Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on January 18, San Diegans of all generations will flock to San Diego's Petco Park to celebrate the life of baseball legend Jerry Coleman.

Lt. Colonel Gerald Francis Coleman was a San Diego icon. He was also a decorated war hero, an All-Star baseball player and an award-winning broadcaster.

But more than that he was a husband, father, and grandfather.

At a recent gathering of family and friends, his daughter Chelsea spoke of her dad and any parent would have been proud of the eulogy she gave.

Before being the voice of the San Diego Padres, before he played for the New York Yankees, Jerry, a young man from San Jose, California, answered his country's call to duty.

In 1942, at just 18, he joined the Marines to fight in World War II, flying missions in the Pacific as a combat aviator.

After the war, he traded his flight suit for pinstripes.

Jerry was called up to the Yankees in 1949 and was an anchor at second base smoothly fielding and turning double plays for the Yankees.

In 1950, he was an All-Star. That same year he would be named MVP of the World Series.

In his playing days, he would help the Yankees win six World Series.

When war raged in Korea, his country called a second time. Jerry hung up his cleats and donned the flight suit once again.

Over the span of his service in two wars, he flew 120 missions. Jerry was awarded two Distinguish Flying Crosses, 13 Air Medals and three Navy Citations. He was the only Major League Baseball player to see combat in two wars.

After baseball, he moved to the broadcasting booth. Generations of San Diegans watched baseball with Jerry where he regaled everyone with his knowledge of and enthusiasm for the game.

We can still hear his signature phrase on stellar plays: ``Man, you can hang a star on that one!''

In 2005, the Hall of Fame honored Jerry with the Ford C. Frick Award for his broadcasting.

With his passing, we are hearing about Jerry what many of us already knew that he was a genuinely nice man. ``Class act,'' ``Hall of Fame guy,'' and ``like a favorite Uncle'' are the apt descriptions being mentioned of Jerry.

In his book An American Journey, he wrote: ``I've always said this, though it sounds corny. There are two important things in life: the people who you love and who love you, and your country.''

We will miss Jerry. And all of us can agree: You can hang a star on this life.

Madam Speaker, as we debate how to extend unemployment benefits--and I certainly hope we will have that debate-- we must remember what this vital lifeline means to real people.

Just recently, I held a roundtable discussion with local San Diegans in my district who are struggling to find work. In listening to their stories, I was struck by what a difference these essential benefits make.

Eugene, for example, was employed in the health care industry until June of 2012. When his lifeline was cut off shortly after Christmas, Eugene noted how ``confidence falls, financial pressures mount, anxiety increases, and we begin to take desperate measures just to survive.'' He added that these Federal extensions do make a difference, particularly in the case of having stable housing.

It is unfair to let this happen. After all, these benefits were earned by people who have worked and paid into the system. They should be able to put their full energies into getting a job; but if you can't afford housing, if you can't afford transportation to work, then that is nearly impossible to do. We should do the right thing for Eugene and for over 1 million fellow Americans by extending this lifeline now.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3, 2014, San Diego lost a true fixture of our community. Lou Terrell was a devoted educator, a loving family man, and a tireless advocate for the people of his city.

In the 1980's, Lou Terrell served as mayor and councilmember for Del Mar, California. Since then, he served as a leader in local chapters of Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, where he continued to work to make his city a better and fairer place.

Lou was also a former professor at San Diego State University, and served as chair of the school's Department of Political Science. A scholarship was established in his name to help students of political science pursuing their own careers in public service.

Lou Terrell established and served as the president of the Del Mar Foundation, a nonprofit that organizes cultural events for local children and families and works to keep Del Mar's beaches and parks clean and safe. Today, the Del Mar Foundation remains a symbol of Lou's love for his community.

Those who knew and worked with Lou knew him as a kind hearted and generous man who loved his wife and children, and his dogs. Above all, all of us who had the pleasure of knowing Lou remember his positive attitude in the face of anything. It was contagious.

Lou Terrell was a dedicated public servant and a beloved husband and father. His passing is a terrible loss for our region, and for everyone who was lucky enough to get to know Lou. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3, 2014, San Diego lost a true fixture of our community. Lou Terrell was a devoted educator, a loving family man, and a tireless advocate for the people of his city.

