Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to John ``Jack'' Emerson who passed away on December 29, 2005 at the age of 64. Jack was a loving father and husband, an outstanding public servant, and friend and mentor to many, including myself.

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Congressional Record the eulogy given by Jack's good friend Barry Balan on January 3, 2006.

Jack Emerson, a devoted husband, caring father, man of

compassion, civic leader, mentor and colleague. A man I am

proud to call my friend.

There are not enough words to describe this man, who has

made such an impact on this community and all who met him.

Knowing Jack for 26 years, I will give you a glimpse into the

man who has made a difference in so many people's lives.

The Lowell Sun called Jack a man of vision, but I believe

he was also a visionary. Webster defines a visionary as not

founded on fact, imaginary, and impractical, having

idealistic goals or aims incapable of realization.

He had the uncanny ability to take something that was

idealistic and incapable of realization and make it real.

Thus was born the Chelmsford Sewer Project. People told him

that it was impractical, it would cost too much, and it would

bring too much growth to this suburban community of

Chelmsford. It would change life as people knew it. Jack, in

his own inevitable way took up the challenge and for four

long years he went on cable TV to every church, synagogue,

civic group, or gathering of two or more people, to sell the

town on the sewer project. In 1984, town meeting rewarded his

efforts and appropriated the first funds for the project by a

unanimous vote then again in 1985, 1987, 1989 and 1996.

Jack, although small in stature, pursued this project with

the vigor of a small army.

He had the boundless energy, as seen by the different

positions he held throughout his political and non-political

activities. Jack was elected to the Sewer Commission in 1980.

He became a selectman in 1982; his mom was so proud of him

at that accomplishment that she would introduce Jack to

everyone she met, this is my son ``the selectman.'' He is and

will continue to be Chairman of the Chelmsford Sewer

Commission. He holds the distinction of being the longest

continuous serving chairman of any board in the town of

Chelmsford.

At one time in the mid eighties, Jack was the Chairman of

the Board of Selectmen, Chairman of the Sewer Commission, and

Assistant Director of Public Health in the same year. You

could say he had the whole town wrapped up in his hands. Jack

was on the Board of Registrars, Dog Pound Committee, Town

Meeting Representative, Lowell Regional Transit Authority

Board, and member of the Chelmsford Elks, Advisory Board of

Camp Paul and Good Friends Incorporated, and Catholic

Charities. How Jack did all this is beyond comprehension. The

only solution I can find is it must have been his mom's

chicken soup that kept him going. (She made the best.)

I first met John Patrick Emerson, Jr. (known affectionately

by his friends as ``the Flea'') in Jack's Diner. I started

going there when I first moved to town, (yes, I am a blow-in,

but so was Jack--he moved here from Lowell in the fifties, so

I feel I am in good company.) I would go in for my morning

coffee and happen to sit next to this man who was holding

court, discussing politics and this sewer project. It was

Jack Emerson. He introduced himself, we talked, and the rest

was history. We enjoyed each other's company and over the

years we became best of friends.

I learned more about Jack's passion to establish a sewer

program for the town of Chelmsford and how he felt the need

to help people less fortunate than himself. Jack convinced me

to run for the sewer commission in 1984 and we have been

together since that first campaign.

Speaking of politics, some people may be surprised to know

Jack Emerson was a Democrat (as was his Dad before him and

presently his brothers Packy and Danny and his sister Ellen,

although Jack would say Ellen's politics were even further to

the left than his.) Jack was as passionate about his politics

as he was about helping people. Jack would rather cast a

ballot for a yellow dog before he would vote for anyone who

was not a Democrat.

Although he was a Democrat, he did transcend party lines

when it came to helping the people of Chelmsford.

He was a master at reading people and situations. Before

going to town meetings for a crucial vote on the project,

Jack would say ``all we have to do is be up front with the

voters, if we tell them the facts and are honest and tell the

why, we should have no problem, they will give you the vote

we need and you know they did. That philosophy has held fast

throughout Jack's career and is still held by his friends on

the commission.

In 1996, Jack walked up to the town meeting floor

microphone and said he needed forty-nine million dollars to

proceed with the project and that if need be, he was prepared

to give a lengthy presentations to show them how it would be

used. In three minutes the motion was seconded and passed

unanimously. That was Jack; prepared, truthful, trustworthy.

In his earlier years, Jack was a mason or as he would say,

a bricky. (Jack belonged to local 31 in Lowell) He was a

strong union man (as was his dad). Whenever Jack ran for

political office he would make sure that the union bugs would

appear on all his literature and anyone he backed for

political office must have the union bug on their literature

as well or got his wrath.

Jack was a good listener, he read a lot, he always updated

himself on current events, he was also, to say the least, an

impatient driver.

When I say Jack was a good listener I mean he would

evaluate the situation, ask the right questions and decide on

the approach on how to handle the problem. As someone said to

me the other say, if you called Jack Emerson with a problem,

you knew he would take care of it.

Jack would read the papers and political journals and the

project contracts. He would go over the contracts with a fine

tooth comb and inevitably would find errors. Whether it was

misspelled words, wrong sentence structure, or pricing

errors. Jack was involved in all aspects of the project.

Wherever we went Jack had to drive, it was like his

security blanket. If you have ever driven with him, you know

it is quite an experience. No need to call it road rage, just

``Jack'' rage. Thankfully, we all survived.

I have given you some of the background of Jack Emerson the

man, some of which you already know, some you might have read

in the newspapers. Now I want to tell you about something you

may not know about Jack Emerson the Person.

I had the privilege and honor of being his friend for 26

years; we talked or saw each other almost everyday. So I can

talk from experience.

You know anyone that loved animals had to be a good person.

Jack loved his dogs. Through the years he had 6 dogs, Cocoa,

Cory, Courtney, Toto, Chelsea and Commish. He loved them, but

his all time favorite was Cocoa. They were so close that when

Jack developed Pancreatitis, so did Cocoa. Cocoa is the first

dog in the country, or maybe even the world to have a pump

station named after him. The Cocoa Emerson Pump Station

located next to the town dog pound on Old North Road.

