Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are being asked to vote on today is identical to legislation that failed on the suspension calendar last week--and so is now being brought back to the floor under a closed rule, without possibility of amendment. I opposed this bill on both policy and procedural grounds last week, and because nothing has fundamentally changed on either score, I will do so again today.

Mr. Speaker, this unwieldy legislation is comprised of eleven, mostly unrelated titles--a few of which I have supported in the past, some of which I probably could support on a freestanding basis in the future and several of which either need a lot more work or simply should not be supported. In particular, as an advocate of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, I think we should tread very carefully before modifying or weakening something as central to financial reform as the Volcker Rule, which Title VIII of this legislation would do with respect to collateralized debt obligations. Additionally, while I am strongly in favor of giving employees more ownership opportunities in the companies they work for, I also believe those employees deserve to know the value of the stock they are being offered, and that is something Title XI of this bill fails to do.

For these reasons, I urge a no vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, which would circumvent the legal approval process and grant blanket automatic authority for TransCanada to ``construct, connect, operate, and maintain'' the Keystone XL pipeline and cross-border facilities.

Every cross-border pipeline must undergo a vetting process to make sure that it is in the national interest. This process has been ongoing at the State Department and has been complicated by disputes over the route, most notably in Nebraska, where their Supreme Court ruled on the issue just this morning. Today's legislation would provide a special deal for one company to bypass federal permitting requirements.

Additionally, the oil that would be transported by Keystone XL, tar sands oil, is currently exempt from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund that is used to fund the response to leaks and accidents. This means that the American public would bear the risks for the immediate cleanup costs from any potential accidents or leaks from the pipeline. Congressman Earl Blumenauer introduced legislation last night, which I am proud to cosponsor, to close that loophole and ensure that TransCanada and other companies transporting tar sands oil share responsibility for those costs by paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Democrats are offering a motion today to address this issue for the oil that would be transported through the Keystone XL pipeline, and I hope my Republican colleagues will work with us to close this loophole.

Ultimately, there is no reason to give special treatment to a single, foreign company, which would be exempt from permitting requirements and from paying into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. We should reject this bill and allow the State Department to complete its ongoing review.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2015.'' Republicans claim this bill is a fix to the Affordable Care Act and vital to protecting American jobs. But that's simply not true. According the non-partisan CBO, raising the threshold for employers to provide coverage from 30 hours per week to 40 could lead them to shift more employees to part- time work, end employer-sponsored coverage for one million people, and leave up to half a million completely uninsured. Even conservative analyst Tuval Levin agreed, writing recently in the National Review, ``Putting the cutoff for the employer mandate at 40 hours would put far, far more people at risk of having their hours cut than leaving it at 30 hours.'' On top of the assaults on workers' hours and benefits, CBO estimates the bill would increase the federal deficit by $53 billion over the next decade.''

Republicans have brought this irresponsible bill to the floor on the heels of more news that the Affordable Care is working. Yesterday, Gallup released data showing the percentage of uninsured Americans is declining steeply and HHS announced that nearly 6.6 million Americans selected plans or were re-enrolled in the federal exchange since open enrollment began.

As I have said before, I am more than willing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make genuine, reasonable improvements to the Affordable Care Act. Along these lines, I want to commend Congressman Joe Courtney for bringing an altemative proposal to the Rules Committee yesterday. Unfortunately, today's bill does not meet the definition of a genuine, reasonable improvement.

Finally Mr. Speaker, if Republicans were really serious about helping employees they would support the CEO/Employee Paycheck Fairness Act. The bill is simple. It says if corporations want to be able to deduct the bonuses and compensation for their CEOs and other executives over $1 million, they better be giving their employees a fair shake. I urge my colleagues to reject the 40-hour bill and join me in a real effort to support American workers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astounding that within minutes-- minutes--of our being sworn in, our Republican colleagues want to pass a rule that will stack the deck in favor of trying to give another big tax cut not to the middle class, but to millionaires, the folks at the very top. That is what their budget does.

