Carol Shea-Porter

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to mark the unfortunate 6-year anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war that is being financed by deficit spending, it's important to recognize the serious effects this war is having on our military. Our generals are warning that our military has been stretched and strained too far. Perhaps that's why in a recent poll of 3,400 present and former military officers, 88 percent of them said that the demands of the war in Iraq have ``stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.'' This is the worst readiness crisis since the Vietnam War, and military officers are justifiably worried about military preparedness. Military personnel are so concerned that nearly three-quarters of the officers surveyed in that recent poll said that their civilian leaders are setting ``unreasonable goals for the military'' in Iraq. And due to multiple deployments, the Army is facing a shortage of officers and enlisted personnel. Mr. Speaker, the 110th Congress is listening to the military. We will continue to push for a new direction, a new change, and an end to the war in Iraq.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to voice my strong support of this bipartisan legislation. I became an original cosponsor of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007 because I recognize the inequities in our health insurance system. As a social worker and administrator, I saw firsthand that insurance companies did not cover mental illnesses the same way they covered other illnesses. This created extra strain on patients, families, and health care providers in the communities they live in. Requiring higher deductibles and copayments also blocked access to health care for many. H.R. 1424 remedies these problems by requiring mental health parity. There should be no difference between a pain in one's abdomen and mental pain or the pain of addiction, but these patients and their families do not receive the same support and help to stabilize their condition and walk the road to recovery. This is wrong and it's time to remedy this discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am happy to be here. I am standing here tonight at 10:30 for the same reason that we are all here, because we believe that it's our obligation, our duty to defend the Constitution. This Constitution is a gift that has been handed to us through the centuries, and it's the envy of the world. This is what differentiates us from other nations. To give you an idea of our Founding Fathers and what they thought about this, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked, What have you wrought? And he said, A Republic, if you can keep it. So they understood even then that we would have to defend this Constitution against well-meaning people who believed that they had to give up some liberty in order to make themselves safe. This is not the first time in our history that we have faced peril, as you know. This has been an ongoing issue for us through the centuries. There are always countries that wish to do us harm, and it is our obligation to keep ourselves safe and to keep the American public safe. But that is not what this argument is about, as you know, because we have FISA, and FISA is in effect. Now the President more than suggested that the intelligence community went dark and that they would be unable to do any surveillance. But the reality is, and the President and the Justice Department had to admit recently, that the wiretaps could still go on. I would just like to read this so people understand what we are talking about here. This is from Reuters: ``White House Says Phone Wiretaps Back on For Now.'' Here's the quote, the statement from the Justice Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: ``Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty, and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists.'' Well, first of all, where is the patriotism there? If they believed this was for the good of the country, they should stay with this program, and will stay with this program. Also, as my fellow Congressmen indicated, when they failed to pay the bills for the wiretap, these companies pulled the wiretaps, and we lost some critical information. So you have to wonder about that commitment there. But there's a larger issue. First of all, we do have all the national security that we need right now. You're right that we need to tweak it, and we tried to. We tried to extend this for 3 weeks so that we could work it out. If it were so critical, why did the President and his supporters vote to let it go? We voted to extend it for 3 weeks. So there's something that is counterintuitive and actually bizarre, that the President and his supporters would argue on one hand that we were allowing something to drop that was so critical and, on the other hand, refuse to vote to extend it for 3 weeks. So they didn't give us the time that we needed to do two things. We have to do all we can to protect Americans, and tweak this, but we also have an obligation to protect the Constitution while we do this. So what have we done here? The intelligence community has not gone dark and the authority under this act allows the administration to conduct surveillance here in the United States of any foreign target. I am now reading from the House majority staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It's important that we cite these sources so that we know. ``In the event that a new phone number or e- mail address is identified, the NSA can add to the existing orders.'' They can begin surveillance immediately, without a court warrant. Within 72 hours they have to get one. That sounds perfectly reasonable to have judicial oversight and review. So it's not true that people can't do surveillance. They can do surveillance. They must do surveillance. If