit to some of America's neediest families--those earning between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. Of the 8 million children left behind in this tax law, one million live with parents who are on active duty service or are veterans. The children of our working families, especially those of our armed services, deserve our greatest support.

There are approximately 16,500 military families with children at Fort Bliss in my district. Anxiously awaiting news about the status of the members of the 507th Maintenance Company in late March, these families understand, more than most, what it means to sacrifice for our nation. These are the families of the brave men and women who fight to defend our freedoms, and they certainly do not deserve to be left out of this tax cut. I urge my colleagues to pass legislation immediately to extend the child tax credit to families making between $10,500 and $26,625 a year. Let us send a message to our hard-working families that they count too and that we recognize their efforts.

It is my sincere hope that we can work together to provide our hard- working families with a fair and equitable child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work of Jose Garcia, the founder and director of Project CARE in El Paso, TX. Mr. Garcia recently received national recognition from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Community Health Leadership Program. The prestigious award includes a $120,000 grant to provide additional funding to further his work.

Mr. Garcia, a pharmacist, helped found Project CARE, a treatment and education program for asthma and diabetes patients, in 2001. Project CARE uses pharmacists as ``promotores'' to manage uncomplicated diabetes and asthma, reducing costs by targeting the uninsured and frequent users of the hospital's emergency department. It also helps fill the gap in the physician shortage along the Texas-Mexico border, where more than a third of El Paso residents are uninsured and nearly 40 percent of families live below the poverty line.

Mr. Garcia helped to launch Project CARE after he observed, through his work as a pharmacist at R.E. Thomas Hospital, that access to care, medication, and education was the solution to longterm preventable illness. He also realized that the patients who used the most hospital resources were those who could not afford their prescription co- payments under the county's indigent care program. Mr. Garcia then began covering patient's co-payments out of his own paycheck before founding Project CARE.

Mr. Garcia also established El Circulo de Hombres, a collaborative drug treatment model approved by the Texas State Board of Pharmacy that features ``platicas,'' discussions in which Latino men talk openly about health issues and take control of their own care.

The gentleman who nominated Mr. Garcia for the Community Health Leadership award put it best when he said, ``Jose has a vision to improve access to health care alternatives to the marginalized and disenfranchised of our community. He has successfully developed a cultural, linguistic, and social home for the poor and uninsured.''

Mr. Speaker, Jose Garcia has demonstrated tremendous leadership in meeting the urgent health needs of many in the El Paso community. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating him on this well- deserved award.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, which recognizes the contributions made to our country by over 37,000 legal permanent residents serving in our armed services. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services who has had an opportunity to visit Iraq and other parts of the world where our men and women are serving proudly in the military, this bill is the right recognition for their services and for putting their lives on the line. So I strongly recommend that all my colleagues support it.

I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, which recognizes the contributions made to our country by the 38,000 legal permanent residents serving in our armed forces. These men and women dedicate their energies and put their lives on the line to defend the freedoms and liberties of this great nation. It is only appropriate that in exchange for their sacrifice, we remove barriers to obtaining citizenship.

They have earned this.

H.R. 1954 would allow immigrants serving in our armed forces to apply for citizenship after one year of service, down from three years under current law. The bill removes administrative barriers to the naturalization process by making citizenship applications, interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies and other such proceedings available to members of the armed forces at our military bases, diplomatic missions, and consulates overseas. The bill also waives application fees. In both this Congress and the 107th Congress, I have been a proud original co- sponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague from Texas, Congressman Martin Frost, known as the Citizenship for America's Troops Act, that sought to make these changes. I am pleased that they are part of the bill we are voting on today.

The bill also allows spouses, children and parents of naturalized soldiers who die in the line of duty to apply for permanent residency status. Additionally, this bill recognizes the important support that spouses provide to our soldiers by waiving the three-year residency requirement to apply for citizenship. These provisions recognize the important role that family plays and ensures that when their loved one dies in the line of duty, they are not made to suffer even more by having their residency status placed in jeopardy.

Despite these very good provisions, I must express my disappointment that the bill does nothing for immediate family members who are undocumented. I was an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague Hilda Solis, which would have provided immigration protections to immediate family members of soldiers who die in the lain of duty, regardless of their immigration status. A father does not cease to be a father, and a wife does cease to be a wife, just because of the immigration papers they may or may not have.

