Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule.

The bill under consideration today is a product of a multiyear, bipartisan effort by the Education and Labor Committee. Democrats and Republicans worked together to craft this legislation. Now the Rules Committee has thrown this bipartisan effort to the wind and revealed their true partisan colors that are flying there. By allowing 20 Democrat amendments and only four Republican amendments, the Rules Committee has effectively announced that the minority party is not to be a player. Folks, it isn't fair. It's not a democracy.

I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee earlier this week. But my colleagues will not even have the chance to consider its merits because it was not made in order by the Rules Committee.

It is a particularly sad statement, given the nature of my amendment. On January 29, the City of Berkeley passed resolutions that, among other things, state that the United States Marine Corps recruiting office ``is not welcome in'' their ``city, and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders.''

I am appalled.

My amendment addresses this action by denying Federal funding to colleges that contract with an entity that takes action to discriminate or condones discrimination against the military by denying equal public access. The amendment essentially holds colleges and universities accountable for maintaining agreements or contracts with entities that allow this open discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, during the Vietnam era, and I'm old enough to not only remember but to have experienced it, many of our servicemembers and veterans received shameful treatment at the hands of those who opposed our Nation's foreign policy. We must protect our current servicemembers from the same treatment by showing that the Berkeley City Council's appalling behavior is unacceptable in this great Nation. Demonizing the men and women serving our country in the military, as demonstrated by the Berkeley City Council, has no place in our Nation's political discourse.

As a graduate of the ROTC program and a 25-year veteran of the Marine Corps, I am profoundly disappointed with the appalling actions of the Berkeley City Council. Institutions that continue to maintain contracts and agreements with this city are, in effect, condoning this discriminatory and unjust treatment of our servicemembers.

They deserve better from us, Mr. Speaker. This structured rule excluding my amendment denies this body the opportunity to reaffirm our strong support for the men and women who so honorably and bravely defend our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in favor of mine safety but in strong opposition to the S-MINER Act.

Unfortunately, the bill as written does little to improve safety in our Nation's mines. As someone who voted for the MINER Act, I am concerned that this legislation derails much of what has already been achieved. I appreciate that there is concern about the speed of implementation, but the answer is not to call a halt to the work that has already been done and completely turn direction.

We have heard from mine engineering academics that this bill is flawed. We have heard from over 28 industry groups that this bill interrupts the progress being made in mine safety, while the Mine Safety and Health Administration's opinion has been dismissed by the other side, apparently until today, when we are going to turn over to MSHA the issue of drug testing. The President has issued a veto threat citing safety concerns.

The statement of administration policy specifically states, ``The requirement to use boreholes to sample behind mine seals weakens existing safety standards since boreholes have metal casings that could introduce an ignition source, such as lightning, into an area of the mine that may contain explosive methane. The S-MINER bill would weaken current regulations requiring a mine operator to contact the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a serious accident by creating a two-tiered notification system of 15 minutes or 1 hour depending on the severity of the incident.''

I question how in good conscience we can be considering legislation that, according to the very people who enforce the law, weakens current regulations.

This bill is going to mandate the use of refuge chambers, examples of which were demonstrated on Capitol Hill. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, tested several of these units and found serious deficiencies.

In a letter to the State of West Virginia, NIOSH expressed concerns stating, ``Since findings from our field testing raise issues about the performance of such refuge chambers, NIOSH believes it is imperative to inform you of our findings as soon as possible before deployment of refuge chambers.''

Mr. Chairman, later today I will join my committee colleague, Mr. Wilson, in offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is a Republican substitute that does not upend the mine safety progress currently under way.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the S-MINER Act.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Chairman, like my colleague from South Carolina, I rise today in strong support of mine safety and in opposition to the base bill. Rather than supporting this flawed bill, I would ask Members to support the Wilson/Kline amendment. This amendment is a sensible alternative that will enhance mine safety without undoing the significant reforms already underway. During the numerous hearings we have held in the Education and Labor Committee on mining issues, one thing we have heard frequently from miners themselves and from their family members and from their representatives is that when it comes to mines and mine safety, it is the men and women who go into the mines every day that know best.

