Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Representatives Jones, Shea-Porter, Tsongas, Bordallo, and Moore for joining me today in offering this amendment. They are leaders and champions in support of the benefits that service dogs provide to our servicemen and -women on and off the battlefield. This amendment establishes a $3 million competitive grants pilot program for qualified nonprofit organizations whose mission is to address the physical and mental health needs of veterans and servicemembers with the assistance from trained service dogs. This is a very modest amount of money when we consider the need of our veterans and the number of organizations around the country dedicated to addressing this need. Many of our servicemembers return home from the battlefield suffering from traumatic brain injury, PTSD, blindness or impaired vision, the loss of a limb, paralysis, impaired mobility, loss of hearing, and other mental and physical disabilities. Too many struggle with suicidal thoughts or find themselves unable to reintegrate back into family life or their communities. Working with a trained service dog is a proven aid for these wounded warriors, the merits of which have been documented in decades of programs for civilians with similar mental or physical challenges. Providing grant opportunities for groups professionally engaged in this field is critical to ensuring that our military and our veterans receive the care that they deserve. In December, I held a briefing that brought together experts to look more closely at the impact service dogs have on veterans' care. Medical experts, nonprofits, and veterans with trained service dogs participated, including retired Navy Lieutenant Bradley Snyder, who lost his eyesight to an IED while serving in Afghanistan. He was accompanied by this Fidelco-trained guide dog, Gizzy. Fidelco is a nonprofit guide dog training organization in Connecticut. Lieutenant Snyder has since gone on to compete in the 2012 London Paralympics Games, where he won two gold medals and one silver medal in swimming. John Moon and service dog Rainbow represented the National Education for Assistance Dog Services, a nonprofit accredited service dog provider founded in 1976. Based in Massachusetts, NEADS has trained more than 1,400 assistance dogs. Since 2005, it has been actively working to bring service dogs to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Brett Simon is a veteran handler for police canines. Twice deployed to Iraq as an explosives detector canine handler, he described his work as a dog training specialist at K9s for Warriors Academy in Florida. We also heard from Rick Yount, founder of the Warrior Canine Connection. The WCC Service Dog Training Therapy Program has operated at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda since October 2011. I am very pleased to see that this bill continues to provide funds for this very special program. Mr. Chairman, there are scores of similar organizations across the Nation. A modest grant pilot program will ensure that they reach even more of our wounded warriors with the assistance of a service dog. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman as to how many more speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, my friend Mr. Nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, we debate the rule to consider two measures: H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill; and the motion to go to conference on legislation addressing the problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I regret that this is not an open rule. Strict time limits have been placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss important issues. On issues regarding our national security, we should have ample time for discussion. This is hardly a festival of democracy, as my friend from Florida described this process--this is muzzling democracy. But less debate in a more closed process has become the signature of the Republican majority, I am sad to say. I am pleased that legislation addressing the problems at the VA is moving forward in a timely way. However, I want to echo the statement of my friend from Maine, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Mr. Michaud. The distinguished ranking member correctly pointed out in testimony presented to the Rules Committee that while this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Like Mr. Michaud, I would prefer that this process be more open, and it is just another example of how this closed process denies many good bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted. Although I have serious concerns with the final Defense Appropriations product, I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on this bill. Mr. Speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time. Every day we turn on our TVs and see conflict, war, and turmoil around the world. It is often hard to remember that most of the world is not at war. I am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war in United States history: the war in Afghanistan. Even though the President has announced that he will draw down most of our combat forces by the end of this year, he has also said that he will keep 10,000 of our servicemen and -women in Afghanistan through 2016. I believe strongly that Congress should debate and vote on approving the President's proposal to keep our uniformed men and women in harm's way for another 2 years. What are these 10,000 troops supposed to accomplish that 100,000 troops have not yet done? Our own generals were quoted in Monday's Washington Post saying that security is not the problem in Afghanistan, corruption is the problem. Ten thousand U.S. troops are now going to magically eliminate corruption in Afghanistan. Just last month, at the end of May, during consideration of the NDAA, Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and I attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the House to vote early next year on whether to maintain U.S. military forces in Afghanistan as the President has proposed. Outrageously, the Republican leadership of this House refused to let us offer that amendment. We were denied the chance to debate one of the most important questions facing this Congress, the American people, our troops, and their families. So, as we get ready to deliver in this Defense Appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the President to continue the war in Afghanistan, I call upon the Speaker and the leadership of this House to promise--to promise--that before the 113th Congress adjourns they will bring before this House a joint resolution whether to approve the President's proposal to maintain U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan through 2016. Let the House debate it, and let the House vote on it, up or down. Let's do our jobs. I have no idea what the result of such a vote might be, but I do know that we owe that vote to our troops, their families, and to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I am tired of endless wars. I am increasingly anxious as I listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in Iraq, and many other places around the world. It is especially galling to listen to the people who got us into this mess in Iraq in the first place. In The Wall Street