In 1959, Jack graduated Chelmsford High School where he had

many friends, though none as close as Sam Parks, Paul

Lehayes, and Bobby Hughes. They remain close friends to this

day.

Jack's charity knew no bounds, whether it was giving to the

Secret Santa Fund, or being his own Santa by adopting a

family at Christmas, or Thanksgiving. His charity did not

stop all year long; he was involved with Good Friends, Inc.,

Camp Paul and Catholic charities. He was most affected when

children were involved. Jack was the most caring and giving

person I have ever met.

He was a fun loving person with sharp with and a keen sense

of humor. He loved music from the fifties and sixties; it was

one of his passions. On one occasion he had the radio on in

the wagon playing ``Tuti Fruti Alaroody''. I asked him how he

liked the type of music the kids of today enjoy. He said hard

rock, rap, and heavy metal just don't make any sense, so I

said Tuti Fruti Alaroody does, we both had a laugh over that.

Jack had many talents, one of them being dancing. I think

if he had a second vocation, he would have been a dance

instructor. He loved dancing. Once he got on the dance floor

and started his feet moving, he would dance all night.

Jack was an avid golfer as are his two brothers. He was a

member of Mt. Pleasant Golf Club for over 30 years. He and

his brothers would often play in tournaments. When

Jack, George and Danny were playing golf together, you might

think World War III had broken out. Its amazing to me they

all survived. On the golf course they were fierce

competitors, but off they had each other's love and

admiration. One year at Mt. Pleasant, Jack and Briana entered

the father-daughter golf tournament and came in first. Jack

thought he had another natural golfer in the Emerson family.

Briana breaking with Emerson tradition decided to take up

dance instead of golf and Jack supported her in that

endeavor.

He was devoted to his family, his mom Betty and his dad

John Sr., he loved his brothers; Charlie, Packy and Danny

(Dennis) and his sister Ellen. He loved all his nieces,

nephews and cousins. If they needed a helping hand, Jack was

there and they were there for Jack.

I mentioned how he loved children, well Briana, Joe Maher

and I had the great honor of being with your father in the

hospital when you were born, all you had to do was look at

his face and you could see his excitement and energy. When

the nurse came in and said ``Mr. Emerson, you're a daddy''

Jack jumped out of his chair and ran down the hall to see his

beautiful baby daughter. Briana, you are the light of his

life, he loved you so much. He would talk about your dance

recitals and especially the last one he saw you perform. He

was really not up to par that night, but he knew he wanted to

see you dance again.

You have grown up to be a beautiful young lady with the

compassion and love that was part of your father. You now

carry the banner for dad. And as you grow up and have

children of your own, I know the legacy he has left will be

carried forward.

One evening Peggy's brother, Connie Stone, brought his

friend home, by the name of John Emerson. Connie introduced

his sister to John and it started a relationship that lasted

40 years. Peggy, what can I say, your devotion to Jack was

unquestionable; you have been Jack's backbone. At times it

was very difficult for you, through all his ups and downs

with his health, but I know Jack loved you and adored you;

you were his wife, his friend and his nurse. I often told

Jack that he married a saint. He would retort, ``Barry, what

are you talking about.'' I would tell him ``who else would

put up with you but a saint.'' He would say ``you know,

you're right.'' Peggy, you have a beautiful daughter who you

have nurtured into a wonderful young woman and I know you

will look forward to the day that you tell you grandchildren

all about their grandfather the selectman.

You cannot put down in words what Jack Emerson has meant to

this community, his family, his friends and the people he has

helped along the way. Jack Emerson leaves a legacy that few

people can claim. He started a project that few people

thought would succeed, and because of his tenacity, it has

succeeded, And along the way his success was recognized at

the local and national levels.

He was awarded the collection systems by the New England

Environmental Association in 1994. In 1995 the national

organization, Water Environmental Association presented him

with the national award in New Orleans. He was voted man of

the year for his accomplishments by the Chelmsford Chapter of

the Elks. In 2000 he was voted into the Chelmsford Hall of

Fame. On October thirtieth of this year, at an emotional

ceremony, Jack had just been released from the hospital the

day before; he was recognized by his fellow Democrats and

received the Greater Lowell Area Distinguished Democrat

award. His legacy lives on in his wife, daughter, friends and

the people of Chelmsford.

If they gave out awards for Mr. Chelmsford it would be to

Jack. If they had a hall of fame for good people, Jack would

be your first choice. If they gave out a friend of the year

award, Jack's name would be on the plaque. And if they gave

out awards for devoted husband and father, Jack would be the

first in line.

Well my friend, you have come to the end of a long hard

fought journey. You put up the good fight as always. It's

time for us to say so long, but not goodbye. You will be able

to rest knowing that what you started will be carried on. We,

your community will watch over Peggy and Briana, as I am sure

you will be watching over us. Say hello to your mom, dad,

brother Charlie, and all your friends who are with you. I

know if God needs a waste water system, you'll be the guy to

start the project. So Mr. Chairman, you will be deeply missed

by all who knew you. I love you. So long old friend.

Peggy has asked me to read a prayer that Jack liked. It was

read at his dear friend Ira Park's mass:

I'd like the memory of me to be a happy one

I'd like to leave an afterglow of smiles when life is done

I'd like to leave an echo Whispering softly down the ways,

Of happy times and laughing times and bright sunny days

I'd like the tears of those who Grieve, to dry before the sun

Of happy memories that I leave When life is done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Coretta Scott King, wife of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and a guiding force of the modern civil rights movement in her own right.

Just seventeen days ago we honored the birthday of her husband and celebrated January 16th as a national holiday in his honor. It would be too easy to remember Mrs. King simply as the wife of Dr. King, one of this country's great 20th century leaders. To do this would be a disservice to the memory of a champion of civil and equal rights in her own right.