I would like to focus my comments today, first, on one particular aspect of our amendment, and that is to engage miners in their own safety. Our amendment recognizes that miners themselves do know best and seeks to ensure that mine owners and operators are allowed to avail themselves of the knowledge, experience, and talents of their employees. To that end, this amendment would allow mine operators to incorporate meaningful employee involvement in safety committees, which include representatives of workers and mine operators, and work together to ensure that the safest workplace conditions are possible.

Although cooperation between miners and mine operators seems obvious, if not imperative, it is, unfortunately, not always a reality. Under archaic provisions of Federal labor law, too often employer-employee safety committees that actually do something have been found to run afoul of Depression-era mandates.

Mr. Chairman, we are no longer living in the 1930s, and neither should our laws. Nearly 2 years ago, we began to bring the mining industry into the 21st century by considering and enacting the MINER Act. Though it is not yet fully implemented, that law is already working. Today, my colleague Mr. Wilson and I are offering an amendment that builds on the MINER Act, rather than tearing it down.

A key element of our plan is to ensure that antiquated laws don't get in the way of mine worker safety. In fact, our amendment is based on the eminently sensible TEAM Act which was considered by this Congress some years ago and would have provided for safer workplaces for all employees, not just miners.

I don't know that anyone can argue that safety committees in mines should not make full use of their workers' wisdom and experience. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the Wilson/Kline amendment as a commonsense, pro-miner alternative. Use of miner-involved safety committees is just one element of our substitute, but I believe it accurately captures our goal of enhancing safety while maintaining momentum of the MINER Act.

I have been interested today to listen to the proponents of the bill and the opponents of our amendment talk about the importance of breathable air and getting these containers into the mines, but I don't understand if the chamber is not available, what is the mine supposed to do while we are waiting what is admittedly 6 months or 12 months for the chamber to arrive? The base bill is so prescriptive, it prevents any alternative to the prescribed chamber, and those chambers are simply not available. I really wish we had the answer to that question.

If the gentleman will yield for just a minute, I think that they are. I don't understand where that air is supposed to come from. The SCSRs are not available. Those are on back order. Refuge chambers are not available. They are on back order. What are these miners supposed to do?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with my colleagues in strong support of this legislation. At a time when our Nation is at war on multiple fronts, we must maintain a strong commitment to these brave men and women in uniform who stand in defense of our Nation. This legislation takes a responsible, forward-looking approach to the funding of our current operations and provides for the needs of our American heroes.

In addition to the things already mentioned by my colleagues, such as an increase in end strength and the very important pay raise, I am particularly pleased at the inclusion of two important legislative provisions that I introduced earlier this year, the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program and authorization for assignment incentive pay for National Guardsmen unfairly denied this benefit.

The Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program nationalizes a program created by the Minnesota National Guard. Through experiences drawn from the deployments of smaller units to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Minnesota Guard developed a unique combat veteran reintegration program with a focus on supporting servicemembers and their families throughout the entire deployment cycle.

With this focus, the Minnesota Yellow Ribbon program has proven an effective means to prepare every combat veteran and their family for a safe, healthy and successful reintegration. This multifaceted program includes workshops and training events at 30-day, 60-day and 90-day intervals for servicemembers following their demobilization.

This bill also moves us toward fixing a major disparity among Minnesota National Guardsmen. Congress created assignment incentive pay to recognize the hardship of prolonged mobilization periods for Reservists and Guardsmen called up under partial mobilization authority. The military services, however, deploy Guardsmen and Reservists under other mobilization authorities.

Through no fault of their own, many Minnesota National Guardsmen who served in Bosnia and Kosovo were mobilized using different authorities. When these same soldiers, many of them senior non-commissioned officers, were asked to deploy with their fellow Guardsmen to Iraq in 2006, those who had served in Kosovo were given $1,000 a month in assignment incentive pay while those who had served in Bosnia were not. Clearly this is not fair. I am very pleased that this legislation recognizes that and rectifies this disparity.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues to join me today in voting for this important legislation that supports our troops.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his kind words.