Journal today, Dick Cheney actually had the audacity to write: Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. Are you kidding me? How pathetic. If it is possible to have less than zero credibility, then Dick Cheney has it on Iraq. I believe in our military, Mr. Speaker. I believe in our men and women in uniform. I believe we should have a military second to none. I believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our Nation is directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the sacrifice of American lives. But there are many problems--indeed most problems--in the world where sending the U.S. military is not the solution. The crisis facing Iraq has been years in the making. It is not happening because Iraq does not have a well-trained and well-equipped military. The United States took great pains to make sure that it is. No, Mr. Speaker, Iraq is facing this current crisis because a corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and religious minorities and other factions of Iraqi society from government decisionmaking. Indeed, the Maliki government often went out of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and extend the power of the Shiite majority. Now it is reaping the whirlwind that it created, but in ways it likely never imagined. If Iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then Iraqi leaders need to learn real fast how to lead--not just their own faction, but how to lead a Nation, to stand up for all their people, and to order their troops and their militias to protect all the Iraqi people: Sunni, Christian, Jewish, Bahai, north, south, and center. They know how to do it. They just have to choose to do it and pray it is not too late. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the governments and powers in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their neighbors. They are the ones who need to lead the way to a political solution to the challenges facing the entire region, or watch it go up in flames around them. Several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news articles that it is difficult for the U.S. to respond with air power or drones or special operations because the Iraqis rebelling against the central government are not just made up of extremist ISIS members, but they include local Sunnis and other disenfranchised Iraqis. So who do you target? How do you target them? Should you target groups at all? If one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in Iraq will depend on Iraqis, not on American bombs or firepower, let alone manpower. Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Defense Appropriations bill, these matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this House. While we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that, unfortunately, our military simply cannot fix. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act, H.R. 4851. This bipartisan bill promotes access to Tibetan areas of China for U.S. officials, journalists, and average citizens. Currently, travel restrictions on Tibet are more severe than for any other provincial-level entity of China. These restrictions have negative consequences for both U.S. citizens and Tibetans. After an October 2013 bus crash with Americans on board, U.S. consular officers faced prolonged delays in obtaining access to Tibet, hindering their ability to serve Americans in distress; and restricted access to Tibet leaves Tibetans in virtual isolation from the world community, limiting international exchange and the ability to objectively assess the human rights situation there. These restrictions are not reciprocal to the access that Chinese visitors generally enjoy in the U.S. As reciprocity is the basis for diplomacy, this bill renders inadmissible to the U.S. Chinese officials who design and implement these restrictions. I urge my colleagues to join Congressman Pitts and me in promoting freer access to Tibet. Reciprocal Access to Tibet Act of 2014 Purpose: To promote the freedom to travel by U.S. diplomats, journalists, and citizens in Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China. What it does: Prohibits visa access to the United States to Chinese officials in `senior leadership positions' from provinces with Tibetan populations, and others, if the Chinese government allows less U.S. access to Tibetan areas than it gives to non-Tibetan areas of the People's Republic of China (PRC). How it works: 1. Report on access and leaders. The State Department is required to give Congress a report on (a) the level of access granted by Chinese authorities to U.S. diplomats, journalists, and tourists to Tibetan areas in the PRC, including a comparison with non-Tibetan areas, and (b) a list of `senior leadership positions' in Tibetan areas, including at the provincial level and some at the national level. 2. Visa ban. Chinese officials are not eligible for visa entry to the U.S., as follows-- `Senior leaders' from the Tibet Autonomous Region, if the Tibet Tourism Bureau permit has not been revoked; `Senior leaders' from Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan and Gansu, if level of U.S. access to Tibetan areas in these provinces is more restricted than U.S. access to non-Tibetan areas; `Senior leaders' at the regional and national level, if Tibet Tourism Bureau permit has not been revoked and if U.S. access to Tibetan areas in the four provinces is more restricted than U.S. access to non- Tibetan areas. National interest waiver. The bill allows the Secretary of State to waive the prohibition if determined to be in the national interest. Definitions. The report defines Tibetan areas as the Tibet Autonomous Region and the jurisdictions within the provinces of Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan and Gansu designated as autonomous for Tibetans. It provides definitions for `senior leadership positions' at the county, prefecture, provincial, and national level. Non-binding language on visa reciprocity. Expresses Sense of the House that the Secretary should take into account the level of access granted to Tibetan areas when granting visas to people from the PRC to come to the U.S. [Prepared by the International Campaign on Tibet June 12, 2014] Fact Sheet: Access to Tibet by Americans What China says: Tibet is open to foreigners The government of China sees tourism as a pillar of Tibet's economy. Chinese officials have said that Tibet is open to foreign visitors: ``[I]f a foreign official, reporter or scholar wants to go to Tibet as an individual to increase his or her understanding of the Tibetan people and their culture, we will welcome them.''--Zhu Weiqun, executive vice minister of the United Front Work Department, 2012.1 ``Many foreigners, including reporters, have traveled to Tibet for work, tours and interviews. I believe we'll see more foreigners coming to Tibet as the region develops and conditions improve constantly.''--Padma Trinley, chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region legislature, 2013.2 ``We hope that (people) from all fields within the country and outside go to Tibet often to look around, study and travel, but as to some other aspects, we are not that welcoming.''