Chellie Pingree

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1764 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the other side of the aisle for his thoughts on this. He is getting ready to retire from Congress. I just want to say I've enjoyed the opportunity to serve with you on the Rules Committee and appreciate the thoughts that you bring to the issues that we have to deal with. With all due respect, I want to disagree with you on one particular point, as I did earlier today in the Rules Committee, and without questioning anything that you had to say today, I will just say that my experience on the issue of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, whether it is in my position as sitting on the Armed Services Committee or with some of my colleagues on the Rules Committee who have questioned this particular bill as the vehicle, it is that sometimes I feel like people run out of substantive arguments and they go back to process and they say, well, there's something flawed about this process. And over the 2 years that I've been here, as we've been discussing a piece of law that no longer works, that shouldn't be in law, that tells people who are gay or lesbian that they can no longer serve in the military, for the past 2 years I've heard over and over again, well, this is a flawed process. So as a member of the Armed Services Committee, even though my good colleague Representative Davis held subcommittee hearings on this issue and there has been much discussion of it, people said, well, we need to have a study. So we got a study. It's a big, thick study. It's a wonderfully well done study. And when I had the opportunity just recently to sit in the Armed Services Committee and listen to the briefing by the military on the work they had done in this study, I have to say, I was very impressed. Something like 150,000 people participated in this study. Now, as my colleagues know, when you're a Member of Congress or a challenger running, you're lucky to have a poll of 400 people to get their opinion. Maybe sometimes the poll has 1,200 people, and we take that as public opinion. But to ask 150,000 people associated with the military ``So, what do you think?'' is quite a piece of work, and I think it was extremely well done. And what we were told that day in that briefing was, overwhelmingly, our military said, you know, this is just fine. Many of them said: I already know. I serve alongside someone who is a gay or lesbian member of the Armed Forces, and it doesn't bother us at all. It isn't interfering with unit cohesion or ability to fight. People said overwhelmingly: What is taking so long to change this particular provision in law? So I look at this and I say, whether it's the vehicle that we have before us today--today, in some of the final days of this particular Congress; today, when I think we have to act with urgency here in this House, after this House has already passed this provision in the Armed Services, in the general authorization bill. We've already passed this once. We've already shown that we're in favor of this here. Now, it's back again as a standalone to make it easier for people to deal with this as an individual issue--to go back and say, well, it's all about the process, we haven't had enough process, I think shows great disrespect to those members of our Armed Forces and their leaders who have said to us: Change this, move on, get it done so those 13,000-plus soldiers who have already been told they can no longer serve in the military and we've lost the ability to use their expertise and their training and their patriotism in this country, to say that there isn't urgency today and that we should somehow allow a process argument to slow us down doesn't make any sense. I very proudly come from the State of Maine, and something like 17 percent of our 1.3 million residents in Maine are either active duty personnel or veterans who have served this country. I go home and hear the people in my district, whether I'm talking to a veterans' group or someone who's just on their way to serve in Afghanistan or coming back or, sadly, sometimes at a military funeral, and people do not say to me, Prohibit gay and lesbian people from serving in the military. People say to me in my home district, in a State that is very dedicated to serving the military, they say, When are you going to end this process of discrimination? And that is why we are here today. We are here to move forward on the rule, to make sure that once and for all this House of Representatives, again, says let's repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Let's remember that this is a threat to our national security, that it's disrespectful of all of our soldiers, that there will be no serious ramifications of this, and, in fact, our military is very well prepared and has good plans to move forward on this transition. Let's remember that this is the patriotic vote to cast. This is the vote for national security. This is the vote for respecting the investment we have made in these soldiers. This is a vote for increasing recruitment in our military and saying to even more members who currently are unsure, saying to more people who are unsure about whether or not they should join the military because they worry that they would possibly be out of it, it's a measure to say we welcome you. Our Armed Services will be only stronger when we repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1764 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the majority leader or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2965 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against any consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Madam Speaker, the time has come to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. We