Floor Statements

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects a survey error made in the 1960s. The landowners will be required to pay $20,000 for these two parcels. We have no objections to Congressman Gosar's legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have no other speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

H.R. 2157 provides for a land exchange between the United States Forest Service and the Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. We applaud Congressman McKeon for this legislation and support the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

This legislation provides commonsense access to maintain water facilities within the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness area. These water features were present prior to the congressional designation of Wilderness and are necessary to protect individual water rights in the State. We applaud Chairman Simpson for his legislation and support the passage of this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2947 releases a reversionary interest held by the United States to a parcel of land in Cook County, Minnesota. The release of this interest will allow Cook County to use this land for a local highway.

We have no objections to this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I rise in support of this legislation, and applaud Congressman Heinrich for his hard work. It is hard to reach consensus on these issues, and he has achieved that with this legislation.

With that, I yield such time as he may consume to Congressman Heinrich of New Mexico, this bill's sponsor.

We do not. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

(Ms. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

It is with great pleasure that I rise today in support of H.R. 2240, the Lowell National Historical Park Land Exchange Act.

This legislation will facilitate the exchange of land or interest in land between the city of Lowell and the Lowell National Historical Park.

In 1978, legislation was passed establishing this park. It was championed by my late husband as well as by two Republican Members of Congress who previously represented this district. We should take bipartisan pride in its great success.

This national park was given a unique mandate to not only preserve and interpret the resources representing Lowell's central role in our 19th century industrial revolution, but also to serve as a catalyst in revitalizing the city's physical, economic, and cultural environment, all outgrowths of the city's industrial heritage.

In working together with the city of Lowell, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many other public and private partners, the Lowell National Historical Park has played a vital role in rehabilitating over 400 structures and has since 1978 helped spur an estimated $1 billion in private investment in the city. All of this has been done while the park has developed a compelling array of programs, exhibits, guided tours, and other interpretive programs.

H.R. 2240 would allow the park and its partners to continue working to advance the park's mission to preserve the city's historic industrial architecture while creating jobs and continuing to partner with the city of Lowell to advance a critical economic development project, the Hamilton Canal District.

This legislation would most immediately allow the park to exchange a current surface parking lot for an equivalent number of spaces in a new garage that will be built by the city of Lowell adjacent to the present parking lot, guaranteeing necessary parking spaces for park visitors while freeing the surface parking lot for the incorporation into the Hamilton Canal District redevelopment.

On the space of the current parking lot and adjacent vacant property, the city, in working with private partners, plans to construct over 400,000 square feet of commercial and R&D space, generating as many as 1,600 jobs. As such, it is a critical piece in the master redevelopment plan for the area. This land exchange is supported by the Lowell National Historical Park, the city of Lowell, and all local stakeholders, and has received all major State permits and local zoning allowances.

Because the enabling law for the Lowell National Historical Park only provides for the park to receive additional land, it is not allowed to exchange land. This legislation would allow this mutually agreed-upon exchange. I want to stress that this legislation will cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing.

I thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey, as well as Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva and the committee staff for working with me to advance this bill to the floor. It is my hope that my colleagues today will appreciate the importance of passing this legislation to create jobs, continue revitalizing this historic mill city, and protect a key part of our industrial heritage and economic history.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to offer my support for H.R. 1339, recognizing the great city of Salem, Massachusetts, as the Birthplace of the National Guard of the United States. I'd like to thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for bringing this important measure, of which I am an original cosponsor, before the House.

The National Guard has provided over 370 years of dedicated service to our country. Beginning in 1629, when the first militia was organized in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in Salem by Captain John Endicott, the National Guard has played a key role in protecting the Nation and responding to contingencies around the globe. The National Guard is the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States.

The patriots who founded our Nation followed English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias. All males between the ages of 16 and 60 were expected to maintain arms and participate in the defense of the community. The colonial militias protected their countrymen from foreign invaders and helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following the war, our Forefathers empowered Congress to ``provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.'' However, recognizing the militia's State role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the States. Today's National Guard still remains a dual State-Federal force.

The service of our Guard is just as vital today as it was in the days of our Forefathers. The Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Tens of thousands of Guard members have served in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, responding to State and local emergencies while ably and courageously serving our Nation overseas in times of war alongside their Active Duty and Reserve counterparts.

So I am proud to stand here today to recognize Salem, Massachusetts, as a city of great historical significance in the birthplace of our National Guard. I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the author of the underlying legislation.

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

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

Madam Speaker, tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the landmark health care reform bill being signed into law by President Obama.

Many of the important reforms under the new law benefit women, who for years have faced discriminatory practices by insurance companies and borne higher health care costs simply as a result of their gender.

Because of the new law, women can no longer be denied coverage or charged more for such preexisting conditions as breast or cervical cancer, pregnancy, or, of all things, being a victim of domestic abuse.

Women no longer have to share the cost of critical and potentially lifesaving preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies.

These reforms for women not only make care more equitable, but they also help to reduce the cost of care by insuring that many diseases are detected early or prevented before their onset through vaccinations and regular screenings.