--Qiangba Puncog, former chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region legislature.3 What China does: Restrict access to Tibet by foreigners In reality, American tourists, diplomats and journalists still face many barriers to get into Tibet. All foreigners are required to get a special permit to enter the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR)--a permit that is not required for any other provincial-level entity of the People's Republic of China. Travel to Tibetan areas outside the TAR is also tightly controlled. Restrictions on U.S. tourists American tourists are required to obtain the `Tibetan Tourist Permit' to enter the TAR. The permits can only be obtained through a Chinese government-run or -approved travel agency. In some cases, and depending on the area in Tibet one wants to visit, additional permits such as the ``Tibet Group Visa'', ``Alien's Travel Permit'' and ``Military Permit'' are required.4 The State Department advises American travelers that ``permits are not always granted'' and that at ``certain times the PRC may not allow foreigners to enter an area it deems restricted.'' 5 It adds that the ``TAR remains a sensitive area for travel, and even when travel to Tibet is allowed, usually only Lhasa and part of Shan Nan are open to foreigners.'' 6 During certain times, the Chinese government closes off the entire TAR to foreign tourists for months, often with no warning.7 Usually such closures coincide with what the Chinese government claims are ``sensitive periods'' such as during March, the anniversary of the Tibetan uprising in 1959,8 or during the time of the Communist Party sessions in Beijing.9 The Chinese government also imposes arbitrary rules on obtaining the Tibet travel permit. For example in 2012 and 2013 only groups of no less than five people could apply.10 In 2014, this rule was then said to be no longer in effect, but it was reported that tours to Mount Kailash (a holy mountain and pilgrimage site for Hindus, Jains and Buddhists) and far western Tibet were not permitted at all after May 23, 2014.11 Restrictions on U.S. journalists American journalists have difficulty reporting from Tibet, and are subject to many of the same restrictions faced by tourists. The Washington Post reported that ``[T]here are more foreign journalists in North Korea than there are in Tibet.'' 12 The State Department has reported that ``[t]he Chinese government severely restricted travel by foreign journalists to Tibetan areas. Additionally, the Chinese government subjected Tibetans who spoke to foreign reporters, attempted to provide information to persons outside the country, . . . to harassment or detention.'' 13 In 2013 a few foreign journalists could get into Tibet only because they accepted a government-sponsored tour which made any independent reporting difficult. The State Department quotes Australian Journalist Rowan Callick saying, ``I had accepted an invitation from the State Council Information Office--the media arm of China's cabinet--to visit Tibet, since there is no other way in which journalists can enter without subterfuge.'' 14 During a February 2014 visit to China, Secretary of State John Kerry urged China's leaders to allow journalists, diplomats, and other observers unrestricted access to China's Tibetan areas.15 Restrictions on U.S. diplomats Diplomats face similar restrictions on access to Tibetan areas, limiting their ability to do reporting, monitoring and consular work. The State Department reported that its officials submitted more than 16 requests for diplomatic access to the TAR between May 2011 and November 2013, but only two were granted. Its report added, ``The Chinese government . . . repeatedly prevented foreign diplomatic personnel from visiting Tibetan areas outside the TAR for which permission was not officially required.'' 16 The Department also reported ``foreign diplomats who legally traveled in Tibetan areas outside the TAR . . . were repeatedly approached by local police and sometimes forced to leave without reasonable explanation.''17 The Chinese government has permitted two visits by two U.S. Ambassadors to Lhasa in recent years--by Ambassador Gary Locke in 2013 and Ambassador Jon Huntsman in 2010. Each was a three-day, government-organized trip, which was highly controlled,18 and they did not visit areas in the TAR outside of Lhasa. On his visit, Ambassador Locke urged Beijing to open up Tibet to foreign diplomats, journalists and tourists.19

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over and over again, House Republicans complain about Federal spending, especially when it comes to our Nation's premier antihunger safety net program, a program known as SNAP. They say the program is too big, that it is bloated and it is full of fraud, waste, and abuse. These claims are patently false and have been dispelled over and over again. But there is something else missing from the House Republicans' attacks on SNAP--a plan to responsibly shrink the program. Now, of course, House Republicans have many irresponsible plans to reduce SNAP spending. They want to make it harder and more costly for States to administer the program. They want to prevent people who have served their time in prison from being able to receive SNAP benefits. And they want to prevent those struggling with drug addiction from being able to receive SNAP benefits. In other words, they want to deny food to hungry people. Not one of these ideas is thoughtful or responsible. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a way to reduce SNAP spending in a responsible way that doesn't take food away from hungry people. It is simple, it is noncontroversial, and it makes a lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, the best way to do this is to raise the minimum wage. We know that hunger is a subset of poverty. If people earned enough money, they wouldn't need help making ends meet. They wouldn't need Medicaid, SNAP, or housing assistance. The Federal minimum wage is currently $7.25 and hasn't been raised in 5 years. The real value of today's minimum wage is less than two-thirds of what it was in 1968. The result of such a low minimum wage is that many full-time workers live in poverty and have to rely on public assistance programs in order to make ends meet. Now, I am a cosponsor of the bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Doing so wouldn't just result in increased wages for American workers, although that is the most important result. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would cut SNAP spending by $4.6 billion a year--$4.6 billion a year. That is an amazing figure, Mr. Speaker, and that reduction in spending comes simply because people would earn enough money to buy their own food. Imagine that. By increasing people's wages, we reduce the number of people relying on Federal assistance. A recent study commissioned by the Center for American Progress documents this. It shows that SNAP benefits decline 30 cents for every $1 increase in family earnings. This report goes on to show that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduces SNAP enrollment by between 2.4 percent and 3.2 percent and reduces SNAP spending by 1.9 percent. That means that 3.5 million Americans would be cut from SNAP not because of some arbitrary or hurtful policy but because they earn enough so they don't need SNAP any longer. Mr. Speaker, this is just good, plain common sense. We should be doing more to bridge the income inequality gap. We should be doing everything we can to make sure that people are earning as much as they can so that they do not need to rely on Federal programs like SNAP or Medicaid. And, quite frankly, we shouldn't be talking about a minimum wage, Mr. Speaker. We should be talking about a living wage. Just look at my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts. The minimum wage is $8 an hour. But a living wage for two childless adults is just under $15 an hour, and it rises to $18.30 for two adults with one child. Now, while I support an increase in minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, that is not going to cut it for a family of three. That is why I am encouraged by what the city of Seattle has done. They responsibly raised their minimum wage to $15 an hour, an increase phased in over the next 6 years. That is essentially the average national living wage. While I believe our effort to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 is a good one and is the right policy, I believe we need to think bigger and bolder. Seattle passed its increase with the blessing and approval from both labor and business groups. That is an amazing coalition. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. And it will actually have real impacts on the lives of poor families living in this country. It will cut SNAP spending by $4.6 billion per year, and 3.5 million people will be able to stop relying on SNAP simply because they are earning more in every paycheck they take home. It will help end hunger now. This is a good, commonsense way to reduce SNAP spending and make people's lives better. We should increase the minimum wage today. I call on the Republican leadership to schedule a vote. Increasing the minimum wage is the right thing to do. If we want to end hunger now, we need to make sure that people who work ought not to have to live in poverty.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule for all of the reasons I stated earlier, but, Mr. Speaker, I want to close with one final thought: this intelligence bill includes several provisions regarding the use of contractors, security clearance reform, strengthening investigations by the inspector general, and so on. We need to recognize that these reforms were not initiated by us. They are a result of the massive release of leaked information that brought very serious matters about actual and potential abuses by our intelligence agencies on how they monitor and maintain data on ordinary law-abiding citizens. This leaked information caused alarm throughout our society, by our constituents, by our press, and by Members of Congress--and rightfully so. It caused alarm among some of our closest international allies--and rightfully so. So while we may hold different views about the individual who confiscated and leaked the information, let us all recognize that none of the NSA and FISA reforms recently passed by this House--and none of the reforms included in this bill--would have happened if that information had not been leaked because we would not have known about the abuses being carried on in our name by various intelligence agencies. Mr. Speaker, I respect those men and women who serve our Nation in our intelligence agencies, but I don't respect a culture that intentionally keeps the American people and the Congress in the dark about the extent and nature of our intelligence operations. More reforms are still needed; more transparency is still needed. I believe we can be safe and protect the American people without sacrificing the liberties that we all treasure. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his answer and for his reassurances, and we will certainly be watching. In our opinion, fairness means consultation with the Democrats and not leaving us out of the loop. Again, I would point out to my colleagues that the inquiries into the Benghazi situation thus far have been highly partisan, and the Oversight Committee, in particular, I think, has been run in an inappropriate manner. So I appreciate the gentleman's assurances, and we will watch and hope that what the gentleman just said will actually occur. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for Utah for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, once again, we are considering a rule that combines two bills together under one single rule. That rule provides an open rule for the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, or T-HUD, and a structured rule for the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act. T-HUD is an appropriate acronym, Mr. Speaker, because that is how we can describe this House's action on the bill last year. The Appropriations Committee tried to come up with a bill that funds our Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs, but it was so woefully inadequate that it never made it to the House floor. Although the T-HUD bill may be $1.2 billion above last year's enacted levels, due to a reduction in offsets caused by a decline in Federal Housing Administration receipts, the program level in this bill is actually $1.8 billion below last year's level. On the transportation side, this bill provides no funding for high- speed rail, and it cuts $200 million from Amtrak's capital funding. And if that weren't bad enough, I want to highlight one particularly egregious rider in the T-HUD bill, a rider that would exempt Wisconsin, Mississippi, and Idaho from Federal truck weight limits on their interstates. Mr. Speaker, there have been no reviews by highway safety experts or cost-benefit analysis on the effect of increased size and weight limits on these roads and bridges, yet the majority decided to go forward with these extraneous riders anyway. I would remind my colleagues that in the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, Congressman Lou Barletta offered an amendment that required DOT to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of increasing truck size and weight on road safety and infrastructure costs. It passed with strong bipartisan support, and the Department of Transportation is currently in the process of completing the study, which should be finished by the fall of this year. Mr. Barletta sent a letter to the Rules Committee before last night's meeting requesting that a point of order against this rider be made available. I support Mr. Barletta's request, and I wish the Rules Committee would not have protected this provision. We should not be raising truck size and weights in a State-by-State patchwork approach before DOT even has a chance to finish its study, especially when the highway trust fund is expected to run out of money this summer and our roads and our bridges are already in horrible disrepair. I will insert letters from AAA, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, law enforcement officers, first responders, and road safety groups all opposing this rider. American Automobile Association, Washington, DC, May 20, 2014. Hon. Harold Rogers, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nita Lowey, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey: AAA opposes Section 125 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015 that would increase the current federal truck size and weight limits. This section carves out special