we think that there are terrorists talking on the phone, I want them to be able to listen in, and so do you. We have families here. We want the same protection that other Americans want. And they can listen in. But there's something else happening here, and this is called the retroactive immunity for the phone companies. What do we mean by retroactive immunity. What is immunity about? If you don't do anything wrong, you don't need immunity. Immunity suggests that something happened, and you're asking for this protection. And how can we say, sure we'll give it to you until we know what they did? Why won't they tell us what they did? I liken it to somebody, a defendant showing up in court and saying to the judge, Well, judge, I may or may not have done something wrong. I am not going to tell you. But I want you to say maybe you did and maybe you didn't, but whatever it is, you're forgiven right away. We would not accept that from an individual, and we must not accept it for any businesses either. We are, as John Adams said, a government of laws, not men. Nobody is above the law. Not you, not I, not any individual, not any company. They knew what they were supposed to do. I would like to point out that Qwest knew that, another telecom company, and did not follow the President's request there. The President is not the one who sets the Constitution. He is not the one who decides. We have three branches of government. We must have judicial review and oversight. And it's our obligation, as it has been on every Congressman and Congresswoman's shoulders, to watch out for this incredibly brilliant document that is the envy of the world.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. We were looking for a bipartisan agreement. If it's that critical, then we should have had the extension. But they know what we know, which is that FISA is still in effect, that they can eavesdrop without a warrant. That they simply, if there's an American involvement, they have to go get a court warrant within 72 hours. By the way, that is not difficult to do. Over the period of years, there have been thousands and thousands of requests. I think only five have been refused. So this is not a problem. If they consider having to get a warrant a problem, I am sorry, but something stands between the President and this, and it's called the Constitution. I come from a Republican family. My father was an attorney, and he was a very conservative Republican. I worked in his law office. And he taught me this great love for the Constitution. So the reason I point that out is because this is not a political issue. This has to do with the Constitution. And so regardless of whether people are Republicans or Democrats, what we saw here when they didn't extend it was a political maneuver. But it should not be. It is our first and foremost obligation to protect our freedoms while we protect our Constitution.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I would like to point out that if the President and his supporters managed to cut out the judicial branch, then the authority for this would go to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. Our most recent former Attorney General was Alberto Gonzalez, and I think that we do not wish to put that kind of power into the hands of people who may not see the government's role the way that we do. So I have deep concerns about that. But, again, this is not an issue of what party you are in. This is an issue of whether you are an American and you believe in our Constitution or not. I wanted to quote Andrew Napolitano, who was a New Jersey Superior Court Judge from 1987 to 1995, and is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News. He is upset about this as well, and he said: Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections. The Constitution protects all persons and all people. And, he said, if we lower constitutional protections for foreigners and their American correspondents, for whom will we lower them next? And that really is the question. We stand our ground now, and we protect at least our American citizens from this eavesdropping. The question earlier was, well, what do you have to hide? And I would say that even though you may not be placing phone calls that have anything to do with any government business, you may be having a conversation about your boss's wife or husband. You may be having a conversation about your husband's problem at work. You may be having a conversation about your neighbor. And any of those conversations, if they were overheard, could be used against you. So it is not simply the kind of setting that we are talking about right now, not a grander setting, a setting where it is national security, but simply your right to privacy and for your neighbors not to know the kinds of thoughts and the kinds of words that you share with people in private phone conversations. So we have this obligation to stand here and protect all of us.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill and in honor of a great son of New Hampshire, Captain Jonathan Grassbaugh. I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for bringing this to the floor and my colleagues in the Senate for passing the original version. Mr. Speaker, it is a special privilege for me to offer my remarks in support of this legislation and to have an opportunity to share with my colleagues in the House the story of an outstanding young man, a courageous leader, and a brave husband. Jon was born on August 18, 1981. He and his family moved to Hampstead, New Hampshire, 8 years later and quickly grew roots in their community. His mother, Patricia, is the principal at Hampstead Middle School. Jon attended the elite Phillips Exeter Academy and graduated with honors in 1999. He attended Johns Hopkins University where he was commissioned through their ROTC program and graduated