Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 2046, the Servicemembers' Health Insurance Protection Act of 2005, to strengthen the rights of men and women serving in the Reserve components of our armed forces when they seek to have their health insurance reinstated upon release from active military duty. As Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am pleased that Mr. Evans, Ranking Minority Member of our Committee; Mr. Boozman, Chairman of the Committee's Economic Opportunity Subcommittee; and Ms. Herseth, the Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member, have joined me as original cosponsors in introducing this legislation.

Frequently, members of the National Guard and Reserve drop their health insurance coverage upon their mobilization, because they and their families have become eligible for the Department of Defense TRICARE health care system. Under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), a servicemember ordered to active duty who terminates health insurance coverage is entitled to reinstatement of coverage after returning to civilian life, but the SCRA does not currently expressly protect the servicemember against a premium increase upon reinstatement. This measure would prohibit a premium increase upon reinstatement if it affects only the individual servicemember, but it would allow general increases in premiums if they apply to other persons with similar coverage.

Also, under a change to TRICARE eligibility in 2003, members of the National Guard and Reserve are allowed to begin their TRICARE coverage in advance of actually reporting for active duty. However, under existing provisions of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), if reservists elect TRICARE coverage prior to departing for active duty and do not continue their employer- sponsored health care insurance until they have begun active duty, they may lose their right to reinstatement of coverage. This measure would conform the USERRA health care insurance reinstatement right to the change in TRICARE eligibility and ensure no loss of coverage.

Mr. Speaker, these improvements in our laws would further protect members of the National Guard and Reserve who so willingly make great personal sacrifices in the defense of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2046, the Servicemembers' Health Insurance Protection Act of 2005, to provide new health insurance protections for these guardians of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects our military values to ensure that health care for our service disabled, special needs and indigent veterans remain the highest priority of our Nation. With an increase of nearly $1 billion in discretionary spending, this budget will fund care for our veterans, including those now serving from service in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, you asked us to examine the system that serves America's veterans. We are doing so. Yet, it is not

timely to carry out the mandatory savings that you originally had asked. There will be no increase in copays and no enrollment fees at this time. We must work with Secretary Nicholson and Senator Craig to develop a clear picture and craft a good legislative product to eliminate inefficiencies, waste and fraud in the VA for discretionary savings. And we will produce that product for you.

I am hopeful that the veterans service organizations will take part in this endeavor. After all, it was the VFW Commander in Chief John Furgess who told Congress last month that the VA must ``start acting like a business and create a corporate culture of accountability that rewards success and penalizes failure.''

With $3 billion in uncollected debt in the VA, he is right. To ensure sustainable quality health care, we must make the best use of every technology enhancement, every sound management practice, every dollar entrusted to us by the taxpayer, and utilize every good example to find elsewhere in the health care and business sectors.

Mr. Speaker, we have a strong veterans budget from the President, and we have further strengthened that budget, and we have increased it over time.

If you can see this, since 1995, over 77 percent increase. And I am really proud of the work of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Where does the gentleman get that number?

Where does the gentleman find the number?

The gentleman from Texas cannot make up numbers.

Mr. Speaker, some in the minority are obsessed with the vanity of power and they will hatchet the ethics process and people. I have taken down some of the words used here tonight by the minority: tarnish, gutted, subverted, destroyed, flawed, violated. What are they talking about? I am unceasingly amazed and gravely disturbed by the torrent of darkness caused by what I will refer to as false prophets of justice engaged in ignominious conduct. It is called the politicalization of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and it is wrong.

I have been a victim of a vicious political attack and gone before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. I will assure Members, having been brought before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and I was fortunately cleared by unanimous vote, but when another Member wants to make a partisan attack and go before the committee, that is wrong. So we are engaged in this session to clarify it. I supported the changes.

Mr. Speaker, to the American people, what are we talking about: the right to counsel, due process, notification, bipartisanship. That is what I demand. That is what I want, and I am going to vote against this.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for yielding me this time. The gentleman has done a magnificent job leading the committee on this new bill.

I would just say, in America we face some great challenges with regard to formulation of our energy policy. The oil demand growth keeps rising due to the industrialization of the emerging world. China consumes 7 million barrels per day; and if China's rise in world prominence is similar to that of Korea and Japan, China will consume 20 million barrels per day in less than 10 years.

