Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

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

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for the time, and Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my other New England colleagues in congratulating the world champion New England Patriots for their victory from Super Bowl XXXIX. Over the past few years, the Patriots have put the rhetoric of teamwork into practice on the field. They work hard without show- boating or glory-seeking to be the best football team possible. They deserve the mantle of dynasty, and we are proud of their success. I particularly want to congratulate owner Bob Kraft and head coach Bill Belichick for their hard work and dedication, not just to the game of football but also to our community. And of course I want to congratulate the magnificent players. Mr. Speaker, all of us in Massachusetts, indeed all of us throughout New England, have been given an embarrassment of sports riches in the last year. First, our beloved Red Sox ended 86 years of misery, first by coming from behind to defeat the New York Yankees in the American League Championship Series, and then sweeping the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series. And now the Patriots are once again world champions. I hope that the rest of the country is patient with those of us in New England as we adapt to these new circumstances. After all, we have much more practice with frustration and heartbreak. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to congratulate the Patriots for their tremendous season, and I look forward to watching them continue their success in the years to come. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my deep frustration with the process being used by the Republican leadership in this House. The bill before us today radically changes, among other things, the asylum law of this country. Religious groups, civil rights groups, human rights groups have all expressed grave concerns with this legislation. There are serious and legitimate concerns with this bill, but the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary did not hold a single hearing or markup in the 109th Congress. In fact, the bill bypassed the Committee on the Judiciary completely. Despite the chairman's rhetoric, there are provisions included in this bill that were never considered in the last Congress. The pattern of abuse by the Republican leadership continues unchecked. Major bills are being rushed to the floor without even a passing glance by the committee of jurisdiction. Bills are being brought up without Members getting the chance to read them. Thoughtful amendments are routinely denied an opportunity even to be debated. The rule that we are considering right now provides for only general debate. Later today, the Committee on Rules will meet again on H.R. 418 to decide whether the amendment process will be open or closed. Yesterday, among several other amendments, our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), testified that they believed the asylum provisions in this bill will make it harder for a persecuted person to gain asylum in the United States. They have an amendment to strike that language from the bill, and I hope the House will have an opportunity to consider that amendment. Those who gain asylum are legitimately fleeing from persecution in their home countries. They are fleeing for their lives; but under this bill, a woman forced by her government to have an abortion who tries to flee from such oppression will be forced to return to her home country. I cannot believe that the United States Government would be that cruel and we would turn our backs on people who need asylum in order to truly be free from torture and persecution. Let me be clear. Every one of us wants to make this country safer and more secure and prevent any further attacks, but this bill is not going to do it. Asylum already is a highly scrutinized process and is very difficult to get. By law, terrorists are already barred from gaining asylum. What we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have, not a bill that restricts the flow of the persecuted just because a few in this body either do not like immigrants or feel the need to pander to political pressures from immigrant haters in their districts. As I said, there are other amendments that were offered last night in the Committee on Rules by both Democrats and Republicans, a total of 14. They are all important. They are all relevant to this bill. They all should be considered. Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. For many, it is a life or death issue. The least we can do is give this bill an open rule. This is the very least we can do given the lousy process that we have been shown. What we should do, however, is send this bill back to committee, allow the committee to hold hearings and discuss this thoughtfully. Let us hear from the experts. Let us all understand the impact of this bill. Let the committee do a markup and send the bill to the full House for a vote. We can do better, and I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to urge their leadership to stop trashing the rules, procedures, and traditions of this House. No matter what our views are on this bill, no matter what a person's political party or ideology is, all of us I hope can agree that the current process undercuts democracy and diminishes this great House of Representatives.