John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am sorry we were unable to construct a constructive give-and-take discussion on this very important issue with my 2 colleagues who have now left the chamber, regrettably, on this issue. As I said during the time they did yield to me, and I appreciate that opportunity, the fact of the matter is that when we come to the issue of concurrent receipt, this is a process that I strongly disagree with, and I think the majority of the House, Republican and Democrat, disagree with, and it has existed for more than 140 years. However, the fact is, in spite of my 2 friends' comments earlier, nothing has been done in that 140-year period to correct that situation until the last 3 years. Over the last 3 years, we have taken significant steps to remediate the inequities that are associated with concurrent receipt. Based on the hard work of the House Committee on Armed Services controlled by, yes, the majority party, we have significantly improved the concurrent receipt situation. I think every veteran service organization in America would admit that. What has not happened, however, is total correction. What concerns me, and what really I think is the key point with respect to the previous speakers' comments, that while one speaker, the gentleman from Maine, said he was not here, it was not his responsibility that nothing had been done, the other speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, was here and, in fact, was complicit in no corrective action. I just want to rise tonight to express again my appreciation to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) for yielding to me to assure the veterans community who have been affected by this, that while we have implemented what amounts to multiple billions of dollars of corrections in this concurrent receipt debate, that we are going to continue to effect even further corrections until the inequity that has existed through the past 40 years of the minority's rule over this House, until equity, until the proper circumstance is corrected. And this is the silly season, the political season, and I just wanted the opportunity to state that, as the chairman has responsibility over this issue.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time, and it is with great honor and pride that I rise today. Mr. Chairman, as always, I express my deep appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and of course to the ranking member, my dear friend for whom I hold so much respect, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and also my partner on the Subcommittee on Total Force, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for their support, their great leadership in this effort. As we have heard, Mr. Chairman, time and time again, the chairman of the full committee challenged all of us to make this the Year of the Soldier. Those of us on the Subcommittee on Total Force try to make every day the Year of the Soldier, but I think even by that normal standard this subcommittee has done an outstanding job on both sides of the aisle of bringing together a package of benefits and of responses to the challenges facing our men and women in uniform that go that extra step further, as they are for us. The chairman spoke earlier about that 30,000 increase in total end strength for the Army and 9,000 for the Marines, placing valuable, much-needed troops on the ground in those places like Afghanistan, like Iraq, and, in turn, lessening the burden on the troops back home awaiting their next rotation or on the Reserve component. We talked about the 3.5 percent pay increase. This is now the sixth consecutive year in which we have provided a pay increase. This particular 3.5 percent exceeds that of the private sector and reduces the gap that we have been struggling to close between the private sector and military from 5.5 to 5.1 percent. We increased the wartime pay, the imminent danger pay, and family separation allowances that our brave men and women in those theaters of war deserve. We added to those. The Reserve component is not left behind either. It is very, very valuable. I heard my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), earlier speak about the need to ensure that those Reservists who find themselves financially stressed are in a position to have their incomes supplemented. In this bill, Mr. Chairman, for the first time in history, we propose and, in fact, do that, from $50,000 to $3,000 a month in added income to those Guards and Reservists who are deployed repeatedly and for extended periods of time. It is the right thing to do and the right time to do it. I would like to address the comments of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), and she has been a leader on this subcommittee and a leader in the House with respect to issues of sexual harassment, sexual abuse and rape; and I commend her for her leadership. But we want most of all to be sure that any change in the Uniform Code of Military Justice is done appropriately and done in a way that ensures better not fewer protections for the victim. And in this bill we require a report from the Department of Defense. We are going to move on that issue. Yesterday, I met with the Deputy Secretary for Personnel, Dr. David Chu, on this very issue. I told him that this subcommittee, Democrat and Republican alike, is committed to reforming and updating the rules and regulations in the UCMJ with respect to sexual harassment and rape, and told him that we wanted him to be a partner. But with him or without him, with or without the Department and the services, we were going to make the changes that the gentlewoman has discussed. This is far too important an issue to do in a hurried manner, and I certainly look forward to the gentlewoman's being a continued leader in that effort. In short, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that this Subcommittee on Total Force has worked magnificently to respond to probably the greatest asset this Nation has today in the war on terror. And, without question, the greatest asset this Nation has ever had, since our founding back in 1776, is our men and women in uniform. This is a great bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, today on rollcall No. 197 Davis of California amendment to the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2005, I was inadvertently recorded as having voted aye and should have been recorded as voted nay. I respectfully request the record reflect that I have voted in the negative on such amendments in previous years. I ask unanimous consent that this statement appear in the Record immediately following the vote.