The last big oil discovery was 30 years ago in the North Sea. China is trying to buy oil companies in Canada; India is trying to buy oil companies in Russia; the present world production capacity is 83 million barrels a day; and we are running an estimated 81.5 million today, which means we are in the red zone. The 14 largest oil fields in the world are 40 years old. Once they are taken out to 50 percent, water and fluids need to be pumped to keep production at existing levels. We have some significant challenges. Support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, provides for grants to adapt or acquire suitable housing for certain severely disabled veterans, including veterans who are unable to ambulate without assistance. The maximum grant amount for a severely disabled veteran is $50,000.

Public Law 108-183 extended eligibility for the adaptive housing grant to severely disabled servicemembers who have not yet been processed for discharge from military service, but who will qualify for the benefit upon discharge due to the severity of their disabilities. Prior to Public Law 108-183, qualifying servicemembers were not allowed to apply for or receive the grant until they were actually discharged from military service.

Section 401 of S. 2486, Public Law 108-454, extends eligibility for specially adapted housing grants to veterans with permanent and total service-connected disabilities due to

the loss, or loss of use, of both arms at or above both elbows.

An inadvertent error occurred in the drafting of the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2004, which the Committee discovered too late to be corrected without jeopardizing passage of the same bill in both the House and Senate before adjournment. The error resulted in the omission of the change made by Public Law 108-183 for catastrophically disabled servicemembers. H.R. 1292 serves to correct that oversight.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary correction to ensure the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to assist those severely disabled servicemembers who require their homes be adapted to their disability. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate you on this budget. I think the American people are smart enough to recognize truth and demagoguery. That is what you hear on this House floor is demagoguery, and that is completely unfortunate.

I believe that ensuring that the disabled, the injured, the low- income and special needs veterans are given the highest attention. That is the priority of our Nation.

In establishing priorities of care for veterans health care, this Congress also believes that the same military values that guided servicemembers on active duty should define how services and assistance are provided to them as veterans. It is why we established the priorities of care, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

This budget takes into consideration the present budgetary constraints, the aging veteran population, as well as the influx of veterans into the system as the Nation continues to fight the war on terror throughout the world.

As chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I seek an increase in $12.6 million for the medical and prosthetic research projects above the President's budget request. We also increased by $293 million for State nursing home partnership. We increase about $300 million discretionary funding for veterans health care, despite the demagoguery you will hear from some Members on this floor.

To ensure that our national cemeteries are maintained as the shrines that they are, my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and I recommended an additional $45.6 million in construction to begin a 5-year $300 million national shrine commitment project to repair and restore the existing national cemeteries. But while our greatest attention should be focused on those who have served us and can no longer fend for themselves, there is another group of veterans that needs our help: our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who need assistance in returning to the workforce or entering the workforce for the first time after serving their country.

This budget will also ensure that the VA benefits take care of the young solder coming home, as well as the older soldier who may already have a family. We need to make sure that the VA is flexible and personal in its delivery of health care and benefits, such as training and education.

This is a wise investment, harnessing the same spirit and drive that has won our Nation's battles, to contribute to our Nation's workforce and to sustain our national competitive edge. To facilitate this investment, I created a new subcommittee solely devoted to this effort chaired by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has done an outstanding job. He has led Congress through some challenging budgetary times as chairman. Some may forget the meaning of the attacks upon our country on September 11. It was an attack upon our freedom, upon our way of life. It was devastating to our economy. That economic growth has returned, but we also now need to manage that economic growth smartly.

There is a lot of rhetoric, but let me return to some facts. Under this President, spending for veterans has increased by 47 percent in 5 years versus 32 percent in the 8 years under the Clinton administration.

If I turn to the chart to my left, as the chart shows, over the last 7 years discretionary spending has grown 39.5 percent under the VA-HUD appropriations bill. That is a 4.9 percent average increase for every year from 1998 all the way to present. So despite all the rhetoric that America and my colleagues will hear, the reality is this chart. The spending on veterans continues to increase, maintaining our commitment to veterans in America.

I also would like to turn to a second chart I think is very interesting. On this chart it shows what happened under the Democrat control of Congress. Congressional spending per veteran was flat. For 10 years a meager $400 increase for 10 years from 1984 to 1994.

Can everybody see this? It was flat. To my colleagues on this side of the aisle, do you see this? It was flat for 10 years. You did not hear demagoguery on the House floor. What you had at the time were individuals on both sides of the aisle working together in a bipartisan fashion with regard to how we deal with veterans.

So what we have under the Republican control the last 10 years is from 1995 to 2005 Congress increased spending by $1,400 per veteran, that is from $1,368 to $2,773 per veteran. I think this chart is very clear.