What is equally astounding is that this economic theory of trickle- down economics crashed and burned in the real world between 2001 and 2008. Our Republican colleague says that if you give millionaires these tax cuts, they are going to spend them, and a little bit will trickle down to the middle class and people who aspire to the middle class and boost everybody up.

That is not what happened. What happened? Sure, the folks who got the tax cuts at the top, they did better. Nobody else did. In fact, real wages went down. What went up? The deficit--and everybody has to pay for that deficit.

Now, I heard the Speaker this morning say he wanted to deal with the issue of wage stagnation. That is what we should be focused on. We shouldn't be talking about tax cuts for the wealthy and a trickle-down theory. We should try to build this economy from the middle class out and from the bottom up.

I am glad the Speaker said that because we are going to give him an opportunity to vote for something that will address wage stagnation. I am going to offer a motion at the end of this debate. It is called the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act, and it addresses this issue.

If you look back in the 1960s and 1970s, when workers were working hard, they got paid more, but beginning around 1979, they kept working hard, productivity kept going up, but their wages got flat. What happened during the same time? CEOs took care of themselves. Their pay started to go up and up and up. It used to be about 20 times that of the average worker.

In other words, the CEO and the folks at the top got about 20 times what they were paying their employees, but as you can see, it has now shot up so that CEOs and the top guys get paid about 300 times what their workers are getting paid.

We have a simple proposition: that corporations should not be able to deduct the bonuses and compensation for their CEOs and other executives over $1 million unless they are giving their employees a fair shake, a fair wage. Right? Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing that?

Between 2007 and 2010, they took about $66 billion, thereabouts, in deductions for bonuses for performance pay when they were sometimes laying off employees and cutting their paychecks, so we say: ``Hey, okay, pay yourselves what you want, but if you want the taxpayers to allow you to deduct your bonuses and performance pay, for goodness' sakes, you had better be giving your employees a fair shake.''

Over time, that would close that gap in worker productivity and wages and do what the Speaker said he wanted to do this morning, which is deal with wage stagnation. Let's help the workers, not just the CEOs. Let's vote for the CEO-Employee Paycheck Fairness Act.

Actually, what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a Republican plan that actually cuts the top rate for folks at the top from 39 percent to 25 percent.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has said that will actually leave the middle class family--typical family--paying another $2,000, so that you can give the folks at the very top another tax break.

When you increase the deficit, guess who pays the bill? Everybody, all the taxpayers do. So you give a tax break to the folks at the top, increase the deficit, and everybody else is left to pay the bill. That is not the right way to go. Vote for this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this omnibus. It is critical to avoid another unnecessary and wasteful government shutdown, and I strongly believe that we must do that without extraneous and harmful policy riders.

The bill before us holds government operations hostage to a number of highly partisan, noxious policy riders. By proposing to repeal the so- called ``swaps push out rule'' enacted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, it caters to the demands of big banks and puts taxpayers on the hook for their risky decisions. It allows special interests to funnel more money into Congressional political party committees, dramatically increasing the limit from $129,600 to $777,600 per year, or over $1.5 million per election cycle. Putting these provisions together will simply breed additional public cynicism about Congress granting special favors to powerful special interests in exchange for increased political contributions.

I also continue to oppose riders related to Guantanamo and those that meddle in the local business of the District of Columbia.

The fact that this bill only funds the Department of Homeland Security through February

is nothing more than a political stunt by my colleagues across the aisle. Instead of working to fix our broken immigration system, House Republicans have signaled that they are willing to shut down the Department of Homeland Security even though this will do nothing to prevent President Obama from expanding the deferred action program.

This bill also provides $5 billion in funding for the deployment of an additional 1,500 American troops to Iraq and up to $500 million to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels. As I outlined in my statement on the NDAA, Congress should have had the opportunity to amend those provision. I do not want us to be dragged into Iraq War 2.0 or more deeply into the Syrian civil war.

