Carol Shea-Porter

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National Guard and in celebration of their 371 years of service. I would like to thank my colleague from Florida, Ginny Brown-Waite, for bringing this measure to the floor. In my State of New Hampshire, the first citizen militia formed in 1623 with the settlement of Portsmouth. In 1679, the New Hampshire National Guard was formally established, marking the humble beginnings of my State's storied tradition of service. Today, nearly 2,700 men and women continue that same tradition of service in the New Hampshire National Guard, and they, too, are distinguishing themselves on the battlefield and at home. In New Hampshire, our Guardsmen routinely perform search and rescue operations. They respond to floods and to ice storms that threaten the region each year. And the New Hampshire Guard joined many other States that answered the call to aid victims from Hurricane Katrina. This story of selfless sacrifice is not unique to the members of New Hampshire's National Guard, but it is one example of how all National Guardsmen put others before self, and their service and sacrifice is honored here in this bill. Today, over 30,000 Guardsmen are serving on the ground and in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan. As we celebrate the National Guard for its 371 years of service, our thoughts are with those men and women who continue to serve bravely overseas and with their families back home. And our hearts are heavy remembering the 483 Army and Air Guardsmen that have given their last great measure of devotion. For them we vow to care for their families and honor their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House has a unique opportunity to clarify the law to protect the financial security of wounded veterans, their families and the families of soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty. As recently as last month, we have heard a number of cases in the media suggesting that the Department of Defense has been requiring soldiers wounded in combat to pay back part of their enlistment bonuses if they hadn't yet served their full term, or even worse, that it would require these benefits to be paid back by the grieving families of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Quite simply, this is wrong. If a soldier signed up to serve our country and is unable to serve out the full team of his or her enlistment due to wounds received in the line of duty, this soldier should not then be asked to return any part of their signing bonus. For a soldier who has faced the hardships and battle and is now facing the challenges of recovery, we should not add the additional burden of paying back money that is rightfully theirs. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, ends the uncertainty about the policy and makes clear that this Nation will never attempt to recoup bonuses and benefits from wounded veterans or grieving families. It mandates that unpaid bonuses or similar benefits are paid in full, and it requires that this financial protection be provided not later than 90 days after the death of a soldier or the departure from the military due to disability from all active duty and Reserve component members. Finally, the act establishes firm guidelines to ensure that the military will act with fairness and equity when handling the question of such bonuses for all servicemembers. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for his diligence and timely work on this sensitive issue and for his commitment to bring this important legislation to the floor of the House. I strongly support H.R. 3793, the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007, and urge its immediate adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the original sponsor of this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney).

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, over the last 6 years, more than 1.6 million American troops have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan to implement the Bush administration's military strategy. These troops and their families have really sacrificed, and now the majority of these families believe that the war in Iraq was not worth fighting. The President won't listen to the generals. Perhaps he will listen to the military families. According to a new poll from the LA Times, nearly six out of 10 military families disapprove of the way the President is running the war in Iraq; 58 percent of military families, in general, think we should withdraw within a year, and 69 percent of those who have been in Iraq, their families would like to begin withdrawal within the year. These findings come just days after the Pentagon announced a temporary tour of duty extension for all active duty soldiers that will keep them deployed for 15 months rather than 12. Madam Speaker, our troops and their families deserve much better than this. Let's ask the President to listen to the generals and listen to the military families.