What has occurred under Democrat control is flat-lined budget for veterans. I am not going to demagogue. It is just a reality.

Now with regard to what has happened under Republican control, the increase and the maintaining of our commitment to veterans programs and causes across the board. This is the reality.

I want to say to the budget chairman, I want to thank him. He has given me a task, and the task is that with regard to all of these programs in discretionary and mandatory, are there savings out there? Are these systems being run smartly and effectively and efficiently?

He has challenged those of us who serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. And you know what? We will accept the challenge, and we will go and work together in a bipartisan fashion and see if we can find those savings. He has not dictated to us. He has challenged us and we accept the challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about provisions in section 1113 of the bill relating to Service Members Group Life Insurance, which I will now referral to as SGLI.

Neither the Department of Veterans Affairs nor the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over VA insurance programs, was consulted prior to the administration's submitting the insurance proposals in the war supplemental. I recognize that it placed the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in very difficult positions, because they always come to the floor to talk about authorizing on appropriations bills; but that is what you are doing exactly here.

There are two primary points of concern with regard to these sections. Number one, it would authorize retroactive insurance coverage in cases of servicemembers who die having declined insurance coverage; and, second, it would require a spouse to concur with the servicemember's insurance coverage election.

The administration proposed to provide for a retroactive payment to give the same level of benefits proposed for prospective maximum SGLI to those who have died since the beginning of combat operations on October 7, 2001. At the appropriations markup, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) offered an amendment, which was accepted, to limit retroactive payment to those who died in performance of duty.

By restricting payments to deaths that the Service Secretary concerned determines in the performance of duty, we would then expect that deaths which occurred during the performance of an assigned military duty would be compensated, but that deaths not associated with assigned military duties would not qualify.

Another qualifier, though, that perhaps should have been considered during this markup, would have been in addition to dying in performance of military duties, the servicemember must have had maximum insurance coverage at the time of death. The Committee on Veterans' Affairs has established a record in this regard.

When we increased the SGLI coverage from $200,000 to $250,000 with a delayed effective date in Public Law 106-419, then in reaction to the terrorist attack on the USS Cole we did, in fact, make a retroactivity in Public Law 107-14 for servicemembers who died in performance of duty that had maximum SGLI at the time of their death. We should not be providing the maximum amount of insurance posthumously if the servicemember declined coverage, hence, never paid premiums, or elected a lesser amount.

This is a policy change that could have detrimental effects. The bottom line is that it changes the identity and substance of the SGLI program. SGLI is neither an indemnity nor a gratuity program. It is an insurance program.

Second, I have great concern regarding the administration's proposal to include in H.R. 1268 that a spouse must concur with a servicemember's insurance election. Life insurance is a contract. Requiring a spouse who is not a party to the contract to assent to a servicemember's decision concerning whether to enter into a contract and the amount of that contract violates the principles of contractual law and the nature of life insurance. Requiring the spouse to concur with the servicemember's decision, as included in H.R. 1268, would in fact make SGLI a volunteer program for single servicemembers, and an involuntary program for married servicemembers.

Life insurance policies are fundamentally different from the protection to surviving spouses rightfully provided under some other retirement programs.

There are plenty of substantive concerns with regard to this provision: one, giving the spouse veto power over the amount of insurance that gives him or her greater say than the servicemember. Number two, SGLI would in fact be a voluntary program for singles, involuntary for married. Three, the concurrence policy would force the servicemember to pay premiums and keep the spouse as a beneficiary, even in situations of pending divorce, spousal abuse, drug abuse, child abuse. I mean, let your mind go. Fourth, the spousal concurrence as drafted in the bill would prevent a servicemember from naming children, children from a previous marriage, parents, grandparents, guardians of grandchildren, let your mind go, from participating in insurance.

The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the insured to name whoever he or she wants as a beneficiary, even if it is in violation of a State court divorce decree.

There are administrative concerns as well, the substantial administrative costs that would be added in the day-to-day running of this program, as well as has been added to its greater complexity. If a servicemember there says that there is no spouse or names another beneficiary and declines coverage, a spouse could come forward after the servicemember's death.

Another concern is the program may be liable to pay maximum amounts if no premiums were collected or if a separate beneficiary already had been paid. And if there is a delay in getting a spouse to agree to insurance coverage or the amount and the servicemember dies, then who receives the benefits?