I am further disappointed, startled in fact, that the bill actually expands existing rules allowing for citizenship to be revoked from naturalized servicemembers who are discharged under other than honorable conditions. The major problem here is that there are other forms of discharge that are not termed honorable, but which are not necessarily dishonorable. The language in the bill would actually punish someone who is discharged for medical reasons. For example, someone who serves in our armed forces, applies for and obtains citizenship, continues to serve for four years and then has to be discharged for a medical condition, would have his or her citizenship revoked. I cannot believe that the authors of this bill intended for that to be the case. I strongly urge my colleagues to resolve this in conference.

On balance, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 1954, demonstrates the appreciation of a grateful nation to the thousands of people who come to this country from around the world to contribute to the freedom, strength and prosperity of America. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Solis and Frost, for all their work in championing this issue, and most of all, I would like to thank the members of our armed services for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1954.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute today to my fellow Texan Irma Rangel, who passed away in March at age 71. Rangel was the first Hispanic woman to serve in the Texas legislature and, more importantly, worked tirelessly and courageously on behalf of the next generation of Texans, by vigorously supporting education and expanding economic opportunities for our youth.

Irma Rangel, who spent 26 years in the Texas House of Representatives and was Chairwoman of its Committee on Higher Education, is probably best known today for introducing the 10 percent rule legislation that entitled all highly motivated and successful Texas high school students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their class to be admitted into public institutions of higher education throughout Texas.

I urge all my colleagues to remember Irma Rangel and support House Resolution 159, which expresses the profound sorrow of this House on the occasion of her death. I would also like to thank my colleague, Congressman Ruben Hinojosa, for offering this very appropriate resolution.

Irma Rangel was an inspiration to us all, in her commitment to helping working families, in her bravery as she faced cancer and in her dedication to public service.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very unfair rule. The bill before us today contains provisions that would give the Department of Defense unprecedented authority to develop an entirely new civil service system for its 700,000 civilian employees with little or no congressional oversight, jeopardizing many of the employee protections and rights that Federal employees have fought so hard for over the years.

How do I know this? Because before coming to Congress I was a Federal employee, a civil service employee for 26\1/2\ years.

I know that there is a lot of frustration and a lot of misinformation that

has been put forth in this. My good friend and chairman has said they had 10 hours of testimony. But when you factor in that there are 700,000 civilian employees that are going to be affected, that is .0008 minutes for each one of those employees that has been given in terms of hearings. I think our civil servants deserve better than that, and we ought to have more hearings on this issue and not just take their civil protections away as we are with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule.

The bill before us today contains provisions that would give the Department of Defense unprecedented authority to develop an entirely new civil service system for its 700,000 civilian employees with little or no congressional oversight, jeopardizing many employee protections that Federal workers have fought so hard for over the years.

This issue has great personal significance to me, because for more than 26 years prior to becoming a Member of Congress, I myself was a civil servant, first as a Border Patrol agent and later as a Sector Chief. When I joined the Border Patrol, I was one of only two Hispanic members of my training class. I can tell you that there were some that would have preferred that we were not part of the Border Patrol, but the civil service system protected me.

As a Sector Chief, over the objections of my superiors, I implemented what turned out to be one of the most successful programs to stop illegal immigrants from entering this country. If it were not for the civil service protections, I would have been fired immediately.

We sought to offer an amendment to help ensure that DoD civilian employees would continue to enjoy the basic protections that I was afforded as a civil servant, including the right to due process and appeal in cases of alleged discrimination, collective bargaining, and veterans preferences.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not see fit to make Mr. Cooper's amendment in order, so we will not have a debate on this extraordinarily important issue.

Mr. Speaker, even GAO has said, ``Congress should consider establishing additional safeguards to ensure the fair, merit-based, transparent, and accountable implementation'' of DoD's civil service system. But this rule does not allow us to do that. The patriotic employees who serve our Nation at the Department of Defense deserve better.

I urge my colleague to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on this terrible rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 1925, the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act. This measure reauthorizes both the Runaway and Homeless Youth Program and the Missing Children's Assistance Act. This bill will also increase the funding levels for these programs through 2008.

In addition, this bill increases the funding level for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This bill will double the funding level from $10 million to $20 million over the next four years.

As you may know, Mr. Speaker, I along with my colleague from Texas, Mr. Lampson and other Members, founded the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. The Caucus was created to build awareness around the issue of missing and exploited children for the purpose of finding children who are currently missing and to prevent future abductions.