interest exemptions from federal truck size and weight regulations for Idaho, Mississippi and Wisconsin. We urge you to remove Section 125 from the bill. Study after study has shown that increasing truck size or weight increases wear and tear on roads and dramatically impacts bridges. At a time when the federal Highway Trust Fund and many state budgets across the country are nearly tapped out, we cannot afford to allow bigger trucks to run up the cost of maintaining infrastructure. We also are concerned with the safety impact of allowing heavier trucks on the nation's roadways. According to NHTSA, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks increased four percent from 3,781 in 2011 to 3,921 in 2012. Of these fatalities in 2012, 73 percent were occupants of other vehicles, 10 percent were non-occupants, and 18 percent were occupants of large trucks. Congress has recognized the importance of a stronger national freight program and work is underway to establish a robust national freight strategy. Considering changes to truck size and weight limits outside the context of this national discussion, and the two-year truck size and weight study required by MAP-21, is premature. Thank you for consideration of AAA's views on this important safety issue. Sincerely, Avery Ash, Director, Federal Relations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this rule, as I noted earlier, also covers debate on H.R. 4681, the Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act. The intelligence authorization bill is one of the many important pieces of legislation that comes before the House every year--or nearly every year. Last year, for fiscal year 2014, the bill was marked up in committee, but the majority never seemed to be able to find the time to bring it to the House floor, which is why today we are dealing with a 2-year authorization for both the current fiscal year, FY 2014, and the coming fiscal year, FY 2015. Now, a great deal has happened since the fiscal year 2013 intelligence bill was approved in December of 2012--everything from Edward Snowden to the sequester, from extreme weather events to drone strikes that also killed innocent civilians, from new technologies and cyber sabotage to protecting our human assets on the ground in dangerous regions. While the underlying bill attempts to deal with these and other issues in a bipartisan manner, some of the choices it makes weaken rather than strengthen our ability to accurately assess potential and real threats to our security. One particularly troubling example is the bill's failure to strengthen the intelligence community's ability to analyze and assess how climate change affects our national security. Over a decade ago, the National Intelligence Estimate--or NIE--noted with grave concern how extreme weather and environmental changes were adversely affecting global food security, as well as increased refugee and IDP populations due to droughts, floods, and other extreme weather events. The NIE described how such events contribute or can even drive social and political instability, which might threaten our national security interests. Given the acceleration of extreme weather and climate change over the last decade or so, I would think that we would want to encourage our intelligence agencies to analyze the national security implications of climate change, whether that is how storm surges and rising sea levels and temperatures might affect our Navy, or how competition over resources might affect the opening of the Arctic or water wars in the Middle East and northern Africa--but no. Instead, this bill continues the Republican foolishness of pretending that climate change does not exist. Some of my Republicans colleagues would rather stick their heads in the stand. That is not the way to run a government, Mr. Speaker. Over 30 amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration, and I wish that all of them were made in order under this rule. It doesn't take long to debate 30-something amendments. I believe that the House is fully capable of handling such a debate. After all, we should be pretty rested after a 5\1/2\-day break at the beginning of this week and a 9-day recess starting tomorrow. Surely, we could use the 2\1/2\ days when we are in Washington to actually debate the intelligence bill. Several of these amendments dealt with highly controversial aspects of drone strikes, many of which have killed or wounded innocent civilians. I was glad to see that the U.S. did not carry out any drone strikes for the past month in Pakistan, where our use of drones has contributed to tensions between our two nations. Our colleague and a member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), submitted an amendment to ban so-called signature strikes against unknown targets. Her amendment modestly calls for the U.S. Government to know, with near-certainty, that at least one individual who is a known target will be present before the strike is launched. I am outraged that her amendment was not made in order under this rule. Other amendments, including bipartisan amendments, dealt with increasing the transparency of decisionmaking and reporting from drone strikes; others would have simply banned their use. The U.S. is increasingly dependent on the use of unmanned weaponized aerial vehicles to deliver deadly force against individuals and groups residing or operating in other countries. As we wind down the war in Afghanistan, we need to take a hard look at how we should pursue the so-called global war on terror, especially the use of drone strikes and operations outside the boundaries of international law enforcement. I regret that all of the amendments brought before the Rules Committee dealing with drone strikes were not made in order, as each dealt with a different facet of the policy and each deserved to be debated by this House. I would also like to say a word about the McCollum amendment, which was also denied by the Rules Committee. Our intelligence agencies should never ever use humanitarian work or workers as a cover for covert operations or a means to gather intelligence. Whether we are talking about a vaccination campaign to protect children from polio or the delivery of food to desperate refugees, leave such plots and machinations to the movies. Keep them out of U.S. policy and covert operations. They endanger all humanitarian workers and place obstacles in the way of carrying out urgent and essential global health and humanitarian work in places where too many dangers already exist. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve my time, I also want to point out that this rule contains a provision which makes a change in the procedures for the special Select Committee on Benghazi, which was established by the House just a few weeks ago. The new provision allows the chairman of the new select committee to authorize foreign travel as part of the investigation. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has already conducted seven investigations of the Benghazi matter--seven. Many of us have argued that an additional eighth inquiry is not necessary, but since the House insists on proceeding, we would like to make sure that some of the partisan abuses that marked the previous inquiries will not be repeated by the new select committee, particularly with regard to foreign travel. Mr. Cummings has often protested the partisan abuses of foreign travel at the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I insert in the Record a letter from Mr. Cummings to Mr. Issa, asking him to delay a Republican-only delegation to Libya, so that Democrats could join the delegation as well. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, DC, September 20, 2013. Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to request that you immediately postpone your upcoming delegation to Libya and several other countries until you come into compliance with your own Committee directives, stop your partisan efforts to deliberately exclude Democrats from this trip, and provide adequate notice to allow Democratic Members to join this delegation at a later date. On April 6, 2011, upon becoming Chairman of the Committee, you issued a memorandum to all Committee Members entitled ``Rules for Committee-Authorized Foreign Travel.'' According to that memorandum, ``All delegations must be bipartisan.'' Earlier today, however, I obtained a copy of an itinerary for a trip you apparently have been planning to Libya and several other countries next week, presumably as part of the Committee's ongoing investigation into the attack in Benghazi in 2012. The only congressional travelers on this itinerary are you and your Republican staffer. No Democratic Members are listed on the itinerary, and you have not contacted me or my staff about this trip. According to this itinerary, you are planning to leave this Sunday, which means Democratic participation at this late date is impossible. Your 2011 memo also says that the ``purpose must be very specific for each country.'' Yet, your itinerary states only that the Libya portion of the trip is ``TBD,'' although it may include a ``visit'' to the embassy and a ``working lunch.'' Your itinerary does not identify a single U.S. government official, Libyan official, or other individual the Committee plans to interview or speak with during this delegation. Your 2011 memo also says that the only exception to conducting bipartisan international delegations is ``in rare circumstances and at the sole discretion of the Chairman.'' However, you have not identified any such circumstances in this case that would justify excluding Democratic Members. Moreover, I have obtained other documents showing that you have been planning this delegation for more than a week, so there are no exigencies that would have prohibited you from consulting with Democrats. Although you claim that your investigation of the Benghazi attacks is bipartisan, your efforts to secretly plan an official trip to Libya--and then deliberately exclude Democrats from joining--is part of an unfortunate pattern of partisanship that undermines the credibility of this investigation. Last October, Rep. Jason Chaffetz undertook exactly the same partisan maneuver when he traveled to Libya--at your direction--and excluded Democratic Members from that trip. At that time, my staff obtained a last-minute copy of his itinerary that listed the Committee activity in Libya as ``TBD'' and failed to identify any officials to be interviewed. We now know that Rep. Chaffetz met personally with General Carter Ham, the Commander of AFRICOM, as well as Gregory Hicks, the Deputy Chief of Mission, who was then called before the Committee to testify. The problem with these actions is that they effectively deny Democratic Members the ability to effectively investigate this incident. Since your secret delegation appears to violate your own directive to the Committee, I request that you postpone it until such time as Democratic Members are given an adequate opportunity to join. Sincerely, Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member.

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. McGOVERN. In October of 2012, Oversight Committee Republicans went on a delegation to Libya, but they did not inform Democratic members until 24 hours before they departed. In September 2013, Oversight Committee Republicans planned a second delegation to Libya without contacting Democratic members at all. Ranking Member Cummings requested that the trip be postponed to allow Democrats to join, but his request was denied. This is no way to conduct a serious investigation, and this is one of the reasons why so many people on our side of the aisle have called foul over the way the House Republican leadership is dealing with this important issue. So before the House grants any new authorities to the select committee, I would be grateful for some assurance from my chairman that this new authority will not be misused in the highly partisan manner demonstrated by Chairman Issa at the Oversight Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman if he has any additional speakers?

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan Atomic Veterans Service Medal Act. Between 1945 and 1962, about 225,000 members of our Armed Forces participated in hundreds of nuclear weapons tests. These GIs became known as the Atomic Veterans. They were placed in extremely dangerous areas and constantly exposed to radiation in performance of their duties. Sworn to secrecy, they could not even speak of their service. Thankfully, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush recognized their valiant service and acted to provide specialized care and compensation for their harrowing duty. One of my constituents, Joe Mondello from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, is an atomic veteran, and very proud of his service to our country. Like me, he believes it is past time for the Defense Department to honor with a medal the unique service carried out by the atomic veterans. More than 75 percent of atomic veterans have passed away, never having received this recognition. I call on this House to act swiftly on the passage of this bill. [From Leavenworth Times, May 8, 2009] Atomic Veterans Still Fighting For Recognition From U.S. Government (By Belinda Larsen) Approximately 225,000 American servicemen participated in atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1962 in the U.S. and over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. About 225,000 American servicemen participated in atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1962 in the U.S. and over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. These Americans were placed in very hazardous, extremely dangerous areas and were constantly exposed to the unknown factors of radiation in the performance of their duties. They were assigned to these duties with no formal training, knowledge of the hazards and with very little or no safety gear. They were America's atomic guinea pigs and kept away from the public. And still today the U.S. government remains reluctant to acknowledge the health problems created by the atomic testing, which left the servicemen with hidden wounds--not from bullets or shrapnel, but from radiation. ``Thousands of veterans have died while they begged for medical help. The government has never admitted that subjecting them to atomic radiation causes all different kinds of cancer,'' said Gary Thornton of Leon, Kan., who has been working hard to bring honor and remembrance to our nation's forgotten veterans. Thornton, a 27-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, was