Timothy Walz

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. ``The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty-thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.''

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. I thank the gentleman. I echo the statements made by the gentlewoman from Wyoming. First of all, the passion and the work that she and her staff have put into this is thanked by many millions of Americans who use these trails. The gentlewoman has chosen to make this her last session of Congress; so I would like to go on record and say that the people of the great State of Wyoming have been well served by the gentlewoman's passionate, ethical leadership and by her willingness to put the Nation's business first and get things done. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill. The Nation's outdoor industry is a $645-billion-a-year industry which hires 6.1 million Americans. The great blessings that we have in this Nation of the most beautiful outdoor areas in the world are a legacy that we want to pass on. One of the issues is accessing those areas. Trail maintenance is absolutely critical. Listen to the groups of people who are behind this. These are pretty impressive and diverse groups of cosponsors, just to name a few: the National Association of Counties, the Wilderness Society, the Western Governors' Association, the Back Country Horsemen of America, Trout Unlimited, the American Motorcyclist Association, the National Wildlife Federation, and it goes on and on and on. The gentlewoman was referencing something that happened. This is a real-world fix to a real-world problem without its costing taxpayers money. I had the opportunity this summer to be out at Glacier National Park with my family and to be up on Going-to-the-Sun Road at Logan Pass and, I think, hiking one of the most beautiful stretches on the planet--the Highline Trail. We were out about 16 miles; it was midday; and I had my children, my nephew, and my brother-in-law. We were all there and were enjoying this when we saw two Park Service folks, two young men, over there, working really hard. They had packhorses to pack their stuff in, and they were shoring up a trail from the glaciers that was there. I just walked over to them, and they had no idea there were hikers on the trail. I said: I want to thank you both for the work you are doing. They said: If you really want to thank us, have your Congressman call and support Mrs. Lummis' bill on trail maintenance. I could not have been more shocked to expect that there, but they understood the importance of it. They understood that they need the help and that the volunteers are there under the guidance and the expertise of the Forest Service. When we cut through some of the red tape, we get people who care about the trails out there, and we fix the problem. I thank the gentlewoman and encourage the bill's support.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) for his unwavering work for the care of our veterans. And to the chairman, as has been noted so often, at a time when partisanship seems to win the day or be on the news, I can assure him that the care of our Nation's veterans knows no political boundaries, and the work that has been done should be noted. I also want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Young) for bringing this bill forward. Like everything in life, there is a symmetry to things, and I think the story of how we got to this point might be well spoken or told. The gentleman represents the Third District of Iowa, the new one. Back in 2006, there was a young Army Reservist named Joshua Omvig, who grew up in a small community in Iowa, literally down the road from where they filmed ``Field of Dreams.'' He returned from Iraq a week before Thanksgiving in 2006 and joined his family at that most American of all holidays to be back together. That evening of Thanksgiving, Joshua took his own life in front of his mother. The crushing loss of a son, the crushing loss of a son of the Midwest was overwhelming. But the Omvigs did something that Americans do and something that this Nation always does. They turned their grief into action. They went to their Congressman at that time in the old Third District, Lieutenant Colonel Leonard Boswell, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran and helicopter pilot. They put together what then became the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act. This was back in 2007, when nobody was talking about 20 veterans a day and no one was talking about mental health and no one was talking much about transition. We were in the heart of the Iraq war. We were in Afghanistan. Our veterans were coming back, and, rightfully noted, we were unprepared for them. In this piece of legislation, there are a couple of sections in here that are very clear on what Mr. Young's legislation does--exactly what it should do and what this Congress should do--provide oversight and improve on legislation. Section 1720F said that the VA would establish 24-hour mental health care. In carrying out the comprehensive program, the Secretary shall provide for mental health care availability to veterans on a 24-hour basis. It would establish a hotline to carry this out, and the Secretary would provide a toll-free hotline for veterans to be staffed by appropriately trained mental health professionals. And for those who don't think that that was needed, since that time, 2.5 million calls have been made to that hotline, 300,000 online chats, and 55,000 texts. When someone calls that line, they are at a breaking point. One of our warriors is at a point where they had nowhere else to turn. The intent of this Congress and this Nation--not Democrat, not Republican--was to provide them the resources and the trained personnel necessary. What was noted in a GAO report, what Mr. Young has noted, and what this committee has noted is that the VA was not fulfilling fully what they should have. If one veteran falls through the cracks, we have failed. I don't care if 2.5 million were picked up. If 2.5 million plus one, and that last one was not picked up, we have failed. Mr. Young's piece of legislation is simple, eloquent, asks the VA to do what they are supposed to do, and then do what should expected: report back to Congress so that we can provide our oversight ability. I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and this committee for doing exactly what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to make sure that the VA fulfills the commitment that the United States and its citizens want to care for every single veteran that is out there. This was a smart piece of legislation. It was championed by the parents of a warrior who took his own life. And keep in mind, when this was championed, we did not even bury our veterans who took their own lives with military honors because it was still something we didn't talk about. It was believed that they weren't casualties of war. In the 10 years since that time, we have made strides, we have made progress, and we understand that the cost of war continues on. I want to thank Mr. Young for continuing the legacy that comes out of Iowa, the deep care for those that serve in our heartland, continuing the bipartisan legacy of the Third District of Iowa to improve on a really smart, needed piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this, and I encourage this body to continue to find ways to solve problems, work together, and show that, when it comes to unity around our veterans, there is not an inch of daylight between the two sides of this body.