Without the inclusion of these measures, I would have been pleased to support a number of provisions in this bill. As a representative of many federal employees, I appreciate the one percent COLA for our dedicated federal workforce and pay adjustments for wage grade employees.

I support the additional funding for the National Institutes of Health, although we must do much more to support medical research. The bill also increases funding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and provides emergency funding to address the ongoing Ebola crisis. It includes important funding for scientific research at NIST and the National Science Foundation, and rejects the House-passed rider that would have defunded climate change research. I support the investments in education, including Title I and IDEA, although more funding for these programs is necessary to support our nation's students.

The bill also includes critical funding for infrastructure, including $2.1 billion to build new transit lines, $500 million for TIGER grants for projects of national significance, and $150 million to allow the Washington area Metro system to make recommended safety and performance improvements.

This legislation also builds on efforts made in last year's MilCon-VA bill to end the claims backlog that continues to plague our VA regional offices, including the VA's Baltimore Regional Office. It includes $2.5 billion for the costs of processing disability claims--an increase of $40 million over the President's request and $69 million over last year's level.

I am pleased that this bill provides $73 million in funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This will help provide Maryland with the necessary resources to implement the technology to automate criminal history and mental health records in our background check system. This legislation also fully funds many other important Department of Justice Programs, including $376 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants and $430 million for Violence Against Women programs.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that no bill of this magnitude is perfect. However, I cannot in good conscience vote to roll back critical taxpayer protections and allow monied special interests to buy more influence in Congress. We should strip these damaging provisions from the bill and pass an omnibus that works on behalf of taxpayers and strengthens the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference Report for the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act.

For the last 53 years, Congress has passed--and the President has signed into law--an annual Defense Authorization bill to provide critical resources our Armed Forces need to maintain the best military in the world. While I recognize that there are many important programs that are authorized in this legislation, this NDAA also contains many major policy decisions affecting our country and our armed forces. Unfortunately, Congress was not allowed to consider a single amendment dealing with very consequential policy issues to this 1648-page bill.

The NDAA Conference Report also authorizes funding to deploy an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq. I support the core pillars of the President's plan to fight ISIS, including the use of American surveillance, intelligence assets and air power against ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria and the arming and training of the Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces to stop the ISIS advances in Iraq. I also believe we should supply weapons to those groups in Syria, such as the Syrian Kurds, who have consistently fought ISIS, and whose priority is to defeat ISIS. However, I believe the Congress should make it clear that American ground troops should not be used in a combat role in Iraq or Syria.

The President has asserted that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (Public Law 107-40) provides the Executive with broad authority to take all military action necessary in both Iraq and Syria to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. While the President has indicated that he does not intend to deploy U.S. ground forces into combat, there is nothing in current law to prevent him from doing so. Congressman McGovern, Congressman Jones, and I asked the House Rules Committee to allow us to offer an amendment to ban the use of U.S. forces in ground combat in Iraq, with the exception of rescue operations for Americans. Unfortunately, this request was denied.

The NDAA Conference Report also provides a two-year authorization to deploy American troops to train and equip the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian rebels. In September, a majority in Congress voted to temporarily authorize preparation for such a mission for a short period ending December 11th. This bill extends that authorization for two more years and is written so that the four defense committees can exclusively decide how much funding should be allocated for this mission. Congressman Dent and I led a bipartisan letter to Speaker Boehner urging him to give us the opportunity to vote on that provision. We also presented an amendment to the House Rules Committee which would have presented this authority. Once again, we were not provided the opportunity to vote on this measure.

My primary concern with the proposal to arm the so-called ``moderate'' Syrian opposition is that it will have unintended negative consequences that will not serve our ultimate goal of defeating ISIS.