in 2003. That's also where Jon met his wife, Jenna, an Army officer in her own right. Tragically, they had only been married 10 months when an IED took Jon and three of his fellow Rangers on a combat logistics patrol in Diyala province. When Jon finished school, he continued a strong family tradition of service to our country. His father was also a Ranger who served in Vietnam. Jon's brother is a West Point and Dartmouth graduate and an Army surgeon at Fort Lewis. For Jon, it was not enough to serve. He excelled, the best of the best. A highly decorated officer, Jon was assigned to 5th Squad, 73rd Cavalry, 3rd BCT of the 82nd Airborne, Fort Bragg. As I said, the best of the best. Among more than a dozen of Jon's medals and honors are the Bronze Star he earned for combat heroism and a Purple Heart. Jon was killed in action on April 7, 2007. He was only 25 years old. Our thoughts and prayers remain with his wife, Jenna. Jon was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery alongside three centuries of America's heroes, hallowed ground befitting a hero. We in New Hampshire are lucky to have had time with him and we have been blessed by the life of this wonderful man. I urge my colleagues to join me today in continuing to honor his life by voting to memorialize his service, his dedication to his country and to his family, and his willingness to give his country his own life. Join me in passing S. 2478 for Army Ranger Captain Jonathan D. Grassbaugh.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, the President and his followers are telling the American public that the fight about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, is endangering America; but the reality is that FISA is still fully in effect and administration officials have acknowledged that. What this fight is really about is the President wants to give telecom companies retroactive immunity for turning over private information about Americans to the executive branch without a court order. Now, some companies refuse to go along, so obviously there could be a problem here. We should not and cannot give immunity until we know what we are giving immunity for. This is like a defendant coming into court saying to a judge, I may or may not have done something wrong. I don't want to tell you about it, but I want you to say that I am not liable, and then the judge agrees. We would not accept that for an individual, and we must not accept it for corporations or for the government either. As John Adams said, we are a government of laws, not men, and we must honor the Constitution.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I thank Chairman Miller for his leadership on this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act. Last year, the Democratically led 110th Congress cut interest rates on student loans in half over a 5-year period in order to help American families pay for college. This year we have continued our commitment to the poor and to the middle class by expanding college access. College loans are getting more expensive. By working and through student loans, I was able to attend college full time, but today, many students can only attend part time because of financial or family obligations. They also have to attend summer sessions so they can get through college more quickly. This legislation will help them by expanding Pell Grant eligibility for these part-time, year-round students. One of this Congress' priorities is to make it easier to earn a college education. This legislation honors our commitment. As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I proudly support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and sacrifice of a patriot, Chief Petty Officer Nathan H. Hardy of Durham, New Hampshire, who was killed in action on Monday, February 4, while serving with the Navy SEALs in Iraq. Nate died doing what he loved. He loved our great country, and his life serves as an example to my State of New Hampshire and to our country. We also honor the bravery and sacrifice of Chief Petty Officer Michael E. Koch of State College, Pennsylvania, who was killed alongside Nate in Iraq on Monday. They were brothers in arms and will not be forgotten. After graduating from Oyster River High School in Durham, New Hampshire, Nate enlisted in the Navy on November 4, 1997, with the ambition to become a Navy SEAL. He graduated from boot camp at Recruit Training Command in Great Lakes, Illinois, in January 1998 and in the same month entered Basic Underwater Demolition SEAL training in Coronado, California, Class 221. Nate was a stellar SEAL, and he lived the life of a SEAL each day. His military awards and decorations include the Bronze Star, two Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medals, three Good Conduct Medals, two National Defense Medals, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Kosovo Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, three Sea Service Deployment Awards, NATO Medal, the Expert Rifle Medal, and the Sharpshooter Pistol Medal. Beyond being a remarkable SEAL, Nate was a loving husband, a happy new father, a dedicated son, a loyal friend, and a role model to many in New Hampshire and across the country. Nate embodied the ethic of Cincinnatus who, when called upon to serve and defend Rome, gave all of his effort and determination; but when conflict ended, he returned home to enjoy his family and friends. He did not glorify himself as a hero, because true heroes do no such thing. He was as humble as he was brave. Like Nate, I graduated from Oyster River High School in Durham. Ours is a close-knit community and Nate and his family have played an integral role in its unique camaraderie. I've spoken to many of his friends, and it's clear they will always miss him, but each will carry a piece of him forever. Because he had a passion for so many varied interests, including