Luis Gutiérrez

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber last night and this morning. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present. I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 1163 through 1176.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the economic relationship between the U.S. and Russia, and to once again call on the Bush Administration to exert pressure on Russia to ratify its Bilateral Investment Treaty with the U.S. In October I chaired a hearing in the Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology Subcommittee on the U.S.-Russia economic relationship as it relates to the financial losses U.S. shareholders suffered as a result of the dissolution of the Yukos Oil Company. During the 1990s, Yukos was not only the largest private company in Russia, it was also a model of corporate governance that set an early example for other Russian companies entering the global market. Its chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, was well known in the U.S. and Europe for his leadership in helping Russia make the transition to a market economy. But the Yukos Company's vast energy resources and Mr. Khodorkovsky's Western leanings proved too much for Kremlin operatives eager to assert state control over the energy sector and discipline Russian businessmen who supported opposition parties. In what was widely reported by major news publications at the time, Russian authorities used arbitrary and possibly extralegal means to dismantle Yukos and redistribute $100 billion of its assets to state companies overseen by the Kremlin. At the end of the day, American investors in Yukos lost somewhere between $7 and $12 billion and Mr. Khodorkovsky, convicted on trumped up tax charges, was condemned to a penal colony. Quite simply, U.S. and other would-be foreign investors need to know whether the rule of law will be upheld in Russia. And the Bush Administration needs to be motivated to start asking the Kremlin some tough questions when it comes to protecting the interests of U.S. investors. From a Russian perspective, instances like the Yukos situation will create an uncertainty among potential investors, which could result in a substantial loss of investment and impede Russia's integration into the global economy. In a December 12, 2007, article in the Washington Post, Dr. Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics writes that the Yukos incident, ``unleashed a great wave of renationalization in the post-communist world,'' and that the men in the Kremlin are, ``taking over one big, well-run private company after another, turning them into less efficient state-owned firms.'' In support of his assertions, Dr. Aslund mentions Leonid Reiman, a former KGB official, who is now Russia's Minister of Communications, while still controlling $8 billion in personal telecommunications assets. The United States and Russia signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in 1992 but the treaty has not been ratified by Russia. Ratification of the BIT would provide protection for U.S. investors against the types of actions taken by the Russian government in the Yukos case. The failure of Russia to ratify the BIT, has been a key weakness in the U.S.-Russia economic relationship. Compared to investors from many other nations, U.S. investors are at a disadvantage. For example, 38 countries--including France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain and the U.K.--have concluded bilateral investment treaties with Russia that have also been ratified. The presence of these treaties allows Yukos shareholders from these countries to sue the Russian government, but that option is not available to U.S. shareholders. I want to again call on the Bush Administration to persuade Russia to ratify the BIT. By ratifying the BIT, President Putin would send a strong message to U.S. investors that investing in projects in Russia is safe, and that the Yukos situation is the exception, not the rule. Madam Speaker, I recommend to my colleagues Dr. Aslund's article in the Washington Post of December 12, 2007, and I request that the article be printed in the Congressional Record. Russia's New Oligarchy For Putin and Friends, a Gusher of Questionable Deals (By Antlers Aslund) The news that Dmitry Medvedev, Vladimir Putin's nominee to succeed him as president, wants Putin to become prime minister of Russia next year opens one option for Putin to retain power after his term ends. Putin has little choice but to stay in power as long as he can. - A year ago, a famous Russian journalist asked me: Is it true that Putin has a net fortune of $35 to 40 billion?'' (This journalist, of course, has long been excluded from Kremlin-controlled media.) This fall, the respected Polish magazine Wprost published its annual response to Forbes, its list of the richest people in Eastern Europe. Besides the well-known business executives, there is Gennady Timchenko, a little-known character with a purported fortune of $20 billion. A small oil trader who resides in Geneva, Timchenko is from St. Petersburg, where he belongs to the same luxurious dacha collective as Putin. I first heard of Timchenko in February 2004. Ivan Rybkin, a Russian politician who audaciously opposed Putin in the presidential election that year, claimed that Putin was ``one of Russia's biggest oligarchs'' and that he operated through three middlemen, including Timchenko. Rybkin charged that the Putin-Timchenko group was gobbling up the embattled oil giant Yukos. He swiftly disappeared under mysterious circumstances and after he reemerged, was forced to suspend his campaign. Indeed, the privately owned Yukos oil company has been devoured by the state-dominated Rosneft, whose chairman is Igor Sechin, Point's closest adviser and collaborator. The confiscation, which began in 2003, was publicly justified with not-very-credible citations of tax violations. Rosneft's gain was probably about $100 billion in Yukon assets. U.S. investors in Yukos have lost at least $7 billion; some claim the figure is as much as $12 billion. In October, the House Financial Services Committee's subcommittee on domestic and international monetary policy held a hearing on this, at which I testified. The Bush administration, however, has not protested this outrageous confiscation of private American property. Then- Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed strong support for Putin in October 2004: ``The Russian people came out of the post-Soviet Union era in a state of total chaos--a great deal of freedom, but it was freedom to