Coretta Scott King began her long career of civic engagement as an undergraduate at Antioch College where she joined the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

After graduating from Antioch with a B.A. in music and education, Coretta Scott received a scholarship to study concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in my home state of Massachusetts. While there she met her future husband, Martin Luther King Jr.

After receiving her degree from the Conservatory, she and Dr. King moved to Montgomery, Alabama. It was here that she and her husband became central figures in the Montgomery Bus Boycott and ultimately, the civil rights movement.

Following the success of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Dr. and Mrs. King traveled tirelessly to ensure that the civil rights movement continued to grow. Mrs. King's talent and education in the arts led her to conceive of and perform a series of Freedom Concerts which incorporated poetry, narration, and music to tell the story of the larger movement for equal rights. These concerts were vital in the fundraising efforts for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the organization her husband headed.

Mrs. King was not deterred by her husband's assassination, and if anything this tragic event strengthened her resolve in their shared struggle. In 1974, she established the Full Employment Action Council, a diverse coalition of more than 100 religious, labor, civil, and women's rights groups dedicated to economic justice through equal opportunity.

In 1983, Coretta Scott King marked the 20th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington with another march on the Capitol featuring hundreds of organizations called the ``Coalition of Conscience.'' At the time it was the largest demonstration in Washington's history.

Mrs. King led the movement to have her husband's birthday, January 15th, established as a federal holiday and I am happy to say that Congress and the President acted on the merit of Coretta Scott King's wish and established Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a national holiday in 1986.

While we are truly saddened at her passing, we are given pause to contemplate the impact she made during her lifetime on our lives and those of future generations. The freedoms all Americans enjoy today are due in no small part to her participation in the struggle for civil rights and equality.

Mr. Speaker, let us celebrate the achievements of this remarkable woman's lifetime and work to ensure that her legacy endures long after her passing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support comprehensive lobbying reform. Over the past few years special interests have had a larger and larger say over who gets what in America, and the voices of average citizens are being shut out.

The worst excesses of the Congress of the 1980s pale in comparison with what is going on in Washington today. K Street has become Congress' back office. That is where the bills are written and the deals are made. Lobbyists from the energy companies wrote the energy bill to increase their already excessive profits, and lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry wrote the prescription drug bill that actually makes it illegal for the Federal Government to buy drugs in bulk for the 40 million Americans who are on Medicare.

Sadly, today's proposal does nothing to address the abuses of power that have allowed lobbyists unfettered access to government. Something barring former lawmakers, current lobbyists form the gym or the floor of the House and calling it lobbying reform is sort of like putting a Band-aid on a broken leg. It does not even begin to address the real problems that have allowed the system to get so out of control.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on bipartisan lobbying reform, but it is seems to me pretty clear that we need real lobbying reform. There is no reason why, given the discussions we have been having across the Capitol over a period of 6 or 8 months now, why we cannot come in with a comprehensive proposal and have an opportunity to debate it.

We need to make the process more transparent, through disclosure. We need to have tougher restrictions on gifts. We need a tougher enforcement program and, most importantly, we need to fix the badly broken ethics system. So it seems to me if we are really committed to reforming the House, then putting this Band-aid really does not get at the crux of the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear all of that, but the crux of the issue here is that there is no way that not allowing former Members, for example, to be in the gym and to be on the floor would have undone what was done in the energy bill, for example. There is no way that that would stop the $8 billion of tax credits for the oil industry. There is no way that we would not have passed a Medicare prescription drug bill that actually makes it illegal to buy prescriptions in bulk if somehow former Members were not allowed to come to the floor.

All I am saying is, while I recognize the fact that this is one of the ideas that is out there, we really need to, and I am willing to sit down, I would love to work with the majority on this, but we need to have comprehensive reform.

Mr. Speaker, I am worried that by taking little pieces here that sound like could be, might be some kind of reform, we miss the crux of the issue, which is changing that system that allows legislation at 3 o'clock in the morning and a vote is left open.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Steve Belichick (1919-2005): an Authentic Coach and Father.

There have been many great images from the New England Patriots dynasty. Tom Brady embracing his teammates after yet another fourth- quarter touchdown. Adam Vinatieri raising his hands after yet another game-winning kick. The Krafts hugging one another after yet another Super Bowl victory.

But the image that might stand out the most is the Gatorade-dousing of Bill and Steve Belichick moments before the Patriots would defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XXXIX. For many New Englanders, it was the first time they had seen Steve Belichick--the man who every New Englander would like to thank for fathering and mentoring the best coach in football.

And like in his 33-year career as an assistant coach at the U.S. Naval Academy, Steve Belichick would need someone else to draw our attention to him, even at a moment of extraordinary personal success. He was his son's role model, and his son was on the verge of coaching the Patriots to an unprecedented third Super Bowl victory in 4 years. It was a moment that any father would savor, and likely in a way that others would detect.

But Steve Belichick never sought public attention recognition of his work, be it his innovative game-plans, exceptional scouting reports, or the invaluable lessons he taught his accomplished son. Instead, he craved the background, the behind-the-scenes world unseen to fans and media, and the world where he would consistently win the high praise of those ``in the know.'' And like any truly substantive professional, Steve Belichick would take enormous personal satisfaction in obtaining the respect of his peers--the very respect that would often elude more celebrated coaches.

Doubtless for that reason, Steve Belichick had remained out of our sight until the camera caught others showering him and son in victory. It is much the same reason why Bill Belichick often deflects praise and attention. It is simply not the Belichick way of doing things.

When Steve Belichick passed away on November 19, 2005 at the age of 86, it was fitting that we remember him as reluctantly tasting success. And it was fitting that he be with his son.

It can be said that a father always dreams of being less accomplished than his own child, because there is no greater accomplishment for any father.

It is a lesson that Steve Belichick has taught us well.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is trying to add to the Defense authorization bill a controversial piece of legislation by Mr. Pence that would blow the lid off the Campaign Finance Reform Act that Republicans and Democrats joined together to support and pass into law and that President Bush signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, this country is at war. We need a Defense authorization bill to assist the men and women who are serving our Armed Forces. We have reached an agreement on that bill to help our troops; and now, at the last minute, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee wants to take a controversial piece of campaign finance reform legislation and insert it into that bill.

