Doug Lamborn

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. To the gentleman from Georgia, you have been in Congress for about 3 years now, I believe, if I am not mistaken, and you came from the Georgia legislature. Like you, I came from the Colorado legislature. And one thing that the great State of Georgia and the great State of Colorado share, as do all 48 other States, is that they have a balanced budget amendment. It is written into the State Constitution of both Georgia and Colorado that every year we have to balance the budget. Now, unfortunately, I think the biggest glaring problem with our national budget is we don't have such a balanced budget requirement every year, and it is so easy to go into debt. If we had strong willpower, we could hold the line, and that is what we are going to talk about here, and I have some questions for you. But in the absence of that strong fiscal strength of character, moral fiber, whatever you want to call it, it is so easy to want to please everybody, spend for the projects, not prioritize, and we run up massive deficits. And I know that in the past deficits have been run up under all kinds of administrations of both parties. But to the gentleman from Georgia, what would be the difference here if we had some kind of balanced budget amendment? I mean until we have that and if it takes a constitutional amendment, which I would favor but that is going to take two-thirds of the House and Senate and three- quarters, or 38 of the 50 States, to ratify that, and until that day comes, we just have to have the strength of will and the commitment to the American people and the taxpayer that we will balance the budget. Could you respond to that?

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And I have another question from the gentleman from Georgia. You were here over the last 2 years before January, when I was sworn in and I came on, although I am new since then. Isn't it true that we had a rule that the Republicans initiated that said it took 60 percent to raise taxes, not in statute but in rules, and that that was one of the first things that went out the window when we turned control over to the Democrats?

Mr. LAMBORN. Yes. And then I will turn it back over to you. But you remember the year 2001 in the Georgia legislature. I remember that very well in Colorado. When 9/11 happened, the tragedy involved with that, and then on top of that the subsequent horrendous economic problems that our country had, and each State suffered losses of revenues. We had to look at cutting programs or doing with less. But at the same time, the American public and families had to do with less also. But then when times were better, we had more, and we can spend more, if necessary. So I just think that it's unfortunate that we don't have such a balanced budget amendment. But it's good that we had rules, at least up until January, where we took a supermajority before we had a tax increase, and even now we have an opportunity, if we will all only seize upon it, to say, okay, we'll stick with the President's numbers. I think we can do even better than that in terms of saving money for the taxpayers. But let's say we stick with the President's numbers, that would still be a $23 billion savings over what our friends across the aisle are proposing in these various appropriations bills. And that we would, by going to the President's numbers, we would still be over the rate of inflation in most of the different agencies. So, I just think it's a tragedy that we're not seizing upon this opportunity. I just expected better when I got sworn into Congress because I had heard talk during the campaign that if the majority party would take power, that they would be more fiscally responsible in different ways. And unfortunately, I haven't seen that fully carried out, and I've been very disappointed. At this point, I'm going to yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Westmoreland amendment. I would like to point out that the President's budget request came in at $1.1 billion more than what the majority party has requested in the bill that is before us today. Also, the bill before us today is $1.3 billion over last year's bill. Now, $1 billion, that goes to the $23 billion or so that the combination of the 12 appropriations bills will be over what the President has set forward. And even what the President set forward, I might say, is a little on the high side. But when you look at $23 billion in excess spending, $1.1 billion just in this bill, Mr. Chairman, we have to start somewhere with fiscal restraint and fiscal discipline. I am a new Member in Congress, and I heard a lot of talk during the campaign, especially by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we were going to have a new day of fiscal discipline. Well, I am still waiting for that day to dawn, and I certainly don't see it today. This bill is higher than what the President has asked, and that means that the President has pledged to veto this bill. If this goes through the House and then through the Senate and comes out in anything like the form that it is in right now, it's going to be vetoed; and then we are going to come back, and we will go through this whole exercise all over again. So I think the way we should avoid that brain damage and that waste of time and waste of expense is just to bite the bullet right now. Let's stick to the amount that the President has requested. That is still over last year's budget. So I think we should support the Westmoreland amendment. He has offered several good amendments. This is one of them. We have to start somewhere, or we are going to be back later this year. So let's have some of the fiscal discipline that I thought we were going to be in store for, and this would be a good place to start. This is as good a place as any. And I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to wade through these massive and costly spending bills, my