While additional reforms will be implemented in stages, many advances, as a result of health care reform, are already making a difference in the lives of women across this country.

Mr. Speaker, the health care reform effort signed into law by President Obama in 2010 contains important new benefits for our seniors and Medicare recipients that have already started to take effect.

Nearly 3.6 million seniors in the doughnut hole have already saved $2.1 billion on their prescription drugs. Twenty-four million people with Medicare have already taken advantage of free preventive services.

Additional reforms such as a prohibition of lifetime caps on insurance expenditures will soon be made available to our seniors, thanks to health care reform. Nothing in health reform reduces Medicare benefits for seniors.

Health care reform achieves Medicare savings by cracking down on inefficiency, fraud, and waste in Medicare, targeted at private health insurance companies and providers, not beneficiaries. This is how government should operate: by demanding efficiency, accountability, and protecting taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the month of February. In less than 4 weeks, the 2-week payroll tax cut extension, which House Republicans begrudgingly agreed to, will expire.

To avoid the same dramatic standoff that threatened a $1,400 tax increase for the average Massachusetts family, we must work together and adopt a yearlong extension of this vital tax credit rather than waiting till the last minute yet again.

Failure to extend the payroll tax cut to the end of the year would not only severely impact already overstretched households around the country, but would also dramatically undermine our still fragile economic recovery.

Families have already made their budgets for this year. They are counting on this extension to pay their bills, heat their homes, and meet other needs. Let's not let them down.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 23 on the Michaud (Maine) motion to instruct, H.R. 3630, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``yea.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record following rollcall vote No. 23.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act that is before us today.

I want to thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee who have worked to ensure that significant protections for our servicemembers are included in this year's bill, particularly for those who are survivors of military sexual trauma.

I also want to highlight the inclusion of a long-term reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research program. It is the government's most effective research and development program, creating jobs and fostering innovation in Massachusetts and across the country; and it plays a critical role in the Department of Defense.

The bill before us today ensures that the SBIR program retains its proper focus on true small businesses--creating a platform for needed job growth while guaranteeing that our Armed Forces continue to have access to the best technology available.

I urge its passage.

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

While one in six women will experience sexual assault in her lifetime, as

many as one in three women leaving military service report that they have experienced some form of military sexual trauma.

By the Pentagon's own estimate, as few as 13.5 percent of sexual assaults are reported. Additionally, while 40 percent of sexual assault allegations in the civilian world are prosecuted, this number is a staggeringly low 8 percent in the military.

The military has been slow to take the appropriate actions necessary to protect victims of sexual assault. For example, rape victims still do not yet have the right to a unit or duty location transfer following an assault. This means victims of sexual assault are often forced to live and work alongside their perpetrator, facing repeated stress and trauma due to the constant contact they may have with an assailant who is part of their unit.

As unbelievable as it sounds, this is exactly what happened to Marine Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, who accused her assailant of rape, and then spent the next 8 months exposed to the accused rapist, who later murdered her and buried her with the body of her unborn son in his backyard.

Although these events happened in 2007, the Department of Defense has not adopted provisions that would allow victims to escape constant contact with their assailant. We ask men and women who serve in the military to put their lives on the line for our country, and they shouldn't fear harm from their fellow servicemembers. We simply must do more to protect them.

In May, this House passed H.R. 1540, which included strong bipartisan provisions that would allow victims of sexual assault the right to transfer units, the right to counsel, the right to privileged communications between a victim and a victim advocate, and the right to get records of their sexual assault so they can be eligible for veterans' benefits. These provisions came from a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Mr. Turner of Ohio.

Our language stipulates that confidential communications cannot be used by the defense attorney against a victim during court proceedings, and they remain actually confidential. These provisions will encourage more victims to come forward and get the help they need to heal, and will encourage more victims to participate in the legal process of prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault, both of which are critical to maintaining readiness and unit cohesion in the military.

These provisions also establish full-time sexual assault response coordinators and victim advocates and ensure they are well trained for the job and able to properly serve victims of sexual assault. The 2009 Defense Task Force Report on Sexual Assault in the Military Services found that current victim advocates and sexual assault response coordinators are unprepared for the duties of the position.

In the words of a current unit victim advocate, ``I would truly be unprepared if a sexual assault were to occur and my services were needed. It is my opinion that active duty victim advocates are not prepared to deal with sexual assaults and could potentially deter individuals from coming forward.''

Having full-time SARCs and VAs with extensive training and certification will ensure that they are truly a valuable resource to their unit and to victims who come forward.

This language also improves the retention of sexual assault records and guarantees that victims of sexual assault will have lifetime access to these records for a variety of purposes, such as being considered for veterans benefits and given priority consideration for counseling at Veterans Affairs.

Currently, survivors of sexual assault have to jump through multiple bureaucratic hurdles to prove that their symptoms are connected to an incident of sexual assault in the military in order to be prioritized for mental health counseling or be eligible for benefits. Servicemembers find it difficult to obtain documentation proving their sexual assault once they have left the services because many of these documents are destroyed at DOD after only a few years. This language ensures that the documents are maintained.