assigned duty aboard the U.S.S. Engage, a minesweeper. Thornton, along with his fellow crew members, were ``volunteered'' to participate in a top-secret project. They were also instructed to sign a document stating that whatever they ``witnessed, saw, or heard would not be revealed for 20 years under the penalty of execution and/or life imprisonment.'' This was called the Atomic Secrets Act and no entries were made in the service jackets, medical records or orders of these soldiers. Because of the sworn secrecy, it's as if the testing never happened. Thornton has been telling anyone who will listen that most of the Atomic Veterans have experienced severe health problems, as well as their children and grandchildren. In order to be compensated, a veteran must be certified by a VA doctor, which means the veteran must have proof of their assignment or participation. Due to the Atomic Secrets Act, it's impossible to attain the needed certification. The Atomic Secrets Act was finally lifted in 1996--not 20 years, but 51 years after being imposed. The veterans who were left were allowed to discuss their experiences. ``Because so much emphasis was put on the severity of breaking the 20 year imposed threat, there are older survivors that are still afraid to say anything for the fear of being punished,'' Thornton said. ``It's a national disgrace. I just can't stand to see any more of these people die without the recognition they deserve. . . . They're not even mentioned in our history books.'' The government has never researched or sought out these veterans. Thousands have died from multiple cancers or related illnesses and were not granted any medical assistance. Small steps In 1988, the government finally conceded to allow treatment for six types of cancer, only provided that the veteran could prove they were part of the atomic testing--nearly impossible to do because of the secrecy act. The Department of Defense has instituted a program that works to confirm veteran participation in U.S. atmospheric nuclear tests from 1945 to 1962, and the occupation forces of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. If the veteran is a confirmed participant of these events, the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) may provide either an actual or estimated radiation dose received by the veteran. The information then can be used to assist with VA claims. Sadly, it takes a long time for claims to be reviewed and only a few thousand have been approved. In the meantime, more than 75 percent of the Atomic Veterans have died. Seeking recognition In 1982, there were over 850 Atomic Veterans in Kansas. Today there are only 100 left. In 2003, Thornton, along with fellow veteran Larry Halloran, began working toward getting recognition and a special medal for the Atomic Veterans. ``These veterans had no idea how the radiation would affect them. . . . None of us knew. We were 18 and 19 years old, following orders and serving our country. We're dying by the thousands and still no recognition. It's a disgrace. We can't let their deaths be in vain,'' Thornton said. The allied countries of Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia enacted the Atomic Veterans Medal Act of 2007, in which a Queen-authorized special medal to honor their Atomic Veterans who served with the United States, was authorized. Their medals came with full monetary and medical compensation. Still, the U.S. government remains silent. Because of the sacrifices made by the Atomic Veterans, the U.S. has the safest nuclear generating power plants, nuclear aircraft carriers and Trident submarines. Strides were also made in medical technology--including x-rays, MRIs and sonograms. Thornton also credits the nuclear test results with helping to end the Korean War, ``MacArthur had three atomic bombs in Korea and when Korea found out, they backed off,'' he added, ``President Kennedy also had the upper hand in Cuba because of the bomb.'' Kansas efforts In 2004, former state Rep. Everett Johnson, of Augusta, and an Atomic Veteran who was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease several years ago, helped get a resolution adopted to recognize and honor Kansas Atomic Veterans, which led to then-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius presenting a Certificate of Recognition to each known Atomic Veteran in Kansas. ``We couldn't have done it without Everett Johnson and Governor Sebelius. . . . Kansas is the only state to do this,'' Thornton said. A day of celebration was held in Topeka, but more than 50 percent of the state's Atomic Veterans were too ill or too old to attend the special event. In 2007, the Kansas Legislature adopted resolution HCR 5018, introduced by Kansas Rep. Ed Trimmer, of Winfield, and co-sponsored by Rep. David Crum, of Augusta, encouraging the President of the United States Congress to honor our nation's Atomic Veterans with a special Atomic Veterans Service Medal. There has been no official action or designation number for the bill in Washington, but Kansas Congressman Todd Tiahrt's office and other sponsors are routing the bill for introduction to the House of Representatives. Fundraising project During a legislative session last year, Trimmer and Crum co-sponsored legislation to name a portion of Highway 400 in honor of the Atomic Veterans. The legislation passed unanimously in both the House and Senate and was signed by Sebelius in April 2008. Trimmer led the fundraising efforts for the purchase of the Kansas Department of Transportation highway signs. More than $1,400 was raised through private donations. In a ceremony on May 22, the highway signs will be revealed. Legislators, state and county officials, veterans and their families will gather at 10 a.m. at the Bluestem High School auditorium in Leon to honor our Country's forgotten veterans. The new highway signs are a step in the right direction, but Thornton continues his appeal for national recognition. ``Please help us by writing, e-mailing or calling our congressmen and spreading the word to friends in other states to do the same,'' he said. ``We need your help to bring these treasured veterans out from the dark where our government has seen fit to put them, into the sunlight with honor and dignity and receive a medal. An $8 medal would be a small price tag for what these Atomic Veterans--America's Forgotten Veterans--have endured for 60 years.