have all heard the arguments, the studies have been done, the hearings have been held. The men and women of the armed services have spoken and their leaders have weighed in. There are no more excuses not to repeal this misguided and harmful policy. There is no more reason to delay this any longer. Madam Speaker, for gay military personnel, how much longer do we ask them to serve in silence? How many more hearings and how much more testimony are we going to ask for before we finally hear what the men and women of the armed services have just said: Just because someone is gay doesn't make them any less of a soldier, an airman, or a marine. How many more times can we just turn our heads and pretend we don't see the damage this policy has done to our military's readiness? And how many more competent, talented, and patriotic men and women will be kicked out of the service before this misguided and harmful policy is forever banned? The results of the comprehensive study of the attitudes of military personnel are clear and unequivocal. It is right here. When they were asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a coworker who they believed was gay or lesbian, 92 percent of the military personnel stated that the unit's ability to work together was ``very good,'' ``good,'' or ``neither good nor poor.'' When they were asked about having a servicemember in their immediate unit who said he or she was gay and how that would affect the unit's ability to work together to get the job done, 70 percent of servicemembers predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or absolutely no effect. And it is not just the men and women who make up our Armed Forces who are urging Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell; our Nation's military leaders also believe it needs to come to an end. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, ``I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our Nation, and for our collective honor.'' General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, agreed. He said repeal would not keep us from ``accomplishing our worldwide missions, including combat operations.'' And Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of Naval Operations, said it simply: Repeal ``will not fundamentally change who we are and what we do.'' Madam Speaker, it wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to serve in combat. When we debated ending that ban, the critics predicted that if women were allowed in combat, that discipline would dissolve and unit cohesion would crumble. The arguments against allowing women to serve in combat were exactly the same thing they are saying today about allowing openly gay men and women to serve. But after two wars where women have served ably and bravely alongside their male counterparts, none of the grim predictions came true. Discipline has not suffered and our military remains the most powerful and effective in the world. But those two wars have taken their toll on recruitment and retention. Our military is stretched thin, and the last thing we should be doing is kicking out skilled men and women who volunteered to fight for our country. The last thing we should be doing is telling troops that we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train that we don't need your services anymore. And the last thing we should be doing is saying that no matter how brave you are, no matter how dedicated you are, no matter how patriotic you are, if you are gay, we don't want you to wear the uniform of the United States. Don't Ask, Don't Tell threatens our national security. It wastes precious resources, and it goes against the values that our military embodies: integrity, honesty, and loyalty. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate the District of Columbia for its recent enactment of the National Popular Vote bill, which would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District. Just a few weeks ago, Mayor Fenty signed this important legislation, which was passed by unanimous consent by the D.C. Council. National Popular Vote is now law in 7 jurisdictions, and has been passed by 30 legislative chambers in 21 states. The shortcomings of the current system stem from the winner-take-all rule. Presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the concerns of voters in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign visits and ad money in just six closely divided ``battleground'' states. A total of 98 percent of their resources went to just 15 states. Voters in two thirds of the states are essentially just spectators to presidential elections. Under the National Popular Vote, all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC. The bill assures that every vote will matter in every state in every Presidential election. I look forward to more states, all across the country passing this important piece of legislation.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to one of my colleagues, I want to answer a couple of things that my good colleague from California mentioned. Soon his party will be in power, and I am confident he will be the chair of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee will be very open perhaps at that time to have more open rules and to change the process. So I look forward to, as a sophomore Member, learning how a different process will be conducted by the other side of the aisle. I do want to remind him that during 12 years when his party was in control, there was never a tax bill that came to the floor which allowed for amendments. I don't know if that process will change in the future. It certainly wasn't that way in the past.