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, due to the need for me to be out of town on official Committee business, I missed the following vote taken during consideration of H.R. 3030, Improving the Community Services Block Grant Act. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 18, the Miller amendment on unemployment compensation: ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), for his gracious comments and for his courageous leadership, certainly on this bill, but also day in and day out. I think it is obvious there are a couple lessons we can learn from this bill. One is an old lesson, and that is happily this is one of, if not the most, bipartisan committees to operate in Congress, and that is so critical in times such as these. We have heard the gracious comments and enlightened comments of the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), someone who I respect so much. I want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his partnership in our portion on this mark, and all of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. But I give a special tip of the hat to our chairman who, in a very difficult time was experiencing personal loss, the loss of his private home during the California fires, still kept a focus on this vital piece of legislation. The second lesson is that important as all the military is, the troops are key. And you have heard my colleagues comment about the positive things in this bill, active industry, the increases for the Army in difficult times, similar end strength increases for the Guard and Reserve, for those good citizen soldiers the military pay raise average 4.1 percent, the imminent danger and family separation allowances at these difficult times. But I want to focus on concurrent receipt. The third lesson of this bill is we always want to do better, but I would note to my colleagues who have concerns that this is a program that has been in place since the Civil War era. And until all of this work together over the last several years, there had never been a change in it. With this bill today we will have started at 35,000 troops, veterans who are receiving full concurrent receipt, and we will have expanded that to over a quarter of a million. And that is progress, $22 billion. So we will continue to fight to do better, but this is amazing progress for more than 160 years when nothing had been done, and I urge all my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1588, a wartime bill that directly addresses committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effects of excessive operations and personnel tempos. H.R. 1588 also reflects the House Armed Services Committee's belief in the need to be proactive in military personnel policy and pay matters so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of the men and women of America's magnificent all-voluntary armed services, and the families that support them. Finally, H.R. 1588 contains legislative and funding initiatives to enhance the ability of the active, National Guard and reserves to operate as an integrated total force. Among the more important provisions of H.R. 1588 are: Active end strength increases of 2,400 for the Army, with an additional $68 million to support the increases; Growth in selected reserve and fulltime National Guard and reserve strengths; Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent; Continuation of increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowances. A significant expansion of concurrent receipt that will when implemented wean that benefit more than 250,000 military retirees. Commissaries and exchange provisions to better define and protect those important benefits. DOD health care improvements, to include expanded health care coverage of the National Guard and reserves, and Expanded and expedited naturalization procedures for active and reserve component personnel. None of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. The conference report before you is a bi-partisan measure, reflecting the active input and involvement of committee members, as well as the leadership and judgment of Chairman Duncan Hunter and Representative Ike Skelton, the committee's ranking Democrat. H.R. 1588 is a very good bill that addresses a range of needs of our wartime military. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 291) expressing deep gratitude for the valor and commitment of the members of the United States Armed Forces who were deployed in Operation Restore Hope to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Somalia in 1993.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 291, the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do have a statement that I wish to make; but I want to begin by first yielding to the author of this resolution, a gentleman with whom I have had the honor and the opportunity and the pleasure to work both as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and also as a colleague who I know cares very deeply about the sacrifices and the commitments that our men and women in the military make as well as their families; and I want to thank him for his leadership and his observance over this very timely resolution and this very important anniversary date. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who knows what it means to wear the uniform of the United States of America, a former distinguished officer in the United States Marine Corps and a gentleman who, in a very short period of time, has distinguished himself as a very important member of the Committee on Armed Services and someone with whom I just had the opportunity, and to the extent possible, the happy occasion of traveling to Iraq with, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I did want to add a few words to those spoken so eloquently by my colleagues, and let me thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for her management of this bill and, of course, for her great work as an esteemed member of the Committee on Armed Services, and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), of the Subcommittee on Total Force, who is my partner on these issues. We are all part of a team that is very honored today to have this opportunity to present this very worthy, in my estimation, resolution for consideration to the full House. Let me again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for his effort and leadership in bringing this measure to the floor at this time. Certainly, there are many perspectives today with respect