I applaud the efforts of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and of the Caucus under the chairmanship of Representative Nick Lampson. I would urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1911. This bill authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to investigate ways to share resources to improve benefits and services, including health care, to veterans, service members, military retirees and their families.

As many of you may have read in the National Journal article of February 15, 2003, the relationship between William Beaumont Army Medical Center (WBAMC) and the VA outpatient clinic in my home district of El Paso, Texas is an excellent example of resource sharing. For years, a veteran in El Paso who needed specialized care had to be referred to the nearest full-service VA hospital, which happened to be a four hour drive away in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Today, a veteran can literally go next door to WBAMC. There, the VA is given access to expensive expertise and equipment, such as pathologists and MRI scans, and in return the VA reimburses the Army nearly $5 million a year, well below the going rate for the medical care in the private sector.

I have urged both the DOD and the VA to build on our success story in El Paso and use this cooperation as a nationwide model. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of H.R. 1911. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am proud to be here to rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act. In doing so, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and in particular the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and both staffs for their hard work and the great work they have done in order to report out of our subcommittee to the committee on issues that at times can be very contentious for all of us.

While I am concerned that this bill contains a few very dangerous provisions, especially related to civil service reform, I believe that this bill makes strides to help our men and women in uniform. This bill allows for an average pay raise of 4.1 percent for all personnel, reduces out-of-pocket expenses for housing, and eases the financial burdens when reservists are mobilized.

Mr. Chairman, I had the privilege of accompanying Chairman David Hobson and four other Members of Congress on a visit two weekends ago to the Middle East where we received briefings in Kuwait and Bahrain and Baghdad. I notice in the gallery we have got represented here members of all of our armed services who are watching with great interest the things that we do and the things that we say about this defense authorization bill here. I would like to share with you and with them in particular some of the comments that I heard from our men and women in uniform on that recent trip two weekends ago.

They were particularly proud of the job that they had done in winning this war in record time, with minimum losses; but they were not happy because they were asked to transition from war fighters to peacekeepers. That is one of the areas where I think we have a lot of work to do, Mr. Chairman, in terms of making sure that we are mindful of the role that our men and women in uniform play in terms of transitioning them from having just fought and won a war to the role of peacekeeper. Several times they made mention to me that they were happy to be involved in combat for this country, but they felt that their role as peacekeepers should be best done by somebody else. They mentioned the United Nations and other alternatives. They felt that being warriors they were not suited to become traffic cops immediately after a conflict. They did not have an interest in being city guards or maintainers of infrastructure or any of those kinds of things. Frankly, those are the kinds of issues that I hope as members of this committee and Members of Congress, we do a better job at doing this.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, these are the same men and women in uniform that later on in this authorization we are going to be talking about an amendment that would conceivably put them on the border as peacekeepers or law enforcement personnel. I hope that every Member of Congress remembers that these men and women have done us proud. Let us do them proud by keeping them focused on their role.

Announcement by the Chairman

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

I understand the gentleman from Virginia's concern. I understand also the need to increase enforcement along our borders to protect against terrorism and against drug trafficking.

Mr. Chairman, I spent more than 26 years in Federal law enforcement on the border between the United States and Mexico. I was on the front line of our Nation's war on drugs and against terrorism. I know how difficult it is to secure our Nation's border, and I know the need for additional resources. However, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it is simply the wrong solution to our current problems along our border. This amendment will send our military personnel to our borders at a time when they are already stretched thin in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, and over 100 countries around the world.

We cannot and should not ask our military personnel to patrol our borders. We need our military to be at their best. Patrolling our borders against illegal immigration has minimal military value and detracts from training with war-fighting equipment for war-fighting missions. It will lead to decreased military training which reduces unit readiness levels and overall combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces. I may not agree with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) today, but I know that he wants to do what is right for our country. I would therefore ask him now to join with me and find a way to place additional law enforcement personnel on the border, not military personnel.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), who, like me, is an individual who enforced the laws along the border.

(Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me clear the record. When the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) talks about the young man that fired off at the Marines, he did not know what he was firing at. They were operating in a covert and camouflaged situation, and he did not know what they were. So he did fire a shot at them. But the important thing there is one life lost in an ill-conceived policy is one life too many.