In the 1980's, Lou Terrell served as mayor and councilmember for Del Mar, California. Since then, he served as a leader in local chapters of Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, where he continued to work to make his city a better and fairer place.

Lou was also a former professor at San Diego State University, and served as chair of the school's Department of Political Science. A scholarship was established in his name to help students of political science pursuing their own careers in public service.

Lou Terrell established and served as the president of the Del Mar Foundation, a nonprofit that organizes cultural events for local children and families and works to keep Del Mar's beaches and parks clean and safe. Today, the Del Mar Foundation remains a symbol of Lou's love for his community.

Those who knew and worked with Lou knew him as a kindhearted and generous man who loved his wife and children, and his dogs. Above all, all of us who had the pleasure of knowing Lou remember his positive attitude in the face of anything. It was contagious.

Lou Terrell was a dedicated public servant and a beloved husband and father. His passing is a terrible loss for our region, and for everyone who was lucky enough to get to know Lou. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, last year, as many have said, ended on a somber note. Over 1 million of our fellow Americans lost a vital economic lifeline, the temporary insurance that helps them get by while searching for a new job.

Louise, a constituent of mine from San Diego, recently wrote me to explain what losing such benefits means to her. She is 60 years old, and she has been looking for work since she was laid off a year ago from a stable job that she had held just for about 15 years.

And as she mentioned:

It is very scary to think that effectively, on January 1, I

won't have any income. So what am I to do? I will have a roof

over my head for a short time, but I won't have the funds to

pay for utilities.

And she went on to say:

By cutting extended unemployment, all that will be

accomplished is more people being on welfare or living on the

streets homeless. And that, that helps us? How?

Her story reminds us of our duty to lend a hand to those in need. Any of us could be in her shoes.

Extending unemployment benefits is not only the right thing, but it is also good for our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Lee, for this opportunity and for, really, the privilege of working with her for so many years.

Today, the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty, reminds us all that more work must be done. And if I could relate on a personal level, I don't believe that I would have had an opportunity to continue my education without having been about to further that at the time of the war on poverty. As someone who wanted to go into social work, it certainly was an opportunity for me to do that and to make a difference in that area.

One of the most important steps that we can take is to make pre-K available to all American children. Today, only 69 percent of American 4-year-olds are enrolled in early childhood education programs--only 69 percent. You might be surprised to learn that that troubling statistic places us near the bottom--near the bottom--in terms of access among our advanced country OECD peers, in the bottom. In our global economy, that means many American children start behind least when they can afford to. They just cannot make it beyond that.

The stakes to address this issue today have never been higher. Over the last decade, we have learned that early childhood education makes a big difference. We have learned that the achievement gap begins before our kids even reach kindergarten, and we have learned that quality pre- K leads to better life outcomes in school, in careers, and in personal health. The research, indeed, shows that children who attend preschool are more likely to graduate high school, earn higher pay, and live more productive lives.

Sadly, we are just not putting these lessons of the war on poverty when we began to address these issues, we are not putting these lessons into action. The argument for universal pre-K is not just a lofty moral imperative. That sounds good. No. It is good science and it is good economics. By some estimates, the return on investment is nearly seven to one. And that is why most economists agree that pre-K is a great investment; it is not just another expense.

I know that parents throughout San Diego and across our country just want to give their kids the very best start in life, and we should be working together to make that happen, to make sure all our kids get a real chance to succeed. And that, Mr. Speaker, would be one gigantic step to elevate our children out of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3304, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2014.

As ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, I am pleased this bill includes a number of provisions that continue our commitment to our Armed Forces.

I want to thank Chairman Joe Wilson for working with me in a bipartisan manner to support our servicemembers and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon, and Adam Smith, the ranking member, for their really excellent, wonderful leadership.

I want to thank the hardworking staff as well on the Military Personnel Subcommittee: Debra, Craig, Dave, Jeanette, Jon, and Colin.