He was exposed by the other Chamber. The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee took the floor and condemned it; and now he still wants to add this legislation, controversial legislation, against the public interest. He wants to attach it to a Defense bill at a time when this country is at war.

Surely we can do better on this holiday weekend. It is despicable, and I hope this leadership stands up to this. This is one of the worst things I have ever seen this Republican leadership do, A piece of controversial legislation to a Defense bill at a time of war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard P. Howe for his 40 years of public service to the City of Lowell. Richard P. Howe is a community leader, political activist, and dear friend.

The story of the city of Lowell is a cycle of rise and decline, a constant struggle to revive and then maintain the local economy and to always improve the quality of life of its residents. During the past decade, Lowell has been in the ascent. The fully occupied Cross Point office towers, a rejuvenated downtown symbolized by the Bon Marche building, a newly constructed ballpark and arena, and 10 new schools are the symbols of Lowell's resurgence. Many people contributed to the success of these projects. There is one person, however, whose leadership was critical to each of these projects and that is City Councilor Richard P. Howe.

First elected in 1965, Howe's electoral accomplishments alone would identify him as having great impact on the revitalization of the city of Lowell. Tonight marks the end of a 40-year career on the Lowell City council. He has been mayor 4 times (8 years) and a city councilor for longer than anyone else in the city's history.

During the first half of his career, Howe's campaign slogan was ``Keep a strong voice in city government.'' On that note, he never let his constituents down. While his critics--not coincidentally the targets of his pointed questions and critical comments--called him an obstructionist, the voters saw it differently, reelecting him repeatedly by comfortable margins. The time of Howe's fiercest political battles was also the time of his greatest electoral success, topping the ticket on four occasions.

Finishing first once again in the 1987 elections, Howe was unanimously elected mayor in January 1988. In a January 9, 1988 Sun article entitled ``Richard Howe: From political outcast to elder statesman'' Terry Williams called the veteran councilor's election as mayor ``perhaps the most remarkable turnabout in recent Lowell history.'' Williams, however, ended with a question:

But will Howe, who made a career as a critic, be

``comfortable'' in his new role? And more importantly, will

he be as effective as a leader as he was a dissident? The

answer is critical to Lowell's future.

Events of the past 17 years have answered that question in the affirmative.

The first test of Howe's leadership abilities came within days, when the new mayor attended a hearing in the United States District Court in Boston. Judge Robert Keeton was about to place the city's schools under Federal control in response to a suit brought by the parents of minority students who alleged segregation and unequal treatment in Lowell's schools. Acceding to Howe's plea that, having just taken office, he needed some time to address the problem, the judge delayed the takeover. After numerous meetings, a city team led by Howe negotiated a settlement of the suit that prevented the Federal takeover. As a result of this desegregation settlement the city was able to secure funding for 10 new schools, making the physical plant of its school system the envy of every community in the State.

The city council ratified Howe's leadership by again electing him mayor in 1990, the first time in Lowell's history that a mayor served consecutive terms.

School desegregation was not the only problem that made this period a turbulent one. The influx of 30,000 Southeast Asian immigrants strained the city's resources to the breaking point. During this period, Howe made frequent trips to Washington where he persuaded Senator Edward M. Kennedy to secure additional funds for the city to ease the strain. More importantly, Howe's principled and practical approach to Lowell's newest immigrants set the example for the rest of the city. The relatively smooth and rapid integration of an enormous population of new comers into Lowell's fabric is a remarkable and under appreciated story.

Economic difficulty returned, however. Banks were seized by the FDIC, foreclosures abounded, and Wang filed for bankruptcy. City government faced a $14 million deficit. The city council of 1992-93 seemed powerless--or unwilling--to respond. That all changed with the election of November 1993 when the voters elected 6 new city councilors. They, in turn, elected Richard Howe mayor.

Mayor Howe played a major role in putting together the city council votes necessary to construct the Paul E. Tsongas Arena and Edward LeLacheur Field. No one played a greater role in securing an arena for Lowell than Paul Tsongas. But Tsongas, whose first vote on the Lowell City Council in January 1970 was to elect Richard Howe mayor, realized that unless you get a majority vote of the city council, no project would succeed. He also realized that Richard Howe, through the strength of his personality and the wisdom of his experience, had an unsurpassed ability to put those votes together.

While votes on the arena and baseball park are better known, Howe's leadership proved critical to the success of two other and equally important projects during this term. The city and the region were shocked when the Wang Towers were sold at auction for only $525,000. Renaming the complex Cross Point, the new owners needed the city's help--in the form of a $4 million letter of credit--to land Nynex as its anchor tenant. Viewed in light of Cross Point's subsequent sale in 1998 for $110 million, the vote on the letter of credit could be viewed as a ``no brainer.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth, however, because the vote to extend the letter of credit faced substantial opposition and succeeded only because of Howe's decisive leadership on the floor of the city council.

This scenario was replayed with the Bon Marche renovations. That building, long the anchor of downtown, had stood vacant and decaying for years until two local residents proposed its redevelopment. The finances would not work without city government providing a major tenant. In spite of strong opposition by some members of the school committee, Howe persuaded a majority of that board to lease two floors of the building for the school department headquarters, and convinced the city council to pay a portion of the rent. Bon Marche was a success, winning an award for historic preservation; it has resumed its former prominence in downtown Lowell.

In Lowell, during the past 40 years, Richard P. Howe has been a strong and independent voice in city government. Cross Point, the Bon Marche building, the Tsongas Arena, LeLacheur Field, and 10 new schools are monuments to his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican tax bill.

As we approach the end of the year, I wonder `How will this year be remembered?' For the deepening quagmire in Iraq? Will we remember 2005 as a year of hardships? For Katrina, for Rita?

Certainly this has been a year of great economic difficulties for low and middle income families. The poorest residents of the gulf coast were most affected by the devastating hurricanes, and the poorest Americans have shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden in Iraq.