to Operation Restore Hope and the battle at Mogadishu, a great deal of debate as to what happened prior to, what happened during, and as the aftermath of that, from the small ``p'' political perspective; but I would like to believe, and in fact I do believe, very strongly that there is absolutely no debate, no controversy with respect to what happened in Somalia and what happened during the battle of Mogadishu with respect to the incredibly brave and incredibly effective service of those members of our Armed Forces who were there as part of Operation Restore Hope. They were there for one reason. They were there to try to make a country safe for international relief organizations to administer humanitarian assistance. When those same members who were there for the most peaceful of reasons were called into combat, they fought with incredible honor and skill, and as we have heard here this afternoon, incredible courage. I do have somewhat of a personal stake in this resolution, Madam Speaker. I was very pleased to hear all of my colleagues speak very graciously about the contributions and sacrifices of the 10th Mountain Division during that particular day, that particular battle. The 10th Mountain Division is deployed out of Fort Drum which is just outside of Watertown, New York, my hometown, and still part of my district back in the State of New York. And specifically, it was the soldiers of the 14th Infantry Regiment, the Golden Dragons, who manned the relief column that ended the Mogadishu fight. It was those same Fort Drum troops that fought through the city for some 12 hours while under continuous heavy fire to clear an evacuation route for the incredibly brave Army Rangers and Delta Force commandos who had been pinned down by forces loyal to the Somali warlord, Mohammed Farah Aidid that day. During that battle, 18 heroes were killed in total, but two of those troops were from the 10th Mountain Division. Also, 28 were wounded. The two soldiers whose lives were lost that day were Sergeant Cornell Houston and Private First Class James Martin, and I want to add my words of condolences and greatest sympathy, but also greatest appreciation to those two soldiers' families, and to all of the families of the soldiers, not just in the 10th, but in the Armed Services committed to that battle over that period of time in Mogadishu for their incredible sacrifice and for their devotion. Their courage was uncommon insofar as those of us lesser mortals are concerned. The courage that was shown in Mogadishu and shown in Somalia, however, I think is very symptomatic, not common, nothing that extraordinary could be called common, but that remarkable demonstration of all that makes up our great Armed Services, and things we see every day today in Iraq and Afghanistan and Bosnia and Kosovo; in theater after theater, the men and women not just of the United States Army but of all of the branches of our Armed Services display on our behalf and on behalf of others, simply trying to give people a chance to be free. This resolution is important because it signifies an incredibly vital anniversary in the history of the United States military, an important anniversary in their incredible contributions and sacrifices on behalf of others, but it is also important for the symbolism, that symbolism that continues today on the streets of Baghdad, that symbolism that continues today on the streets of Kabul and other places, men and women in uniform from villages large and small, from cities medium and large from the United States, who go to these strange, far-away places for one reason, to try to make people's lives better. That is why when people say we are proud to be Americans, we can say it with such conviction. Madam Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), and add a final word of urging to all of the Members of the House to vote in support of this great resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, let me thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), my partner on the Total Force Subcommittee, for his leadership and assistance but most of all again the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership, his insight, and his continuing concern. This is something that we need to fix; and, fortunately, because of the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), we have the opportunity to do it today. I certainly urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting this very worthy measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2998) to amend title 10, United States Code, to exempt certain members of the Armed Forces from the requirement to pay subsistence charges while hospitalized, as amended.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2998, the bill under consideration.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McHugh asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. McHugh. Mr. Speaker, we are here today through the attention, diligence, and concern of a single individual, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). The very effective and very dedicated chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has brought this, I think, very not just unnecessary but distasteful provision in our laws to our attention, and we are here today under the gentleman's leadership to reverse that. This is a great example of what we do not know can hurt us, a provision that I do not believe that many Members were aware even existed; but again through the gentleman's attention and devotion, we are about to resolve and correct it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2998, a bill introduced by the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, to exempt service members receiving medical treatment in military hospitals for combat wounds from being charged for the cost of their meals while hospitalized. I would like to commend the gentleman from Florida for bringing this bill to the attention of the House. I think it is important that my colleagues understand the personal side of this story because it is so characteristic of Chairman Young. The need for this legislation became apparent to the Chairman during a visit that he and his lovely wife Beverly made to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital to provide comfort and support to the personnel wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their families. While visiting with one of the wounded, he was made aware of a legal requirement for hospitalized service members to repay their basic allowance for subsistence to compensate the government for the meals