First, the primary objective of these Sunni Islamist fighters is the defeat of Assad and his Alawite dominated regime--not the defeat of ISIS. Since the start of the war there have been shifting alliances among these Sunni Islamist forces that include the al-Qaeda affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra, different elements of the Free Syrian Army, the Islamist Front, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, among others. Their common cause and overriding objective is defeating Assad. Indeed, the commander of the Syria Revolutionaries' Front, Jamal Maarouf, one of the most militarily proficient commanders of the FSA, recently said that, ``It's clear that I'm not fighting against al-Qaeda. This is a problem outside of Syria's border, so it's not our problem. I don't have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria.''

While there is no doubt that Assad is a brutal dictator, he does not pose the same threat to the United States as ISIS, and his forces have recently been battling ISIS. At this point, arming fighters whose primary purpose is to weaken Assad has one unintended result-- strengthening ISIS. Indeed, I fear that the arms we provide to the so- called Syrian opposition are more likely to end up in the hands of ISIS or al Nusra.

I also have significant concerns about other measures in the NDAA Conference Report. I was disappointed that it includes a provision to continue funding restrictions on the construction or modification of detention facilities in the United States to house Guantanamo detainees. It also removes the prohibition on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen that was included in the SASC-reported bill.

Despite my overall opposition to this legislation, it does authorize many important programs. I was pleased that the Women's Small Business Procurement Parity Act, S. 2481, was included in the final Conference Report. This language provides much needed guidance to assist federal agencies in reaching the goal of awarding 5 percent of federal contracts to women-owned small businesses.

Today's bill also restores more than $818 million in cuts made to military readiness accounts. This will allow our military to invest in critical repairs and upgrades to many mission-critical facilities such as electrical and fire protection system upgrades.

I am also encouraged that this bill builds on a number of provisions passed in last year's NDAA and continues to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. In particular, it would eliminate the so-called ``good soldier defense'' in court-martial proceedings, prohibiting a soldier from using good military character as a defense in a sexual assault case. These proceedings should be based on the specific evidence presented in the case.

Finally, I am pleased that the bill contains many long-delayed public lands conservation measures to protect more than one million acres of public land, including 245,000 of new wilderness.

While I support each of these measures, the fact remains that without the amendments I proposed, the bill could create a very slippery slope that would drag American troops even more deeply into Syrian war and renewed conflict in Iraq. For those reasons, I regretfully am unable to vote in favor of this year's NDAA Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Executive Amnesty Prevention Act of 2014.''

This bill is nothing more than a political stunt by my colleagues across the aisle. It seeks to restrict the President from using his executive authority--much in the same way that President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush have done before him--to further secure the border and prioritize deporting felons over families. In fact, over the last 50 years, every President has used executive authority to take action on immigration, including six Republican Presidents.

This bill would not only be limited to the President's most recent use of executive authority but would also prevent the Administration from granting deferred action to Dreamers who are currently eligible for DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) but have not yet received it. This would effectively end the DACA program--which has already provided temporary protection for 700,000 individuals who were brought to the United States as children--and would subject hundreds of thousands Dreamers to deportation. This legislation is so broad that the Administration would not even be able to grant deferred action from deportation to family members of U.S. Military troops.

Most importantly, this bill does nothing to address our broken immigration system. It has been more than 520 days since the Senate passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill yet Speaker Boehner has refused to let us vote on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, let the People's House vote on this important measure and let democracy work its will. Why is this House so afraid of a little democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the important work of the Ukrainian Service of the Voice of America.

VOA's Ukrainian Service has been a crucial source of news and information for the people of Ukraine for 65 years. Throughout Russia's campaign of aggression against Ukraine, VOA's Ukrainian Service has been an important source of news, information and discussion about the year-long crisis. Every week, VOA's Ukrainian Service reaches millions of people in Ukraine and through its daily reporting on U.S. politics, foreign policy, social issues, business, culture and the arts, VOA provides comprehensive, accurate and authoritative information that Ukrainians can employ in strengthening their nascent democracy, market economy and independent statehood.

I congratulate VOA Ukrainian for 65 years of service to the Ukrainian people and for all it is doing to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Ukraine.