These are many, many issues that need to be resolved, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) as we proceed forward to the conference to address many of these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter from the Military Officers Association of America for the Record.

Military Officers Association

of America,

Alexandria, VA, March 11, 2005.

Hon. Steve Buyer,

Chairman, Committee on Veterans Affairs, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 370,000 members of the

Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am writing

to inform you that, after discussing the issue extensively

with the Committee's majority and minority staff, MOAA has

reconsidered its position on the Servicemen's Group Life

Insurance (SGLI) spousal consent requirement, as included in

the Appropriations Committee's markup of the FY2005 Defense

Supplemental Appropriations Act.

We believe there is merit to the staff's view that the

Appropriations Committee's language is excessively stringent

and could inappropriately preclude servicemembers' ability to

make reasonable insurance decisions--especially in

circumstances where it may be reasonable and appropriate for

a member to designate children as beneficiaries instead of

the current spouse.

MOAA believes Congress is doing the right thing in

expediting passage of improved death benefits coverage in the

Supplemental Appropriations Act, and we have no wish to slow

that process in any way.

Therefore, MOAA urges your support for a floor amendment

that would either substitute a provision requiring spousal

notification (instead of spousal consent) or strike the

spousal consent requirement to allow the Committee to develop

more appropriate language that could be offered in conference

or another appropriate legislative venue.

Sincerely,

Steven P Strobridge,

Colonel, USAF (Ret),

Director, Government Relations.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I had a very good discussion with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). I did not come here to the floor to strike these provisions from the bill. I will work with the administration. I will work with the Committee on Appropriations. I am going to do that as an authorizer. I am not claiming jurisdictional grounds. I am not going to play games with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) at all.

I thought what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did by making a performance of duty was a wise thing. I think that was a wise move of the gentleman. I do not know why the gentleman would be upset with regard to my remarks on performance of duty because what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did is followed what we, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) and I, had also recommended. Performance of duty is a good thing.

I do not have a problem with the performance of duty. I have come to the floor to express some concerns with regard to the identification of an insurance product. We are turning it into an indemnity and a gratuity with regard to an insurance product. We have to be smart about our business with regard to how we proceed. That is my purpose of being here. It is not to reach into the Treasury and just say we are going to give this money out.

But it does and I gave the example because you can have someone who has an accidental death or a duty nonperformance in the service.

No, the gentleman's amendment.

I will be more than happy to get the gentleman legal counsel so he can understand what he has written.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman. What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) did with regard to performance----

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I believe that the performance of duty that is in the bill, what it does, it does identify with regard to who will receive payment and who do not receive payments. That was why I used the word ``limited'' or ``restricted'' because you could have an individual, Mr. Chairman, of whom died in an auto accident, was murdered, or something happened to them and they do not qualify.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Absolutely. That is why what we have here are two individuals of whom understand what we are talking about but probably have a, well, anyway, let us not use semantics.

What I do wish to do as we proceed forward as we go to conference working with the Senate is work also with the administration, work with the Department of Defense, the VA and OMB to make sure that we bring a proper identity with regard to service and group life insurance that also subsidizes veterans group life insurance, and that is what I want to work with the chairman on.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce H.R. 1220, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2005.

Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans, as well as Jeff Miller of Florida and Shelley Berkley, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, respectively, join me as original cosponsors of the bill.

H.R. 1220 would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans' benefits effective December 1, 2005. This would positively affect more than 2.9 million service-connected veterans and survivors of service- connected veterans. Additionally, the bill codifies the current disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) rates.

The VA Committee periodically reviews the service-connected disability compensation and DIC programs to ensure that the benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled veterans and their families. Based on this review, Congress acts annually to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in compensation and DIC benefits.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has consistently provided increases in these rates for every fiscal year since 1976. The adjustment in cost-of- living is reflective of the economic changes annually. This is especially important to those veterans living on a fixed income. The Administration's fiscal year 2006 budget submission includes funding for a projected 2.3 percent increase.

In support of our veterans, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Iwo Jima Resolution.

For all who bear its scars, the battle for Iwo Jima still looms gargantuan, unbelievable, devouring. It is not measurable by any past battles. The battle of Iwo Jima is unique in its own setting.

First, it was the longest aerial campaign of World War II. Incredibly, this ferocious bombardment had little effect. Hardly any of the Japanese underground fortresses were touched.

Four miles long, shaped like a pork chop and covering 7\1/2\ miles, Iwo Jima had no front lines and no rear lines--every inch of the island was a battleground and a graveyard. U.S Marines--Active and Reserves, were forced to take one of the most heavily fortified objectives in military history.