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I have three amendments that are coming up. On this first one, I am going to yield time to my colleague, who is the author of the original bill. I just wanted to say, first of all, in appreciation to the chairman of the full committee, the bipartisan manner of approaching this is in the long tradition of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. It is also in the long tradition of the chairman himself, welcoming ideas, trying to strike balances, having legitimate differences that are meant to be discussed--for that, I am grateful--and also for restoring regular order. Making our amendments in order to try to improve upon a bill is something that is a time-honored tradition here. Unfortunately, it has not been the norm. So the chairman's leadership on that issue is greatly appreciated. This amendment I want to be very clear about when the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus) talks about it. The amendment does not disagree with the basic premise of the reform. There are legitimate differences amongst us here. We will work those out. But it is a harsh reality that we don't have a Senate companion on this. The chance that the White House is going to sign the reform piece into law is nonexistent. But there is a piece of this that is noncontroversial that is critically important, and that is the appeals process. The ranking member, under the leadership of Ms. Titus, has recognized this as an issue, brought about bipartisan solutions to it; and it can be passed and be signed by the President and be positively affecting veterans right away. That doesn't diminish the need for the reforms. It doesn't question the value of the things that are being brought forward. It is a political reality that we are better off to move on a piece we know can be signed into law than to wait for something that can't. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the author of this legislation.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chair, I want to, again, thank the chairman. This is not an attempt to derail the reforms. It is an attempt to try to get something passed and done immediately. I certainly welcome the chairman's advice, guidance, suggestions on ways that we can make that happen in the most expedient manner. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, the availability of credit is of paramount importance to the success of farm country, and we learned this lesson the hard way. Over a century ago, our farm forbearers faced a credit crunch that threatened the viability of the industry. As a result, farmers, creditors, rural stakeholders and policymakers worked together to create the Farm Credit System (FCS). This system has been improved upon throughout the years as events require and has provided more than $210,000,000,000 in loans to more than 500,000 customers. Today, the availability of farm credit is as vital an issue for rural America as ever. Without credit, a beginning farmer or rancher will find it nearly impossible to purchase land, equipment and inputs to start a farming operation, and a long-time farmer will find it equally difficult to continue and pass on their legacy to the next generation. To be clear, the importance of the FCS is not limited to the private land between the fence posts. Instead, the entirety of the rural economy benefits from services provided by the FCS whether those services include funding for housing, markets, or infrastructural upgrades. Finally, the success of the FCS is equal to the sum of its parts. The system works because it is composed of individuals who care about what they do, who believe 100 percent in the mission of their enterprise to bring results and prosperity to a rural community where, without them, there might be none. These individuals are neighbors, friends and family members who take the time to get to know their customers so that they can best serve the needs of the community. On this 100th anniversary, I am both proud to celebrate the successes of FCS and supportive of its future role in the fabric of our rural economy.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I believe that the U.S. must remain committed to defending human rights and personal freedoms both within the U.S. and abroad. As our country continues to advance U.S.-China relations, we must never forget the people of Tibet. Restrictions on human rights and religious freedom in Tibet have been a growing concern to many. As a member of the Congressional Executive Committee on China, I share this concern. While Chinese investments have undoubtedly helped to modernize Tibet, these investments must not come at the expense of the rich cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage of the Tibetan people. We must continue to support the protection of traditional Tibetan culture. As you may know, I had the opportunity to be one of the first groups of Americans to travel to China and teach Chinese high school students in 1989. During that trip, I also traveled to Tibet in 1990 and, most recently, I have returned as a member of the Congressional Delegation visiting China and Tibet. The boosted economic growth, higher household incomes, and constructed railway projects have facilitated the rapid modernization of the Tibet Autonomous Region. However, we need to continue to have constructive dialogues with China to ensure the preservation of traditional Tibetan culture and Tibet's fragile ecology. The Congressional Delegation trip to Tibet provided an opportunity to have a healthy dialogue, and I want to thank our Chinese friends for engaging with us in a discussion over the most sensitive issues concerning Tibet. As a southern Minnesotan, I understand the importance of spurring economic growth while simultaneously protecting natural wonders and culture. With this in mind, I believe that Tibetans must receive the necessary rights that will allow them to protect their culture, language, religion, and environment. The U.S. was founded on the ideas of universal freedom, and I believe that we must continue to urge the Chinese government to provide less regulated religious freedom to the Tibetans. I strongly believe that a critical step to achieving religious freedom in Tibet is including the Dalai Lama in future dialogues. I have had the pleasure of meeting His Holiness on three occasions, and I share his desire to preserve Tibetan culture and resolve other issues concerning Tibet. Lastly, I encourage the Chinese government to agree to establish a U.S. Consulate in the Tibetan city of Lhasa because I believe diplomacy and talking through our concerns and partnerships under the lens of transparency can only strengthen the relationship between our two countries. I will continue to support attempts to have productive dialogues with the Chinese government concerning the future of Tibet. Improvements in the quality of life, access to clean water, and access to health care services in Tibet must also include efforts to preserve the Tibetan way of life.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the gentleman from Virginia, and congratulate the Republican team for a strong showing this year. You certainly raised the bar for next year. This event highlights that, in the largest bipartisan caucus in Congress, we collaboratively work together to protect this Nation's hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage. I am proud of the Members who come out there. They give to the great cause of this, and we continue that heritage. So again, I congratulate the Republicans for some fine shooting. I look forward to next year and the work we do together.