commitment to the American taxpayer remains strong. I signed a pledge to uphold a Presidential veto of any spending bill that exceeds the President's requested level of funding. Hopefully, we can contain some of this out-of-control spending and pass fiscally responsible legislation; but if not, I intend to honor that pledge. This appropriations bill would increase spending for energy and water projects by $1.1 billion more than the President's budget request and seeks to increase spending by more than $1.3 billion over last year's fiscal 2007 Energy and Water appropriations bill. We have an opportunity to demonstrate restraint by reducing the amount that the government spends, not increasing it. At a time when the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion national debt, we have a real opportunity to show the American people that we can be fiscally disciplined and that we will reduce this deficit. Increasing the size of government or bureaucracy will not help this reduction effort. My commonsense amendment would simply maintain the Policy and Administration account under the Bureau of Reclamation at fiscal year 2007 levels, representing a $1.2 million reduction from $58.8 million to $57.6 million. That is the same as last year's budget. Given that this funding level was appropriate for last year's budget and our Nation needs to reduce Federal spending, this commonsense restraint should be acceptable. This amendment is not critical of the Bureau of Reclamation or its employees, who actually help deliver water to parts of my district and are important to the State of Colorado and to the entire West. It would simply require the Federal Government to operate the way any deficit- laden business would. A private sector company experiencing the same deficits the Federal Government is facing would not increase its deficit. It would simply cut spending or go out of business. A family on a tight budget finds ways to go without, and we should explore every opportunity to be fiscally responsible as well. This amendment is the first step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of- control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and assure the American people that we are doing whatever is necessary to reduce our national debt. To do this, we must find commonsense and innovative new ways to do more with less. The American people have asked Congress to rein in Federal spending and tighten its belt. This reasonable amendment does just that, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from California. To put things in perspective for my colleague from New York, it's true that the war in Iraq has cost $600 billion. That is 7 percent of the $8.8 trillion total national debt that we have. So we have to also address the remaining 93 percent of the debt, because the war is 7 percent out of that $8.8 trillion. So, getting back to this amendment that is before us, I would differ with my colleague from New York. We are not cutting any research into energy development. We are cutting the bureaucracy expense. We are cutting the policy and administration portion of the Bureau of Reclamation. We are just keeping it to last year's dollar amount. So the bureaucracy, the administration of the Bureau of Reclamation is what is being kept to last year's figures. There is no cut going on for any research development program whatsoever. So I just wanted to make that correction. Apparently I haven't won over my colleague from New York yet, but I would urge everyone else here to adopt this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I rise today in opposition to this amendment which would cut off all funding to study an expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site. This amendment would stop the Army from providing the soldiers with much-needed additional training space, an action which could have serious negative consequences for the Army and for the brave men and women serving our Nation. By prohibiting these funds, the Army would not even be able to study the area and complete an environmental impact statement. The purpose of an EIS is to assess the environmental, economic and other impacts of a proposed action before a Federal action is even taken up. Private property rights are deeply important to me. Any option to increase the size of the PCMS should be thoroughly studied, and if plans for the expansion were to go forward, it should occur to the greatest extent possible, if not completely through willing sellers. The type of enemy we are now facing overseas is much different than during the Cold War. PCMS contains terrain much like areas such as Iraq and Afghanistan. We are fortunate as a country to have this training area, but the Army has outgrown it. It would be a shame to not even study the possibility of using an existing facility that could easily be transformed into a 22nd-century facility. During the Cold War, divisions consisting of approximately 20,000 soldiers fought in relatively small areas in Europe. Consequently, training could be conducted in areas of approximately 22,000 acres or 5 by 7 miles. Today, brigade-size formations of approximately 3,500 soldiers must now operate in and control areas of approximately 615,000 acres, or 31 by 31 miles. While Army units have gotten smaller, the battlefield has gotten larger. We owe our soldiers proper training for the conditions they will experience in other combat theaters. Not allowing the soldiers to train adequately puts them in harm's way. The Army is simply asking for an opportunity to study an expansion. To deny them this opportunity would be to substitute political pressure for the considered judgment of our military commanders who are charged with training and protecting our troops. It is unrealistic and irresponsible to think other public lands in Colorado or the West, such as roadless wilderness areas or national parks, could be used as a substitute. No critic of PCMS has come forward with a responsible and specific alternative. The longer distances involved would also make that difficult. Over 200 soldiers from Fort Carson have died in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting terrorism. The soldiers and commanders at Fort Carson know what it takes to wage war in the 21st century, and they are serious about it. It would truly be a shame if they don't have the proper training facilities so that they can succeed. The Army should at least be given a chance to study the issue and present their findings. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to just say that American ingenuity and civic involvement have come forward again. The American people are a creative and involved people. And I have here a letter from a blog site called porkbusters.org; let me just read you a couple of sentences from this blog site. ``As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 32,000 earmark request publicly, I, and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of Federal funding, and which may have value to the taxpayers. ``Thanks for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these 32,000 earmark requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for these requested projects; the least we can do is help you evaluate their merit.'' We have volunteers now coming forward that are willing to help the overworked staff on appropriations that apparently do not have the time to look at these earmarks, and haven't had time over the last several months. Although we've had time for a lot of other things to do, but we haven't had time for that. So volunteers are now coming forward, and the American people are standing ready and they will be willing to help. And on another note, I would just like to give a question to the colleagues I have on the other side of the aisle. I hear a lot of discussion about what's in the bill. And the bill has many good things. No one's denying that. There are some problems with the bill. The bill has some really good projects in it. But why not talk about the earmark process that amounts to doing it in secret, that amounts to doing earmarks in the month of August when we're out of session, when we can't debate it, when it's going to be done in conference committee? We will not have a chance to vote one by one on these earmarks. And you know that, generally speaking, past history is that the earmarks will be passed. Even when they're challenged, even when they're brought into the sunshine. They will, generally speaking, be passed. So really what do you have to be afraid of? They're probably going to pass anyway, unfortunately, even the most egregious ones. So you really have nothing to fear, and you really don't need to hide them, but you're doing so anyway, and I think that that's wrong.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this would reduce by $300,000 the money appropriated by the Office of Secretary and Executive Management. Instead of $6.3 million, it would be $6 million, and this would be in accordance with last year's spending. This appropriations bill in its entirety would increase spending for homeland security by more than $2 billion; that's more than what the President requested, and it will increase spending by more than $4.2 billion over the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill. We should show restraint by reducing the amount that the Federal Government spends, rather than increasing the amount. It is simply not prudent. We are at a time when the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion national debt. It's important, and this is a step in the right direction. Just as the last amendment saved us some hard-earned taxpayer dollars, this would save hard-earned taxpayer dollars as well. So we can be fiscally disciplined and reduce the deficit if this money is not spent elsewhere. Increasing the size of government or the amount of bureaucracy, as this bill would otherwise do, is not going to help in this reduction effort. I look forward to the debate on this amendment. I hope it's as productive and successful as the debate on the last amendment. Now, by reducing the Office of Public Affairs in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account to the fiscal year 2007 level, that is a $300,000 increase, or a 5 percent increase over the amount of last year's budget. That's more than the rate of inflation. So this amendment would be the first step of many necessary steps in forcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government. Now, this is part and parcel of a larger issue, Mr. Chairman, that's very concerning to many of us on this side of the aisle. We have an earmark process that is not subject to sunshine, not subject to sunlight. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I'm disturbed. You know, I'm a freshman coming in here, Mr. Chairman, and I expected the better of Congress. I thought that we would have the opportunity to debate earmarks, and I'm very, I'm deeply disturbed about that because apparently we're starting down a road of appropriations bills where the earmarks are going to be saved for the conference committee. By the way, that'll be in August when we're going to be in recess. We're not even going to be here. And apparently there's going to be a list printed, and you get the bill out of conference committee, and you're just going to have to take it or leave it. That's not what I expected when I came here to Congress, Mr. Chairman. I expected better than that. And I'm sorry that we're going down this road. I hope that it can be changed at the last minute, and course can be reversed. The bills that are just scheduled this week would increase spending by $20 billion over last year. Twenty billion dollars is significant, Mr. Chairman, and this is one of the four bills that would contribute to that $20 billion increase. I'm also disturbed, Mr. Chairman, I've heard some reasons thrown around why this might