I, like the gentleman from California, have a son serving in uniform and I am very proud of his service, proud of Mr. Hunter's son's service in the Marine Corps and my son's service in the Army in Iraq. I understand that on January 1 my son is heading to Afghanistan. So I do feel a certain personal importance to what we are discussing today and to the funding for our troops. But collectively we have all sent our sons and daughters into combat, into dangerous theaters in the world, and we need to make sure that we are giving them every chance for victory.

My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, said that we have learned some things not to do and some things to do. I would argue that the thing not to do is to take a strategy which is clearly working, which is bringing increased security to a dangerous spot in the world, to a strategy that is producing more electricity, more oil, opening schools, shops. You don't take that strategy and pull the rug out from under it.

Last July, Madam Speaker, I and other Members stood on this floor to ask our colleagues not to snatch the possibility of victory away from our soldiers and marines. In an atmosphere filled with overblown rhetoric predicting the failure of surge operations before they had begun in earnest, General Petraeus and those under his command pushed forward into the streets of Baghdad and into the tribal-dominated areas of al Anbar province. They engaged and destroyed al Qaeda cells while working closely with tribal leaders to establish a lasting stability in once hostile Sunni areas.

Just a few short months ago, critics in this body and the Senate declared defeat, declared defeat before giving success a chance. They did not believe our fighting men and women, implementing General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy, could rout al Qaeda and insurgent forces and win over the Iraqi population. I am proud to say that they were wrong, and that is what has happened.

As we proceed with conference negotiations on this National Defense Authorization Act, I would urge my colleagues not to repeat the mistake we have sadly made many times before. We must not declare defeat while our military forces fight for victory. This motion to instruct conferees is just a small step to ensure that the position of this body is not to accept a strategy which will produce a failed state in Iraq.

In a letter to his troops before commencing the surge operations, General Petraeus noted that, ``Success will require discipline, fortitude and initiative, qualities that you have in abundance.''

The question before us today, Madam Speaker, is the same one I asked in July: Do we in Congress have those same qualities?

I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California, for yielding the time.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Employment Non- Discrimination Act, H.R. 3685.

As the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor and Pension Subcommittee, I have reviewed this legislation in several different forms over the last several weeks. I've participated in debates and conversations that have brought this bill to the

floor, and I have to report that this legislation is still flawed.

The bill before us is drafted in such a way that it creates confusion and uncertainty. My colleagues offered a number of amendments to correct the inherent problems in this bill. Unfortunately, one critical amendment offered by Mr. Souder removing the word ``perceived'' was not accepted by the majority. My colleague has already introduced that point of confusion; I would like to expand on it.

This bill, and I quote, ``prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of an individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation.'' What does that mean, ``perceived sexual orientation''? We do not know because the bill fails to provide a definition. This raises a number of practical and legal concerns. The term ``perceived'' is overly broad, vague, and will inevitably lead to increased litigation, lots of increased litigation.

We cannot abdicate our constitutional duty by knowingly creating a law that is so vague that the courts must necessarily determine a definition. This is, frankly, a trial lawyer's dream. I would point out that in the course of our hearings one of our colleagues did express faith in ``Attorney World'' to clarify this issue. Well, it is kind of funny; I just don't think that's a theme park that we want to visit.

Employers may have difficulty in identifying noninherent characteristics of a person but could still be liable. Under the statute, employers would be accountable to prove that they did not make an employment decision based on either their own perception of an individual's sexual orientation or on that person's perception of themselves. I can see why ``Attorney World'' could be called upon here. Employers would find themselves in the unenviable position of defending themselves in lawsuits by proving a negative, that they did not perceive the individual to be part of a newly protected class.

Further, the term ``perceived'' does not appear in any other civil rights legislation. Let me be clear, we are not talking about the definition of gays, lesbians and bisexuals; we are talking about those individuals that may be ``perceived'' to be such. The Civil Rights Act protects individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Nowhere do we see the term ``perceived.''