It is an honor to stand with the California delegation tonight in saluting two extraordinary Members of the United States Congress, George Miller and Henry Waxman, two friends, two individuals who have been an inspiration to me and so many other Americans.

What is extraordinary about these two men is that they greeted every day of their 40 years here in the United States Congress as if it were their very first day, with the same determination, with the same drive, with the same passion to make our country a little better place than they found it.

Make no mistake, they came here on a mission to build a more just, a more inclusive Nation, where every American has a fair shot at the American Dream, and through that determination and that perseverance, they succeeded.

If you look around the country today, in almost every aspect of American life, these two gentlemen have left their mark, from health care to education to workers' rights to protecting our environment. They have changed the arc of American history.

One quality really stands out when I think about both these individuals: fearlessness and moral courage and a willingness to take on the most powerful special interests on behalf of the common good, no matter the personal risk, no matter the political cost.

They have been warriors for the public good, sometimes happy warriors, sometimes just tough warriors, but always standing up for what is best in America. It is the job of those of us who remain here to dedicate ourselves to carry on the work that these gentlemen carried out for the love of their country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredible service of the Dean of the House of Representatives, John Dingell.

In his 59 years in the House, John Dingell has experienced dizzying twists in national politics and turns in world events. And through it all, he succeeded in building a consistent record of achievements true to his core principle of social justice.

If you rely on Medicare--or plan to in your retirement--you can thank John Dingell. After fighting for its creation, he was the one presiding over the House for its historic passage in 1965.

If you've benefited from the Affordable Care Act, you can thank John Dingell for his pivotal role in passing this landmark legislation, and for continuing his father's fight to make affordable health care available to all Americans.

If you've benefitted from a safe workplace or fair pay, you can thank John Dingell for being a champion of the American worker and a tireless advocate for policies to help our businesses create jobs and our middle class get ahead.

And if you simply enjoy outdoor recreation and the ability to breathe clean air and drink clean water, you can thank John Dingell for his vision. He brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation that protects our environment.

On a personal note, I want to thank John Dingell for his wisdom and good counsel over the years. His guidance and effort were essential to passing the DISCLOSE Act in the House in 2010. That bill would have required groups spending millions of dollars on political campaign ads to disclose to voters who is bankrolling them. Unfortunately, the bill failed by one vote in a filibuster in the Senate. If John Dingell had been in the Senate, he would have gotten it passed.

Thank you John Dingell for all that you've done for our country.

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, it is abundantly clear to me that what our country needs most right now--and what we really should be voting on today--is comprehensive, pro-growth tax reform that encourages investment at home, drives job creation and delivers broadly shared prosperity to all Americans.

Instead, we are voting to retroactively extend a group of over 50, mostly business-related, temporary tax provisions that expired at the end of last year--until the end of this year. Which is now about four weeks away.

That's what today's legislation does. It retroactively takes these 50-odd expired provisions back to the beginning of the year, and then extends them forward for the next four weeks, at which point they will expire again and we'll be right back to square one.

Let me be clear: I support a number of these expiring provisions-- like the R&D Tax Credit--and think they should be made permanent as part of comprehensive tax reform. And there are additional steps I think we should be taking--like extending the Health Care Tax Credit for trade-displaced workers and older workers whose pensions have been taken over by the PBGC. And ending the egregious practice of so-called corporate inversions once and for all.

I am reluctantly supporting this bill because, without it, many individuals and businesses would see an effective tax increase.

But Mr. Speaker, at some point, we're going to have to stop kicking the can down the road. From my perspective, that moment can't come soon enough.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, the defense authorization bill, is now 1,648 pages, and we are being told on the floor of the House that we either vote for the whole thing or nothing because we are not given a chance for any amendments in between. There are some hugely consequential decisions being made for our national defense in this bill on issues of war and peace.