The Republican tax bill is just another example of the disdain the Majority in Congress has for its low and middle income citizens. Recently, this Congress cut Food Stamps, student loans, child support and Medicaid.

Now the Administration is rewarding the rich. In the proposed tax cuts, over 50% of the Capital Gains and Dividends Rate Cut will benefit people who make more than one million dollars. The 55% of American households that make less than $40,000 will get a tax break of only $7 while the households that make more than $1 million will receive an average tax break of $32,000.

I support responsible spending, and balancing the budget, but this tax cut and the budget cuts of last month accomplish neither of these goals. In fact, these bills will actually increase the deficit by $16 billion. And at what benefit? So that some of our wealthiest citizens can save a few extra dollars?

President Bush has gone on the offensive. He is touting an improved economy by pointing to job statistics from this most recent quarter. But the economy is not improving where we need it to. Middle class Americans are worse off than they were 4 years ago. The average two- earner family needs to work more to pay for health care, housing, college, and transportation than they did in 2001.

Middle class families are forced to work more and save less. This means less time to spend with family and less money to put away for retirement.

This is not how I want to remember 2005. I don't want to remember 2005 as a year that the government heaped unnecessary burdens upon American families. Stealing from the poor and middle class and giving to the rich, while increasing the deficit, is hardly responsible. I urge you to vote no on the Republican tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, in the wake of September 11, Congress passed the PATRIOT Act to provide law enforcement new tools to protect America from terrorism. The bill was a rushed response and passed in an urgent hour.

Fortunately, the bill included sunset provisions, allowing Congress to revisit the law, reflect on its implementation, and fix those parts of the law that have clearly become overreaching. Four years later, Congress has failed to seize the opportunity to do so.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the leadership's attempt to irresponsibly rush another flawed bill into law.

Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us instead strike the right balance between our national security and our constitutional rights.

At a time when so much of the world questions our commitment to our own values, I urge my colleagues to show the American people and the world that we will defend our country, but that we will do so in a way that protects those rights that make it worth defending.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, in the other body, the junior member from Massachusetts delivered compelling remarks about Congressman Murtha. I believe that it would be to the benefit of all of my colleagues to hear Senator Kerry's comments.

Yesterday, Jack Murtha, a respected congressman on military

matters, and former Marine Drill Sergeant and decorated

Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. He didn't

come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and spoke his

heart out of love for his country and support for our troops.

I am not going to stand for a swift boat attack strategy

against Jack Murtha.

It disgusts me that a bunch of guys who have never put on

the uniform of their country venomously turn their guns on a

marine who served his country heroically in Vietnam and has

been serving heroically in Congress ever since.

No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner

stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack

Murtha's character and conscience.

Dennis Hastert--the Speaker of the House who never served--

called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut

and run. Well let me tell you, Jack Murtha wasn't a coward

when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam

and earned two purple hearts--he was a patriot then, and he

is a patriot today. Jack Murtha didn't cut and run when his

courage in combat earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice

should be heard, not silenced by those who still today cut

and run from the truth.

Just a day after Dick Cheney, who had 5 deferments from

Vietnam, accused Democrats of being unpatriotic--the White

House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served

37 years in the Marine Corps. He doesn't know how to

surrender--not to enemy combatants, and not to politicians in

Washington who say speaking his conscience is unpatriotic.

Robert Kennedy once said, `The sharpest criticism often

goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of

country.' Chuck Hagel showed he hasn't forgotten that when he

said, `The Bush administration must understand that each

American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and

should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.' But too

many in the Republican Party forgot that long ago. They

forgot that asking tough questions isn't pessimism; it's

patriotism.

We've seen the politics of fear and smear too many times.

Whenever challenged, Republican leaders engage in the

politics of personal destruction rather than debate the

issues. It doesn't matter who you are. When they did it to

John McCain, we saw it doesn't matter what political party

you're in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw it doesn't

matter if your service put you in a wheelchair. And when they

did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected

voice on military matters in all of Congress, we saw that

this administration will go to any lengths to crush any

dissent.

Once again, they're engaged in the lowest form of smear and

fear politics because they're afraid of actually debating a

senior congressman who has advised presidents of both parties

on how to best defend our country. They're afraid to debate a

decorated veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our

troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent

our brave troops to war without body armor. They're terrified

of actually leveling with the American people about the way

they misled America into war, and admitting they have no

clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if so many of these Iraqis are ready to come up and to provide the security, the police work in the country, then surely there should be no problem with putting American forces into the background instead of having them up front.

The reality is that we have missed a lot of opportunities in Iraq because of a failed policy. Our own State Department polls say that 80 percent of Iraqis view the United States as an unpopular occupier. That is right, an occupier. Forty-five percent of Iraqi citizens think it is morally okay to attack American troops. So if, in fact, Iraqis are ready to keep security in their own country, surely now is the time to let them do that.

We should have had, as General Shinseki said, more security forces in from the beginning. He said a few hundred thousand troops. And if we had had them there, maybe we could have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people from the beginning when Saddam Hussein fell. But the Pentagon and the civilian leadership thought General Shinseki did not know what he was talking about and they put him out to pasture. But the truth is, he knew what he was talking about.

There have been other mistakes made. In April of last year, the shocking photographic evidence of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib became public. In an instant, America's new image in the war on terror was published around the world with photos of Iraqi prisoners being subjected to cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment.

A report by Major General Antonio Taguba found ``numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses,'' constituting ``systematic and illegal abuse of detainees'' at Abu Ghraib. And, unfortunately, Abu Ghraib is only the most publicized case of torture in Iraq.

Regrettably, it has become clear that torture of detainees in United States custody is not limited to Abu Ghraib or even Iraq. Since Abu Ghraib, there have been increasing reports of torture. Most recently, The Washington Post broke a story of secret CIA detention centers around the globe where prisoners were being sent for questioning.

Under the leadership of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the United States has given up the moral high ground that we used to occupy as an international leader.