Madam Chair, those who favor this bill presented on the floor today are motivated only by the end goals of this legislation and are failing to recognize the difficulty presented by vague terms and loose definitions. We are left with a bill that is filled with confusion and uncertainty.

I would ask that my colleagues carefully consider the inherent problems in enforcement of this legislation and vote against H.R. 3685.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to our colleague from Texas, a former appellate judge, Mr. Gohmert.

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the Republican whip, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Madam Chairman, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Madam Chairman, could I inquire how many speakers my friend has?

Very well, then I will continue to reserve my time to close.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Today, we're considering a truly far-reaching modification to civil rights policy. There are some here who want this proposal to go even further, and we've heard that, while many of us believe that it already goes too far.

The free exercise of religion is fundamental; yet this bill could infringe upon it. The right of States to define and protect marriage is fundamental; yet this bill would undermine it. When enacting new Federal mandates, we should be seeking policies that employers can successfully implement; yet this bill is vague and subjective and invites costly litigation.

We heard a discussion earlier about the concerns in employment law around a hostile work environment and what this newly protected class, how this would fit into that. It was asked, could an employee have a quote from the Bible that soundly condemns homosexuality, would that in itself create a hostile work environment. I would say we do not know the answer to that question. This is a boon for trial lawyers and court cases stacked up like cordwood.

Because of these concerns, Madam Chairman, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that if this bill were to reach the President's desk, his senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed. The administration identified a number of concerns, both on a constitutional level and with the underlying policy. Unfortunately, these concerns have not been given the full attention they deserve in this debate.

The number of amendments has been seriously limited. We have seen an extraordinary step of putting in the rule a mandatory withdrawal of a proposed amendment. This deserves a fuller examination.

Republicans were prevented from offering key amendments that would have highlighted and attempted to correct some of the more glaring problems which we see in the underlying bill. As a result, Madam Chair, H.R. 3685 remains fatally flawed.

I oppose the bill and urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on this overreaching proposal.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on this issue and so many others.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor today to argue passionately, as we have just heard, about the principles of free trade and whether we should pass the trade agreement between the United States and Peru. This is a historic moment for U.S.-Andean relations. The United States and Peru have agreed to formalize this mutually beneficial economic relationship with this ground-breaking U.S.-Peru trade promotion agreement.

This agreement opens new markets for U.S. businesses and provides strong protections for U.S. workers and companies. Additionally, it furthers the Peruvian market-oriented policies and advances the agenda that has made Peru one of the fastest growing emerging economies.

Mr. Speaker, this stands in sharp contrast to the policies of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. We are at the beginning of a new day in the Andean

region, and this trade agreement is the first step in a successful campaign to spread democracy, expand free trade, and stabilize the region while also taking a stand against poverty and crime.

For our part, this agreement builds on Peru's many strengths and solidifies an important economic relationship between our two nations, presenting new market access for U.S. businesses, farmers, ranchers and consumers. U.S. exporters currently face Peruvian tariffs while Peruvian exporters are not generally subjected to any tariffs. This point has been raised many times but cannot be raised enough. We are working in a one-way street that has been working against us. This is the time to fix that and make this trade fair.

In my home State of Minnesota, we exported over $24 million worth of goods to Peru in 2006. These exports cut across all industries, from high tech computer manufacturers to our local farmers. Passage of this agreement would provide immediate elimination of tariffs on nearly 90 percent of current U.S. exports to Peru. This would allow producers and exporters the opportunity to not only preserve but to increase market share in Peru. As our market share increases, it naturally follows that prices and income increase and jobs.

A vote in favor of this bill supports job growth, sustains small- and medium-sized businesses and enhances agricultural competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues here today join me in support of this important legislation and vote in favor of America's workers, America's farmers and American businesses.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in asking the leadership of this House to bring the Military Construction and VA funding bill to the floor for a stand-alone vote.

Earlier this year, many of us felt the pain when a young marine in my district committed suicide after honorably serving in Iraq after he visited two VA hospitals. We recognize, as a body here, that we need to provide the funding for our VA. We passed the bill in this House, 409- 2. This is a bill with bipartisan support.