Sexual assault has been a focus of this committee for the last several years, and this bill continues to make significant progress toward increasing victim empowerment and holding commands accountable at all levels. The portions of this bill addressing sexual assault send a clear message: if you can't contribute to a safe and respectful environment, then get out.

Beyond sexual assault, the bill provides additional separation authorities as the services reduce their end strength. These authorities will be crucial to the Department's ability to execute the drawdown in a responsible manner, while ensuring that all serving members and their families who also serve are compensated appropriately.

Additionally, this bill continues our oversight responsibility and commitment to prisoners of war and those missing in action. The bill requires the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW and Missing Personnel Affairs to disseminate appropriate information on the status of missing persons to family members. It also requires a report detailing statistical data on the recovery of remains of missing servicemembers from various conflicts. The bill before us continues to recognize the sacrifices of those who serve our Nation in uniform.

During a time when thousands of Americans still remain in combat, we in Congress have an obligation to ensure that these men and women, and their families, are supported, and provide them the resources they need to carry out the mission.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a first step to come together. Well, it is a bigger step than we have seen in a while, but let's remember, it is only a first step. And I think people have said a small step, but it is a step and I am as excited as some of you are saying that we have been able to do that.

However, and more than that, unfortunately, we have not been able to come together to keep up the safety net for 1.3 million unemployed Americans by extending emergency unemployment insurance. In fact, the problem of long-term unemployment is not even addressed. It wasn't even discussed at length. If you want to pull away the safety net and leave people with nothing, well, at least have some creative solutions for getting them back to work.

Now, like many of you, I have to go back to my district, my constituents in San Diego, who have been struggling to find work for so long and tell them that we could not come together to preserve their only means of subsistence.

So let's remember, as we take this step forward, let us keep working together to extend unemployment benefits for those in desperate need and start--let us start coming up with some bigger solutions to getting people back to work.

I thank Congresswoman Speier for having this Special Order today because the focus on NIH--you know, for so many families, it actually comes down to care for their loved one. That is what they know can happen as a result of proper granting at appropriate levels for the NIH. Simply put, it is really vital to the Nation's health. Without NIH funding, we will not see the breakthroughs that we have seen in the past. NIH funding has led to cures. It has led to treatments and preventions for truly some of the most horrific diseases of our day afflicting everyone.

You know, diseases don't pick and choose between infants and seniors, lower, middle and, we might say, upper class. They don't distinguish. It is kind of equal opportunity for all, and that is why they have to be targeted.

I have been a consistent coleader of the annual NIH appropriations letter, requesting that the House appropriate full funding for the NIH, and the return to full funding is absolutely essential.

NIH is unique in its function. We know that we have an active private sector in our country. That is wonderful. And we certainly see that in my community of San Diego, and my colleague Congressman Peters talked about this earlier.

But the private sector simply does not have the ability to replace public investment in the NIH. They don't have it. That kind of basic research in science has to come from the United States Government. That is where it has always come from. It has come from there when we even look at the advancements that we have had in technology. And it certainly makes a difference when we think about what we are doing and what our friends, our allies around the world, and even some who are not allies, are doing in this area. So we have got to be competitive. It doesn't make any sense not to be.

We know that the NIH conducts and funds research that is just too expensive--too expensive and too risky for private industry to undertake a loan; and it has led us to major advancements in the understanding of diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer, and Parkinson's.

The research coming out of and the grants coming from NIH are a huge driver of our biotechnology industry; and that, in turn, contributes heavily to our economy. Particularly in San Diego, we see that every single day because that is where the hundreds of jobs, good-paying jobs that allow people to really reach their potential and be purposeful about their work, that is where that comes from.

NIH funding keeps researchers and graduate students employed doing

what they do best, investigating answers to our most complex medical mysteries: cancer, premature birth, heart disease, and so on. I have had these young scientists in my office talking about the fact that they may not stay with the field, a field that they love, because they can't get the grants. As we cut back, only the most experienced scientists get those grants, and they are good. But our young people may be even better, but we have got to give them a chance. We have got to give them a chance to move forward and do that.

More than 80 percent of the NIH budget goes to over 300,000 research personnel at more than 2,500 universities and research institutions throughout the United States. So that is affecting a lot more than California. It is affecting our colleagues around the country, and maybe they don't even realize what an impact that has.