sports, art, books and music, Nate touched people in different ways. Each one of his circles of friends has a unique perspective on Nate that they call their own because of his eclectic interests. All of them, though, will always feel his love, celebrate his life, and remember his great passion for living. In addition to his friends, Nate leaves behind his brother, Ben; his mother, Donna, an administrative assistant at the University of New Hampshire; his father, Steve, a professor at UNH; his wife, Mindi; and 7-month-old son, Parker. The community was called upon to support the Hardy family when their eldest son, Josh, died after waging a long battle against cancer in 1993. The Hardys showed courage at that time, and Durham rallied to their support. The community is ready to support them again at this time, united by the memories of this remarkable young man. Mindi and Parker are especially in our hearts at this time and will always be, even after the immediate pain recedes. Down the street from this hallowed floor is the Department of Veterans Affairs. On its side stand President Lincoln's words: ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' Our patriot, Nate, bore the battle and the people who cared so deeply about Nate will now care for Mindi and Parker. Friends and family will share stories with his wife and son, stories that they will carry in their hearts forever. Parker will know not only that his father was brave, but that his father was a good man, a man of character and conviction. Nate Hardy enriched our New Hampshire and our country. We were blessed to have him, even for such a short while. May he rest in peace, and may his family find comfort in knowing that he was loved and respected by all.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, the administration's policies of the past 7 years have led us to this point. The American people know that prices have gone up for everything, from groceries to heating oil to gasoline, while at the same time jobs are moving overseas, the housing market is in a crisis and the economy is struggling. This is what happens when there is no oversight for 7 long years and mismanagement is allowed to run rampant. I'm pleased that we did come together in a bipartisan manner to produce this bill. Over 117 million American families will receive rebates under this plan, including 600,000 in my own State of New Hampshire. This bill also helps small businesses, which are at the heart of our Nation. It is a very good start, but we need to do more for senior citizens and for those who receive Social Security. We need to do more for families who need to stay warm this winter. They are the most vulnerable members of our society. They need help the most, and we know they will put the money directly into the economy. We must continue to turn this Nation's attention towards restoring a vibrant, robust middle class.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I listened to a colleague on the opposite side of the aisle say, ``Why are we here?'' and I realized they don't really know why we're here. We're here for the children. And then they said, ``You've been back eight or nine times.'' That's right. And we will be back always and forever until we provide health care for working families in America. We want to protect 10 million children and provide health care insurance. They want to protect 6 million. It's as simple as that. What happens to the other 4 million? And in New Hampshire, we would have enrolled 8,000 more children. What happens to the children in New Hampshire and the children of America? Parents will not lie awake at night wondering do they now raid the rent budget or the food budget. Is the child sick enough now to go to the hospital because they don't have health care insurance? Who wanted families in America to make this choice? Not the majority of the House, not the majority of the Senate, not the majority of the Governors, not even the health care industry. But the President vetoed this essential bill, and I'm asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in an override so that the children of America get health care.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you for asking that. I come from a family who has served. I had my father serving in World War II. My uncle was a career Air Force officer in several wars. I had a grandfather in war and my brothers who fought, and I also had my husband who was in the military, and I was proud to be a military spouse, and now a member of the armed services; and always I believed that the Commander in Chief was going to be there to protect our troops. Always I thought it would be the Commander in Chief who would be a tough advocate for us all and he would be watching out and speak to other nations in as tough a manner as necessary to protect our troops. That's what I believed. That's why I'm here on the floor tonight. I'm here on the floor trying to understand how the President of the United States has failed these prisoners of war, these men who went to Iraq and were seized by a hostile nation, who were tortured and then had to come back and go to court to receive just compensation. And when they won, then the President of the United States stepped in, not to make sure that they received what they had won, but to make sure they didn't receive it; and that's the part I can't understand. The President said that Iraq needed this money, the Iraqis needed it to rebuild. We give $10 to $12 billion a month to the Iraqi government. I think that the President should take a look at how the money is being spent in Iraq and see and hear the stories that I have heard as a member of the Armed Services Committee and recognize that our money's being wasted over there. And yet he's protecting their assets and protecting them when our troops were the ones who went there. Our troops were