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, providing access to healthy school meals shouldn't be controversial. We all want what is best for our kids because nothing is more important than our children. Yet, for decades, we have seen school food products--both prepared meals and packaged snacks--fail to be as healthy and nutritious as possible. Combined with other factors, we are seeing childhood obesity rates increase over that time. Not surprisingly, we have seen other health problems associated with obesity also increase. But that began to change because of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, also known as the child nutrition reauthorization bill, which reauthorizes our school meal programs as well as the WIC program. The 2010 bill was especially important because it implemented new health and nutrition standards for schools, including issues like sodium, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Today, the House Appropriations Committee will vote on waiving not just these standards, but also basic, reasonable limits on calories, fat, and trans fats. Now, I was critical of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act not because of the change in nutritional guidelines for school meals, but because the bill cuts SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, in order to pay for these improvements. Sadly, we took food away from hungry people in order to improve the nutritional quality of school meals and improve school meal reimbursements. It was one of the more difficult votes I have taken as a Member of this House, and I am still angry that we robbed Peter to pay Paul instead of using better offsets that were available at the time. Now, that being said, I strongly support the policies in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. And that is why I am dismayed at the attacks coming from the Republicans in Congress. House and Senate Republicans are trying to roll back many of the guidelines in this important legislation. Now, I am aware of their concerns. Some food service providers, including in my own State, tell me that these new standards cost too much, that they lead to increased food waste, that healthier products that meet these standards aren't available, and that kids just don't eat these new foods. We should work with local providers to overcome many of those challenges. But it is important to recognize that USDA has empirical data that shows the law is actually working. Not only that, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, confirms that the law is working as intended and that participation will get better as kids get accustomed to healthier foods. Harvard recently documented significant increases in children's consumption of fruits and vegetables because of the Federal school food standards. That is a good thing. Data also shows that the new school meal nutrition standards do not cause schools to lose money after they are initially established. Most importantly, USDA has the authority to work with schools, school districts, and States to address the issues that may affect participation rates. In other words, schools, school districts, and States can ask USDA for assistance in implementing these new standards at local levels, especially when kids may not be participating locally in ways that USDA either intends or sees in other areas of the country. States and localities should take advantage of this flexibility before seeking permanent changes to the law. These school meal standards, along with the WIC food package, are science-based. That means that politics was left out of the decision- making process and left up to expert nutritionists. The reason why white potatoes, for example, were left out of the WIC program was because the experts at the Institute of Medicine said that they do not provide the necessary nutritional impact as other foods eligible for the WIC program do. That is another way of saying that white potatoes aren't healthy enough for pregnant mothers and young children. Yet now the Republicans are trying to scrap these important nutrition standards. And they are doing so under the false pretense that it is what is best for the kids. Mr. Speaker, look at the facts: House Republicans are supposedly acting on behalf of our kids while they tried to cut $40 billion from SNAP, while they tried to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from WIC, and while they continually ignore nutritional science by changing food packages to benefit specific industries. The truth is their position will do real harm to our Nation's kids. We can do better. We can and should work with USDA to implement this law in a smart way and not bow down to junk food special interests. We shouldn't play politics with our kids' health just because some people don't like this administration. My Republican friends should get over it. There is a time and place for politics. But lunch is not that time, and the school cafeteria is not that place. The health of our kids should come first. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record two letters expressing opposition to the rollback of these important nutritional standards. One is from 19 former presidents of the School Nutrition Association, and the other is from Mission Readiness, a group of retired military leaders who believe childhood obesity is a national security issue. School Nutrition Association, Past Presidents Initiative, May 27, 2014. The Honorable (Senate and House Members of Committees on Agriculture Appropriations): Dear Agriculture Appropriations Conference Committee: Thank you for passing the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 that is helping school nutrition programs be part of a strong response to the nation's obesity epidemic. Most schools are having success implementing the HHFKA. However some schools report difficulty meeting the requirements and are requesting waivers. We the undersigned past presidents of the School Nutrition Association, understand that major change takes time and a commitment to the goal that prompted the change. We believe most communities and schools want school nutrition programs that help children learn to enjoy healthy foods. We are confident that the broad public support for HHFKA and USDA's demonstrated willingness to work with school leaders to solve implementation issues will prevail and create stronger school nutrition programs. We urge you to reject calls for waivers, maintain strong standards in all schools, and direct USDA to continue working with school leaders and state directors to find ways, including technical assistance, that will ensure all schools can meet the HHFKA standards. Specific concerns regarding whole grains and sodium can be addressed as technical corrections. We must not reverse the progress that was sought by school leaders and is well on its way to success in most schools. Should you need additional information please contact Jane Wynn or Shirley Watkins. Sincerely, Shirley Watkins, former USDA Under Secretary FNCS; Katie Wilson, PhD, Executive Director National Food Service Management Institute; Josephine Martin, PhD, former Executive Director National Food Service Management; Institute Dorothy Caldwell, former USDA Deputy Administrator of FNS; Mary Nix former Cobb County, GA School Nutrition Director; Jane Wynn, former Broward County, FL School Nutrition Director; Anne Gennings, former New Hartford, NY School Nutrition Director; Mary Hill, Director of School Nutrition, Jackson, MS; Dora Rivas, Executive Director Food & Child Nutrition Services Dallas ISD, TX; Helen Phillips, Senior Director School Nutrition Norfolk, VA; Elizabeth McPherson, Former Food Service Director Caswell, NC; Phyllis Griffith, Former Child Nutrition Services Director Columbus, OH; Nancy Rice, State Director GA Child Nutrition Programs; Gene White, President Global Child Nutrition Foundation; Marcia Smith, PhD, former Food Service Director, Polk County, FL; Gaye Lynn MacDonald, Consultant & Former Food Service Director Bellingham, WA; Penny McConnell, Director of Food Service Fairfax County, VA; Beverly Lowe, Consultant, Former Food Service Director Hampton, VA; Thelma Becker, Retired Former Food Service Director PA.