they received. What Chairman Young immediately recognized was that the authors of the law requiring this payment did not contemplate that service members wounded in combat would be subjected to the same requirement right along with the member who had received routine treatment. He understood that America would not want its combat wounded to be confronted with a food bill when they departed the hospital. It is the Chairman's nature to look after the welfare of our fighting men and women and to correct injustice when he encounters it. In looking out for the troops, he was also looking out for each member of this House. He knew that the right thing to do was to ensure that those wounded in combat or combat-like activities must not be bothered with a bill for their meals. For that, all the members of the House owe the Chairman a debt of gratitude. The Chairman first took out his check book and personally paid the bill for the service member who had brought this issue to his attention. He then took action to include a provision in the Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 to ensure that an immediate fix was put into place. I am proud to say that today we will follow Chairman Young's leadership and make that temporary fix a permanent change to the law. Again, I commend Chairman Young for this bill and thank him for his diligence in protecting the interests of our service members. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2998. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the author and the motivator behind this very worthy piece of legislation. (Mr. Young of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Total Force Subcommittee, who is always a gentleman and very cooperative. I have a prepared statement that I will enter in its entirety into the Record, but I wanted everyone for the record to know and to reflect on the reality, and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is far too modest and far too much of a gentleman to point it out. He said it came to his attention. It did come to his attention. What he did not mention, and I am not surprised that he did not mention, is that this gentleman, I think in part because he is a Member of Congress but I know mostly because he is such a deep, concerned and caring individual, in tandem with his lovely wife, Beverly, who is also deeply concerned and has headed up a program that is concerned about our veterans and about our men and women in uniform, have for years now paid visits to those brave men and women who have been wounded in service to this country. In fact, I learned about some of the wounded from the 10th Mountain Division, a division that I proudly represent from northern New York, who were in treatment at Walter Reed from the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) visitation there. For years he and his wife have quietly gone there, giving aid and comfort to individuals just to let them know that others care. And how it came to his attention is that, number one, in visiting with one of these young heroes, he heard about their being wounded and then heard about the bill that this young hero was presented with. What he also did not happen to mention either was the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) was so offended and outraged, as well he might have been, that he and his wife wrote a check out of their personal funds for several hundred dollars to pay for that young man's bill for the food that he received while he was trying to recover from what was a partial amputation from his battlefield wounds. This is a reflection of this man, who all of us have the honor and opportunity to serve with him understand so clearly is a caring, concerned individual and the kind of individual, as his partner is as well, Beverly, whom we are proud to call a colleague and honored and deeply appreciative of the fact that we can call him friend. So this was not just something that came in a letter. It was not just something on a chance visit that he happened to hear about. This was a continuing pilgrimage by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife, Beverly, to visit our wounded as they have done repeatedly year in and year out, not for pride or glory, not to put out press releases, but because they care. I think it is important for the record to show that, what an honorable man this individual is and how he and his wife brought this incredibly wrong provision to our attention. I again thank the gentleman from Arkansas for that opportunity for me to say at this moment those comments in respect and admiration of the sponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a gentleman from the great State of Nevada (Mr. Porter), who has the opportunity to represent the hero that I mentioned that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and his wife encountered, a brave young man now struggling with his recovery.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my friend and colleague, my fellow Representative, the gentleman from the great State of New York (Mr. Crowley), for his concern and his efforts to bring this motion to the floor and before the House at this time. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is the most recent reflection of what is a common goal, I would hope, by all Members, and I do believe by all Members on both sides of the aisle, and that is a renewed and a very appropriate reinvigoration of concern for what is the reality of today's military. And that is, as again my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), suggested, the fact that today the so-called active and Reserve components are seamless; that we have indeed a National Reserve and National Guard component that is carrying an equal burden. In my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, that subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services that is charged with the oversight and hopefully the adequate protection of the need of all of our men and women in uniform, regardless of their position in active or guard or reserve, I feel very strongly that we need to do everything we possibly can to adequately care and respect and respond to the needs of those that we ask to do so much for us. And as I began my opening comments here today, certainly this motion to instruct reflects that. It is really a continuation of other motions to instruct that we have had. Just last week, the gentleman from Texas, my colleague and my co-chair, as the chairman of the House Army Caucus, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) had a motion to instruct on family separation