the ones who fought for our freedom in that first gulf war, and we had troops who suffered at the end of this government. I can't understand it. And the President was so determined to do this that he held up the authorization bill. Now what is so important about that is there are a lot of programs in there. But one thing in particular just infuriated me. There was a pay raise for our troops, for our troops who were in Iraq right now, who were in Afghanistan and who are all around the world and America protecting us. And the story about the pay raise is relevant, also. The President says he supports the troops, but he only wanted a 3 percent pay raise. And so when Congress voted for a 3\1/2\ percent pay raise, the President thought that was too much. He said a 3 percent was sufficient. Obviously, the President has never had to live on military pay, but I have and so many do today. And I know that 3\1/2\ percent might not seem like a lot. It certainly isn't. But they need it, and they deserved it, and they earned it. So now we have a problem that today's troops are suffering at the hands of the President's stubbornness here, and then we have the POWs who are suffering because they're not allowed to collect what they justly earned for their suffering. And I can't understand it, but I do know that the people of New Hampshire are furious also that those veterans who went there in complete trust and faith in this country and in the President have to be devastated now to know that if they were injured, if they were tortured abroad, that they could not be certain that the Geneva Conventions would be upheld. They could not be certain that the Commander in Chief would be there for them. They could not be certain that all of the guarantees that were made when they signed and stepped forward to service would be honored, and I think that's the real shame here today and the real disgrace here today that we are not standing up for our soldiers. So I would say that the people in New Hampshire are insistent that those who suffered for our country need to be justly compensated.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. First, I would like to say that I mentioned that my father's brother had served, and he was in the Air Force. He flew daylight bombing missions over Germany. He talked about the fear during the day flying those bombing missions over Germany, but he never talked about fearing the U.S. Government, that the U.S. Government would not be there for him. Then my brother served in Germany, and my brother-in-law served in Germany. And Germany treated the United States troops very, very well in the 1960s and the 1970s and the 1980s. The reason for that was because we had shown that we were not the kind of country that tortured, that when we received prisoners of war from Germany that we treated them the way we would want to treat any human being. So it was a long distance from my uncle flying over Germany during World War II bombing missions with that great fear about what would happen to him and then the experience that my brother and my brother- in-law had in Germany, welcomed as allies, welcomed with the reputation that we have had of treating our prisoners of war with compassion and with a sense of humanity. My worry now on the Armed Services Committee is that countries that wish to do us harm but might be held back from torturing our individual troops because they have a Geneva Convention to uphold, they will have world opinion against them, because the world actually believes that we should not torture each other's soldiers. They only understand not only that we have to have some rules of engagement and war and conduct for our POWs, but we also understand that if you don't want anybody to torture your troops, that you have to respond the same way. So we have to hold ourselves to a standard, a standard, by the way, that the United States has led and been proud to show the rest of the world and our own good behavior through history. The world understands that when you receive a U.S. soldier and you torture, you will pay a price; at least that's what they understood before. Our soldiers understood that if they were harmed when they were being held by another nation they would pay that price. So the change now, Congressman, is what does this mean? If we don't have the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, stand up for our troops, what does that mean and how will other nations view this? That's my great worry.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, for months now, economic experts have been warning that our economy was in trouble. After some disturbing signs about job losses in this country, the President finally came out and made some comments saying that there were ``mixed signals'' about the state of the economy. These are not mixed signals about the state of the economy, and Americans understand. Americans know they are having more trouble paying for their mortgages, having trouble paying for their heating bills, having trouble paying for their gas, having trouble paying for all the costs of living in America right now. The President should not continue to call these signs ``mixed signals,'' should acknowledge that we have some problems, and work in a bipartisan manner to straighten this out. He might also wonder what impact the war in Iraq is having as we pour billions of dollars into Iraq and take the money from our own people and then borrow the money to continue the fight in Iraq. He might ask himself if this, too, is hurting our economy. I ask the President to work with us to find answers for America's working people.