Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me just reiterate, this came to my attention as chairman of the House Administration Committee when we received a letter from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of the transition team recommending that we discontinue this part of the greening initiative process, Greening the Capitol process; that is, this one did not work. It was a Democrat who told us we ought to get rid of it.

So once I heard that, I also heard complaints from both Democratic and Republican Members of the House and their staffs that the recyclable utensils we had didn't work--didn't work--and they asked for something that did work. And so we cancelled the program.

This idea about Styrofoam being a real health hazard, Linda Birnbaum, who is the toxicologist who heads the government agency that declared styrene a likely cancer risk, said this: Let me put your mind at ease right away about Styrofoam. In finished products, certainly styrene is not an issue.

The gentleman has said, and the other gentleman from Vermont said, that we ought to follow McDonald's. They no longer have this product. Well, yesterday my staff went out and got this product from McDonald's, which is Styrofoam; and got this product from McDonald's, which is Styrofoam; and got this product from McDonald's, which is Styrofoam. So I don't know where they get this information.

Lastly, they should understand that polystyrene is approved as safe for use in food service by the FDA. Anything that contains food product that comes into contact with individuals must be approved by the FDA. This is approved by the FDA.

Also, this week we are receiving bids back from our request for proposal on trying to get a waste energy recycling program to get rid of the waste that we have here on the Hill. This is to turn it into energy by way of heat energy and capture any of the offensive by- products that may be produced. This is what we are doing.

Look, you can have good science and you can have bad science. You can have smart science and you can have dumb science. You can have science or you can have no science. Now, I'm not sure which of the latter categories this proposal falls into, but it's not science. Science suggests that this is something that ought to be appropriate.

There are any number of producers of polystyrene in Members' districts around this country. There are 2,100 users of it. This amounts to billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, 8,000 just in California alone.

So once again, we are using bad science to scare people. And what's the impact? It's going to cost more money. I approved of this program because it saves a half a million dollars in a single year--half a million dollars. It will save energy, and we will have literally no residue when we move from waste to energy production. It's a win/win/ win situation.

By the way, members of our staffs have thanked me for doing this. They now have utensils that actually are usable.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the career of Robert Thorsen, on the occasion of his retirement, on July 4th, 2011, and to thank him for his more than twenty-three years of distinguished service and dedication to the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Thorsen helped guide the House community from mainframe computers to the House Cloud of today. He was responsible for re-establishing the House Information Resources (HIR) Technology Call Center, TCC, and he helped expand the TCC into a 24/7, 365-days-a-year operation. In the past several years, Bob has worked with the HIR Technology Support Escalations Team to provide high-quality support to all House offices. He has also been involved in continuity and contingency planning efforts for the House.

Beyond his work at the House, Mr. Thorsen served in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve. He was recalled to active duty in 1990, serving in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait during operations Desert Shield, Desert Storm and Desert Calm. He retired from the reserves in 2002 with the rank of Lt. Colonel.

Mr. Thorsen's knowledge, experience, dedication and consistently outstanding performance have set an example for superior customer service. These traits have also earned Mr. Thorsen the respect of his co-workers and colleagues.

On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Robert (Bob) Thorsen for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the House.

We wish him many wonderful years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the career of Patricia Mattimore, who is retiring after more than twenty-seven years of service with the U.S. House of Representatives.

Ms. Mattimore began her House career in July of 1984. Throughout the years, Patricia has brought a wealth of professional expertise to all of the positions she has held at the House. She has worked for the Appropriations Committee, Clerk of the House, and Chief Administrative Officer. Over the past eight years, she has ensured accurate reporting to the U.S. Treasury for the House's monthly cash activity. This critical process is necessary for the House to demonstrate financial accountability to the public and was performed with great accuracy due to her attention to detail. Her passionate customer service, organizational skills, resourcefulness and dedication to her work has benefited the House as a whole over her career.

On behalf of the entire House community, I congratulate Ms. Patricia Mattimore for her many years of dedication and outstanding

contributions to the U.S. House of Representatives and wish her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, I might just say that, in answer to the question raised by my friend from Virginia ``why would anyone oppose this?'' it is because of the Constitution.

This provision, section 18, is clearly violative of the Constitution. It would have you believe that you could go to court, an article III court, and have a final decision--a final judgment--rendered by a court, including a jury. Then after that, there's not an appeal to an appellate court but an appeal somehow back to an administrative agency?

Does anybody sense there is a violation of the separation of powers? Does anybody understand what the Court said in the Plaut case, which said that the Constitution gives the Federal judiciary the power to not merely rule on cases but to decide them subject to review only by superior courts in article III hierarchy?

You can argue all you want, but that's what the Supreme Court says.