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here we are at the start of a new year and a new Congress and we are considering this bill, surprise, surprise, under a closed rule. Once again, the Republican majority has decided that thoughtful debate and the ability for Members to offer amendments if they so wish is unimportant or simply too much bother. The underlying bill, House Concurrent Resolution 36, was introduced yesterday, has not gone to committee, let alone and be reported out of committee, and was being taken up in the Committee on Rules yesterday just about the time that most Members' planes were touching down in Washington. So once again the majority has followed its usual practice to stifle debate, prevent amendments, and ignore normal procedure to push a bill to the House floor ahead of more important issues facing the country. Apparently, the Republican leadership could not possibly start the new year out by deciding to finally help the more than one million jobless workers who have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits without receiving additional aid. I know the majority does not like to be reminded that we still have the largest number of exhaustees in over 3 decades, but the 109th Congress begins still facing this bitter reality and obviously still doing nothing to ease the hardships facing these workers and their families. Clearly, the Republican majority did not feel it necessary to press the President to get his supplemental request to assist the victims in nations affected by the Asian tsunami quickly before the House, so we are not taking that measure up this week. In fact, we are not likely to act on this most urgent matter until March. But a bill exhorting the White House to ignore and overturn proceedings in the Federal courts and to press higher education institutions to ignore their own policies prohibiting discrimination, well, that is a bill that gets top billing in the House of Representatives today. Mr. Speaker, in the United States of America discrimination is wrong. Period. But here we are right out of the gate with a bill that condones it. Let us start with a little history on this bill. In the mid-90s, Congress passed legislation to deny Defense Department funding to colleges and universities that fail to give military recruiters access to their campuses and students. Known as the Solomon Law, that legislation was passed to respond to efforts by several colleges and universities to protest the discriminatory policies of the Pentagon against gay men and women. Over time, the law was expanded to prohibit funding a university might receive from nearly every Federal agency, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Labor. Last year this House passed a bill that would have expanded that list to include the CIA and the National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy. Mr. Speaker, there is an irony here. The Congress is holding hostage funds from all of these other Federal agencies to prop up discrimination by the Pentagon. Yet every one of these other Federal agencies has full access to recruitment on college campuses. Why? Because unlike the Department of Defense, no other Federal agencies have policies that encourage discrimination against gay men and women. All of them have employees on their pay rolls. All of these Federal agencies and the U.S. Government and the American people benefit from the research and development programs that take place on these campuses, some of it carried out, no doubt, by gay men and women. So, Mr. Speaker, where does the Solomon Law stand today? In November 2003, a U.S. district court in New Jersey upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Law, but it also determined that the Solomon Law does not give the Pentagon any basis for asserting, as it has in regulations on implementing the Solomon Law, that universities and colleges must give military recruiters the same degree of access to campuses and students provided to other employers. In November 2004, just this past November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overruled part of the New Jersey District Court's ruling and found the Solomon Law to be in violation of the Constitution. In an appeal brought by a number of schools, mainly graduate schools of law, the court ruled that colleges and universities had a first amendment right to exclude recruiters whose hiring practices discriminated against homosexuals. The U.S. Department of Justice now plans to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it has asked the appeals court to hold off enforcing the nullification of the Solomon Law until the Supreme Court decides on whether to take up the case or not. Mr. Speaker, let me point out another irony in this debate today. There is absolutely no lack of equal access for military recruiters and ROTC programs on America's college campuses. What the Pentagon receives is special access, pure and simple. To this day, any other employer, public or private, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination policies is banned from employee recruitment on campuses. So the Pentagon receives special access to our colleges and universities. The Solomon law is about giving the military a special right to discriminate in a way other employers may not. This sense of Congress resolution once again reinforces and promotes the Pentagon's discriminatory policy and practices to the detriment of all other education institutions and Federal agencies. It further encourages the Federal Government in its pursuit to challenge court rulings that have upheld the first amendment rights of our colleges and universities in their efforts to end prejudice and discrimination. Mr. Speaker, the final irony of this debate you will hear today are the arguments about the need of the military to recruit the best and brightest students that America has to offer. I agree with this need, and the way to get there is for the Pentagon to end its policy of discrimination. This would end the conflict between the Pentagon and college policies against discrimination and prejudice. The Pentagon has kicked out over 26 military linguists who were fluent in Arabic or Farsi simply because they were homosexual. That is unconscionable while our military men and women are facing a deadly insurgency in Iraq and continued violence in Afghanistan. In the past 5 years, in the Army alone, over 3,000 uniformed servicemen and women have been discharged solely because of their sexual orientation. They were munitions experts, linguists, health care workers, infantrymen, tank mechanics, radio operators and active in every field of military endeavor. Make no mistake about it, right now gay men and women are in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they have likely died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. They serve their