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues, national security experts, military leaders, and America's energy producers, and rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The Department of Defense's use of alternative energy as accelerated in recent years and strengthened the military's ability to conduct combat operations, humanitarian response, and homeland defense. In short, it has improved the readiness of the Armed Forces to protect freedom overseas. DOD is the largest consumer of energy in the world, 117 million barrels of oil. Every 25 cent increase in a gallon of gas costs $1 billion to the American taxpayers and $1 billion less to the troops. DOD's fuel costs from 2005 to 2011 were so volatile, the costs went from to $4.5 billion to $17.3 billion, even though we reduced our usage by 4 percent. An example of this is the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 2012 faced a $200 million budget gap that had to be filled by taking money from elsewhere because of rising fuel costs. This willingness to not look at all American homegrown energy and security is simply wrongheaded. And the idea that it costs more to do this--it costs $83 billion more to protect shipping oil coming from overseas. I ask my colleagues to resist this amendment.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York. It is a phrase we sometimes throw around in here without a lot of authenticity behind it, but I can tell you, in this case, a gentleman who served this Nation three decades in uniform and has had a distinguished career here in Congress, I am proud to stand with you. I think you heard the gentleman's comments on why we think now is not the right time to draw down this land force, and I say that with both of us coming out of that force. The size of the force this Nation needs should not be predicated by a plan that is outdated. Since the time this plan was written and put into effect: the rise of ISIS, China has built a new island in the South China Sea and is landing aircraft on it now, and a belligerent Russia. But more than that, we have seen the use of the military force as a deterrent, not just to aggression. We have seen it as a peaceful use, whether it be in Haiti to respond to natural disasters or to respond to Ebola in West Africa. The best trained, the most efficient and the most ready force to be able to use our diplomacy and our humanitarian assets is this land force. I think for many of us, we were concerned about this, but this is not ideologically driven. The gentleman and I coauthored a piece of legislation that created the National Commission on the Future of the Army. We said: Let's let the data speak for itself. If the experts can take this in and assess that this force is enough to do what needs to be done according to the strategic plan of this Nation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the best thinkers, then that is the way it should be. But they did not come back with that. They came about some alarming things that they talked about, and one of them, I think it is very clear we are heading down the wrong path, stripping it of manpower. There is a belief in this Nation that we can solve all problems, especially security problems, with the use of technology. Our technological advantage is a huge positive force, but it will not be on the ground with Ebola. It will not be there when we have to have that defending force. As everyone in this Chamber knows, 15 years of war puts an incredible stress on that. The gentleman used a great analogy. He talked about turning on and off the lights. I use the one that I think a lot of people think: This is like running the car out of gas. If we just need more, we will put more gas in it. That is not true. It is running the car out of oil, which causes all kinds of problems. If we do not keep the force where it is at, keep it trained, and keep it ready to go, we will not be able to carry out those missions. I would like to highlight a couple of other things that the Commission said about the integration of the National Guard to the active components and the use of the National Guard as an operational reserve, not a strategic reserve. Those of us who lived through the years where the National Guard was an afterthought and we practiced artillery training with toilet paper rolls instead of real charges because we didn't have the capacity to train, that is the surest way to make sure our force is not ready to go. It is not a good use of taxpayer dollars, and it is simply immoral to train America's young warriors without the full capacity of what they need. So I think, for many of us, this is not only a national security issue, it is a smart fiscal issue. We have paid dearly with treasure and blood to have this force. I can tell you, if the force shrinks too much--and we have seen this happen--the rotations happen very quickly. All the speakers you are going to hear tonight, Madam Speaker, are going to tell you about this. It becomes very difficult both from the personal side for them to manage their relationships, but also the professional side of soldiering. You can't get to the schools you need. You can't develop the wider breadth that you need for all contingencies. We have become very, very good at small missions that the same people get rotated into without the ability to look elsewhere. So as we pivot to the Pacific, those are new skill sets that need to be incorporated in. What the gentleman is asking for is let's just pause in the drawdown, let's keep the force where the Commission and the GAO says it needs to be, let's give the force the ability to rotate out and to do what needs to be done to have them get back and ready to get in the fight again in a way that makes sense. We can do that. Again, I want to be very clear. Those critics who say that we are asking to build up the military, we are just asking to stop a drawdown that we think gets dangerously close to putting this Nation in a predicament where it cannot carry out the missions that are asked of it. We in this Chamber and the American public have a moral responsibility to never put a warrior in that position and never put those commanders in that position. So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. I want to thank him for being willing to champion this forward. We know this is about educating not only our colleagues, but the American public. It is about having a debate. I think the gentleman from New York brought up a critical point. Numbers without the ability to train, equip, and do what is necessary to get them to the highest level of readiness is probably worse than nothing, and that is not what we are asking for. I think, again, to highlight the gentleman's commitment to this, he is looking at ways to pay for it. He is looking at ways to make it work: repealing sequestration, pursuing waste, eliminating programs at the Pentagon, encouraging and assisting our allies and partners to beef up what they need to do to beef up, and ensure the next President has the force capable to not only address current, but future threats. That is our responsibility. So I am proud to stand with the gentleman on the POSTURE Act. I think it is smart policy. It is predicated on data. It is predicated on decades of personal experience from the gentleman from New York and speakers you are going to hear coming up. It is what the thinkers are telling us. Again, I think it does come back to the gentleman's opening comments. Those adversaries who think that this is the time to do something with this Nation need to be sent a strong message that we are as strong as ever, our commitment is as strong as ever, and our force will be as it always has been: the best trained and the best fighting force the world has ever seen. We are just asking to give them the numbers to do their job. So, Madam Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at this, to get on board, and to talk with the gentleman, myself, and the other cosponsors of this. Let's put that next President in a position to be able to secure this Nation, to be able to forward project American power in the name of humanitarian or human rights, and continue to give our young warriors what they need.