When they talk about the authority that the President needs to be able to do that, he has that authority already in several different parts of our law. When he talks about the value of training for our military, I would remind my colleagues, the military in Baghdad pleaded with us and said, look, we trained for combat. We have won this war. Get us out of here. We are not cops, we are not infrastructure protectors, we are not policemen. Get us out of here. We trained for combat. That is their role.

Secondly, you do not want to subject border communities to marshal law.

You talk about sending a message? The message that you are sending is this, that we are thinking of our military as expendable. We are willing to send them to the border, where they may become legally liable should they shoot another Esquiel on the border. They are legally liable.

Secondly, they are trained for combat. You cannot expect our military to change hats, one for combat and one for civil law enforcement.

We deserve better. We can do better. Let us give the resources to Federal agencies that are responsible for this kind of duty and not subject our military and abuse our military.

Mr. Speaker, with all of the unresolved fiscal issues on the Texas Legislature's plate, the state's Republican leadership is attempting a brazen and appalling gerrymander of Texas Congressional representation.

Now, two years after the federal court did the Legislature's job of congressional redistricting in Texas in 2001, Congressman Tom DeLay is trying to ramrod State Rep. Joe Crabb's bill to redraw congressional district boundaries to favor Republicans.

Originally baiting the move with a ploy to create a new congressional district that ostensibly favors Hispanics in South Texas is something more than crass. The Legislature had its chance to participate two years ago but opted out--and mid-decade is no time to throw Texas' Congressional delegation into chaos.

The leadership in Austin is to blame for the discord last week that sent the 50 or so Texas House members into Oklahoma exile. Their defection is not just arbitrary quorum-busting but in courageous protest of DeLay's attempt to hijack the Legislature for his own political ego's sake.

Further, as a former federal law enforcement officer, I am very concerned that federal law enforcement entities were dragged into the State's efforts to retrieve Texas House members from across state lines.

Crabb's bill, which has set off a storm of national coverage, asks for full-blown redistricting that will require new rounds of public hearings across the state. Also, new redistricting would no doubt end up back in court and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

The guarantee is slim that any new redistricting in the Rio Grande Valley will benefit minorities Statewide since redrawing district boundaries appears to further disenfranchise minorities--even in the huge proposed border district numbered 23, adjacent to my own. Under the plan, five current Democratic districts are also in jeopardy.

The Legislature ducked redistricting in 2001 and now Republicans are poised for an outright power-grab after the court-drawn plan minimally changed the State's 32-district map, returning 17 Democrats to Congress. And, the court's plan received Justice Department approval.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Texas state legislators who stood up to this attempted power-grab and hope that the attention of lawmakers at the State and Federal levels returns to the real issues facing our communities--creating jobs, educating our children and ensuring all have access to health care.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.

Of particular concern to me is the devastating effect this bill would have on funding for dislocated worker programs, which are so important to workers in my district of El Paso, Texas.

El Paso has the unfortunate distinction of having the greatest number of NAFTA-related

job losses in the nation, with over 20,000 workers losing their jobs since the implementation of NAFTA almost a decade ago.

Once, El Pasoans could find employment at the textile, plastics, and electronics assembly plants in their community. For many of my constituents who have limited English proficiency and education, these jobs provided a good, living wage for workers and their families. But in the wake of NAFTA, a great number of the factories have closed, and the jobs have disappeared.

In their place, there are new employment opportunities in the service, healthcare, and high-tech industries. However, most dislocated workers are not prepared to fill these jobs without the education and training that federal dislocated worker programs provide.

Incredibly, at a time when the economy has stagnated and unemployment is on the rise, at a time when we should be doing everything we possibly can to help America's workers, the bill before us today eliminates continued dedicated federal funding for dislocated worker programs.

Mr. Chairman, this is simply the wrong bill at the wrong time. I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1261.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. I would like to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans for their work to reintroduce this bill in the 108th Congress and to expeditiously bring it through Committee and to the floor.

H.R. 100 continues to protect American servicemembers from negative economic or professional consequences as a result of their active duty service. Not only does this legislation update and modernize the language of this 53 year-old act, but it strengthens and expands the current protections provided in the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act for military personnel on active duty. This bill provides protections for debt, eviction, lease payments and other such problems that may occur while they are away from home serving our country.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, many troops from my district were recently called to duty. I would like to be able to assure them that should they come across certain hardship, we will be able to take care of them. No one should be penalized unfairly because they are out of the country serving our nation and protecting our freedoms.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.