Nation just as they have since the founding of the United States, bravely, patriotically and devotedly, but their superiors do not commend their service. If their sexual orientation is discovered, they are drummed out. Mr. Speaker, there is no lack of access to for the military on America's campuses. Every university that wants an ROTC program has one. According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 52,000 college students are enrolled in ROTC programs, up from 48,000 in 2000. Many credit feelings of patriotism engendered by the September 11 attacks, and it comes as no surprise that military enlistment by college graduates has also increased since the events of September 11. Mr. Speaker, we do not need the Solomon law. We do not need the bill before us today, and we certainly do not need to continue to insult and assault those very institutions of higher education that are leading the way to end hate and discrimination in America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I also want to welcome him as a new member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I just want to respond to my colleague from Oklahoma. He mentioned that this resolution has been posted on the Web site for 3 days or 4 days. I should say to him that that is not a substitute for the committee process. That is why we have committees. Secondly, I am glad that the gentleman believes that the bill needs no amendment, but there are 434 other Members of this House that should have the opportunity to amend this bill, if they so desire.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record at this point two articles. One is an editorial from the New York Times entitled, ``The Price of Homophobia.'' Another is an Associate Press story entitled, ``Report: Number of gay linguists discharged higher than thought.'' [From the New York Times, Jan. 20, 2005] The Price of Homophobia Don't ask, don't tell--just scream in frustration: it turns out that 20 of the Arabic speakers so vitally needed by the nation have been thrown out of the military since 1998 because they were found to be gay. It is hard to imagine a more wrongheaded rebuff of national priorities. The focus must be on the search for Osama bin Laden and his terrorist legions, not the closet door. The Pentagon's snooping after potential gays trumps what every investigative agency in the war on terror has admitted is a crucial shortage of effective Arabic translators. After the first World Trade Center attack, in 1993, government agents revealed an alarming shortage of Arabic speakers. Key notes, videotapes and a phone call pertaining to the attack were later found in a backlog of untranslated investigative data. The shortage continued right up to and well beyond the 9/11 attacks. Three years after the towers were destroyed, the F.B.I., rife with translation problems, admitted it had an untranslated backlog of 120,000 hours of intercepts with potential value about looming threats. At the State Department, a study showed that only one in five of the 279 Arabic translators were fluent enough to handle the subtleties of the language, with its many regional dialects. The military's experience is no more encouraging, with intelligence results muddied at times by a rush, as one inquiry put it, to recruit Arab convenience store owners and cabdrivers, who couldn't handle the task. The military is right to rely more on its language schools, but it can take several years to produce fluent graduates. The folly of using ``don't ask, don't tell'' policy against such precious national resources amounts to comfort for the enemy. When President Bush was asked last week by The Washington Post why Osama bin Laden had eluded capture, he replied, ``Because he's hiding.'' So is the Pentagon--it's hiding from reality.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing. This Congress should be leading the way to end discrimination of any form in this country. Unfortunately, we have a resolution before us today that condones discrimination. I think it is sad we are dealing with this today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his succinct observation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I watched the people of Iraq cast their first ballots in 50 years, I was deeply moved by their courage, their rejection of violence, and their desire to define their own future. I salute the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who helped facilitate these elections. Their service will long be remembered by those who voted this weekend. But what happens next? Iraq is no more secure today than it was last week. Iraqi insurgents and terrorist groups are no less determined to wreak havoc across Iraq. Our troops are no more protected today than they were last week. And the American people still have no clue about when the President plans to bring our troops home. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the President to change course, to level with the American people, and tell us how he is going to end this war and when he is going to bring our brave men and women home. No more extended deployments of our Guard and Reserves. No more multiple deployments of our active duty forces. Mr. Speaker, it is time for George Bush to end this war. It is time to start the process to bring our troops home.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the first day of a new Congress should be a day for hope. It should be a day when all of us look forward with optimism to the work ahead. But today is not that kind of day. Instead, the leadership of this House is beginning the new year in the worst possible way, by gutting the ethical standards of the United States House of Representatives. Talk about starting off on the wrong foot. In the rules package before us today, the Republican leadership is sending a very clear message. They are admitting that they are so ethically challenged that they cannot conform to the rules they previously adopted, so they must now relax those rules. What an awful example to the Nation and to the rest of the world. We should be strengthening the ethical standards of this House, not weakening them. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party regained a majority of seats in this body in 1994, in part by promising greater accountability and a more honest system in the Nation's capital. Their actions have been anything but honest; and now with this rules package, their rush to the bottom continues. Today is just one more example of the ethical lapses we have seen in this House, a House where major legislation is now written by industry lobbyists, a House where Members are not even given the courtesy of being able to read bills before they are voted on, and a House where bad behavior is not reprimanded, but rewarded. As Members of Congress, we should be held to the highest possible ethical standards. That means not breaking the law. That means not dancing around the law, and that means conducting ourselves in a manner that reflects credibility on the House at all times. Facing the possible indictment of a Member of their leadership, the Republicans attempted in secret to change the rules to protect their ethically challenged colleagues. However, in the face of mounting public controversy, the public leadership caved last night and rescinded the change. They blinked and they buckled. But the Speaker's spokesman commented on this flip-flop saying that the issue had become a ``distraction.'' Not wrong, mind you, but just distracting. I am getting whiplash just watching all this stuff. But, Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that the Republican leadership did not find religion in this issue. If they believed that what they were about to do was truly wrong, they would not have proposed these rule changes in the first place. But while Republicans try to pull a fast one claiming that the majority leader fell on his sword for the good of his party, the truth is that the rules package for the 109th Congress still in a very meaningful way fundamentally weakens the ethics system here in the House of Representatives. I strongly urge the American people and members of the press and my colleagues to closely examine these rule changes, especially those made to the ethics standards. Under the old rules, a properly filed ethics complaint is automatically investigated if that complaint is not acted upon within 45 days. Remember, as the gentlewoman from New York stated, that the ethics committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans; and to ensure that partisan politics did not prevail in the ethics process, a tie vote ensures a formal investigation. But under this proposed rules package, there must be a majority vote to investigate a properly filed ethics complaint; and if that complaint is not acted upon with within 45 days, that ethics complaint dies. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee, whoever that may be, could stonewall the process, refuse to call for a vote, and ultimately kill any ethics complaint without any action. But this also allows any Member potentially under investigation to run the clock out by stonewalling investigators until the 45 days are up. The American people deserve better than this from their elected representatives. We serve at the pleasure of our constituents, and we have a responsibility to uphold the highest ethical standards. Over the past decade, the Republican leadership has careened down the pathway of irresponsibility, and now we are at a crossroads. There are those of us who truly believe Members of Congress should be held to a higher standard and who will make a stand and fight for real accountability from our colleagues, and there will be those who blindly follow their leadership, who vote to weaken the rules of this institution, first written by Thomas Jefferson, because they fear the retribution of their leaders. This should be a place where honesty and integrity are the standard, not a place where the rules are changed merely to protect a powerful few from their own ethical shortcomings. Mr. Speaker, we can stop this debacle. Let us start over. Let us make this right. Let us make the House of Representatives an example of high standards and ethical decency. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rules package.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, in the days and hours preceding this body's passage of the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill on Saturday, November 20, we were assured and then reassured by the majority party that all controversial provisions had been stripped out of the 3,300-page document. Many of us were skeptical, but given those assurances, we in this body passed the bill nonetheless. Mr. Speaker, never again. Sadly, our worst fears and suspicions were confirmed as evidenced by the action we NOTICE If the 108th Congress, 2d Session, adjourns sine die on or before December 10, 2004, a final issue of the Congressional Record for the 108th Congress, 2d Session, will be published on Monday, December 20, 2004, in order to permit Members to revise and extend their remarks. All material for insertion must be signed by the Member and delivered to the respective offices of the Official Reporters of Debates (Room HT-60 or S-123 of the Capitol), Monday through Friday, between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. through Monday, December 20. The final issue will be dated Monday, December 20, 2004, and will be delivered on Tuesday, December 21, 2004. None of the material printed in the final issue of the Congressional Record may contain subject matter, or relate to any event that occurred after the sine die date. Senators' statements should also be submitted electronically, either on a disk to accompany the signed statement, or by e-mail to the Official Reporters of Debates at ``Record@Sec.Senate.gov''. Members of the House of Representatives' statements may also be submitted electronically by e-mail, to accompany the signed statement, and formatted according to the instructions for the Extensions of Remarks template at http://clerk.house.gov/forms. The Official Reporters will transmit to GPO the template formatted electronic file only after receipt of, and authentication with, the hard copy, and signed manuscript. Deliver statements to the Official