We have heard rhetoric from the other side of the floor that says this is so important that we should pass this legislation no matter what pork-laden legislation it's tied to. That's what is the trouble here, my colleagues, is that the leadership of this House has taken a cynical action to attach an important bill that has strong bipartisan support to a piece of legislation they know that many of us did not support and the President has promised a veto.

I ask the leadership to reach out, as one of my colleagues said, and work in a bipartisan way, which is easily done by separating this legislation. Let's get it done today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I have been and continue to be a major proponent of trade, but this Trade Adjustment Assistance program that we have today has, seems to me, gone astray. There are a number of reasons why I would urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, from the massive expansion of what was intended to be a targeted Trade Adjustment Assistance program to the dramatic increase in litigation and liability employers will face under the WARN Act provisions contained in this bill.

The gentleman from California mentioned COBRA eligibility in his remarks. I'd like to talk about that for just a minute.

Under the law as it stands today, when a worker loses his or her job, he or she is generally able to elect to continue health care coverage under COBRA for 18, or sometimes as long as 36, months. This balances the legitimate need of the workers to obtain gap or bridge health insurance coverage, while recognizing the administrative needs of employers and, in particular, the need for employers who voluntarily offer health benefits to manage costs and risk.

The bill before us dramatically expands COBRA benefits for certain classes of workers potentially at the expense of others. Under the Rangel substitute, a worker who loses his or her job ``because of trade'' is afforded significantly more COBRA rights than an employee who simply loses his or her job because, for example, his employer closes shop. Indeed, for some of these workers, expansion of COBRA rights can last for decades, plainly not what was intended under the original law.

The bill also includes provisions extending COBRA benefits for PBGC beneficiaries without any regard to the issue of trade. Individuals pay for COBRA, but because of the nature of how this was put together, the provisions are paid for through an increase in the taxpayer-funded health care tax credit, at least through the period of TAA eligibility, again, extending and complicating it in a way that was never intended in the original law.

Just a couple of more things that come under the WARN provision of this. This bill expands the WARN Act coverage to apply to businesses which employ 100 or more employees, including part-time workers. It expands the definitions of plant closures and mass layoffs. It increases the notice requirements so that employers must provide 90 days' notice of an intended plant closure or mass layoff. It expands damages for lost wages and benefits to include double wages, benefits and interest for up to 90 calendar days. It includes new requirements that employers post notice of WARN Act requirements and information on how to file a complaint and provide notice of benefits and services available to employees. It expands enforcement to allow the Secretary of Labor to investigate alleged violations.

Some of these are probably very worthwhile, but clearly, a tremendous expansion and opportunity for almost unlimited litigation, placing a very large burden on employers, and I don't think we want to do that at a time when we're trying to preserve jobs for our employees.

So I oppose this legislation. It reaches too far. It is too complicated. It opens up employers to too much litigation. We can do better than this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I, like my colleagues, have come here today to condemn in the strongest possible terms the actions which damaged the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

And as always when I am in the same room with my colleague Mr. Johnson from Texas, I am humbled to be in the presence of a real hero of the Vietnam War. And I don't know that I can add to the passion and to the caring that he has already conveyed for us, but I just have to say that I can't remember being so outraged by such a cowardly act.

Visitors from around the world who come to visit the Memorial are moved by the simple but powerful image of the etched granite wall. For those of us who served in Vietnam, however, the names on the wall hold an even stronger significance. Those names bolster our sometimes failing memories of the friends and comrades who didn't return with us.

It is with these memories in minds that I express my complete, my total, utter outrage at this recent desecration. The person or persons who did this have violated a sacred trust, and I consider their actions deplorable. Their cowardice, yes, their cowardice, stands in sharp contrast to the bravery and valor of those for whom this memorial was erected, and we as a country will simply not tolerate such behavior. Just as we honor and pay tribute to those who served and sacrificed so much, so too must we condemn, we as a Congress, we as a people, we as a Nation, those who would denigrate that sacrifice through such cowardly actions.