It was just last September the President increased the number of American troops in Iraq to help train and equip the Iraqi and Kurdish forces there. Mr. McGovern, Mr. Jones, and I have a bipartisan amendment saying that U.S. ground forces in Iraq should not be engaged in combat operations going forward. The President has asserted authority under the AUMF. That is a blank check. We don't think there should be a blank check for the executive. This body should vote to make it clear that U.S. forces can't be involved in another ground war in Iraq.

There is also a bipartisan amendment offered by Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, myself, and others that says we should vote on the question of whether we should now arm the so-called moderate Syrian rebels for 2 years at a price of $500 million or up. Now, whether you are for or against it, we should have a vote.

Mr. Speaker, I happen to think it is a bad idea. We are not going to be able to successfully micromanage the Syrian civil war. The target of those forces is not ISIS. So in the process, we are actually going to be inadvertently strengthening ISIS. But whether you agree with me on that or not, for goodness' sake, we should have an amendment that has this body make a choice. That is what we are here for, I thought, making important policy decisions for the country on questions of war and peace. We owe it to our troops, and we owe it to the American people to actually debate and vote on these consequential decisions instead of a 1,600-plus page bill that comes to the floor and doesn't give us that opportunity.

So since we don't have that opportunity, I am going to vote ``no'' on the defense authorization bill. I don't like to do that, but it is irresponsible and reckless for this House not to vote on these important issues separately.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by thanking my colleague, Ranking Member Levin, for yielding but, most importantly, for his partnership on this important bipartisan legislation.

I also want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Chairman Camp, thank you for all of your efforts and diligence in getting us to this point. To our fellow cosponsors--Congressman Crenshaw, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, Congressman Sessions, and others--thank you for all you have done to get us to this point.

To our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol, Senator Bob Casey and Senator Richard Burr, this has been a team effort.

Mr. Speaker, like Congressman Crenshaw, I want to especially recognize and honor those families from across the country who actually worked so hard over so many years to get us to this point. Many of those families are in the gallery today. Others are watching from around the country.

At a time when there is deep cynicism about the ability or lack of ability of Congress and the government to function, they broke through that cynicism and are an example to others of what we can do and can accomplish by working together.

Because of their efforts, as we heard, we have 380 cosponsors, Republicans and Democrats, in the House and 74 United States Senators, Republicans and Democrats. With that broad bipartisan and bicameral support, everyone worked together to get to this point.

We have heard what this does. It provides an opportunity for families with kids or other members of the families with disabilities to put aside a little money, tax free, to help defray some of the extra medical costs that are incurred by those families.

It is a benefit available to families who are sending their kids to college, and we should make sure that we provide that kind of benefit to families who are trying to make sure their loved ones are cared for.

That is what this does. It is about equity. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that every child has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential. It is a time-honored American value, and that is why this has attracted such broad support.

Mr. Speaker, no single piece of legislation--nothing we can do here-- can single-handedly eliminate the additional medical and financial burdens faced by families living and loving and caring for their children with disabilities every day, but this act, this ABLE Act, can help ease that financial burden and can help assist families in some small way in ensuring that their children receive the love and care they deserve.

I thank my colleagues for coming together on this important effort, and I hope it gets through the Senate and to the President's desk, where it can be signed soon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, everybody, for being a part of this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to share with my colleagues inspiring information about Crittenton Services of Greater Washington, a life-changing organization serving low-income teenage girls in public and charter schools in Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington, DC.

On November 20th, at a gala celebrating its 126th anniversary, Crittenton announced an important expansion of its programs and honored several area women who have displayed leadership on issues crucial to the healthy development of teen girls. I am delighted that one of the honorees is our colleague, and a member of the Maryland Congressional delegation, my good friend Rep. Donna Edwards. Karla Silvestre, Director of Community Engagement at Montgomery College and with whom my staff and I have worked over many years, also received well-deserved recognition, as did Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO of CTIA-- the Wireless Association, and Gloria L. Blackwell, Vice President of Fellowships, Grants, and Global Programs at the American Association of University Women. Each of them has my heartiest congratulations.