Reporters in Room HT-60. Members of Congress desiring to purchase reprints of material submitted for inclusion in the Congressional Record may do so by contacting the Office of Congressional Publishing Services, at the Government Printing Office, on 512-0224, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. daily. By order of the Joint Committee on Printing. ROBERT W. NEY, Chairman. took yesterday to strike the taxpayer persecution provision that thankfully was discovered by the other body before final passage. And while the action we took yesterday was absolutely necessary and important, it bears mentioning that there are a number of other provisions that remain in the bill that are not only controversial but harmful. For example, a one-sentence provision inserted into this massive bill at the last minute encapsulates all that is wrong with the way this legislation came to the floor. This provision raises maximum truck weights to 99,000 pounds on two interstate highways in the State of New Hampshire. And although it was drafted in a form that appears to apply only to New Hampshire, its impact will reach all States, all taxpayers, and all motorists. The House debated this very same issue last April, and 334 Members of this House, including the chairmen of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Appropriations, voted against allowing a truck weight increase on New Hampshire's interstates. Now, just 7 months later, the New Hampshire superheavy truck provision has been added to this bill in secret with no notice or opportunity for debate, even though an overwhelming majority of the House rejected it on a recorded vote. What has changed since April that makes a bad idea then a good one now? Not a single thing. In fact, the only important development since we defeated the amendment last April has been the U.S. Department of Transportation's announcement that it too opposes State exemptions from Federal truck size and weight laws. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, a 100,000-pound six-axle single tractor-trailer truck pays only 40 percent of its costs. Taxpayers pay the rest. Not just taxpayers in New Hampshire but taxpayers from all across the country. Heavier trucks also pose numerous safety risks. As weights go from 65,000 to 80,000 pounds, the risk of an accident involving a fatality goes up 50 percent. In addition, these superheavy trucks will have added braking and steering problems and the risk for rollover will increase. Mr. Speaker, this is just further evidence of the need to pass my legislation, the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, and to freeze truck lengths and weights in New Hampshire and all other States, before more damage is done. Senior law enforcement officials and other safety leaders in New Hampshire have already joined in a campaign to overturn this provision when Congress resumes consideration of the TEA-21 reauthorization after the first of the year. And I will insert a letter co-signed by a dozen law enforcement leaders and other concerned citizens of New Hampshire opposing the truck weight increase into the Record at this point. December 6, 2004. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: We are very disappointed to learn that a provision was inserted in the omnibus appropriations bill recently passed by the House and Senate that increases truck weights on Interstates 89 and 93 in New Hampshire. This will make our highways in the Granite State more dangerous and exacerbate our already serious problems with deteriorating infrastructure, particularly bridges. We feel it is unconscionable that a provision with such serious implications for highway safety and road quality in our state was added to this huge bill with no notice. There were no hearings on it. There was no opportunity for us to make our views known. We understand that even the leaders of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, which has jurisdiction over these matters, were unaware of this provision until after it had been passed. This should not be allowed to stand. A matter with such serious safety and infrastructure implications should be addressed by the authorizing committee with proper jurisdiction. Congress is planning to reauthorize the TEA-21 transportation legislation within the next several months. Proposals to change federal truck weight laws on New Hampshire's Interstate are serious matters that should be considered with greater care in the context of the reauthorization--not in a last-second ``rider'' to a massive appropriations bill. We ask that you do whatever is necessary to have this provision removed from the omnibus appropriations bill. Thank you. Sincerely, Chief Jerome Madden, Concord Police Department; Chief David Kurz, Durham Police Department; Chief David A. Currier, Seabrook Police Department; Executive Councilor Ray Burton, New Hampshire Executive Council; Chief Tim Russell, Henniker Police Department; Chief Bradley Loomis, Newington Police Department; Senator Lou D'Allesandro, New Hampshire State Senate District #20; Dr. Henry LaBranche, Salem Town Manager; Sarah Johansen, MD, New Hampshire Chapter College of Emergency Physicians; Frederick (Ted) Gray, Portsmouth Traffic and Safety Committee; David S. Szacik, Director, Legislative Department, New Hampshire State Grange; Robert Best, Executive Director, New Hampshire State Nurses Association. Mr. Speaker, the Fiscal Year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill also included language intended to undermine, if not completely eliminate, the authority of States to permit liquefied natural gas, LNG, facilities all across the country. Again, without notice, public hearings, or any debate, the conferees included language in the statement of the managers that suggests that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, can preempt States on the siting and permitting of LNG facilities. While this particular provision does not change or override existing law, it is tantamount to an expression of Congress that may have implications on a pending lawsuit in California where the State's public utility commission is challenging FERC's assertion of this authority in the permitting of an LNG facility. Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that FERC already gives short-shrift to the concerns of local governments and States in the permitting of LNG facilities. In my congressional district, FERC recently issued a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Weaver's Cove LNG plant in Fall River, Massachusetts that completely ignored the concerns of the community with respect to ongoing economic development plans and the impact on and isolation of emergency services. Were the language in this omnibus bill ever to be codified into law, FERC would run rough-shod over the cities and towns we represent. States are in the best position to know the larger safety concerns that these facilities present, and they deserve to have local authority in permitting them. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it is amazing to me that the party that claims to be the champion of States' rights is always prepared to sell them out when the large corporate energy special interests are involved. That is what has happened here, and it is disgusting.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge on the occasion of its 60th Anniversary this month. On November 16, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 110, a resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, and I was proud to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 110. Mr. Speaker, the Battle of the Bulge was a significant turning point of the Allied victory over the Axis powers in Northern Europe. At the time of the battle, from December 16, 1944, to January 25, 1945, the outcome of World War II was in question. But neither the harsh winter nor enemy fire could overcome the Allied determination to win the greatest battle of that war. Mr. Speaker, out of the 16 million veterans of World War II, roughly 4 million are with us and about 1,200 die each day. With each death, we lose a first hand account of the war and the opportunity to thank them for their service. That is why it is so important that the House, on this anniversary, acknowledge the sacrifice and service of the men of the Battle of the Bulge. Mr. Speaker, after 60 years, the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge are traveling to Belgium and Luxembourg this month to participate in 60th Anniversary events. They and their families will join with the people of Belgium and Luxembourg in somber remembrance of the battle. Both the King of the Belgians, Albert II, and the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Henri, will participate in official events. Mr. Speaker, my hometown of Worcester, Massachusetts is home to the Central Massachusetts Chapter of the Veterans of the Battle of the Bulge. The Worcester chapter has 155 members. Its objective is to honor the men who fought at the battle, to preserve historical data and sites, to foster international peace and goodwill, and to promote friendship and comradeship. The Worcester chapter has honored the 10 sons of Worcester who died during the battle by placing square markers throughout the city. Many members of the chapter are going to Europe this month for the remembrance services. Mr. Speaker, the Battle of the Bulge and World War II tore apart the continent of Europe. It pitted great civilizations against each other in an epic battle for control of Europe. But the Allied victory and the great sacrifice of the men of World War II have contributed to today's peace in Europe. Indeed, the United States, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and other nations involved in the Battle of the Bulge are allies today as members of NATO. Our countries have worked closely on solidarity, freedom, security, and the trans-Atlantic alliance. Today's European and American cooperation is due in large part to the veterans of the Battle of the Bulge. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, I thank these veterans for their service, their courage, their sacrifice and their continuing efforts to foster international freedom and democracy.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I know it is late in the process, but I regret that this omnibus appropriations bill is wholly short on funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. I am compelled to speak on this issue because of the very real national crisis facing residents of the Northeast and the Midwest in the weeks and months ahead. Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill provides a total funding for LIHEAP of $2.2 billion. That is approximately $800 million of the level needed to ensure that this program has the same purchasing power as when it was created in 1982. According to the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities, across this country Americans will see a 24 percent increase in the price of home heating. Heating oil is going up 32 percent, propane 22.3 percent, and natural gas 12.1 percent. Our most vulnerable Americans depend on this program to protect them in the harsh winter months. Regrettably, the LIHEAP level of funding in this omnibus appropriations bill does not give them that protection. Millions of them will be left out in the cold. Mr. Speaker, I tried, without success, to amend the conference report in the Rules Committee to increase LIHEAP funding by approximately $800 million. I hope Members of this body, as they return home for the holidays, will remember that they had a chance to address this issue and they were denied that opportunity. Mr. Speaker, there probably are some good things in this omnibus. Time will tell. This appropriations bill was brought before the Committee on Rules at 9 a.m. this morning. It is a huge bill, as Members see. It probably weighs more than I do, and it will take some time for all of us to sift through the paper. But it frustrates me that those without a powerful lobby or special interest PAC oftentimes are forgotten. This place is about priorities and choices, and this omnibus bill fails to make LIHEAP the priority it needs to be. Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining on American corporations that choose to take advantage of a special tax loophole by incorporating in the Caribbean Islands. But here at home, in particular my home State of Massachusetts, it is going to be a cold, dark winter for many seniors and low-income families. People in America should never have to choose between paying for their prescription drugs and heating their homes, and people in America should never have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Yet because of our lack of action, those are the choices that too many Americans will have to make this winter. We could have and we should have done better. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for his many years of service in this Congress. We are all very proud to have served with him. I wish the gentleman well.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today we will close another chapter in the history of this great institution when we adjourn the 108th Session of Congress. The end of every session is always an occasion to pause and reflect, however that is especially true for me today because it also marks the last session that I will have the special privilege of Ed Augustus as my Chief of Staff. To a great extent, all of us in elected office ultimately succeed or fail based upon the people we choose to surround ourselves with. As a former congressional staffer, I know well where the heavy lifting is done in meeting the daily demands of serving the public and discharging the duties of this office. With that in mind, I consider myself truly blessed to have had Ed Augustus as my Chief of Staff for these past six years. During that time, I have routinely relied on his wise counsel, depended on his keen instincts and trusted his good judgment in directing all aspects of my congressional office. I have called on Ed to perform some extraordinary tasks during his tenure. In each and every instance, he has performed magnificently. Most notably, he coordinated President Clinton's historic visit to the City of Worcester, Massachusetts in 1998 and then the federal relief efforts for the same city following the tragic death of six firefighters a year later. Ed was also instrumental in resolving two very difficult labor disputes that threatened nursing care and public transportation for thousands of Central Massachusetts residents, and played a pivotal role in promoting numerous economic development initiatives that are right now improving the quality of life for families all across my congressional district. Mr. Speaker, in addition to being an exceptional Chief of Staff, Ed Augustus is one of the most thoroughly decent people I know. He possesses a boundless reservoir of compassion and a genuine desire to help those in need. He is a devoted son, loving brother, proud uncle and the most loyal friend a person could ask for. And so, while I am sad to see him leave his position on my staff, I am gratified to know that he will be serving an equally important purpose in the future. On January 5, 2005, Edward Michael Augustus, Jr. will be sworn in as a member of the Massachusetts State Senate, and instantly that distinguished body will be made better by his presence. The people of the Second Worcester District could not have found a more able and dedicated public servant to represent their interests on Beacon Hill if they had searched the world over. In fact, all citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts stand to gain immensely from the tremendous contributions Ed will undoubtedly make to public discourse and debate in our great state. School children in particular will soon discover an eloquent and powerful champion for the cause of improving public education all across the Commonwealth. Mr. Speaker, Ed Augustus will be a great leader in the Massachusetts Legislature because he has entered politics for the right reason--to help people. I believe public service is an honorable calling and a noble profession. I am certain Ed will live up to that high standard and I expect great things from him in the future. For now, however, I would like to simply thank him for sharing his many talents with me these past six years, and for the sterling level of service he has provided to the people of the Third Congressional District. Indeed, all of us in this House owe Ed a debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I am eternally grateful to Ed for his efforts and I will always cherish his friendship. So in that spirit, I would like to close by offering my friend and colleague some words of advice as he prepares to return to elected office. They are words with which I know he is familiar as a scholar of American Presidents, and I hope he will carry them with him as he embarks on the next phase of his career in public service: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.--President Theodore Roosevelt. From the bottom of my heart, thank you Ed Augustus.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as speaker after speaker on our side has already said, this is a much improved conference report from the bill that we originally saw before this House a few months ago. It is supported. It deserves bipartisan support. I hope my colleagues will support the rule. I hope they will support the final passage of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, this may very well be the last rule that I manage for our side in the 108th Congress. So I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the ranking Democrat on the committee, my friend Martin Frost. He is one of the smartest Members to serve in this body. He became an expert in the rules of the House, and he fought the good fight every single day for people and for causes that oftentime get overlooked in this body. I think our Nation is better because of his service, and I think we will miss him. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) offered a resolution in the Rules Committee last night, and we got to pay our tributes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) then; but I wanted to take this opportunity just to express publicly my appreciation for his service not only to this Congress but to the people of this country. I also want to say that we are going to miss our colleagues Sue Myrick and Tom Reynolds who are leaving the Rules Committee to take on other committee assignments. Both of them have been good and strong members of the committee, and I have enjoyed working with them. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the majority and the minority Rules staff. These men and women work incredibly hard, probably harder than most people could possibly appreciate. In particular, let me thank Mr. Frost's staff who have served this House to the best of their abilities. They have done a wonderful job under difficult circumstances, and they deserve to be thanked for their service. As a former staffer myself, I have a special appreciation for the work that members of the staff do. Specifically, I want to recognize Kristi Walseth, who is the staff director; Askia Suruma; Sophie Hayford, who also served with my old boss and former Rules Committee chairman, Joe Moakley; John Williams; Shannon Meissner; Jane Hamilton; and Jeff Rosenthal for their work and their dedication in this House and to the causes that they believe in during the 108th Congress. I also want to thank the associate staff on our side: Fred Turner who has served with great distinction for Alcee Hastings; Rosaline Cohen who has worked very hard for Louise Slaughter; and Keith Stern who has served me incredibly well and worked incredibly hard on behalf of this Congress for all their work as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, for returning to this House a bipartisan-supported conference report on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Last year, when the House first considered H.R. 1350 which reauthorized the IDEA, I felt compelled to oppose that bill. It undermined, in my opinion, the basic rights of children in need of special education to quality education. It undermined the rights of these students' families, and it failed our States and local school districts to effectively provide special education services for these students. Worse yet, the Republican leadership refused to allow any amendment addressing the need to provide full funding for the Federal share of special education to even be debated in this body. It was the House at its very worst. Today is a very different day. We have before us a bipartisan- supported bill. We have a bill that maintains the basic civil rights of children with disabilities. We have a conference report that addresses long-standing problems with IDEA monitoring and enforcement by the U.S. Department of Education. We have a bill that has added protections for children with special needs who have fallen between the cracks for too long; in particular, the 1.3 million children who experience homelessness each year and the 500,000 children in foster care. These children, who are moved around and change schools frequently, disproportionately suffer from learning and physical disabilities than children from stable homes, but they have greater difficulty accessing special education services. This bill now ensures that their individual education plans can travel with them so they are not denied services or regress further when moving from school to school. From the bottom of my heart, I thank the conferees for remembering these children and addressing this problem in this bill. This bill also helps schools resolve conflicts over providing special education services and reduce litigation. It should result in reducing the over-identification and misidentification of nondisabled children, especially among minorities and other disadvantaged communities. It reduces paperwork requirements, improves transition services, and strengthens methods for measuring student progress, all of which should improve the academic achievement of special education students. This bill, however, is not perfect. For example, I believe we still have a long way to go toward ensuring a seamless system for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, let alone successfully preparing and transitioning these children into K-12 special education programs. And, most importantly, this bill still does not guarantee mandatory funding for the Federal share of IDEA State grants. This year alone, special education funding is $2.5 billion short of what Republicans promised in their budget and only half of what has been authorized under the IDEA. This leaves already cash-strapped schools without the support needed to ensure that all students, no matter their disabilities, receive the same education opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I remain deeply concerned that Congress will continue to break its promise to our States, our local schools and our special needs children and families to provide the 40 percent Federal share of funding for federally mandated special education programs and services. For 30 years we have failed to keep our word to fully fund this law, and I see nothing in this bill to reassure me that Congress will meet even the more modest funding targets set in this bill. We seem perfectly able to ignore, back away from, or reduce our commitment. I believe it is well past time for Congress to step up to the plate and fulfill its promise to fully fund the Federal share of special education programs. Until we do so, local and State education budgets will have to continue to rob from other education programs in order to pay for mandatory special education services, breeding unnecessary resentment towards the children and families who require these programs and placing increased stress on scarce education dollars. I promise my colleagues, I promise the children and families and schools in the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts that I will continue to fight for full mandatory funding of the Federal share of IDEA. I hope President Bush will finally make this funding a priority in his budget next year. Mr. Speaker, even with these concerns, I believe this conference report is an important step forward for our special education programs and services, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report on H.R. 1350. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) who is a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?