Last month, President Bush defended U.S. interrogation practices, proclaiming, ``We do not torture.'' However, he has refused to back up these words. Instead, he and his administration have vehemently opposed a provision that would specifically prohibit the use of torture as official U.S. protocol.

They supported legislation that would strip the right of detainees being held by the United States to the writ of habeas corpus, an 800- year-old legal procedure grounded in the Magna Carta. Instead of denouncing torture is never acceptable, the administration seems to continually be looking for exceptions to the rule.

In the now-infamous ``torture memo,'' along with other documents, the Justice Department sought to carve out an increasingly narrow definition of detention. Instead of firing administration officials, like Alberto Gonzales, who referred to the Geneva Convention as ``quaint'' and ``obsolete,'' we have a President who promoted him to the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America, Attorney General.

By accepting this behavior, the Bush administration has not only hurt America's credibility around the world; but it has put our soldiers at risk.

I have joined forces with a number of my colleagues to try to change this course. However, the leadership in this body has kept us from being heard. We have tried to obtain documents related to Federal investigations of detainee abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo; but our efforts have been shut down by the majority in this body.

Mr. Speaker, 173 Members of this body have signed onto the Waxman legislation to establish an independent commission to investigate these abuses; but nearly 6 months after being introduced, this bill languishes in committee without even a hearing from the majority.

President Bush and the majority did not want the independent 9/11 Commission. They have also opposed independent commissions to investigate the Federal response to Hurricane Katrina. But just like the revelations that came from the 9/11 Commission, an independent investigation into our detainee policy would help us all in the end.

It is time to investigate these abuses. It is never too late to regain our credibility around the world. I call on my colleagues to stand up against torture by standing firm to the belief that the United States has held for generations, that no individual in U.S. custody be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, any time, any place, anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the Republican budget bill.

Unfortunately, this bill is just another example of the disdain that this administration and this Congress has shown for the most vulnerable in our society. While the wealthy are lavished with tax cuts, critical social services are being reduced.

Under the guise of offsetting the costs of Katrina and deficit reduction, House Republicans are severely cutting important programs that millions of Americans rely on for education, health care, and poverty alleviation. The $50 billion in Republican cuts will have a devastating impact on families across America and in my home State of Massachusetts.

At the same time, Republicans are pushing a $70 billion tax package that will overwhelmingly benefit the most wealthy Americans and actually increases the deficit by $16 billion.

Now, I support the idea of shared sacrifice but the only sacrifice in this bill is by those that need our government's support the most: $14.3 billion, cut from student loans; $11.4 billion, cut from Medicaid; $4.9 billion, cut from child support; $844 million, cut from food stamps.

Republicans will cut student loan funding by $14.3 billion. This represents the largest single cut in the history of the student aid program at a time when the cost of tuition has risen 28 percent at public colleges and 17 percent at private colleges in the last five years.

In my home State of Massachusetts there are 172,640 student loan borrowers. Under the Republican plan, the average student borrower in Massachusetts, with $17,500 in loans will be forced to pay an additional $5,800.

The Republican budget bill cuts of $11.4 billion from Medicaid. This $11.4 billion cut includes $6.5 billion in cuts that are borne directly by Medicaid enrollees--who include low-income children and seniors, as well as individuals with disabilities.

Massachusetts ranks 12th in the country for Medicaid enrollment with over 1.2 million enrollees. The cuts would harm millions of low-income people across the U.S. and thousands in Massachusetts who rely on Medicaid for health coverage.

Child support enforcement will be cut by $4.9 billion. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that this will result in reducing child support collections by $24.1 billion over the next 10 years.

Experts agree that child support is a cost effective way of reducing poverty. In 2002, 1 million Americans were lifted out of poverty through child support payments. For every $1 spent on child support enforcement programs, $4.38 in child support is collected.

Massachusetts would lose $88 million in Federal support over 5 years, rising to $282 million over 10 years. The estimated loss in child support collections would be $140 million over 5 years, rising to $428 million over 10 years.

Nearly 250,000 Massachusetts children currently receive child support enforcement services. This will have a devastating effect on the Commonwealth's children who live in single-parent families.

Finally, this bill as originally drafted would cut food stamps by $844 million and will result in over 200,000 people losing assistance.

Where are our priorities when we put tax cuts for the wealthy above the elderly, low income families, students, and children?

Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget bill.

Mr. Speaker, I seek to manage the time allocated for the opposition to the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House bill 1606. This legislation, under the guise of protecting bloggers, actually undercuts the progress made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and reopens the floodgates of corrupting soft money in Federal elections.

I also rise in opposition to this legislation being considered on the suspension calendar when it is so clearly a

controversial matter on which there has never been a committee markup for members to offer amendments and, under the rules, we cannot offer amendments here today.

The debate today is about what is the best way to approach coordinated expenditures that are campaign-related on the Internet. We all understand that the Internet is a wonderful tool for political activity. Its accessibility and generally low cost are invigorating to the body politic. I belong to moveon.org. I read my e-mails every time they are up. But, by the same token, its increased usage by candidates and parties and the increased resources being put into this technology for campaign advertising suggest that we need to be cautious about attempts to exempt all Internet activity from Federal campaign finance laws.

Let me say a couple of words about bloggers, because bloggers have generated and received a lot of attention here. No one wants to regulate bloggers, not the campaign finance reformers, not the Democrats, not the Republicans, not the Federal Election Commission. That is clear. The question is whether to exempt individual speech, as I have proposed, or create blanket exemptions for entities as varied as labor unions and major corporations who make soft money contributions at the behest of candidates, on behalf of candidates, and at the direction of candidates.

That is why The New York Times editorialized yesterday in opposition to H.R. 1606, and they argued that the bill uses freedom of speech as a fig leaf.

The issue here is not individual speech. The issue is corrupting soft money. The primary constitutional basis for campaign finance regulation is preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption of candidates or officeholders. Creating a new way for Members of Congress or the Cabinet to solicit and then coordinate or control unlimited amounts of soft money is precisely the scenario campaign finance reform banned.