steal from the state and President Putin took over and restored a sense of order in the country and moved in a democratic way.'' Putin appreciated--and might have been encouraged by--these words. Two months later, Yukon's main oil field was sold to Rosneft in an auction that Putin's economic adviser, Andrei lllarionov, called ``the scam of the year'' (for which he was sacked). U.S. shareholders in Yukos have come to realize that the United States has no single valid agreement that safeguards their property rights; European investors, though, can sue the Russian state under three treaties. The Yukos confiscation has not cost Putin anything. In fact, he unleashed a great wave of renationalization in the post-communist world. His chums from St. Petersburg are taking over one big, well-run private company after another, turning them into less efficient state-owned firms. One of Putin's close friends from the KGB, Leonid Reiman, is his minister of communications. Last year, an independent arbitration court in Zurich ruled that Reiman, despite his denials, was the real owner of Russian telecommunications assets currently valued at on less than $6 billion. Reiman has amassed this extraordinary fortune as a state official, partly through beneficial privatizations, partly through privileged licenses issued to his companies. A government with any standards would fire such an official, but Putin suppressed this negative information within Russia and kept Reiman on, showing that he accepts corruption. The Russian daily Kommersant published a long interview with Russian businessman Oleg Shvartsman on the eve of the recent Duma elections. Sensationally, he described how he raided private enterprises to the benefit of KGB officials described his activity as ``velvet reprivatization.'' Kremlin spokesmen have denied the report. Even more striking was an interview last month with the Kremlin-connected Russian political observer Stanislav Belkovsky in the German daily Die Welt. Belkovsky, who initiated the Kremlin attack on Yukos, claimed that Putin controlled specific shares of three companies (Surgutneftegaz; Gazprom; and Gunvor. Timchenko's company) worth some $40 billion. Putin has not commented on this allegation. According to Transparency International, Russia is growing more corrupt even as most other post-communist countries are controlling their corruption. The fundamental dilemma for Russia, and Putin, is that a system so corrupt cannot be very stable. It's less clear why President Bush does not call Putin out on this or even defend the interests of U.S. citizens and corporations.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 1140 and 1141.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, more than 21,000 foreign-born men and women currently serve on active duty, willing to die in defense of our Nation. U.S. Navy Second Class Petty Officer Eduardo Gonzalez is one of these brave men, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has served two tours in the gulf region. Despite his valiant service, Eduardo Gonzalez faces the deportation of his wife Mildred. At age 5, she was brought here from Guatemala. Now, in addition to confronting enemies from abroad, Gonzalez must confront a threat at home, losing the wife and mother of their 2-year-old child. In his testimony before the Immigration Subcommittee, Gonzalez stated: As a citizen of the United States of America, it makes me wonder, if I can die for my country, then why am I not allowed to just be with my family? Like Petty Officer Gonzalez, immigrant soldiers fight with vigor and valor to protect the American Dream. All of those who serve, regardless of country of origin, are recognized as American heroes. As heroes, they deserve an immigration policy worthy of their sacrifices and nothing less.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 1034, 1035 and 1036.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 924, 925 and 926.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 891, 892, 893, and 894.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, along with my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, I am proud to introduce the Coinage Materials Modernization Act of 2007. This legislation, which is supported by the Treasury Department, would update the law governing the materials used to mint U.S. coins by authorizing the Treasury Secretary to change the composition of coins to less expensive materials. The immediate purpose of this legislation is to address the rising cost to taxpayers of minting pennies and nickels. Currently pennies are made mostly of zinc and have a copper-plated surface. Nickels are made up of an alloy of 75 percent copper and 25 percent nickel. Since March of 2003, world demand for core metals has driven up the price of copper and nickel by 300 percent and of zinc by 450 percent. At the current specifications for these coins, it costs the Government 1.7 cents to make a penny and 10 cents to make a nickel. Other coin denominations continue to be made at costs well below their face values, but metal cost is increasing for them as well. This legislation will allow Treasury to change the composition of all U.S. coins to less expensive alternatives and dramatically reduce the costs of producing these coins. The Treasury Department estimates that by changing the composition of pennies and nickels, we will save the Government over $100 million a year; and by making similar changes to the half dollar, quarter and dime, the Government can save as much as $400 million annually. Under current law, the Treasury Secretary cannot change the base metals used to make our Nation's coinage without congressional action. The Secretary has the authority to vary the alloy of copper and zinc comprising the penny, but there is little room for further adjustment. This legislation would grant the Secretary the authority to change the base metals used to mint coins, potentially saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, without changing the visual features of our coinage. After this bill is enacted, the United States Mint, which is a bureau within the Treasury Department, will seek public and industry comment on possible alternative composition for the penny and the nickel. Following the comment period, there will be a competitive public bidding process for new coinage materials. Congress, particularly the Committee on Financial Services, chaired by my cosponsor, Mr. Frank, and the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology, which I chair, will exercise strong oversight over this process. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, which has the potential to save the Federal Government hundreds of millions of dollars annually. The financial resources of the Federal Government are limited, and it is rare when we have the opportunity to make a simple legislative fix with the potential to save the taxpayers so much. We should take full advantage of this opportunity and pass this legislation in an expeditious manner.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 758, 759, 760, 761, and 762.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 757. Stated against:

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber yesterday. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 687, 688, 689 and 690.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was on official leave of absence due to a health matter in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 483, 491, 497, and 498 and ``no'' on rollcall votes 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 490, 492, 493, 494, 495, and 496.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was on official leave of absence June 12 and 13, 2007, due to a health matter in my family. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 451, 452, 453, 456 and 457 and ``no'' on rollcall votes 454, 455, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, and 465.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was absent from this chamber today, due to a health matter in my family. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 448, 449 and 450.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 384 and 385.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 345, 346 and 347, 348, and 349.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 342, 343, and 344.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber yesterday, April 23, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 245, 246 and 247.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 157, 158, and 159.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of my bill, the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007. The goal of the legislation is to minimize the obstacles that legal immigrants face on the road to becoming U.S. citizens. During my 15 years in Congress, I have made citizenship and immigration issues the cornerstone of my work here. In my district, we have created innovative naturalization workshops that have become a national model for legislators around the nation. I am proud to say that these workshops have helped more than 40,000 Chicago-area immigrants to become U.S. citizens. But there is much more to these workshops than numbers. There is something special, something amazing, about seeing the pride, the promise, and the confidence on a person's face after they have completed the citizenship application process. Men and women who take the oath of citizenship are committed to the responsibilities of being American citizens and are equally dedicated to making the most of America's opportunities. They have done everything right. They work hard and play by the rules. Yet, this Administration continues to put citizenship out of reach for many hard working individuals by proposing unrealistic and punitive fees to complete the citizenship process. And the proposed fee hikes, which were announced a few weeks ago, are a glaring example of the government imposing a higher price on its customers, while continuing to offer inadequate, inefficient and ineffective service. That would never fly in the business world, and it shouldn't when it comes to providing government services. Prospective citizens are not asking for a free ride--they never have. They are simply asking for fairness, and for a broken bureaucracy, with an unacceptable backlog, to stop trying to fix its failures, and its inefficiencies, on the backs of low-income working families. In recent years, USCIS has increasingly burdened prospective citizens with indirect costs not related to the application process. The legislation I am introducing today would help reverse that trend in a way that makes sense for prospective citizens and for the agency. It would freeze fees at their current rates until we can conduct proper oversight and thoroughly review the proposed fee structure. It would also ensure that indirect costs, those not associated with the application process, can be funded through the appropriations process and not through increased filing fees. The legislation would also help ensure that the citizenship test is administered fairly--and justly--and that people aren't deterred from pursuing the process because of electronic filing barriers. In addition, the legislation would set up the New Americans Initiative. This would establish a grant program to fund the work of community-based organizations to promote and increase citizenship opportunities through application assistance, outreach and community education, and English and citizenship classes. We have seen a version of this project thrive in Illinois under the leadership of Governor Blagojevich and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. Madam Speaker, let me close with this point. President Theodore Roosevelt once said: ``Americanism is a question of principle, of purpose, of idealism, of character. It is not a matter of birthplace or creed or line of descent.'' Let's work to ensure that those who possess the principle, the purpose, the idealism and the character of America can earn the chance to achieve the American Dream. And let's ensure that they are not priced out of the process. Let's work to ensure that they can continue to build and better our great nation, as immigrants have done for generations. Let's work to ensure that hard working men and women can fully share in the rights that citizens enjoy and can also help shoulder the enormous responsibilities that come with this incredible opportunity.