If there are those who applaud or somehow justify this desecration, I would only remind them of the hypocrisy of their beliefs and their actions. Our freedom was won and maintained by brave men and women such as those honored on this wall, and we should all hold them reverently in our hearts.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague Mr. Carter for bringing this important resolution to the floor, to the chairman and ranking member of the committee for bringing it to the floor.

I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Let's support it unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 185, which commends the men and women of the 1st Brigade Combat Team/34th Infantry Division, Minnesota National Guard, for completing the longest continuous deployment of any United States combat team in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Mr. Speaker, these men and women did not want to set this record. They didn't seek this record. In fact, when they left these shores, they had no idea this record was going to be theirs: 16 months in a combat zone, 22 months of mobilization. But when the word came, they didn't flinch. They set forward, they did their duty and they set a record, one which I certainly hope no other unit will ever be asked to surpass.

The men and women of the 1st Brigade Combat Team are some of this Nation's finest soldiers. Their first-rate service in Iraq carries on the tradition of excellence established by previous generations of the 1st Brigade, through service in the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and both world wars.

The more than 2,200 Minnesotans and 1,300 more Midwestern soldiers who served in the 1st Brigade in Iraq performed remarkably during their unrivaled tour of duty. These soldiers completed more than 5,200 combat logistics patrols, secured 2.4 million convoy miles, captured over 400 suspected insurgents, and discovered 462 improvised explosive devices prior to detonation. They also helped to start two Iraqi newspapers and completed 137 reconstruction projects.

As a mark of their commitment to the unit and to this Nation, more than 1,400 members of the brigade reenlisted, reenlisted, while in Iraq, and 21 members became United States citizens.

Throughout their long tour of duty, their historic tour of duty, the soldiers of the 1st Brigade Combat Team had the steady support of families and employers. The soldiers are now home and beginning the process of reintegration through the Minnesota National Guard's extensive Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program.

Mr. Speaker, given their admirable and courageous service over so long a period of time, and in recognition of their willingness to put service to country over personal interest, it is only fitting that we take this opportunity to commend the men and women of the 1st Brigade Combat Team.

I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz) for bringing this measure forward and for his service with the National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in strong support of this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a moment to say that I urge all of my colleagues to support this important resolution. The service that these men and women performed is truly historic and commendable. Again, I thank Mr. Walz for bringing this measure forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn observance of ``Gold Star Mother's Day'', on Sunday, September 30th.

More than 75 years ago, one mother's determination to transform her personal loss into good works led to the creation of the American Gold Star Mothers. After receiving notice of her son's death in aerial combat during World War I, Grace Darling Seibold devoted her energy to volunteering in a local hospital. She began reaching out to other mothers whose sons had died in military service to our Nation, and these women organized into a local group.

Their organization was named after the gold star service flag that families hung in their windows for family members who had died in military service. After years of planning, it became a national organization in 1928. In 1936, Congress designated the last Sunday of September as ``Gold Star Mother's Day.''

Since then, brave women have continued to come together as Gold Star Mothers to ease the burden of their loss and to serve others.

The cost of America's freedom is often personal. Few pay more dearly than our Gold Star Mothers, who have endured the death of a son or daughter in service to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 95, a measure to support the goals and ideals of Campus Fire Safety Month. We passed a similar resolution last Congress promoting the establishment of September as Campus Fire Safety Month. Since that time, 31 States have issued proclamations recognizing September as Campus Fire Safety Month.

Our Nation's college students should be able to live on campus with the confidence that they will be safe in their dorms, apartments or other housing. This measure will take a key step toward ensuring greater awareness of campus fire prevention and safety. I

thank my colleagues, Representatives Tubbs Jones and Whitfield, for taking the lead on this important topic.

There are numerous examples nationwide that demonstrate a renewed commitment to campus fire safety. In my home State of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota system equips dorms with smoke detectors and is working now to ensure that residence halls and individual dormitory rooms have sprinkler systems. They use flame-resistant mattresses and other materials to provide students with the safest furniture available. In another example, New York State Office of Fire Prevention and Control trains college officials and distributes materials that can be used in training college students on campus fire safety. These are just two examples of the good work being done at the State level to increase awareness of fire safety on college campuses.