Over 110,000 Marines in 880 ships took part in the operation. Over 7,000 Marines and 20,000 Japanese soldiers lost their lives fighting the fiercest Marine Corps battle of the Pacific Theater in World War

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues here tonight because we are all deeply saddened by the loss of our former colleague and dear friend, Tillie Fowler. I first met Tillie in December of 1992. We were both of the newly elected class of the 103rd Congress. It was during that incoming freshman class that we met for the first time. We were to meet in this big room. As I came through that door, I was 32 years old. I did not even know where the bathrooms were. The first person I see

is this lady who is very gracious with these very large glasses with the most beautiful smile, and I knew that this had to be a Southern belle. Boy, was I right. I went over, immediately attracted to that smile, and we started talking. Then somebody called the meeting to order and Tillie and I sat down next to each other.

And what a beginning of a great relationship. Ironically, we were then appointed both to the House Armed Services Committee and were assigned committee seats then right next to each other.

During our tenure on the Armed Services Committee, I came to know and appreciate and respect the loyalty, dedication and hard work of Tillie. Although Tillie never served in the military, she understood and subscribed to the very same core values that I had been inculcated with and advocated by all members of the uniformed services.

To that end, we shared the same values and beliefs: Duty, honor, courage, commitment to God, country, family, and our fellow human beings. And for that, the Armed Services reciprocated in their love toward her.

In short, Tillie Fowler's values reflected a common theme of unswerving devotion and honorable service. As members of the Committee on Armed Services, we are faced with very difficult issues that would have and that in fact had a significant impact on military readiness.

Jane Harman, Tillie Fowler and I worked together on the Speaker's Task Force on Gender Training, a commission that reviewed the politically sensitive issues of coed training in the military services and the issues of sexual harassment in the military and sexual assaults.

Tillie and I fought hard together in order to try to prevent the closure of the Department of the Navy's live-fire trying range in Vieques in Puerto Rico. I also supported Tillie in her belief of a second port for CVNs to replace the carrier John F. Kennedy in Jacksonville.

And when it came to developing the TRICARE for life program for the over 65 military retirees, it was Tillie that I turned to who quietly assisted me in gaining the support of the Speaker and other Congressional leaders in this program.

Through it all, Tillie repeatedly distinguished herself with a sense of justice and always sound judgment. Her resolve and tenacity were always focused on ensuring that our military forces were physically, mentally and operationally prepared for war. She was known for her superior knowledge, her ethics and both physical and moral courage.

Above else, she was a woman of integrity and great dignity. It is individuals like Tillie that give the American system of Government, indeed this legislative body, honor and respect.

My friend will be remembered in history as one of the world's iron ladies, like Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Tillie Fowler and others. As a colleague, she was a confidant and a true inspiration, someone that you could always turn to in a very difficult moment.

And Tillie always seemed to say the right words. She was like a human sponge. She would soak up and be such a great listener, and then she would always convey the right words, and you would walk by feeling good about yourself that you now have a direction, and she would do that in such warm personal leadership.

I am grateful for the time that we spent together in this chamber and thankful for the memories that she will leave with me. I am a better person for having known her, and the country is a better place through her efforts.

To her husband, Buck, and her daughters, Tillie and Elizabeth, I extend my heartfelt sympathy. To my friend Tillie, I know you are in heaven; vouch for me, my dear friend, so I may see you again.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XI of the Rules of the House, I submit for printing in the Record the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which were adopted at the organizational meeting of the Committee on February 10, 2005.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 6, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout Jamborees.

Title 10 of the United States Code, specifically authorizes the DOD to make military installations available to, and to provide equipment, transportation, and other services to, the Boy Scouts of America to support national and world gatherings of Boy Scouts at events known as the Boy Scout Jamboree.

For almost 100 years, the Boy Scouts of America has given generations of young men the tools to become moral, responsible, and ethical adults. By its actions, the Department of Defense is not only defying the law, but also turning its back on these outstanding young men.

Let me be very clear, the Boy Scouts of America is the Nation's foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

In addition, the Boy Scouts of America offers young people responsible fun an adventure, and in the process, it instills lifetime values and helps to develop ethical character. It is also an organization that promotes family values and service to country.