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, a while ago the President of the United States looked out in front of a very elite crowd and said to all of them: Some people call you the elite. I call you my base. You know, we should have listened a little more carefully because he really wasn't kidding. They were his base. The President has said ``yes'' to them ever since. Yes to Big Oil. Yes to Big Pharmacy. Yes to anything they want. Yes to tobacco companies. Yes to their tax cuts. And no to the middle class and no to the poor except for one yes. Yes, you can pay for them. And so the President of the United States, with his helpers on the other side, have made it extremely difficult for the middle class and the poor not only to pay for their energy bills, not only to pay for all the other essentials, but now to take their children to the doctor or to the hospital. What is wrong with us that we are having an argument about whether children should be insured and how many children should be insured? I'm a former social worker. Every single day of my life I had stories, tragic stories, stories that should embarrass all of you that you're standing here fighting against these children, and how hard it was for these families to get their prescriptions, how hard it was for them and how they had to decide exactly at what temperature do you take a child to the doctor, at 101, 102 or 103 degrees, because we don't have the money, and so we're not going to take our child to the doctor unless we absolutely must. And yet we stand here tonight and the President tells us that he is going to not allow this program. Why? Why? Because we put a tax on the tobacco company. Shame on all of us that are standing in the way of the children of this country. There's just no excuse for it. And how many children are we talking about? Somebody on the other side said there really aren't that many children, maybe 1 million. Well, the Congressional Budget Office said to the Senate Finance Committee in July or August that there are about 5 to 6 million children. The Democrats are dead on target with this, and the American public knows that and stands with us.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 768) honoring the life of Thomas ``Tommy'' Makem.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Tommy Makem was one of the greatest Irish-American performers to ever grace the stage. Not only have his works inspired generations of artists, but his determination and success broke down barriers that had long been raised to Irish Americans. Tommy and the Clancy Brothers, with whom he played for many years, were instrumental in breaking down these cultural divides. Tommy lived a truly remarkable life. He arrived in America in 1955 to pursue a career in acting, having just won the All-Ireland Championship in acting. Like so many immigrants before and after, Tommy arrived with very little, carrying with him only a makeshift suitcase, a pair of bagpipes and proof of his health. However, it did not take Tommy long to find a life in America. In 1956, he joined with the Clancy Brothers--Patrick, Tom, Bobby and Liam--and they began performing together. In 1961, Tommy performed at the Newport Folk Festival and, along with Joan Baez, he was heralded as ``the most promising newcomer.'' In 1963, Tommy and the Clancy Brothers performed at the White House at the request of President Kennedy. They continued to perform together for years and played venues from Carnegie Hall to the Ed Sullivan Show, until Tommy embarked on a solo career in 1969. For decades, he continued to compose and perform. He would later reunite with the Clancy Brothers in 1988 for a reunion concert. In 1999, Tommy was awarded the World Folk Music Association's Lifetime Achievement Award. Tommy was not just a musician, he was so much more. Tommy was an author, a philanthropist, a businessman, an inspiration and, most importantly, he was a loving father, grandfather and husband. Tommy passed away earlier this year on August 1 in Dover, New Hampshire, where he lived for many years. He left behind a daughter, Katie Makem-Boucher, and two grandchildren, Molly Dickerman and Robert Boucher, and three sons, Shane, Conor and Rory, whom with his nephew, Tom Sweeney, continue the family folk music tradition. They will remember Tommy for the living man he was and for the impact he had on their lives. Upon his passing, condolences streamed in from all over the country, as well as the world. The Makem family has said that while many talked about his music, most noted what a generous and kind man he was. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and honor the life of a truly remarkable man, an immigrant who touched the lives of so many. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Does the gentleman from Louisiana have any further speakers?

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees included language from the Senate stating that ``the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.'' I voted for the motion because the brave men and women of our military have done an outstanding job. They have served our country extremely well under difficult circumstances, and they have done everything that we have asked of them. Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is not the job of the United States military; it is the job of the Iraqi Government and people. The Bush Administration assures us that Iraq is not a failed state, so our troops should be allowed to leave. We need to set a firm timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, so that Iraq's political leaders know that they will need to take responsibility for their own future.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the American people are painfully aware that the 110th Congress inherited a failed energy policy. They feel the pain at the pump, they feel the pain in their heating bills, and they know our country is dependent on foreign oil. They know that is dangerous for us. They know that the oil will run out some time, and they know that fossil fuels are damaging our environment and causing health problems. They know that Congress has not increased miles per gallon standards for 32 years. Now Americans want to know what Congress is going to do. Americans want to know if we are going to continue to fiddle, to delay, to stall, as some in Congress wish to do, or will Congress be bold and show leadership? This 110th Congress must confront these problems or history will judge us harshly. The leadership is here. The time is now. The bill is good. I urge my colleagues to step up and forward into our future by voting ``yes.''