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, before I close, I would just say again that I think we have a difference of opinion on the semantics here. You want to argue that, if we don't continue tax cuts/tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country that we are increasing taxes. I would say it is time we let those tax breaks end, those tax breaks that went on for too long and that did nothing, in my opinion, to stimulate the economy. I also just want to add my own comment. You know, there is a lot of interpretation about November 2. The voters cast their votes. Things changed dramatically. Many of us who have been in politics over time know that sometimes you're in the majority, sometimes you're in the minority; sometimes your ideas come out on top, and sometimes they don't. But I have to say personally, in interpreting my own district, voters heard me say every day that I pledge to continue the tax breaks for the middle class but that I will not vote to extend them for the wealthiest in this country. I debated my opponent, and it was written about in the newspaper. There were endless interviews when I made it very clear as to what my point of view was and why I thought it was important. I come from a State where small business rules, where I am a small business owner, and where I said to people, You know, this isn't a small business issue; this is about helping the wealthiest people in this country. I just have to say, when I go back and look at the November 2 election, oddly enough, I'm still here, and I intend to be here on January 5 and to be sworn in again. Somehow, the voters in my district said, Go for it. We don't want to see any more tax breaks for the wealthy. We, in fact, only want to see tax cuts for the middle class. So I am interpreting November 2 to mean we are doing the right thing on the floor today. We are putting forward the one measure that allows us to make sure we can separate the tax cuts for the wealthiest from the tax cuts for the middle class. That is what we are doing here today. Let me just close, Mr. Speaker. Ten years ago, Congress passed a package of tax cuts with the lion's share of the benefits going to the wealthiest of the wealthy. The stated intent was to grow and secure our economy. Today, millions of families across this country are struggling. They are worried about finding work. They are barely covering their monthly expenses. I have to ask my colleagues: Do your constituents feel more economically secure than they did 10 years ago? Since these cuts took place, we have gone from a balanced Federal budget to troubling deficits. We have seen the middle class weaken, and we have experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. The billions we have given in handouts to the super rich have been major contributors to all of those realities. Today, we have a historic opportunity to support the middle class, to show real Americans that we as Members of Congress are hearing their frustrations and their anger. We can stand up today and say that we are going to help the vast majority of Americans, that we care deeply about the economic security of the middle class and that, for once, Congress is going to act in the best interest of the middle class. I strongly stand behind H.R. 4853, extending the tax cuts for middle class families and businesses who make up to $250,000. They need a break, and we should be doing even more for them. It is simply outrageous to suggest that we should hold these tax cuts hostage in order to continue a failed policy that has weakened our economy, has placed a bigger burden on working families and has only been effective in making the rich richer. I urge all of my colleagues to support middle class Americans and to vote for the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I do appreciate that, and I am glad to know that dear Senator Tsongas' wife has corrected you on the appropriate way to use that quote. But either way, it was something that you brought to the floor to make the point that somehow you think this bill is put forward so that Democrats can show their disapproval of employers. And I can speak personally that I work closely with employers in my district. I am an employer and think there are employers who will benefit under this as well. That is why I quoted, in my own remarks, Jim Wellehan who owns a chain of shoe stores in our State who said: I am not in favor of a bill that would give tax cuts to the wealthy because it doesn't do anything to help my employees or my business. And that, in fact, is what he is concerned about. You know, employers need customers, which are those employees, and that is why we consider it so critical to make sure that we do something to benefit those people who will be purchasing. Just one other comment that I had in my notes here today from a small business owner in Lincoln, Nebraska. People talk about the $250,000 without talking about that as net profit. Here is how he described it: A lot of people don't understand how small business works. We reinvest in our business. We try to minimize the amount of taxable income we have. I went out and bought an $80,000 piece of equipment. I did it so I could reduce my taxes. The only people I can think of who could honestly call themselves small businesses that this would affect would be stock brokers and lawyers. That is what Rick Poore, owner of a Lincoln, Nebraska, clothing firm who employs 30 people thinks about this. Well, if in fact the 2 percent we are trying to help today are stock brokers and lawyers, I don't think the American public is clamoring for them to have another tax break, and I think people aren't explaining and displaying an understanding of how business works. This is about net profit for small businesses, which even reduces further the number of businesses who will be affected by this. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono).