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I rise in support of the SHARE Act and the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act. I thank my co-chair on the Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Wittman, for his work on this bill. Like so many you have heard here today, we, as a Nation, are blessed with an abundance of opportunities in the outdoors. Like so many, I take advantage of them: hiking, biking, hunting, and fishing. For those who do participate in hunting and fishing, it truly is a passion, it is a way of life, and it is a heritage that we share with our parents. I don't think there is one of us who participated in it who doesn't remember a crisp autumn morning, waking up with our father, cooking breakfast, and going out to the field with the dew on the grass and the Sun coming up. To this day, I don't remember if we necessarily got a pheasant, but I remember my dad, and I remember talking about it. It was on those trips that I think we understood that hunting and fishing, as a way of life, is not in a vacuum. Hunting and fishing in Minnesota, 1.7 million Minnesotans participate in hunting and fishing. That contributes $3 billion to our economy and creates 48,000 direct jobs. If you take that across the Nation, it is $90 billion a year to our economy. That is not in a vacuum either, because we have a really unique system of conservation in this country: user pays and public benefits. Every shell and cartridge that is purchased and every fishing rod and boat that is purchased has an excise tax in it that goes back into the very conservation. The people who are out hunting and fishing understand as well as anyone, if you don't have the proper habitat, you don't have the pheasants. An organization like I belong to, Pheasants Forever, has literally put in all of the money and has leveraged this in order to turn tens of thousands of acres of the prairie back to virgin prairie, which are now abundant with game for people to take advantage of. Those are the types of things that make sense. I understand the concerns that the gentleman expressed, and I understand that this is not a perfect bill. But I can tell you that it has been worked on for a long time and that it is a starting point. There is a realization and an understanding that we have to compromise on issues. We are going to have to work with the Senate, and we are going to get this in front of the President. Yet, I think most of us agree that our goal with this is to allow Americans to continue to have their constitutional rights and their abilities to do those activities they want, whether that be hiking, whether that be mountain biking, whether that be hunting, or whether that be fishing and, at the same time, to make sure that there is an economic engine in it that contributes to the ability to keep those lands up. I ask my friends to approach it with an open mind and to understand that this is truly deeply engrained in this culture. There are commonalities here. We have the same goals, to make sure these are available for our children. If we can come together and work on this, we have to take this first step. We are becoming a more populated country, and there are fewer opportunities for people to get out there. Many people are not landowners themselves; so, the public lands are the only places at which these activities can take place. There is enough out there. If we manage it right, we can share the land, as the act says, and we can do those activities that mean a lot to us and continue them for future generations. I encourage my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, as you have heard, I associate myself with the remarks of the positive nature of the provisions in this bill. It has been the House Veterans' Affairs Committee that has been in the forefront of improving veterans care, from the post-9/11 GI Bill, to healthcare changes, to job placements. We have been at the forefront of VA improvements, accountability, and reform. While this bill continues in that vein, as you have heard here, there is one provision in it that, for me personally, I cannot cross. To pay for these programs, an offset has to be found. That is a noble and correct principle; meaning, if we add anything, we need to find the pay-for somewhere else to not add to the debt. In the case of this, to pay for these absolutely wonderful programs, many which I helped write, we went back and we took a benefit. I am not going to debate whether that benefit was overly generous. I am not going to debate how many are using it. If one veteran signed up, served this Nation, went overseas and fought for our defense and they were promised a benefit, to pull it back at this time is an egregious breach of trust. At a time when the VA is hurting, at a time when the faith in government is hurting, the faith in the media, our soldiers need to know there are some things that will not be crossed. So I want to be very clear on this. The motives of the people who worked on this should never be questioned. I have never seen people with more integrity and more care for our veterans. Thought goes into this. Improvements try to be made. And when the American people are frustrated and they see nothing gets done, this committee and the bipartisanship of the care of our veterans is absolutely paramount. This is a devilish situation. How do we find the pay-for? My question is--and, yes, perhaps it is a chip on my shoulder of an enlisted soldier--why come to the soldiers first? There is nowhere else in the Federal Government that we can find this. The chairman rightfully pointed out today another egregious waste of money in decorating and bonuses to VA officials who are not fulfilling their duty. My question is: can't we find some way to at least get the people through who were there and, if we want to make the changes, do so? I know every effort in good faith has been made to do that. Yes, it can be argued that this was overly generous and should not have been there in the first place, but it was. It was signed up for and people went. I have stood in front of troops who said: You promised it to me, and I am counting on using it. It seems to me that as Representatives of the American people, I can go back and ask my constituents, and they will agree on almost nothing. If I ask them, ``Should we do everything necessary to care for our veterans,'' the answer is ``yes.'' If we can't find the offset, then let's have the courage to go back and ask them what would they be willing to do. I myself will be voting ``no'' on this piece of legislation, but I just urge my colleagues to have to weigh this. I hope over the years that I have proven I am not a person who would get in the way of having the perfect get in the way of the good or not trying to work for compromises. It is a line that I feel, if we cross, the trust gets breached, and it is very difficult to gain it back. I thank all Members who worked on this.