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Chairman, I rise today to affirm my strong support for H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. I would like to thank my colleague, Chairman George Miller, for introducing this important legislation to ensure that workers have the light to organize a union if they choose, without being subjected to workplace abuses, economic coercion or threats by their employers. Union busting has become a lucrative industry at the cost of the American worker. When surveyed in 2006, a substantial majority, 58 percent, of eligible workers said that they would join a union if they could; however, union membership dropped below 10 percent in the private sector, bringing union membership to a record low. This discrepancy is directly related to the flawed National Labor Relation Board system as it applies to a fair and democratic election process. Under the current NLRB system, employers are allowed to pressure employees into voting against the union during an organizing drive by using economic coercion and continual threats. It is common practice for union-busting employers to use direct supervisors to meet one-on- one with employees to compel them to vote against the union. Also, employees are often forced to attend mandatory anti-union lectures, while union representatives, under threat of termination, are not allowed to present their views to other workers at their employment site. And the list of abuses goes on and on: Twenty-five percent of employers illegally fire at least one worker for union activity during an organizing campaign; Fifty-two percent of employers threaten deportation or other forms of retaliation during organizing drives that include undocumented employees; And 51 percent of employers threaten to close their plants if the union wins the election, although only 1 percent actually will. Worksite intimidation and economic threats create a hostile environment and eradicate the ability for a worker to make a fair and free decision. Workers are pushed out of an impartial election process because they fear for their livelihood and the economic stability of their families. The current system is far from democratic. It's unfair and it's wrong. We need to fix this broken system to allow for workers to freely make their own choices at the workplace without fear of employer reprisal. As a Representative from the great city of Chicago, a stronghold of working families and union struggles, I can speak to the benefits afforded to workers who choose to wield their collective bargaining power. The median weekly earnings of union workers are 30 percent higher in comparison to nonunion workers. This increase can pull a working class family out of poverty and strongly into the middle class. Union workers also receive more benefits than nonunion workers. Only 2.5 percent of union workers go without health insurance coverage, whereas 15 percent of nonunion workers are uninsured. From health to disability benefits to pensions, joining a union provides a higher standard of living and secure benefits that may otherwise not be within reach of some employees. Unions are essential to the fight for worker rights, and we must work to ensure that they can be formed without pitting employers against employees. Workers must be allowed to choose freely whether or not they want to form a union--absent employer intimidation and economic coercion--and this is exactly what the Employee Free Choice Act will provide. This timely legislation will enhance working conditions and ensure a more equitable system in the workplace. The welfare of our working families and the future of our middle class depend on it. I urge a yes vote on this historic and important legislation.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 100, 101 and 102.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this irresponsible war. Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank checks will not make America more secure. Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and women serving in harm's way. Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and former senior White House officials of both parties. And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly shameful. Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's services when they return home. Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, religious civil war. Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be treated as liberators, not as occupiers. And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction. They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion. Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers. But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued with hardened religious sectarian violence. Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the American people. Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the answer. Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception and the dishonesty. We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real war on terror. Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families and loved ones. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important resolution.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 93 and 94.

Mr. GUTIERREZ

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 521, a bill designating the post office located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''. I want to thank Congressman Phil Hare, the former District Director to Lane Evans and the new Representative from Illinois' 17th Congressional District. The post office is located in Lane Evans' hometown of Rock Island and will serve as a testament to his long, distinguished career as a Marine, a champion for social justice and a fine Member of this body. Today's debate gives us the opportunity to take a moment to recognize and thank Lane Evans for his service to this country, to this Congress and to our nation's men and women who have worn the uniform. I have had the honor and the privilege of serving with Lane on the Veterans Affairs Committee since I came to Congress in 1993. He is a good friend, an important ally and an unwavering advocate for Veterans in Illinois and across the nation. Although he never was able to chair the House Veterans Committee, he stands as one of this body's finest and most committed legislators for veterans. He made the issues of veterans health care and veterans benefits the cornerstone of his legislative career, and I could think of no better way to honor Lane than for this Congress to continue that fight. While Lane may have been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, it did not affect his razor sharp intellect or lessen his commitment to the issues he cares about. He has approached his disease with dignity, class and courage, and he has served as an inspiration to others with Parkinson's disease. This Congress, I am going to miss having my friend and my colleague in the Illinois delegation, but you can bet when I need guidance about the best way to protect Illinois veterans, my first call will be to Lane. Mr. Speaker, the least we can do today is pass this bill honoring Lane Evans and his career, and I urge swift passage of this bill.