In San Diego, we are fortunate. We have got a lot of researchers, a lot of scientists working hard; and they received $1.13 billion in NIH funding in 2012. It has sparked major breakthroughs, brings jobs to the region, and creates potential breakthroughs for millions around the country.

So we are doing our part; but, tragically, the sequestration requires NIH to cut 5 percent, or $1.55 billion, of its fiscal year 2013 budget. NIH must apply the cut evenly across the board, the way things are today. That is why we have to change that. I hope we will be able to do that. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and activities which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means that every area of medical research will be affected by that. Every area. Not just the few that maybe we think don't need the help, but every area. This is an irrational, backwards-thinking policy that will harm millions of Americans--current patients and future ones--and cost us millions in economic output.

As a result of the sequester and the slashing of NIH funding, already approximately 640 fewer competitive research project grants will be issued from what we have already done; approximately 750 fewer new patients admitted to the NIH Clinical Center; no increase in stipends for National Research Service Award recipients in 2013; and a delay in medical progress.

You know, these medical breakthroughs that we have that benefit many of our patients, many of our constituents--and I know I have friends who have been the beneficiaries of some of those breakthroughs--they just don't happen overnight. In almost all instances, those discoveries result from years of incremental research to understand how diseases start and progress. Even after the cause and the potential drug target of disease is discovered, it takes an average of 13 years and $1 billion to develop a treatment for that target.

And what is difficult is that we know that a lot of people are waiting for some of those clinical trials because you have to be careful how that is done, and that takes time. It takes enough patience, enough people willing to take that risk so that we can see what happens over time. That is so important. And when we start breaking this up, the whole process doesn't work.

Cuts to research are delaying progress in medical breakthroughs, including development of better cancer drugs that zero in on a tumor with fewer side effects; research on a universal flu vaccine that could fight every strain of influenza without even needing a yearly shot; and the prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are costly to society and delay development of more effective treatments for common and rare diseases affecting millions of Americans.

And, as I mentioned earlier, we lose the promising, accomplished scientists and researchers who are leaving the industry because of the loss or inability to get grants.

We see that faculty at top universities across the country are reporting cutting labor spending by 7 percent and operating with skeleton staffs, severely limiting job opportunities for new researchers. Over 50 percent of scientists surveyed by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said they had a colleague who has lost his job or expects to soon. Some of the scientists are not coming back. They are going elsewhere. They are going to those areas where we are competing because they can take a more stable position outside of the research sector here in the United States.

Do we want that? I don't think so. Quite simply, we are inflicting decades of damage with the sequester policy that we have, and I hope that that is going to change. It is not rational to do that. It is cruel. It is backwards. It is insanity.

Let's join together and undo--what we can agree on in a bipartisan basis--a foolish policy with an untold number of victims from every State and every city and town in this country. Let us work together to restore NIH funding immediately.

I thank my colleague.

Well, I think we saw the leadership coming from President Bush at that time. And because we also had--those of us here on this side of the aisle, I think, in support, it was a bipartisan effort. We saw that leadership coming from the top; and that is what made a difference, because it was written into the budget.

Now, I must say, we weren't able to sustain some of that because of a number of reasons. And we were fighting two wars and then had a number of other issues that we needed to look at. But the reality is that that was maybe unique in some ways because it really came from leadership at the top. It was here, on our side of the House, and the House was supportive. The Senate was supportive, and the President was supportive. So it was really altogether. We don't see that leadership right now from the other side of the aisle.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, this holiday season, my constituents have inspired me by writing in about the importance of food aid and the SNAP program.

All of us here in Congress have the luxury of knowing that we can provide our families with healthy food; but there are so many people in our country that will go this holiday without such a blessing, and, sadly, most of those in dire need are children. In fact, 70 percent of all households that depend on SNAP are families with children.

In my district, a 16-year-old girl named Maya was hospitalized last year for issues related to malnutrition. She had struggled in school and showed signs of depression. Maya's hospitalization triggered her father to apply for SNAP benefits. Having a more reliable source of food gave Maya the energy to improve her grades and help her family. She helped her family out by getting a part-time job.