The legislation before us today is sure to raise awareness even further. This is not the first time that campus safety has been discussed in the House. In the 109th Congress, we passed the College Access and Opportunity Act which endorsed an effort to ask colleges and universities to report annually on fire safety efforts. The report would include information such as a list of all student housing facilities and whether or not each is equipped with a sprinkler system or other fire safety system, statistics on occurrences of fires and false alarms, information on various fire safety rules and regulations, and information about training provided to students, faculty and staff. Moreover, the measure asks schools to keep a publicly available log of all on-campus fires and false alarms.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 25. I thank my colleague for his opening remarks. This resolution calls on the board of directors of the National High School Mock Trial Championship to accommodate students of all religious faiths. Among our most basic human rights, the right to follow one's conscience in matters of religion and belief, is undoubtedly one of the most cherished, so much so that people have been willing to endure the severest trials and even to lay down their lives rather than surrender this fundamental right.

Throughout history, men and women of religion have fought for the natural right of all individuals to practice their own faith and beliefs free from harassment, suppression and persecution. One can also point to many shining examples of established religions tolerating each other's beliefs and practices. The National High School Mock Trial Championship, which is based on constitutional law, is a prestigious event that requires a tremendous amount of preparation, skill and dedication on behalf of those students who are competing. The competition espouses the goals of heightening ``appreciation of the principle of equal justice for all'' and promoting the ``exchange of ideas among students from throughout the United States.''

This participatory program engages students, legal professionals and the

educational community to advance the understanding of the American justice system and the important role of lawyers. I have to admit sometimes that I have a prejudice against some of my lawyer friends. Nevertheless, they are clearly an integral part of our system of the rule of law and justice for all.

On October 15, 2005, the board of directors of the National High School Mock Trial Championship voted to refuse any future accommodations for students who observe the Sabbath on Friday and/or Saturday. This decision of the board of directors to refuse any future accommodations adversely and wrongly impacts observant Jewish, Muslim and Seventh Day Adventist students and is inconsistent with the spirit of freedom of religion and equal protection guaranteed by our Constitution.

During the 2005 championships, satisfactory accommodations were made to allow Torah Academy of Teaneck, New Jersey, to compete at the National High School Mock Trial Championship held in Charlotte, North Carolina. A review of the post-host report compiled afterward showed a majority of the comments supported the accommodations made for the Torah Academy students and the benefit of competing with the Torah Academy students.

I think that is an important point in this debate. All the other participants, even recognizing the challenge from a significant competitor, thought this was the right thing to do. One respondent replied, ``The compromise demonstrated fairness, tolerance and problem- solving, all values that I try to encourage in my students.''

The simple fact is that all students should be allowed to both compete fully in the National High School Mock Trial Championship and uphold the practice of their religion. We stand here today calling the National Board of Directors to accommodate the religious beliefs of students participating in the competition and urge the Board of Directors of the National High School Mock Trial Championship to restructure the rules of the competition to allow qualifying students of all faiths to compete fully in this national championship without betraying their religious beliefs.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Rothman, for bringing this matter to the floor today, and I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was sitting here listening to my distinguished colleagues speak and looking at my own notes, and, again, I just find it incredible that you have this wonderful competition which espouses the goals of heightening the appreciation of the principle of equal justice for all stated, a stated goal, and yet it couldn't make accommodation to respect the religious beliefs and practices of the competitors.

Again, I urge all my colleagues to join in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield balance the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of permanently extending the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or HEROES. This extension will ensure that all of our men and women serving in the military will always receive the flexibility they need in dealing with their student loans and post-secondary education commitments.

Mr. Speaker, I have championed this act since coming to Congress, and support for this legislation has always transcended party lines. I appreciate that Members on both sides of the aisle have joined together once again this year. I would like to thank senior Republican Member McKeon and Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa for their continued support for higher education and this legislation. And I extend my

personal thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak) with his many years of distinguished naval service for joining me in this effort to protect the higher education interest of members of the Armed Forces.