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. I thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for the time. More importantly, I thank both of them and their respective staffs for the bipartisan and continuously exceptional effort to serve our veterans. I thank them for the opportunity to move this forward. Mr. Speaker, this bill has passed the House multiple times over the last 8 years. It is very simple. It is less than 150 words, and it is very rare in that it costs nothing, but I would argue that it is very important. The men and women of the Reserve component, as you so eloquently heard by my colleagues who spoke prior, take the exact same oath of office and are held to the exact same standards as the Active component. They sacrifice their time and energy. They stand at the ready if called upon, whether it is assisting flood victims in Minnesota, fighting wildfires across the Western United States, or fighting overseas in the protection of our freedoms. For those who have completed 20 years or more in the Guard or Reserve but who have not served a qualifying period of Title X Active Duty, we honor their service with health care benefits and monetary benefits, with one notable exception--they must call themselves ``military retirees'' and not ``veterans.'' As the gentleman from Pennsylvania noted, I think most Americans, when I talk to them, are unaware of this. Once they find out, they are appalled that we don't do it. This bill closes the loophole. There are about 280,000 Americans who fall into this category. They have devoted their lives to our Nation--they have served honorably for 20 or 20-plus years--and this bill will recognize their service. It might be as simple as buying a hat that reads ``Army veteran'' or getting a license place for your car. It bestows no monetary benefits to these brave men and women, merely the title. Again, my colleague from Pennsylvania, I think, said it right in that it is a pretty important title--a veteran of the United States military. It also does something else very important. In doing so, we recognize the integral role our National Guard and Reserve play in our Nation's defense. There is nothing quite so unifying or quintessentially American as the citizen soldier. Dating back to the founding of our Nation or serving overseas at a time of fighting terrorism, it is the mother who leaves her family and her law firm to serve her Nation, and it is the father who leaves his teaching job and his family to serve his Nation. It is about recognizing that our All Volunteer Force would be unsustainable if it were not for the men and women who dedicated 20 years of their lives. And one of the most important things they did, most of those are cold war warriors who were responsible for the training of the current force that protects us. So I thank the gentleman and the ranking member again for their commitment to our veterans. I ask my colleagues--we are on the heels of Veterans Day here--to add these 280,000. Let's do what is right. Let's call them veterans and honor their service.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from Florida for his work on the VA extenders bill. I appreciate his partnership as we continue to fight for our veterans. However, Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply disappointed that this extenders bill does not include an extension of the Agent Orange Act. As you know, Congress passed the Agent Orange Act in 1991 to ensure care and compensation to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange. Before this bill, it was up to our veterans to prove their cancer or Parkinson's was connected to their service in Vietnam and their exposure to Agent Orange. The Agent Orange Act changed all of that, shifting the burden of proof from the veteran to the VA. Under the Agent Orange Act, the IOM would study Agent Orange and determine which diseases were associated with exposure to Agent Orange. This process removed the burden of proof from our Vietnam veterans when they applied for disability compensation. Over the years, the IOM has issued reports that have led to the presumption of service connection for diseases such as Parkinson's, B- cell leukemia and early onset peripheral neuropathy. Without these studies, thousands of Vietnam era veterans would have gone without the benefits they greatly deserve. The Agent Orange Act is set to expire tomorrow, but IOM is still working on their last report. And, despite the good the Agent Orange Act has done for our Vietnam veterans, Congress is going to let this bill expire tomorrow. And it's all because it costs too much. Mr. Speaker, it never costs too much to ensure justice for our veterans. We should be ashamed that we are letting this bill expire and leaving it up to the VA to add new diseases to the presumption list. The Agent Orange Act has worked for our veterans for over a decade, and it is irresponsible to let our oversight expire and simply leave it up to the VA's discretion. Mr. Speaker, we cannot step away from our responsibilities and hand them over to an agency, simply because we do not like the price tag. Instead, we should do the right thing and find an offset. Mr. Speaker, I would like to demand Leadership go back and find an offset outside of the VA to ensure our veterans get the benefits they earned. We have a responsibility to these veterans. They completed their mission in Vietnam, now we must complete ours. By finding an offset and passing this extension, we will make certain that when the IOM's final report is published, the VA is obligated to review it and follow their recommendations. We owe these heroes nothing less.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues who have spoken before in support of the Export-Import Bank, which is an absolutely vital tool that helps businesses of all sizes compete in the world market. It does this not by competing with private sector lenders, but by partnering with them. The Bank fills gaps and provides loans to folks that the private sector is often unwilling or often unable to provide, and it costs the taxpayers nothing. In fact, since 1990, it has generated $7 billion in deficit reduction. The Export-Import Bank is overwhelmingly supported by Republicans and Democrats; business groups, like the Chamber of Commerce; and labor, like the AFL-CIO. Presidents Eisenhower, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama have all been on board. It sure seems like a commonsense measure, right? I think we have all learned in this Congress that a small, vocal extremist minority can derail the most bipartisan measures. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening. I ask you, Speaker Boehner, to not allow that small, vocal extreme minority derail a very good program. That is not the way our government is supposed to work. Southern Minnesota is working, too. Businesses like Davisco, Fastenal, and AGCO all rely on the Bank. The last thing they need is for Congress to get in the way and stop the growth, putting their prosperity at risk. Speaker Boehner, all we are asking for is a simple thing. Bring it to the floor, and let us vote. If it passes, America is better off.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I, too, rise in support of the U.S. Grain Standards Act Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2088. I would like to, first of all, thank the chairmen of the full committee and of the subcommittee, both of whom provided great leadership, provided the necessary space to get all parties together, and then provided for a final product that meets all of the necessary requirements that you heard the chairman talk about. I think it is well known that U.S. grain producers produce the highest quality grain in the world. It is the inspections of them, the gold standard of assuring that quality, backed by the Federal Government, that allows us to continue this trade. I think no one here wants to see any interruption to that service. No one here wants to see any lowering of the quality that we have. So this piece of legislation, I think, in the best tradition of the Agriculture Committee and this House, was a true, bipartisan compromise. It was working to find working solutions that made those things happen, and I would urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. This is how we are supposed to do business. This honors those producers of our grain and makes sure that business and capital flow correctly, and it makes sure that there are standards in place to ensure that our buyers of U.S. grain know that they are getting the world's highest quality product. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, again, I have no further speakers on my side. I can't stress enough my thanks for working this out. It was, at times, a somewhat delicate situation, but leadership from my friends on the Republican side, bringing in folks, all engaged parties in this, helped us find a great compromise. I, too, would urge our colleagues in the Senate to take up this piece of legislation, move it forward, and give certainty to those producers who feed, clothe, and power the world. I urge our colleagues here, let's just pass this thing and get further work done. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the Mandatory Price Reporting Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, I would say let's hope that what you see is a pattern developing here: smart, bipartisan legislation passed in a timely fashion to make sure this country's business goes on uninterrupted. You heard it from the chairman, these programs are important for producers, who rely on access to transparent, accurate, and timely market information. The bill makes an important change to mandatory price reporting by making it an ``essential'' government program. As you also heard, the 2013 government shutdown disrupted price reporting. This designation will ensure that, if we ever find ourselves in that situation again, price reporting will continue on. This is the very least we can do for the hard-working folks who are out there. It gives our producers the certainty that it will be there. It is the right thing to do. Again, it is smart; it is bipartisan; it is timely. And I would urge my colleagues not only to support this, but to make this a habit in much of what we do. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. Congratulations to the gentleman and his team and to everyone who participated. Congratulations to Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, who was the Republican top gun, and to Mike Thompson of California, who was the overall top gun. Congratulations to them. As the gentleman said, this is the largest bipartisan caucus in the Congress. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation--the folks who are out there protecting our hunting, fishing, and outdoor heritage--thank you to all of them and to all the sponsors who made this possible. It is great day for a great cause, and it shows that there are many things that bind us together. So I congratulate the gentlemen, and we look forward to a friendly competition again next year. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for your support of this important piece of legislation. As you heard, we are here once again. We had a piece of legislation that attempted to, as I think the chairman spoke about, address an issue that cuts to the heart and the soul of this Nation: When our warriors come home, how can we reintegrate them? And I think it is important, and I want to thank the chairman, one, for working so diligently on many numerous issues, but on this piece of legislation, and for bringing it back up again, but I think also for setting an example. The Nation expects us to do what is right by our warriors. They expect us to work together to find solutions. Something that we do in the committee is looking and seeing where we can improve and pointing out where there are faults. But that is not good enough. Pointing out the faults is one thing, and it is important. Finding solutions is what really matters, and this piece of legislation, I think, starts to do that. To my colleagues who are here, I would say this. We can certainly disagree and disagree strongly and passionately. But I think if the public knew and they could feel it and, I think, in this piece of legislation see it, there are many more things that bind us together, and our care and our commitment for our warriors is one of those. This is a piece of legislation that wasn't just written here in the Halls of Congress. It was written by the families, Susan and Richard Selke, Clay's parents; by the Houghtalings in Minnesota; and the Kellys in New Ulm, Minnesota; and each of these Members that you hear speak about it. Since we passed this legislation, and it failed in the Senate, over 750 veterans have taken their lives. Many times down here, we feel like everything we do is the most important thing that needs to happen now. Rarely is that true. In this case, it is. We can't wait another day. We can't pass this problem forward because it is not only ripping at families, it is ripping at our Nation. These are our best and brightest. You heard about Clay. Clay's a Marine who went to Iraq. He got shot by a sniper and, as a Marine, that irritated him. It didn't hurt him. He came back. He had his Purple Heart, and he could have come back and taken our thank yous. He didn't. He went to Afghanistan to continue on. He knew the extremism that was threatening Iraq and Afghanistan would some day threaten this Nation, so he was forward. He did his time. After he came back, that wasn't enough. He went to Haiti to help. After that, that wasn't enough. He sat in our offices on numerous occasions working on everything from access to the VA to the things you heard the gentlelady talk about in Indiana that were causing frustration amongst our veterans. And I think for me the thing is, like for so many of us, Clay appeared to have everything. He appeared that he knew and was competent and had it there, but we all know that they have demons, and Clay had demons. So what this piece of legislation does--you heard the specifics, and it does do specific things, and no one is claiming that this is going to be the fix. But I would make the case that what the Clay Hunt bill has done and what it has done amongst our partners in the veterans service organizations is made it absolutely clear we will not leave anyone behind. We will not turn a blind eye to this, and we will not rest until we at least make the attempt to get that number down to zero. We may never get there, but this piece of legislation starts to address it. So I think it is important, and I want to thank the ranking member for being on this bill and putting it forward, and the chairman, who was an original author of this and has been instrumental in making it happen. What we are doing here is not just passing legislation. What we are doing here is changing the attitudes, focusing the Nation's attention on this, because I don't care if it is Elkhart, Indiana, if it is Pensacola, Florida, or if it is Mankato, Minnesota. When we go to talk to our constituents, regardless of their political leanings, they tell us, take care of our warriors, do what is right. Fix the system. This piece of legislation does that. It does it in a cost-effective, smart manner, and we have got the opportunity to start moving forward. I would say and encourage my colleagues, let's pass this thing, but let's not see it as an end result of a process we have been working on. Let's see it as the first of many things to try and make changes to be smarter about how we use taxpayer dollars, but also to demand effectiveness, because Clay's parents deserve that. Thousands of others across this Nation deserve that. The more than 1 million veterans that will return over the next few years are counting on us to put everything in place to provide that help. So I encourage my colleagues, support this legislation. I encourage my colleagues, take this as an example. I want to thank Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McCarthy for making it a priority. I think it speaks volumes. This piece of legislation is on the floor in the first week. That says something, that there is a commitment to getting it right, there is a commitment to working together, and there is a commitment to showing effectiveness for the American people. So, we have got that opportunity. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, get engaged with what is happening with our veterans, and let's prove that their service was not in vain, that this democracy is strong, that our commitment to them is unwavering and that, at the end of the day, that is what really matters. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to again tell you about a very important piece of legislation that will help in our fight to improve mental health care for our returning warriors: H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt SAV Act. I'd like to thank the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Miller, and Rep. Duckworth for continuing to be my partners in this effort. I'd also like to thank Speaker Boehner for bringing this to the floor swiftly. And, a big thank you to Senators McCain, Burr, Blumenthal, and Isakson for all their work on the SAV Act. Most importantly, I'd like to thank Clay's parents, Susan and Richard Selke. They are holding Congress' feet to the fire to make sure we get this done and to prevent another family from going through what they continue to go through each and every day. We cannot let them down. H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, is an example of how we can work together on Capitol Hill. The legislation is named in honor of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veteran and suicide prevention advocate, Clay Hunt. Clay epitomized what it meant to live a life of service, both in and out of uniform. He helped countless veterans overcome their demons but tragically took his own life in March of 2011. The legacy he left behind, however, will live on for generations to come. The bill you see before you was the result of strong partnerships with our veteran service organizations, strong bipartisan efforts here in Congress, and the resolve of Clay's parents pushing and pushing and pushing to get this thing done. This bill is what you get when you have folks sitting around the table, trusting one another, and working together to get it right for our nation's veterans. Our premise for this bill was simple: suicide occurs because many vets return to their community and then disconnect from it. So, we wanted to create a bill that would get the communities involved and coordinated. We also knew it would be important to increase both oversight of the VA and their capacity to deal with over a million veterans returning from war. Specifically, the bill: 1. Establishes a peer support and community outreach pilot program to assist transitioning servicemembers with accessing VA mental health care services. 2. Requires the VA to create a one-stop, interactive website to serve as a centralized source of information regarding all mental health services for veterans. 3. Addresses the shortage of mental health care professionals by authorizing the VA to conduct a student loan repayment pilot program aimed at recruiting and retaining psychiatrists. 4. Requires yearly evaluations--with interim reports due in the first two years and a final report due the third year and every year after-- conducted by a third party, of all mental health care and suicide prevention practices and programs at the VA to find out what is working and what's not working and to make recommendations to improve care. Authorizes a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the transition of care for PTSD and TBI between the DoD and the VA. One veteran lost to suicide is one too many. With many of our warriors returning from war, all too often our heroes return only to face a war of their own at home. While there is no bill that will completely end veteran suicide, this bipartisan measure is a step in the right direction. In short, it's a start towards fixing a problem, but we must not lose focus on this problem after passing this bill. We must continue working to improve care for our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this measure so that we can send it over to the Senate and onto the President swiftly.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. ``If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.''

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and a special thank you to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta). This is a commonsense piece of legislation, but I think it is important to note, for many of us, and my colleague mentioned, last year when the propane shortage came, folks can prepare--and we understand out in Ohio and Minnesota with our harsh winters that you prepare for these things--but the situation with propane came so quickly and so fast that the imposition that it made in some cases could have become life threatening, where propane tanks were running empty and families were counting on it to heat their homes. We have a lot of agricultural uses in drying our row crops where it is critically important, and I think it is important to note that at that time the gentleman from Ohio stood up and became a national leader on this issue and I think helped not only alleviate at the time but start doing things like this looking to the future. This is what we should be doing. This is smart, making sure that our markets work correctly and making sure that the intent of Congress is followed and making sure that our consumers are well served. I thank you for that. I think this is exactly what our constituents expect. I know there are a lot of folks in southern Minnesota who have benefited from this. This is a fairly simple fix. It comes from a misinterpretation. But I think the point that the gentleman has brought up that is critically important, markets are starting to function. We are seeing this, but this is an education piece. I think when we educate the public right on this, and you heard some of the implications of that, by not doing that, when they stopped all education on this, the propane shortage of last winter came quickly. It came fast, and it had immediate repercussions. I would say once we correct this deficiency, amend it, it will make a difference. It will enable the propane industry to use its resources to mitigate price spikes, and it will more accurately let consumers know what the price of propane is. So I think this is a fairly simple fix. But nothing is simple in Congress, as we know, and nothing is simple when you are dealing with a complex commodity such as propane. But I do think that as we move into this winter, knocking on wood is one thing, but leadership like the gentleman from Ohio has shown is also helping us. I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense piece of legislation and move this forward. Again, this is what we are sent here to do, to try to make things a little bit better and make sure our markets function correctly and make sure our constituents are being educated correctly.