This is an obvious, blatant violation of the Constitution. That's the answer to my friends who say we have to have this provision. Yes, it may be that the U.S. Constitution is the inconvenient truth here. We are not allowed to violate it even though we do it with the best of intentions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. You know, Mr. Speaker, my mom was born and raised in Chicago, Illinois, and listening to her stories about what transpired in the political process when she was growing up there, I used to think that the only place that you could find immortality in this world was on the voting rolls of Cook County. But I find here today that Ronald Reagan was right: Immortality is in the name of a Federal Government program.

This was supposed to be a temporary program. It was supposed to give temporary assistance to the States to make sure they could comply with HAVA, and it has done that. It has done that. It has let out all the money, billions of dollar that go to the States to assist in doing that. Its time has come and gone.

Mr. Speaker, if we cannot see that in these very difficult budget times we have to make some difficult decisions with respect to looking at programs to see if they've exhausted their usefulness, then we'll never be able to respond appropriately to what our constituents expect of us.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, carefully drafted, allows for those small elements of this agency to be transferred to the FEC with funds to carry out those responsibilities. The argument that the gentleman has just made, that somehow the FEC is not up to snuff, is not an argument I would think that the gentleman would support to somehow get rid of the FEC. We are giving them some responsibilities with funds, and hopefully they can carry those out.

The idea that we can stand here with a straight face and argue that an agency which spends over 50 percent of its total funding on overhead--and be able to say that to the American people is not only disappointing, but it's dispiriting, because it suggests to the American people that we are incapable of looking carefully at agencies and departments to see when, in fact, they are doing a job that continues and needs to be done, or when they have finished their function and, therefore, no longer need to exist.

Now, the Secretaries of State have spoken rather forcefully before our committee with respect to the fact that they no longer need the assistance of this particular arm of the Federal Government.

How often do we have people who come to us and say, We don't need this assistance anymore? Not very often. Should we ignore that in this particular case?

Admittedly, this is a small amount of money. It's only in the millions. Where I come from, that's important. Millions mean a lot. This is more important, though, as a symbol or a signal as to what we will do.

Look, if we had all the money in the world, maybe we wouldn't have this on the floor. We don't have all the money in the world, although we've tried to prove that we can print all the money in the world. The fact of the matter is folks back home want us somehow to get our house in order. That's the House of Representatives, and it's the house that we call the United States Federal Government. This may be a small room in that house, but, nonetheless, it is one that needs to be addressed.

The gentleman from Mississippi has done an excellent job of holding hearings on this matter, hearing from all parties on this, and has come up with this legislation. The suggestion that somehow by disestablishing the EAC we are going to penalize the military is something that I cannot understand very well at all. The Federal Voting Assistance Program under the DOD will continue to implement the MOVE Act, as they have very ably done since the passage of this bill in the last Congress. If you really examine it, the EAC has a very small role in the process, and that role will be continued after the EAC has been shut down.

States are looking at us to see whether we can give them some relief, and, in most cases, we are not going to be able to give the States some relief because, frankly, we don't have the money.

Businesses are looking at us, those who are in businesses, to see if we will understand the mistakes we've made in the past and do what they have to do, that is, to try to become more effective and more efficient. Our constituents are looking at us as they look for some glimmer that we understand the terrible fiscal situation we find ourselves in. And they're looking for just the littlest, the smallest suggestion that we are going to be serious about the fiscal mess that we find ourselves in.

This is a small start, but it is a start. And again, as the gentleman from Mississippi said, if we can't do this now, when can we do it? When you have a demonstrable record of an agency that's outlived its usefulness, you have to act. That's all we're attempting to do. I would hope that we would have a near unanimous vote in support of the gentleman's bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) providing for the reappointment of Shirley Ann Jackson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 9) providing for the reappointment of Robert P. Kogod as a

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent the committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 1934) to improve certain administrative operations of the Library of Congress, and for other purposes, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate Joint Resolution 7, Senate Joint Resolution 9, House Resolution 299, and H.R. 1934.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday next.

Mr. Speaker, the recipients of the 2011 PeopleSoft Certificate of Recognition collectively and individually provided support and solutions for the transition from Federal Financial System to PeopleSoft Financial System. The conversion to PeopleSoft occurred October 1, and the system went live October 12, 2010. To prepare for this conversion, the employees of the CAO worked tirelessly and were persistent in their efforts to implement PeopleSoft at the U.S. House of Representatives.

Whether working directly with Members or staff, supporting CAO internal operations, or ensuring that technical infrastructure is operational, each employee served as an exemplary role model for the entire CAO community.

Recipients of the 2011 PeopleSoft Certificate of Recognition are:

Jessica Abbott, Marty Adkins, Rose Agnew, Patricia Akinsegun, Mallikarjuna Akula, Sharyn Alexander, Lisa Alvey, Janciera Armstrong, Omar Awan, Peter Baer, Samantha Ball, William Barkell, Robert Barrett, Traci Beaubian, Lashon Bethea, Kelly Boger, Esther Bouryng, Karen Bowers, Chaunette Bowling-Stokes, Shelia Bowman.