Earlier this year, with the support of Montgomery County and the District of Columbia Department of Health, Crittenton tripled the number of its programs for low-income teen girls. As a result, Crittenton, under the outstanding leadership of Executive Director Pamela Jones, now provides services at 11 DC schools and six Montgomery County schools, serving over 400 middle and high school girls. The objectives of the programs are to reduce pregnancies, births, and sexually transmitted infections among teen girls, ages 14 to 19, and increase their motivation and aspirations to succeed in high school and complete post-secondary education.

Over the course of the school year, Crittenton presents structured curricula that are science-based, age appropriate, and medically accurate. In 26 sessions, the programs teach girls about healthy relationships with their peers, dating partners, and parents; reproductive health, nutrition, and fitness; and life options, including post-secondary education and careers. Through active learning activities--role-play, games, or group discussion--Crittenton helps the girls acquire ``real world life skills'' such as communication, conflict resolution, assertiveness, and negotiation; managing emotions, impulses, frustration, and stress; and goal-setting, planning, problem- solving, and decision-making.

In addition, to help participants envision a future and become increasingly motivated to achieve that future, Crittenton organizes out-of-school enrichment activities that expose them to college and careers. But the programs' ``secret sauce'' is the relationship that program leaders form with the girls. Program leaders are culturally competent, well trained, highly experienced youth development specialists. They create a welcoming environment and a ``safe space'' that inspires the girls to speak openly with a caring adult and each other; they talk with the girls honestly and non-judgmentally; and they model positive behavior.

A central component of Crittenton's programs is a focus on the ``whole girl'' and her future, with a goal of heightening her awareness of life options. Through the experiences the programs provide, girls learn to recognize and value their gifts and develop invaluable life and leadership skills. Most importantly, they develop a belief in their ability to succeed, even in challenging situations.

Crittenton was originally established in Washington, DC in 1887. Its mission has evolved from rescuing young girls from sex trafficking and exploitation to providing a residential home as a safe haven with caring trusted adults for single mothers and their babies. As society and the need for services changed, so has Crittenton. The Florence Crittenton Home was sold in 1983 and the organization launched a series of successful multi-year programs for teen girls and young women. Today, Crittenton Services of Greater Washington provides three key programs.

SNEAKERS (Self-efficacy, Nurturance, Expectations, Assertiveness, Knowledge, Empowerment, Responsibility, and Success), a program that enables vulnerable girls who are navigating the challenges of adolescence to thrive;

PEARLS (Parenting, Education, and Responsive Life Skills), a program that enables pregnant and parenting teens to succeed as students and parents; and

4C'ING the Future (Crittenton College and Career Connection), a college and career access program that engages parents and prepares 8th grade girls to become the first in their families to attend college.

For many years, Crittenton's programs have been changing the trajectories of teen girls' lives. Crittenton girls are avoiding risky, unhealthy behaviors; acquiring social and emotional skills that are essential for academic and life success; becoming motivated learners who will graduate from high school; and using their voices, time, and talent to serve others. They also have a vision--and a plan--to achieve their academic, personal and professional goals.

I am pleased to share with my colleagues this wonderful example of the invaluable contributions that non-profit organizations make to their communities. I extend my gratitude and appreciation to Crittenton for all it does to change lives and wish it a very happy anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Daughters of Penelope, who for 85 years have been working to improve the status and well-being of women and their families in this country and around the world.

By promoting the ideals of ancient Greece including civic engagement and good citizenship through community service and philanthropy, the Daughters of Penelope have helped to raise awareness for a number of civic and humanitarian causes.

From its financial support for breast cancer research to its assistance to victims and communities affected by natural disasters to its work in support of affordable and dignified housing for this nation's senior citizens, the members of the Daughters of Penelope have answered the call of those in need for more than a half century.

So it is with great appreciation that I rise to recognize the work and members of the Daughters of Penelope for their commitment to volunteerism, for their charity and for all they have done over these many years to advance the standing of women around the world.