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my thanks to Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Michaud. I think an American public which, many times, thinks all politics is is bickering and fighting and pettiness needs to see the two examples that these leaders show, consistently putting the needs of our veterans first and foremost, finding areas to improve, and holding people accountable, but this piece of legislation, most importantly, finding solutions to make life better for our veterans. And for that, I am forever grateful to them for the work and for the staff that worked on this. Ms. Duckworth is not able to be with us today. I said a lot of times that people talk about patriotism and service and heroics. In Tammy Duckworth's case, you just state her name, and her life is a living testament to that, and she works every day. We are just happy she is with her little one now, but she had a big part in this. There are very few things that unite this country in the security of our Nation and in the care of our warriors, as I think many of us know, as do the millions who have fought the conflicts and who have fought extremism across the globe--people like Clay Hunt, a young marine, who went and did his duty. He was wounded in Iraq. That was not enough for Clay, so he went to Afghanistan, where he experienced some of the most horrific conditions you could imagine. That was not enough for Clay. He came home after he did his service in the Marine Corps, and he continued to serve. He went to Haiti, taking his skills that he had learned in the military to help after the hurricane. Then he came and sat in many of our offices and had many conversations--everything from the GI Bill to the transitioning back of our warriors who are dealing with PTS and making sure that we address their mental health issues. I know, for many of us, Clay was the epitome of American patriotism, of strength, of everything that is right, and it comes as such a shock. I know it sounds like a cliche, but how could someone so strong and who had done so much be dealing with these demons? We know he was, and we know this Nation didn't do enough. We know he didn't receive the adequate care that he deserved and had earned. To be quite honest with you, it is in our Nation's best interest, both morally and security- wise and everything else, to give them that. Again, he didn't stop there, and his parents didn't stop there. His parents--his mother and father--are here in this Chamber, as are his friends, to make sure this never happens to another family. Our friends at the veterans service organizations, like the IAVA and Paul Rykoff and his folks and the VFW, have asked us to do better. The result of this piece of legislation is the folks like Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, Tammy Duckworth, Mr. Benishek, and others who have come down here to speak. Our differences are small compared to our commonalities, and our care for our warriors has to be there. You heard the specifics of this bill, some of the things that it will do. There is not one of us who is kidding oneself that this is going to be the silver bullet, but it puts it on the forefront. It brings some solutions that came from our warriors, that came from best practices, that came from both sides of the aisle, and brought it forward to find real solutions. The thing that most encourages me about this is that it is asking us, if things are not working, evaluate them and get rid of them, and bring the things forward that are going to work. Don't get buried in studies for 10 years. We don't have 10 years. We don't have 10 days for people. It is now. That is, I think, the beauty of this piece of legislation. It starts to move those things forward. It starts to bring the communities back into this. It starts to understand a holistic approach to dealing with the issues of veterans' suicides, because this Nation cannot allow this to happen. We morally cannot. It attacks our soul when we do this. To be very honest, we can't afford to lose people like Clay Hunt. Clay Hunt is our leader. He is our future leader. He is our business leader. He would at some point have been in this Chamber or wherever he would have chosen to have gone. That was his destiny, and this is happening over 22 times every day. I encourage my colleagues to support this piece of legislation but, more importantly, to support the spirit that is behind it--bringing us together to get it right: to care for our warriors with the best possible use for our resources and an accountability to those resources to make sure that the outcome is most important. That outcome is honoring our commitment to the reintegration of these warriors. Once they have done their service to this country, bring them home; make them whole; make sure that they are able to continue to serve this Nation as they wish. For that, I am grateful. I am especially grateful for the leadership of Clay's family and of his mother, Susan, who absolutely said this can be done; this must be done; and it will be done. Thanks to these two gentlemen's leadership, it will.

Mr. WALZ

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania for his remarks and for clearly stating this commonsense piece of legislation and for his support of it. I, too, would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader). He is the author of this piece of legislation. Something we have come to expect from Mr. Schrader is a commonsense, bipartisan piece of legislation. H.R. 5714, the Pest Management Records Modernization Act, is pro- small business and pro-consumer. It improves the ability of pest management companies to communicate important information with their customers related to the products they use. As you heard from the gentleman from Pennsylvania, most States require pest management and other applicator companies to provide customers with information related to pest treatments, either automatically or upon request. Most of the requirements are implemented and enforced by State departments of agriculture, which are the State pesticide regulatory agency in 40 States. The required information is typically information directly from the pesticide label. The overwhelming majority of treatments performed by pest management professionals involve general use pesticides. Right now about 45 States permit electronic conveyance of this information directly to consumers. In fact, in the last 2 years, the States of California, Georgia, Wisconsin, Kansas, and Arizona have recognized the need to update their respective laws related to disclosure and passed legislation or taken administrative actions permitting electronic conveyance of pesticide application information. Like businesses in countless sectors of the economy, professional pest management and other pest applicator businesses are going paperless as a way to save costs and increase efficiencies. Going paperless allows businesses to back up and better safeguard data and records in case of a fire, flood, or other disasters. It also makes it easier to prove compliance with various recordkeeping, reporting, and related requirements, plus it has the added advantage of being greener and more environmentally sound. Unfortunately, the transition to a paperless office for many pest management and other pesticide applicator businesses is more difficult than anticipated because of antiquated State consumer information requirements from the 1970s and '80s that mandated transmission of such documents be via hard copies or paper and do not permit electronic conveyance. These requirements are especially disruptive for companies that have made the transition to paperless that operate in multiple States, some of which permit electronic conveyance and others that don't. It is important to note H.R. 5714 does not put any new mandates on small businesses but, rather, provides them the ability to electronically convey information in the handful of States that have not yet addressed this in a changing e-commerce environment. As I have said previously, and as my friend from Pennsylvania stated, H.R. 5714 is commonsense, it is bipartisan, it is pro-consumer, and it is pro-small business. It deserves our support, and I encourage everyone to make its swift passage possible. With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.