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Today we will vote on a comprehensive energy bill, finally. This country has waited 32 years for an increase in mileage standards. Thirty-two years. We have also waited for Congress to focus on renewables, green jobs and energy conservation in buildings and appliances. This bill will do that. This bill will also help free our Nation from dependence on foreign oil. When Newt Gingrich was sworn in as Speaker, we were 41 percent dependent on foreign oil. We are now 61 percent dependent on foreign oil. This is a risk to our national security. This bill will help our pocketbooks, it will help our environment, and it will help our national security. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I have had to listen as my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle have made comments like, give our soldiers a chance. This is not about our soldiers. This is about a failed policy. I think we need to go over some of the facts again, the facts that 70 percent of Americans remember but my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle seem to have forgotten. Number one. There were no Iraqis on the plane that day. Number two. There were no weapons of mass destruction. They weren't there. They were never found. Number three. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before the war, so it doesn't matter if we reduce the number. There were none before the war. Number four. This could have been a war against terrorists, should have been a war against terrorists, not a war against the Iraqis. Now we have almost 4,000 dead Americans. We don't even know how many dead Iraqis. It's a terrible tragedy in our Nation. And we're making decisions to spend billions of dollars in Iraq while we tell our people, sorry, we don't have money for education. Sorry, we don't have money for health care. Sorry, we don't have money to build bridges. Bring these troops home. And this is what we are doing responsibly. We're saying ``no'' to the President and ``yes'' to the American people.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm really not sure why we're under this great rush to make these agreements, especially with a couple of countries that were named that do not have good human relations records and are not bastions of freedom. I don't understand, and I think most Americans don't understand, why we are so anxious to cut some kind of a deal, when we know that Americans are losing jobs. I walk through my own community and I see empty factories. I look around the State of New Hampshire and I see people have lost jobs, and people shrug and say to me, the jobs have gone overseas. They may not understand exactly what the trade agreement was, but they know they lost their jobs. And in December, once again, we'll see a factory close in New Hampshire. This is a great tragedy. We may discount 20 jobs, 100 jobs, 200 jobs here and there, but ultimately what we're saying to Americans is we're sending your jobs overseas, and we hope that you'll be retrained, and we hope that you'll be able to finance your home and finance your car and educate your children. But really, this globalization effort is in your best interest. And you know, sometimes it is. Democrats are not against free trade. But what we are for is fair trade and making sure that our own people can maintain their lifestyle and that they'll have worker benefits and that they'll be able to retire, just like the generation before. I'm holding in my hand an article from The Washington Post from today, and Harold Meyerson wrote, and he's so right, ``Why the Democratic rush on trade? Globalization does pose real challenges to working and middle-class Americans. Democrats should wait until they're in a position, say, in 2009, to begin to restore some security to Americans' economic lives before they return to cutting trade deals. Their electoral prospects, and the Nation's economic prospects, demand no less.'' I'm a freshman here, and I came in with a lot of other freshmen who heard across their districts the worries of middle-class, working-class Americans worried about their futures. We share that worry, and that's what's made us stand here tonight. Why can't we have a moratorium? Why rush? Why take the chance? Moving to other nations for cheaper labor is not fair to Americans and, in the end, will hurt our own country. So I urge my colleagues to say ``no'' to these deals.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I was a military spouse, and I am the proud wife of a veteran now. Of course, I support the veterans. I am also on the Armed Services Committee, and it is in that capacity that I have had the sad task of listening to what the administration has done to our servicemen and women and to our veterans. We just need to say a name of a couple of hospitals to understand that the President has not honored the commitments to our troops. This democratically led Congress is honoring commitments. We have passed the greatest budget in history for our veterans. But we have another problem with the President right now. The President wants to give our brave troops only a 3 percent pay increase, and the Democrats are leading the fight for 3.5 percent pay increase. Why is the President refusing to give our soldiers, who are fighting for us, an increase in pay? Only the President and this administration can answer that question. I want America to know that I am the proud wife of a veteran. I am here, along with my colleagues, to fight for veterans, and that's what we are doing every day.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 162. By doing this, I rise in strong support of our men and women who deserve a pay raise. As part of the Defense authorization, the House passed a 3.5 percent pay increase for our troops, half a percent larger than the President's budget. This means an E-4 would earn $200 a year difference in this, just $200 a year difference, but the President opposed this increase, calling it unnecessary. I don't think it's unnecessary to provide a decent wage for the brave men and women who sacrifice for our country. I once lived on military pay, and I can assure you that a decent wage is a requirement for military men and women and their families. I find it ironic that the President thinks a pay raise for our troops is unnecessary, but he thinks it is necessary to pay contractors billions of dollars with no accountability at all. The President keeps sending our troops back again and again, and the President should at least be willing to give them a decent paycheck to do this job. Madam Speaker, standing up for our troops must also mean standing up for their families. More than half of all servicemembers who are deployed to Iraq are married, and more than 40 percent of them have left children behind. While a half percent increase may seem small, when you're caring for a family, every little bit of support helps. This is not only the right thing to do for our troops; it's the right thing to do for our national security. There is currently a 4 percent pay gap in pay between the military and the private sector. If we want to make sure that our armed services can recruit and retain the best, most talented, most highly qualified people, we need to provide them with comparable pay. This is especially critical now when we face new and emerging threats from around the world. And the Army began this year with the lowest number of recruits signed up for basic training since the end of the draft in 1973. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, supporting our national security, and supporting our troops and their families by giving them the pay increase they have earned.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, yesterday President Bush asked Congress to rubber-stamp his plan to spend $196 billion next year on the war in Iraq. I have to tell the President: not a nickel more for this war. Since the beginning of this year, congressional Democrats have been trying to change a war policy from one where our troops will stay there for more than a decade, to one where we have a responsible redeployment and bring the troops home next year. The President believes it's acceptable to spend billions of dollars in Iraq, while important domestic priorities here in our own country go unmet. While the President was crafting his $196 billion war supplemental, the Democratic House approved appropriations bills that included targeted investments in our priorities here at home: education, health care for veterans, more police on the streets, caring for American families. Madam Speaker, as Congress begins to examine the President's latest war-funding bill, we will once again demand that the President change course in Iraq and get a responsible plan to bring our troops home within the year.