The HEROES Act will ensure support for military personnel by continuing to allow the U.S. Secretary of Education to provide the appropriate assistance and flexibility to men and women in uniform as they transfer in and out of post-secondary education during time of war. I must say, this has worked very well and successfully, giving the Secretary the flexibility, but we in Congress need to provide that flexibility.

Throughout our involvement in this war on terrorism, many thousands of men and women who serve our Nation in the Reserves or National Guard have been called to active duty. Many of these men and women are also college and university students who are called away from their families, class work and studies to defend the Nation. Unfortunately, due to a number of restrictions in the Higher Education Act, these individuals are at risk of losing financial assistance and educational credit as a result of their service. Such a scenario is clearly not acceptable.

The HEROES Act provides assurance to our men and women in uniform that they will not face education-related financial or administrative difficulties while they defend our Nation.

This bill is specific in its intent to insure that, as a result of a war or military contingency operation or national emergency, our men and women in uniform are protected. By granting flexibility to the Secretary of Education, the HEROES Act will protect recipients of student financial assistance from further financial difficulty generated when they are called to serve, minimize administrative requirements without affecting the integrity of the programs, adjust the calculation used to determine financial need to accurately reflect the financial condition of the individual and his or her family, and provide the Secretary with the authority to address issues not yet foreseen.

I think all of us recognize the absurdity of a young man or woman being deployed to a foreign shore, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, while they are a student and getting in financial difficulties because of that service.

I am pleased to offer this legislation which provides a permanent extension of the HEROES Act. By permanently extending this act, we not only send a strong message of support to our troops, but we also provide them with the peace of mind that this program will continue throughout the duration of their current or any subsequent deployment.

The legislation before us today is an indication of Congress's commitment to our military, our students, our families and our schools. I urge my colleagues to stand in strong support of the HEROES Act and join me in voting ``yes'' on H.R. 3625.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking Republican member on the House Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), for stepping into the breach here and providing the leadership he has provided on this important legislation, and urge all of my colleagues to get behind this legislation and let's vote ``yes'' and permanently extend this flexibility.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 590, supporting the goals and ideals of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Congress should raise awareness of domestic violence in the United States and its devastating effects on families and communities.

October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month and is recognized as such in communities across the country. This designation helps to focus public attention on this widespread and devastating crime.

The problem of domestic violence is centuries old, and our attention to the matter has grown, but we need to do more to raise awareness of this problem.

One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. Boys who witness domestic violence are twice as likely to abuse their partners and children when they become adults. The cost of intimate partner violence exceeds $5.8 billion each year. As evidenced by these staggering statistics, domestic violence has far-reaching effects on society.

Domestic violence is the willful intimidation, assault, battery, sexual assault and/or other abusive behavior perpetrated by an intimate partner against another. It is an epidemic that affects men, women and children in every community regardless of age, economic status, religion, nationality, educational background, or gender.

When we think of domestic violence, we often think of women being the victims. However, men are victimized by violence as well. Male victims are less likely than women to report violence and seek services due to concerns over the stigma associated with being a male victim, or not being believed. Both men and women experience the same dynamics of interpersonal violence including experiences of disbelief, ridicule, and shame that only enhance their silence.

Unfortunately, the youngest victims are the children who witness the abuse. Research has shown that children witnessing domestic violence and living in an environment where violence occurs may experience some of the same trauma as abused children. They may become fearful, aggressive, or withdrawn. Adolescents may act out or exhibit risk- taking behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, running away, sexual promiscuity, and criminal behavior. All of this behavior has an effect on society as a whole, and we must continue to keep domestic violence in the forefront so this cycle can be broken now.

Domestic violence harms the victim, children, the abuser and the entire health of American families and communities. Nearly 20 years ago, Congress passed legislation recognizing the first Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Designating October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month allows organizations and communities concerned about domestic violence to leverage this public recognition for activities that raise awareness and link victims to services.

In our role as Members of Congress, we can help galvanize public awareness for the victims of domestic violence. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 590.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any more speakers. I would just like to urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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