pay, on imminent danger pay, that again suggested that when it comes to our men and women in uniform, we need to do the best job we possibly can, and respecting their contributions, their sacrifices through fair and equitable treatment, be it in pay or in benefits, and certainly health care is primary amongst those. As such, I would never suggest to any Member of this House that he or she come to this floor tonight and oppose this motion. That will be the judgment of each individual Member. I will say I intend to support it, and I intend to support it principally because of the symbolism involved that we need to do, as I have mentioned before, the best job we possibly can. But let me state for the record, Mr. Speaker, a couple of aspects that are relevant to this process as we go forward in the defense conference committee, of which I am a member. First of all, my friend from New York made some comments that frankly somewhat confused me. He noted that the GAO in its previous study said that about 40 percent of our Reserve component did not have health care coverage. If I heard him correctly, that is not what the GAO report said. And, in fact, the GAO report said quite to the contrary, that in 2000 nearly 80 percent of Reservists had health care coverage while they were not on active duty, health care coverage that was provided through the private sector. And, in fact, the GAO went on to note that they had serious reservation about this particular initiative as embodied in the Senate bill to provide TRICARE coverage on a full-time, 12-month, year-in-and- year-out basis to Guard and Reservists because of the potential negative effects and because of what they viewed to be a questionable cost-benefit analysis. The only thing I am aware of that in any remote way correlates with the gentleman's comments about 40 percent lacking is that that 2000 survey did say that 40 percent of Reservists from drilling unit members live 50 miles further from their home unit. That would be a correct statement, but it has nothing to do with health care. The fact of the matter is, as I noted, according to the GAO analysis of the GAO study, 80 percent of our reservists have health care outside of the TRICARE and outside of the military-provided coverage. However, even with that being the case, I do respect the gentleman's concerns. And I think a couple of other issues that really argue to the contrary to some of the things he said are relevant here as well. As of April of this year, Mr. Speaker, a Reservist and his or her family who has orders placing that Reservist on active duty for more than 30 days is eligible and is covered by TRICARE, in spite of what I believe I heard the gentleman say that Reservists are not eligible for TRICARE. That, with all due respect, simply is not correct. No Reservist and no Reservist's family lack health care during wartime and under current law. So those Reservists, who I have visited, and I have been to Iraq, those Reservists all across this planet who are deployed and who are in theater indeed have coverage, as do their families. And I would note as well that both Houses, the House and the Senate, have included in their respective versions of the Defense Authorization Act that we are currently conferencing upon new authority, and seeing as how it is included in both bills I assume and I hope very fervently we are working very hard to ensure it is included, to provide free health care and dental care to Reservists prior to mobilization, before they are actually shipped out where they do receive coverage under current law. Because of the very fact, as the gentleman correctly noted, it is not just a question of fairness and equitability but a question of readiness that we do provide that as well. Also, I think it is important to note, because it is a concern held by, as I understand it, and I hope I am conveying his comments correctly, and I believe I am, such distinguished Members as Senator Warner, the chairman of that other body's full Committee on Armed Services, is concerned about the need to distinguish, through benefits and pay and such, the differences between Reservists and the differences between the active component. The cost the gentleman noted as somewhat over $460 million for 1 year escalates dramatically. The cost is not insignificant. The cost over 20 years, where he noted correctly the 10-year cost is just over $7 billion, the cost over 20 years is over $20 billion. And when you add that to the other things that we have afoot, the question simply is, as GAO noted, is this the best way to spend over $20 billion to respond to a need that 80 percent of the Guard and Reserve component currently do not experience? That is a judgment we have to make as we go through and try to balance the cost benefits of the entire budget. But as I said, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the intent and the soul and heart of this motion to instruct is on point. Our Guard and Reservists are putting their lives on the line every day for us. Two weeks ago today, I was in my district, in a small community north of where I live, to attend the funeral of a 24-year-old specialist, who 5 months before that day was married for the first time and who was shot by an al Qaeda sniper in Afghanistan. He was a Reservist. He was a man who reentered the military for one reason: he cared about this country and its values. And as I stood in that church and I saw the pain and the suffering on the faces of that family, on his new bride, on everyone there who cared about him, no one could convince me that there is too much we can do for these Guard and Reservists and too much we can do for our men and women in uniform. So I commend the gentleman for his concern, and again I would never counsel any Member of this House to come to this body and oppose this motion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague refined his earlier statement that he did not make in his original statement and said 19 to 35. Previously, he just said that 40 percent of Reservists do not have that coverage, and that is an important distinction. I am not trying to trip up anyone on details; however, I have a report, and I would be interested, I would ask the gentleman, this is a little unusual for the character of these discussions, but are we referring to GAO report 03-1004?

Mr. McHUGH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the gentleman's written statement said that. I do not have his written statement, I can only hear what he said. I am trying to understand the statement the gentleman made so we can take the proper path.