be happening. I can only speculate, but what I've heard is that, for one thing, the Appropriations Committee was just too busy to look at the many, many, many earmarks that were requested of it. However, that reason doesn't really hold water, I don't think, because we just frittered away 3 months going through the Iraq war supplemental process, and ended up where many of us said it should have started out in the first place, and would have ended up and started out that way if we had just applied a little common sense at the beginning, and we would have saved those 3 months, and maybe we would have had time for the Appropriations Committee to look at some of these earmarks. I've also heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that for those Members who vote against this bill, you know, they can pretty much write off any chance of getting an earmark. And I'm not planning on offering any myself. That's probably good. And I'm planning on voting against this bill from everything I know about it so far. But I just think that that kind of retaliation is beneath the dignity of the People's Body, and I think that, once again, that's something I as a freshman am coming in and seeing for the first time, and I'm deeply disappointed by it.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation adds a technical clarification to the Inter-American Foundation Act. By background, this bill would amend the Inter-American Foundation Act to clarify that the President may appoint the U.S. executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank, or IADB, or his alternate to serve as a member of the Board of the Inter- American Foundation. The Inter-American Foundation Act requires that three members of the nine-member board ``shall be appointed from among officers or employees of agencies of the United States concerned with inter-American affairs.'' The authors of this legislation appear to believe the clarification is necessary because some have recently questioned whether or not a U.S. executive director to an international financial institution, or IFI, like the IADB, is actually an officer or employee of agencies of the United States. I would note simply that this question is largely a nonissue. To my knowledge, never before has Congress questioned whether a U.S. executive director could concurrently serve on the Inter-American Foundation's board. Indeed, any experience with the day-to-day operations of the international financial institutions would suggest that the U.S. executive directors to IFIs effectively function as officers or employees of the United States. In this regard the World Bank Web site states that ``the U.S. executive director is an employee of the U.S. Department of Treasury and is supported by an alternate executive director for the United States, as well as a team of advisers representing different executive branch agencies.'' The U.S. representatives to the IFIs receive detailed instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury regarding the position of the United States Government on all votes pending before the board, as well as on all outstanding policy matters. The U.S. representatives to these institutions are also eligible to receive employee benefits, and the Treasury Department serves as the employing office for collecting, accounting for all retirement and health insurance benefits payments made by these individuals. Having said that, passage of this act will certainly do no harm and may serve to help expedite the consideration of Hector Morales to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the Inter-American Foundation. Mr. Morales is currently serving as the United States executive director of the Inter-American Development Bank, a position to which he was appointed after receiving the advice and consent of the Senate in November 2004. The position on the Board of Inter-American Foundation would be a part-time appointment. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleague from American Samoa for the words he has just shared and especially for the inspiring example that he recounted to us of Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens. An Olympic athlete has the potential to galvanize the attention of the entire country, sometimes the entire world, through overcoming adversity through athletic excellence, and I expect that we will be seeing a lot more of that in the future. And that is the kind of inspiration that we as Americans and our young people can benefit from. I am proud that in Colorado Springs we have the headquarters of the United States Olympic Committee and we have a very involved training center in Colorado Springs, in my district. We also have training centers in other parts of the country. I am aware of training centers in California, New York, and Michigan as well. So the Olympics movement is something that we as a Nation can be proud of and can support, and I would hope that this resolution makes a big step in that direction. I want to thank my colleague across the aisle for helping me on this resolution, for the words that he shared. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 395. I am pleased to sponsor this resolution that supports and commemorates the ideals and values of the Olympics. In a few weeks, on June 23, 2007, the United States Olympic Committee will be celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the modern Olympic movement. Specifically, June 23 represents the date in 1896 on which the Congress of Paris approved the proposal of Baron Pierre de Coubertin to found the modern Olympic games. The Olympics emphasize the values and ideals of, among other things, an active, healthy lifestyle for both able-bodied and disabled athletes, personal excellence, good sportsmanship and fair play, without regard for gender, race or age. The Olympic movement and its message of peace and solidarity offer hope during times of tumultuous world events. For over 100 years the Olympic movement has built a more peaceful and better world by educating young people through athletics, by bringing together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and by forging new relationships bound by friendship, solidarity, sportsmanship and fair play. Presently, thousands of men and women throughout the United States are working hard to prepare for competition to proudly represent our great Nation. Embodying values of health and fitness, Olympic athletes are role models for young people as obesity becomes far too widespread in the United States. These athletes will be participating in one of the upcoming Olympic games: the XV Pan American Games, which will take place in Rio de Janiero, Brazil, later this year; the XXVIV Summer Olympics in Beijing, China, in 2008; and the XXI Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, in 2010. As China prepares to open its doors to the world, the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing could well be a defining event for our generation. The Olympic movement's ideals and values are as relevant today, if not more so, than when the modern Olympic games began more than 100 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560. The purpose of government in free societies is to protect basic human rights, the most important of which is the right to life. It is because of the need to protect that right to life that I oppose this bill. Misnamed ``The Human Cloning and Prohibition Act,'' H.R. 2560 purports to ban human cloning. I wholeheartedly agree that human cloning should be outlawed. Yet the term ``cloning'' in this bill does not refer, as it normally does, to the simple act of creating a viable human embryo. Here the word cloning refers only to the implanting of a cloned embryo in a uterus and not to anything that precedes implantation. This bill is silent about and so condones the experimentation upon and destruction of human embryos prior to implantation. Even prior to implantation a human embryo has the entire genetic makeup of a new human being and is worthy of protection. Those of us who seek to defend life at all stages have long argued that embryonic research would initiate a downward spiral for the sanctity of human life in this country. The government of the greatest nation in the world cannot treat human life as an expendable resource and allow taking the life of its most vulnerable citizens. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to support Representative Weldon's ethical and moral alternative, H.R. 2564, of which I am a cosponsor.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Wess Stafford's 30th anniversary with Compassion International. A widely respected child advocacy organization, Compassion International has helped over one and a half million children since its inception in 1952 and currently operates in 24 developing countries worldwide. Dr. Stafford began his work with this worthy group on May 1, 1977 and was elected its president in 1993. Raised by missionary parents in a poverty-stricken town in the Ivory Coast, Dr. Stafford witnessed first hand, immense suffering and tragedy. This experience led him to become a passionate advocate for children all over the world. An admirable Christian, Dr. Stafford believes that all human life is precious and deserves to be protected and cherished; a value he extols in his book Too Small to Ignore. The mission of Compassion is to ``release children from poverty in Jesus' name,'' and Dr. Stafford has tried to do just that. Today, the organization not only provides a child sponsorship program, it has also put into action an AIDS Initiative, Child Survival Program, and Leadership Development Program. Since becoming its leader, Dr. Stafford has increased the number of children served by Compassion from 180,000 to over 800,000. Dr. Stafford's evident enthusiasm for his work and selfless dedication to the service of others are a true inspiration. He and those with whom he works are undeterred by the enormity of the problems they seek to solve. Rather than feeling that the mission is an insurmountable challenge, they understand that victory is achieved when one life is saved. Today I offer Dr. Stafford my congratulations on this milestone and appreciation for his work. I am proud and humbled by the privilege of representing him, and all of those who are a part of Compassion International.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. James Clark Wider, Sr. for his tremendous contributions to the art world and to his country. Originally from Columbia, South Carolina, Mr. Wider served his country for 20 years in both the United States Army and Marine Corps. Today he is the owner of the Southwinds Art Gallery and Studio in Colorado Springs, where he not only creates exceptional artwork, but he also educates others about the importance of art to the maintenance of a culture and civilization. Mr. Wider's extraordinary work clearly demonstrates his love of humanity and appreciation for variety in artwork. By capturing and conveying emotion in addition to riveting imagery, Mr. Wider offers an intimate glance at bygone eras and other worlds, bringing history to life. Scenes from Mr. Wider's childhood are the basis for his ``Downhome Series'' while the culture and customs of the Massai Tribe of Kenya are the inspiration for his African Heritage Series. Mr. Wider has used his talent to celebrate all the positive aspects of African- American heritage. Instilling the black community throughout the country with immense pride in its history, Mr. Wider believes that it is necessary to acknowledge the struggles of African Americans, for in so doing we also I acknowledge their strength and invincible will. Mr. Wider's positive and celebratory attitude enables him to connect with and inspire people of all races and ages. Educating generations about art, he seeks to encourage all of us to become art lovers and collectors. Mr. Wider's numerous awards and recognitions include an honorary membership in the Austin, Texas Chapter of the NAACP, life membership of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, a 1992 ``Artist of the Year'' Award from the Austin Chapter of the National Business League, and a listing in the premier edition of Who's Who Among Blacks in Colorado Springs. The nation as a whole has profoundly benefited from his influence. In him, the African-American community possesses an exceptional role model and the art world has a true champion. The people of Colorado's Fifth Congressional District are privileged that this great American has chosen to call our community home; Mr. Wider is an asset to the art world and to his country, and we are profoundly thankful for his numerous contributions.