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1745 provides a closed rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule allows the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of December 3, 2010. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires. This should be our priority and shouldn't be a tough choice to make. Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class. These should not be controversial positions. They aren't and they shouldn't be. The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight. After the last administration and the previous Congress spent billions of dollars starting two foreign wars and bailing out the big banks that ran roughshod over our economy, isn't it only fair that we do more to help out those who are struggling to find work and to make ends meet? Today we are simply voting on whether or not to protect the middle class and to make sure working families do not suffer needlessly as winter approaches. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not political showmanship or a partisan game. We are doing the work the American people asked us to do. We are not voting on whether or not to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. We are only voting on extending tax cuts for the middle class, and this is something I sincerely believe we should all agree on. One of the biggest pieces of misinformation about ending tax cuts for the wealthy is that it would hurt small businesses, which is simply not true. The bill we are talking about today extends tax cuts for incomes up to $250,000. That covers 97 percent of all small businesses in the United States. And let's be clear about another thing: For all small businesses, the cuts continue for their first $250,000 of profit. If we really want to help small businesses, let's offer real direct benefits. Let's help them access funding to grow, offer larger tax deductions for purchasing equipment or create incentives to hire more workers. I am glad many business owners in my State, the State of Maine, have been able to see through this misinformation. Jim Wellehan, who owns one of the largest shoe store chains in the State, has recently come out against tax cuts for the wealthy because they offer no benefit to his business or his employees. He recently said it makes no sense from any perspective to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. It will just increase the wealth gap and create more of a social and economic problem. Jim hits on a critical point. Over the last 30 years, the wealthiest have gotten richer and richer compared to everyone else. In 1980 the average income of the country's top .01 percent of earners was 180 times that of the bottom 90 percent. Today that number is 1,000 times. Meanwhile taxes for the rich have gone down dramatically. So as the wealthiest take a larger and larger piece of the pie, they have given less and less back to the public infrastructure, to our communities, and to the people who helped create that prosperity. The truth about tax breaks for the ultra rich is that they are very, very expensive. Cutting taxes for those making over $250,000 will add $700 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years alone. That's about the cost of the entire stimulus bill, and most economists agree it would do very little to stimulate the economy. In January of this year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed 11 policy proposals and ranked them by how effective they would be in fueling economic recovery. Number one on that list was extending benefits for the unemployed because those dollars go immediately into local economies and spur more spending. If only that was the bill we were voting on today. What was number 11? Number 11 on that list was extending tax cuts for the wealthy. The benefit of those dollars going to the rich was marginal, because that money would be mostly saved, not spent. That's just not right. I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me today in supporting this commonsense bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you for making that point. I think it is slightly different from the other point of saying that tax bills never were allowed to be amended in the last 12 years. But I look forward to modified open rules or open rules or whatever process we will be working with in the future. That isn't what we have before us today. I do want to comment that while you were kind of referring to this as political theater, I also recall that you asked for 3 hours of debate on this; and if it is truly political theater, that would be tying up a lot of the people's time to have us conduct this debate for 3 hours if, in fact, you do not consider it serious debate. I mean, in my opinion, you and I just have a strong disagreement. Our two parties and many of our Members disagree on where the appropriate place to have tax cuts is. We are putting this bill on the floor today because we believe it is important to extend tax cuts for the middle class, that that has the greatest benefit to our economy. And as the OMB and other studies have shown us, tax cuts for the wealthiest to the country just do not stimulate the economy. The money does not go where we think it needs to go to create more jobs, and it is not a good expenditure of $700 billion, which is what this will cost us over the next decade in a time when we are clamoring to find ways to reduce the deficit. So I find it unfathomable that there would be any objection to taking a vote on what is clearly the most agreed upon part of our tax cuts here and then allowing for other debate on the rest of the package. So for me, this is a logical way to bring this to the floor. I am pleased that we have this opportunity here. I am a little frustrated every time I hear this tried to be portrayed as the real argument is only about small businesses. You know, 2 percent of the small businesses in our country are the ones that will be affected by this. I disagree with your statement that Democrats love employees and dislike employers. Many of us on this side of the aisle are employers. I am an employer. I have a small business, and I actually feel pretty good about myself.