This language also requires DOD to prepare a record of all court proceedings in which a charge of sexual assault is adjudicated and provide a copy to the victim. Because victims of sexual assaults serve as a witness rather than an active participant in trials where their case is litigated, they often do not understand the outcome of their case. These records are prepared where convictions result, but when charges are dismissed, or when a perpetrator is found innocent, the victim has no reliable way to understand what happened and why his or her case was dismissed.

Making sure victims understand the outcome of their case is important to providing closure for victims and making sure they are an active, respected participant in the legal process.

It will help to alleviate much of the mistrust that servicemembers and victims of sexual assault in the military harbor when it comes to how a sexual assault case will be handled if they make a report.

Similar provisions were included in the Senate's version of the defense authorization, but these provisions do not clearly spell out a victim's right to counsel and do not provide for a comprehensive education and training program.

Yesterday a bipartisan group of 47 Members, led by Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Turner, sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in support of the House's language. This motion simply instructs our conferees to insist on the House language, language that will protect our servicewomen.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the motion to instruct conferees.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California who has taken such an interest in this very grave issue and played an important leadership role, Congresswoman Speier.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional minute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I did not mean to yield back my time; so I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

I thank the chairman.

It has been my honor and pleasure to work in a bipartisan fashion on this legislation that seeks to address the great challenge of military sexual trauma. I think that we have incorporated into the House version of the bill some very significant reforms that will help to protect victims, unfortunate victims of this great affront to young people serving in our military; will seek to better protect them as they seek to bring to justice the perpetrators; will better train those who are put in a place designed and created--these are positions created to help victims deal with this tremendous trauma, seek out appropriate legal remedies and do it in a way that does not further victimize the victim.

Does that mean there is not always going to be additional work to do? Absolutely, always; otherwise, we would all be out of a job if we didn't have to simply come back and revisit and revisit and revisit these issues.

But I want to make it very clear that this has been a great bipartisan effort. I'm very thankful for the support we have received. The military has made tremendous efforts. But obviously we would not be here today discussing this if there were still not a long way to go.

I appreciate the fact that this has been recognized on both sides of the aisle, and I thank you for allowing me to reclaim my time.

I will now yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California, Congresswoman Speier.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Major Alison Hamilton, United States Army, on the occasion of her departure from the Army House Liaison Office to deploy to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

I, and many other members of this chamber, have had the pleasure of working with her as she has served as a part of the U.S. Army Office of Legislative Affairs, and prior to that, when she served as a Congressional Fellow in my office.

In 1999, while still a West Point cadet, Major Hamilton was awarded the Soldier's Medal--the Army's highest peacetime award for bravery-- ``for heroism above and beyond the call of duty'' following the terrorist bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, on August 7, 1998 when she risked her life to rescue others.

Following her graduation from West Point, Major Hamilton was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Army. During her 13-year career, she has served as platoon leader for companies of Military Police in Germany and Kosovo and as the Battalion S-1 for the 709th Military Police Battalion. For 19 months, she commanded the 212th Military Police Detachment stationed in Fort Belvoir, VA before deploying to Arifjan, Kuwait to serve as the theatre operations officer in the only strategically deployable Field Army headquarters in the U.S. Army. Upon redeployment, Major Hamilton went on to share her field experience with cadets at the Valley Forge Military College where she served as the Battalion S-3 and Assistant Professor of Military Science.

In 2010, she joined my personal office as a Congressional Fellow tasked with assisting me in my work on the House Armed Services Committee and quickly became an integral and important part of our team, demonstrating the same level of leadership, maturity, dedication, insight and intelligence that have been the hallmarks of her career. Alie took initiative to help me pursue several legislative initiatives and served as a valuable resource to me and my staff. Her warm personality and even temperament mixed with her thorough attention to details and intelligence made her a reliable and trusted member of our team. Even after her yearlong commitment was completed, she remains a regular visitor to my office but we miss her daily presence.

Following her fellowship, Major Hamilton was assigned to the Army House Liaison Office as a Legislative Liaison where she continued her dedicated service to the Congress and to the Army. Throughout her assignment to the House of Representatives, Major Hamilton has been a superb representative of Army values.

It is my great honor to congratulate Major Alison Hamilton on her service to the Army and our Nation and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the remarkable accomplishments of this soldier, citizen, and friend. We wish her a safe and successful deployment and a speedy return home.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard from many struggling families in Massachusetts who simply don't know how they will make ends meet if Congress does not pass an extension of unemployment benefits before January 1.

From Lowell: I am a 58-year-old man that has been unemployed for 2 years

and 4 months. Finding a job these days is just about impossible. I am writing to you to beg you to please sign on to the unemployment extension bill.

From Westford: I have been unemployed since January of 2010. I look for a job every waking hour. Cutting unemployment to millions of needy families at this time makes no sense.

From Haverhill: If my unemployment ends, I will be unable to make my mortgage payments. Then my home will go into foreclosure and my neighbors' home values will be depreciated. This is truly a ripple effect. Please don't be penny wise and pound foolish.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work to pass this desperately needed extension.