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and all the Members who are so committed to the SCHIP program. This Congress sent the President very good legislation that would have ensured that millions of low-income children of hardworking Americans could keep health coverage, and it would allow States to enroll millions more who qualified for the CHIP program but aren't covered because the States have not received enough funding. We also had a way to pay for this. But each time, the President has vetoed that legislation, and here in Congress a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to stand with the President blocking the way for this vital program to reach more children. We wanted to insure 10 million children. The President and the Republican leaders only want to insure 6 million children. And that is the crux of the problem here. Today, we will extend the SCHIP program through March of 2009, but an important aspect of these earlier bills is not included. This past August, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a directive to State SCHIP directors effectively informing them that they would no longer be able to insure children in families where incomes exceed 250 percent of the poverty level, $43,000 for a family of three. This is a tragedy, and we will fix it.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I thank all those who worked so hard to produce this bill. Last year, the class of 2006 listened as Americans spoke out demanding that we change direction in our energy policy. Americans, regardless of their political affiliation, understood that America was in an energy crisis, that we were too dependent on foreign oil, that we were unable to carry the message of conservation across this land, and that we had very poor gas mileage at a time when the technology has been in existence for many years. So Americans asked Congress to make this change, and we were sent to Washington to do that. And I am standing here today so proud to say that this is the day that we are going to answer Americans' concerns. We have now passed a bill, or will be passing a bill, that is not one that has everything that we wanted in it, obviously, but we have the direction and we have the energy and we have the resources and we have the plan. We are increasing the gas mileage. For the first time in over 30 years we are finally increasing our gas mileage. We are reducing our oil dependence on foreign nations. We have been forced to talk to foreign nations for our oil. That is the wrong approach in this country and an unnecessary approach. We are increasing biofuels, which will be our future, and we are growing jobs. This is critical for our economy right now. We are expecting that there will be 3 million new jobs across America because of our green incentive here. We are increasing our energy efficiency, and we are also convincing the younger generation that conservation is our future, and that our generation is listening to their generation and protecting future Americans. I urge my colleagues to recognize what we have done here and to support every effort of the legislation, and I thank those who brought this to the floor.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 246) honoring the United States Marine Corps for serving and defending the United States on the anniversary of its founding on November 10, 1775.

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 may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to first start out by thanking my distinguished colleague on the Armed Services Committee, Robin Hayes, for his work on this bill and his continued support for the Marine Corps. I would also like to thank Debra Wada and Joe Hicken from the committee staff for their work to bring this to the floor. Mr. Speaker, this year, the United States Marine Corps celebrated 232 years of devoted service. This year's celebration, like those of years before, commemorates generations of service to our country and reminds us of their commitment to our freedom and their selflessness. This is an enduring trait of their past, present and future. As soldiers, our marines have fought valiantly to protect democracy and human liberty when those essential freedoms were threatened around the world. In our most dire times, the Marine Corps stepped to the forefront in places like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and Guam. For those from that generation who are still with us, this resolution celebrates you. As peacekeepers, our marines have stood between rebels and refugees, providing safe haven and aid in the Balkans and to nations in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. To those brave marines, this resolution is for you. As preservists of democracy, marines have protected U.S. and foreign diplomats as they sought to restore peace and stability to war-torn nations. In places like Beirut, they often paid the ultimate price. This resolution is for them. As liberators, Marines were the first conventional U.S. ground forces in Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda and were complicit in the attacks of September 11. Our Marine Corps has lost 40 men and women during Operation Enduring Freedom. This resolution honors them. As heroes, marines have earned the Medal of Honor 298 times, the Distinguished Service Cross 417 times, and the Navy Cross 2,168 times. But they don't do it for the medals or the ribbons. They do it for the people of the United States. To the more than 219,000 marines in the active duty and Reserves, this resolution is for you. Thank you for your service to our country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. At this time, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SHEA-PORTER

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 542) expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard, as amended.

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

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3793) to amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated, as amended.

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.