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1660, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly support this bill. I would like to thank both Ranking Member Buyer and Chairman Filner for their work on this bill. I would also like to thank Mr. Hall, chairman of the DAMA subcommittee, and Mr. Salazar for their leadership on H.R. 1660 as well. This bill would authorize the Secretary to build a national cemetery to serve the needs of the veterans and families in southern Colorado. As amended by my own amendment, this bill would place the national cemetery in El Paso County, Colorado. El Paso County is the largest county in Colorado and is home to approximately 100,000 veterans. Southern Colorado is home to more than 150,000 veterans, and that population is expanding rapidly. With the establishment of this new national cemetery, families will have a much shorter and easier commute to visit the final resting place of their loved ones since they will no longer need to travel to Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver. I understand that this cemetery is not included in the Department of Veterans Affairs 5-year plan, and I look forward to working with our committee's distinguished ranking member, chairman and other members of the committee to ensure that we serve the needs of all veterans and their families as we develop these national shrines. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his good work, for his words just now, and I wholeheartedly support him and his work on this bill. We have worked together in a bipartisan spirit, and I thank him for that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the ranking member from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) such time as he may consume.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2199, the Traumatic Brain Injury Health Enhancement and Long-Term Support Act of 2007. I thank Chairman Filner, Ranking Member Buyer, and Health Subcommittee Chairman Michaud, the sponsor of this legislation, for their leadership in bringing this excellent legislation to the floor. I especially want to thank the gentleman from Maine for working with me on a bipartisan basis to include my amendment in this bill. One of the provisions of H.R. 2199, as introduced, is a pilot program of mobile vet centers which would provide veterans with readjustment counseling and related mental health services. My amendment would require that these mobile vet centers have trained staff to provide veterans with benefits outreach and help them with their claims applications and questions. Mr. Speaker, much of the trouble associated with the claims processing system is related to a veteran's difficulties in filing a correct and complete claim. Veterans may have an incomplete understanding of the claims system. That could easily lead to an imperfectly completed application. My amendment would help solve this problem by placing qualified VA employees in the mobile vet centers to educate the veteran and help him or her to correctly fill out their paperwork the first time. H.R. 2199 could have significant impact on reducing the growing backlog of compensation and pension claims. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. It will help veterans with traumatic brain injury get the care they need. At the same time, it will help veterans seeking to apply for the benefits they have earned in service to their Nation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 67, the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2007. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Hall of New York, chairman of the committee's Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, of which I am ranking member, for his leadership on this bill. I would also like to thank Mr. McIntyre, the sponsor of this legislation, and both Ranking Member Buyer and Chairman Filner for their support. One of the persistent challenges we face in providing benefits to deserving veterans is communicating to them and their families the existence of benefits they may have earned. This bill is a solid example of good federalism. It funds outreach by State and local governments, which have proven to be capable incubators for effective public policy. This legislation also sends VA a signal that Congress expects strong and effective outreach to our veterans. I'm also pleased that Chairman Hall and I were able to work together to improve an already good bill with an amendment that would improve VA's accountability for the taxpayer dollars allocated under this authorization. This amendment would require any State or county veterans agency applying for funds to submit a plan for their use to the VA Secretary and for the Secretary to review their performance annually. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. LAMBORN

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of H. Res. 392, I have nothing more to add except I do want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the ranking member for their words on behalf of H. Res. 392, and I urge its adoption by the entire House. I yield back the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).