We are talking about legislators. For example, let us say we had a prescription drug bill that was written by the pharmaceutical industry. This Congress could pass that bill in the middle of the night, and then Members of Congress who passed the bill could actually ask those same pharmaceutical interests to write six-figure checks for campaign ads for them to appear on the Internet.

But let me give another example. What could happen is you could have an energy bill, provisions of which were written by the oil and gas industry. Let us say a company like Exxon, as a result of it, had the highest profits they have ever had, record profits because of gasoline prices going out of control. The same people who advocated for that energy bill that Exxon supported could go to Exxon and say, could you use some of those profits to support my campaign with a massive online campaign ad buy.

This is no minor affair. This is a major unraveling of the law.

As Senators McCain and Feingold have made clear, this is not free speech, this is paid speech, politically paid for with unlimited corporate and union contributions.

It is important to note that the bill under consideration today uses the exact same language that the FEC tried and that a Federal court struck down. The judge in that case, Colleen Kollar-Kottelly, wrote that the provisions would ``permit rampant circumvention of the campaign finance laws and foster corruption.'' She went on to say that the provision would ``severely undermine'' the campaign finance law. Her rulings have gone before the D.C. Court of Appeals twice, and they have been upheld.

Just days ago, a CNN poll found that the American people believe that corruption in government is the second most important issue facing this Nation after the economy. The American people are tired of the scandals.

We are considering today a bill that flies in the face of public concerns about corruption and is likely to create new corruption and new scandals. The bill that we are considering will also allow political parties to use soft money to pay for Internet ads bashing candidates.

Experience teaches us that professionals who are political will find ways to exploit any perceived loopholes. For example, the national party soft-money loophole started as a minor blip in the 1980s and exploded into a half a billion-dollar binge by the 2000 cycle. Corporations and billionaires will be enabled to pay for Internet- related expenses of requesting candidates or requesting parties, and the public will not have a clue where this money comes from, because virtually all they will see is the Internet advertising designed and created by candidates.

That is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Common Cause, opposed by Public Citizen, opposed by U.S. PIRG, opposed by Democracy 21, and opposed by the League of Women Voters. That is why The Washington Post editorialized this week that this would be carving a huge cyber-loophole in the soft money ban. That is why The New York Times said yesterday, ``make no mistake about it. This bill is to protect political bagmen, not bloggers.''

In protecting bloggers, we need to approach this the right way, and this bill is the wrong way.

I have introduced a bill with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) called the Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection Act of 2005. Under this legislation, communications over the Internet by individuals on their own Web sites would be treated the same as they are in H.R. 1606. But our substitute, which we cannot allow today, we are not allowed to present, would not blow open the same gaping loophole for paid advertising.

Unfortunately, because the leadership has chosen to bring this up under a suspension of the rules, we are unable to offer our substitute. The suspension calendar is for naming post offices and other noncontroversial matters. It is not a place to create new loopholes in the campaign finance laws. Limiting the democratic process and stifling the debate is an unacceptable way to undertake such an important matter of public policy. It is wrong to do so. It is unfair. It is an abuse of power.

So why are we rushing through this suspension? I urge my colleagues to oppose this suspension so that we might be able to have a full debate, including consideration of the Shays-Meehan alternative bill to protect bloggers, without creating new avenues for corruption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who knows and understands the rules and procedures of this institution as well as anyone who has ever served here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 35 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am a friend of the Internet. In fact, I sponsored legislation that would exempt bloggers from FEC legislation.

But the issue is how we draw the lines to balance. We do not exempt the Internet from laws controlling child pornography; we do not allow child pornography on the Internet. We do

not exempt the Internet from consumer safety laws. We do not exempt the Internet from intellectual property or copyright laws. We do not because we think those laws are important.

We wrestle with the details of unavoidable and unintended consequences. Why do we do the hard work of wading through the details? Because why would we do anything else? Why should we disregard the integrity of the political process?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I can appreciate the gentleman from California's consistency. He was opposed to campaign finance reform. On the floor, he said he was opposed to any limit. He would just as soon have no limits at all on any campaign finance. He thinks corporations should give.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a strong supporter of campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), who has been a courageous hero in the fight for campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, in this time when a cloud of scandal hangs over Washington, when the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States has been indicted for perjury, making false statements, when a top White House official is led away in handcuffs, indicted on charges of making false statements related to an investigation of his dealing with lobbyists, at a time when a top Republican lobbyist and fundraiser has been indicted for fraud, when that investigation is the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, and today over in the other body there is a hearing going on looking into possible other misdealings, at a time when the American people have indicated that they are fed up with scandals, how can this House support a bill that would open up new avenues for corruption to enter the political process?

The courts have clearly argued that the reason why you can limit campaign contributions is because of corruption and the appearance of corruption. Why would we take a step backwards from campaign finance reform and open up a loophole so big that you could drive a truck through it?

Finally, I keep hearing Senator Reid's name mentioned here. I want to assure you of something. If the Senate brings up this bill, they will get more than 20 minutes a side to discuss it. They will discuss it for as long as it needs to be discussed. That is what we should have done here.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Rosa Louise Parks, a woman whose life was exemplified by quiet courage, strength and conviction.

During her 92 years, Ms. Parks impressed all that all of us with a sense of the possible. It was possible to change Alabama segregation law by refusing to give up a bus seat, it was possible to change Jim Crow across America, and it was possible to do all this in a non- violent fashion.

Her refusal to rise from her seat and subsequent arrest led to the 381-day Montgomery Bus Boycott and to the eventual repeal of the segregation laws of the South. Her individual act of defiance is considered by many to be the beginning of the civil rights movement.

It would be easy to remember Rosa Parks solely for this event. However, her legacy is so much more. I will remember her as someone who was deeply committed to equality. I will remember her as someone who never sought out personal attention, yet whose great actions attracted admiration from all quarters. I will remember her as a role model and as a great American.