As we debate the farm bill, let's remember that there are children like Maya. Let's work together to protect SNAP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3487, a bill to reauthorize the Federal Election Commission's Administrative Fines Program through 2018.

This program allows the FEC to streamline ``straightforward disclosure violations'' and enact a penalty. Since its introduction in 1999, the AFP has improved the enforcement process, decreased late filings, and assessed over $4 million in fines. Reauthorizing the AFP program is a reasonable and appropriate step.

The FEC is a small agency charged with the monumental task of overseeing the massive, complex, and eroding campaign funding system. In the wake of Citizens United, we need them more than ever. Instead, the agency has been mired in partisan games, distracting it from important functions such as conducting audits or issuing regulations, advisory opinions, and enforcement actions. But now, with a new, confirmed full slate of commissioners, I look forward to the agency moving ahead and returning to its core duties instead of the partisan squabble of the past.

Even though my Republican colleagues and I don't always see eye-to- eye on these campaign finance issues, we all agree that the AFP program has been successful. I am very proud to stand with Chairman Miller on this issue.

I urge all Members to support H.R. 3487. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I join the chair in supporting S. Con. Res. 25, which authorizes the use of Emancipation Hall for a ceremony to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Native American code talkers. I am very pleased to support the efforts to honor these patriotic Americans and their service to our Nation during some of its most trying times. This honor is extremely well deserved, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I hope that all of us are looking forward to this ceremony because I think it is going to be a very impressive one and give us a chance to honor, again, these wonderful, patriotic Americans.

I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Major General William Gourley was truly a soldier's soldier. His long and storied career can be summed up by the motto he took with him across the Army to every unit he commanded: ``Soldiers first.'' He insisted that support of the military must focus on the needs of soldiers, and this mantra soon became the standard across the entire Army personnel community.

After more than 30 years in uniform, General Gourley continued fighting for the well-being of soldiers and their families. His bigger- than-life persona and caring nature endeared him to Active Duty soldiers and veterans alike, and he could often be seen at the former Fort Ord--at the commissary or at the PX--inquiring as to how servicemembers were and as to how he could help them. He was a fixture at the local VA clinic, but dreamed of a larger facility that could seamlessly integrate care over the life of a soldier.

It was this desire, coupled with his penchant for helping others, which led him to play an instrumental role in the planning and development of the soon-to-be joint VA-DOD hospital. It would only be fitting to see this new and innovative facility named after a true American hero.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from California (Mr. Farr), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the typhoon in the Philippines has left a wake of unimaginable devastation.

Those living in the areas hardest hit by the storm are embarking on the excruciating process of trying to pick up the pieces. Members of the San Diego region's large Filipino community are determined to send aid to their native country. They are collecting clothing, food, and encouraging cash donations.

The feeling of helplessness from my constituents that have family living in the area where the typhoon hit is profound. It is important that people understand where their efforts are most needed and where their donations will be best used.

It is in these difficult moments like this where we witness unbridled compassion and empathy, and I am pleased that the humanitarian efforts, which our military and aid communities do so well, are under way, and at least 13 other countries have joined the effort as well.

The help is not arriving as fast as those suffering from hunger, cold, illness, and homelessness need.

The Filipino Americans in our districts are looking to us to continue our role as leaders in humanitarian aid. Let's continue to help those most in need.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, I rise today to recognize the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and to remember those who tragically lost their lives, their homes, and so much of the communities that they knew.

The storm's crippling impacts still persist up and down the east coast. While we cannot blame climate change for any one event, all of these natural disasters taken together are undeniable evidence of a looming man-made disaster.

My constituents in California are also struggling to deal with climate change. In my State, 12 of the 20 most damaging wildfires occurred in the last 10 years, and crops have been decimated due to rising temperatures and water scarcity.

We need to ask ourselves: What have we learned from Sandy? What have we

learned from other disasters, and what can we do to prevent the next one?

This problem has no party. There is no more personal or more compelling issue. Climate change is a human problem, with the direst of consequences. It is time to put aside our partisan differences and start working together to address these issues.