I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this resolution and urge my colleagues to support its passage. Asking the administration to appeal the third circuit is the right thing to do. What is happening on some college campuses is deja vu for those of us who attended colleges in the 1960s and the 1970s. Back then too many college administrators lacked the courage to resist pressure from then what were called left- wing student groups and other professors to ban military recruiters from their campuses. As a result, students who sought military careers were denied equal access to careers of their choice and our schools became the centers for a wide range of nonsense courses.

The student protestors of the 1960s and 1970s and those of like mind are now the administrators and professors of colleges and universities all over the country. Clearly, they have neither changed their politics nor loathing for the American military. Even at a time when our servicemen and -women are encouraged to defeat the forces of tyranny and terror, they remain the same.

In denying military recruiters equal access to campuses such as Harvard Law School, college administrators violate the most basic principles of the right to associate and free speech they so profess is precious. Despite large numbers of conservative students attending their institutions, these liberals preach tolerance; however, these liberal administrators and professors have now become the most intolerant people I know.

The following quote is from a student typical of the attitude of many of these ivory bastions: ``The day my political science department hires a Republican and I am allowed to sit in a class without a number of snickers, jeers, and/or dirty looks when President Bush's name is even mentioned is the day I will admit there is progress on today's campus.''

Mr. Speaker, Congress did not ask for special access for military recruiters. We are asking for just equal access to groups such as those seeking support for such liberal causes as abortion rights, frivolous lawsuits, same-sex marriage, elimination of the right to private property, gun control, Orwellian Big Government. Mr. Speaker, once again activist judges have clearly overstepped their authority, and it is time for the administration to stand and say that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was wrong in their ruling and please seek an appeal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment sponsored by the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. This Sense of Congress sets out the right approach for this nation to move toward the digital television transition and return much-needed spectrum for public-safety and advanced commercial purposes, such as wireless broadband. The Congress, the Federal Communications Commission, as well as the telecommunications industry have spent valuable time and money for the advancement of the transition. A hard date will bring certainty to all those involved in this transition.

The Senate, in its just passed National Intelligence Reform bill, included a 2008 hard deadline for broadcasters to vacate only portions of the 700 MHz spectrum reserved for public safety. I do not believe this is the correct approach, nor do I believe that it adequately solves the public safety issue.

I commend the Chairman for his amendment and I look forward to our continued work as we move from an analog to a digital world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the departure of a great lady and a good friend, Ms. Elsa Birchwood, the Director of the Chief of the Army Reserve's Staff Group. For the past ten years, Ms. Birchwood served as a superb leader, counselor, mentor, and confidant not only within her own office, but also earned the respect from other components of the Department of Defense. She served with great distinction in a full military career that began with her enlistment in the Active Army, duty as a drill sergeant, and ultimately as a commissioned officer in the Active Guard and Reserve Program. Throughout this period, she proved herself to be an outstanding leader and thoroughly professional staff officer of great experience and compassion.

Ms. Birchwood's loyalty and reputation led to her return to Federal service in January 1994 as a civilian military personnel management specialist in the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve. She applied her skills to her congressional liaison activities, the White House and Executive Branch agencies. She was an invaluable point of contact for legislative matters and always made herself available to Members of Congress and their staffs. She responded rapidly to inquiries regarding Army Reserve programs and policies and individual personnel management problems. Her cooperative spirit, determination and perseverance gained her and the Department of Defense many friends and much good will.

Ms. Birchwood's reputation for candor and integrity spread throughout the Reserve community and senior leadership in the Washington area. By the time she was appointed the Director of the Chief, Army Reserve's Staff Group, she had become something of a legend and a cultural hero as an advisor to the Chiefs of the Army Reserve, other general officers, and their staffs. She was an enlightened manager, anticipating emerging issues before they impeded the agency's involvement in the Global War on Terror.

Despite myriad demands on her time, Ms. Birchwood always responded with detailed advice and refreshing candor. She mentored her subordinates and assisted in their professional development. She took personal and professional responsibility to prepare those she supervised to perform up to their potential and she never shirked that responsibility. She was at once enthusiastic and practical, offering long-range advice and suggesting specific immediate courses of action for achieving professional goals and objectives.

At the end of the day, Elsa Birchwood stands as a splendid role model for all who aspire to meaningful public service. She served her country well as a private soldier and officer, and as a distinguished civil servant. She rose to the grade of GS-15 and served with great distinction as a supervisor, mentor, counselor, and friend. Elsa never forgot that she was first a soldier. Elsa Birchwood deserves our thanks, and I salute her lifetime of service to America. We are proud of you and your legacy is now the standard. Job well done, my friend.