However, without a doubt the best way that we can honor the life of Rosa Parks is not by erecting monuments or parading up and down the main streets of American towns and cities. This is not to say that we shouldn't honor her in this manner, but rather, we should continue her life's work and try to live by the ideals that she shared with all of us.

We should encourage grassroots democracy for positive change in our districts. We should encourage non-violent action, to resist intolerance and discrimination much as Ms. Parks did. Above all, we should encourage Americans to continue the fight for civil rights and equality.

The freedoms we enjoy today are because of the sacrifice of exceptional individuals like Rosa Parks who stood up to oppression and changed history. But Rosa Parks's greatest legacy is that she taught generations that acts of courage can precipitate great change.

Let us celebrate the lifetime achievements of a truly remarkable woman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of October as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month. By increasing awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence, we hope that more victims come forward and make use of the services available to assist them.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice domestic violence is defined as, a pattern of coercive behavior designed to exert power and control over a person in an intimate relationship through the use of intimidating, threatening, harmful, or harassing behavior. Partners may be married or not married, heterosexual or homosexual, separated or dating.

Domestic violence is one of the most common and yet least talked about crimes. Nearly one in three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood. Approximately four million American women experience a serious assault by an intimate partner each year. Every fifteen seconds in the United States a woman is brutally battered by her partner and a woman is raped every six minutes. During the course of this speech, 15 women will be battered and another will be raped.

Children are also more likely to be abused in homes with domestic violence.

Violence is a learned behavior and children who are abused, or who witness domestic violence, are more likely to abuse their own partners or children, creating a cycle of violence that is difficult to break.

Domestic violence victims are not just those that have witnessed or been subjected to abuse. The impacts of abuse are felt by everyone in contact with the victim. It threatens the well-being of entire communities. Friends, family, co-workers, and communities are often called upon to help repair the lives shattered by domestic abuse.

I became active in the struggle against domestic violence long before I came to Washington. As a prosecutor in the Middlesex County DA's Office, I created priority prosecution policies to put the most violent domestic abusers behind bars. In my first term in Congress I became involved in this issue nationally as an original co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA. I remain committed to preventing domestic violence and providing victims with the support that they need to this day. I was an active participant in strengthening VAWA with the passage of VAWA in 2000 and I was a co-sponsor of the Debbie Smith Act of 2003, which will improve the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases by using DNA evidence. This bill was included in the Justice for All Act of 2004 and became law on October 30, 2004.

Sadly, we are not making as much progress as we need to on this issue. In fact, since 1974 the rate of assaults against women aged 20- 24 has increased almost 50 percent. We can and should do much more. We must continue to reach out to victims and restrain abusers. We need to craft stronger legislation and to change existing legislation to ensure that the protections and services included in VAWA extend to all our citizens.

As we recognize National Domestic Violence Awareness Month let us renew our dedication to protecting our Nation's women, men and children from one of the greatest threats to the social fabric of America.

Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I reluctantly support the BRAC recommendations today, and oppose this motion of disapproval pending before the House.

I support these recommendations because I believe that the goals of BRAC are worthy--to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency for both traditional warfighting and counterterrorist efforts. An integrated military force able to communicate and coordinate effectively in response to conflict remains crucial to national security and the war on terrorism.

I am concerned by technical errors and the overall process used by the Pentagon and the Base Realignment and Closure--BRAC--Commission to reach the recommendations before us this evening, and it is my hope that in the future, significant improvements will be made on the current model when realignment and closure decisions are made.

However, within the current model, there are some successes to which we can point. For instance, the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission rightly highlighted the key role that Hanscom Air Force Base, located in my congressional district, plays in our national security efforts.

The process reaffirmed Hanscom's role as the military's pre-eminent development center for communication and intelligence technologies. Hanscom will clearly play a central role as we transform our military in the coming decades.

In its decisions on Hanscom, the BRAC process recognized that the success or failure of a base in fulfilling its mission relies on the availability of skilled and experienced personnel and the connections that develop in intellectual clusters.

Unfortunately, the Commission wrongly decided to move an estimated 200 jobs from Hanscom's Air Force Research Lab--AFRL--Space and Sensors Directorates. Those functions are best left at Hanscom to maintain existing synergies and human capital.

When the BRAC Commission held their New England Regional Hearing in Boston on July 6, I submitted testimony to the commission arguing that the decision to realign the AFRL at Hanscom was inconsistent with other aspects of the Pentagon's analysis of Hanscom, and could disrupt key programs operating there. I am deeply disappointed by the commission's decision to move these Directorates from their home at Hanscom.

I am concerned that the recommendation to realign the AFRL did not appropriately value the highly skilled workforce currently at these facilities, and that the expertise of many of these employees will be lost as the recommendations are implemented. The relocation of AFRL's Sensors and Space Vehicles Directorates will result in significant costs with few gains.

While I strongly protest this decision, I am pleased that overall, the commission's recommendations on Hanscom reaffirmed the value of the regional human capital capabilities in science and technology--and I am encouraged by the commission's indication that the Air Force will look to expand the mission at Hanscom outside of the BRAC process. I look forward to working with the Air Force as this process takes shape.

With respect to the overall BRAC process, I am concerned by flaws in the current model that led to a number of errors. For instance, questions remain unanswered about the Pentagon's failure to consult with State governors, State adjutants general, and the Department of Homeland Security on decisions related to the National Guard and key homeland security functions located outside the Pentagon's bureaucracy. These questions resulted in lawsuits against the Pentagon and the BRAC Commission by a number of States, including my home State of Massachusetts.

Additionally, a lack of organization was evident during the commission's consideration of the possible expansion of Hanscom, as well as the commission's overall recommendations related to Otis Air Force Base at Cape Cod.

While I support the 2005 BRAC recommendations, I am deeply concerned that these types of errors set a bad precedent for future BRAC rounds. The Pentagon must ensure that the Department of Homeland Security and other relevant stakeholders are appropriately included in their process, and that our Nation's homeland security needs are fully evaluated.