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1745 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, in the remaining days of this Congress we have some choices to make, and those choices couldn't be more clear. Are we going to extend tax cuts for the rich, giving millionaires an average break of over $100,000, or are we going to continue unemployment benefits of about $245 a week for out-of-work Americans? Are we going to approve a giveaway to high-paid CEOs that the Congressional Budget Office puts at the bottom of their list of what would stimulate the economy, or are we going to extend the unemployment benefits the CBO puts at the top of that same list? Are we going to hand out tax breaks to the wealthy that will add $700 billion to the deficit, or are we going to continue funding unemployment checks that generate $2 in economic activity for every $1 in benefits paid? The American people sent us here to set priorities and make tough choices. Putting American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires should be our priority, and it shouldn't be a tough choice to make.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, if this Congress does not act on unemployment benefits today, we risk gambling away those critical benefits for millions of men and women across the country. This couldn't come at a worse time. Just weeks before Christmas, with winter settling in, thousands of people in my State of Maine will see their benefits run out. Although our economy has shown some signs of improving, far, far too many people are still unable to find a job. Not only are unemployment benefits an essential part of the safety net, they are critical to keeping the local economy moving. When an unemployed Mainer gets a benefit check, he or she turns around and spends that money in the local community, at the supermarket or the gas station or the hardware store. In fact, every $1 of unemployment benefits generates $2 in local economic activity, according to the Department of Labor. Madam Speaker, for the sake of out-of-work Americans and businesses across this country, I urge my colleagues in the House to come together and extend unemployment benefits so we can keep our economy moving.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Madam Speaker, I am here today to introduce a bill that addresses a serious problem that affects many retired federal and state employees in Maine and across the nation. Public servants have performed incredibly important services for their communities and country, but sadly many are being driven into poverty because of the Government Pension Offset, GPO. Of the 5,300 workers in Maine subject to this provision, 3,700 lose all of their Social Security widows or spousal benefits to the GPO. I just don't think that's fair for people who have devoted years to public service. The effects of the current Government Pension Offset formula are most dramatic on lower income women--79% of beneficiaries affected by the GPO are women. After raising their families and serving the public, these women are devastated by losing most or all of their Social Security benefits after the already overwhelming loss of their spouses to death or divorce. The legislation I am proposing is targeted at lifting out of poverty those hardest hit by the GPO. It would eliminate the GPO for beneficiaries whose combined monthly pension and Social Security widows or spousal benefits before offset is less than half the maximum Social Security benefit. Others would see a graduated Government Pension Offset. Under this formula, no one would see a reduction in their Social Security benefits and those in the lower incomes would have benefits raised to a livable rate. I am pleased that the legislation has earned the support of both the Maine Education Association and the Maine State Employees Association. Lorraine Noel, President of the Maine Federation of Chapters for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, states, ``This legislation is a good first step in addressing the injustices caused by the Government Pension Offset.'' Make no mistake, I remain committed to completely repealing the GPO and the Windfall Elimination Provision, and have cosponsored a bill to do so. But in a struggling economy, measures to overturn these offsets are difficult. I hope this incremental reform will alleviate the worst effects on those most damaged by the Government Pension Offset and bring our vulnerable public servants out of poverty. Please join me in supporting the Social Security Widows and Spousal Protection Act of 2010. We should not have someone's years of public service be the cause of their poverty.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, a recent investigation has found that the Department of Defense has been denying Purple Heart medals for soldiers and marines who were injured by IEDs in Iraq. Some of these awards were denied because the injured troops received only ``minimal medical attention.'' Mr. Speaker, if you are serving our country and you are injured by the enemy, you are entitled to a Purple Heart, period. It is not something subject to interpretation by a Pentagon bureaucrat. It is not something that can or should be denied based on small print or technicalities. It is utterly outrageous that veterans who continue to pay for this sacrifice with lasting effects of brain trauma are being denied this recognition because they don't have the ``right'' kind of injury. These men and women are defending our country, and when they suffer an injury at the hands of the enemy, we owe them. We owe them appropriate recognition in the form of a Purple Heart.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.