Karen Bowman, Kevin Boyle, Toinetta Bridgeforth, David Brown, Kimberly Brown, Annette Brown, Troy Buckler, Kenneth Burch, Elizabeth Burnham, James Butler, Alicia Carcamo, Ronald Carrico, Delisa Carter, Elery Caskey, Andrew Caulk, Jacob Ciango, John Clarke, John Clocker, Faye Cobb, Joel Collins.

Richard Cooper, Luis Cornejo, Thomas E. Coyne III, Mark Dalton, Karen Davenport, James Deaver, Gary Dieffenderfer, Mark Dobbins, Karen Donaldson, Geneva Dooley, Brian Dozier, Sandra Durham, Mary Ellen- Wilson, Gretchen Ewers, Trena Gates, Michael Gould, Andrew Graeub, Raymond Griswold, Norman Gugliotta, Philip Hamner.

Tina Hanonu, Keith Harrington, Stephanie Harris, Michelle Hayes, John Heeb III, George Holau, Richard Hornburg, Alfredda Horton, Steve Hunter, Jacqueline Hurda, Wanda Jackson, Araceli Jennings, Derek Johann, Reginald Johnson, Andre Johnson, Rob Jordan, Tara Kelley, David Kemp, Katherine Knell, David Lau.

Dion Lawson, Cyrus Leghvan, Carlos Leon, Chau Lim, Andreal Little, Anthony Loving, Louis Magnotti, Steve Marsh, Richard Martins, Marc Mathis, Patricia Mattimore, Bryanne Mayhew, Bradley McDonald, Saint Juan McFadden, David McKittrick, Kathryn Meek, Darlene Meister, Donna Minton, Margaret Mitchell, Rachelle Mobley.

Nelson Moe, Edwarda Moore, Ronald Mullvain, James Murphy, Robert Murphy, John Nadeau, Rebecca Neilson, Juan Nelson, Jonathan Nelson, Hieu Nghiem, Jason Nowak, Igor Nusinzon, Carla Ohlis, Lindsay Oldham, Melissia Oulahyane, Sarah Parker, Stephen Pearson, Lisa Phillips, Richard Piazza, Stephen Pinson.

Kaley Poag, Sharon Porter, Sridhar Ramavarapu, Erica Randolph, Brenda Register, Lawrence Rice, Deborah Robertson, Sandra Rubio-Marrero, Zainab Sanusi-Hopes, Subashini Sethumathavan, Mohammed Shabeer, Kirat Shah, Arlie Shoemaker, Mirna Simonetti, Donita Simpson, Carolyn Sims, Susan Sneden, William Solomon, Clyde Springfield, Angel Stanley.

Christine Stewart, Ayana Stokes, Shannon Strickland, Joyce Stringfield, Keith Sullenberger, Lillie Talcott, James Tammadge, Alison Thompson, James Tiani, Arrica Tillman,

Lawrence Toperoff, Stan Turek, Jermaine Venable, James Ventre, Quoc-An Vo, Cheraisse Ward, Kenya Watkins, Sarah Watkins, Dan Weiser, Kenneth Wenzel, Andrea Williamson, Katherine Wyatt, James Young, Shin Yun, Eric Zabel and Jordana Zubkoff.

On behalf of the entire House community, I extend congratulations to today's recipients for their unwavering efforts and outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives. I wish them continued success in their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 16) authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

I am pleased to support this resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on June 5 to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha of Hawaii.

King Kamehameha, often called Kamehameha the Great, is a legendary figure in Hawaiian history and culture, and rightly so. He fought heroically for its unity and independence at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries.

His law, or Rule of the Splintered Paddle, protecting noncombatants during wartime has been commended for its justness and established a human rights benchmark that would later be built upon in the Geneva Conventions.

An illustrious statue of King Kamehameha is part of the National Statuary Hall Collection, and it now sits in the Capitol Visitor Center, visible to millions of our fellow citizens.

On June 11, the people of Hawaii will celebrate the 95th annual King Kamehameha Day in Hawaii. In adopting the resolution, the Members of the House will join our colleagues in the Senate in authorizing the use of the Capitol Visitor Center for a similar celebration here in Washington, D.C.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

House of Representatives, Committee on House

Administration,

Washington, DC, May 27, 2011.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Boehner: I write to formally notify you that

the Committee on House Administration hereby waives further

committee consideration of S. Con. Res. 16, a concurrent

resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the

Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday

of King Kamehameha, in order that the legislation may proceed

expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.

Sincerely,

Daniel E. Lungren,

Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just say that it gives me great pleasure to join my colleague from Hawaii in bringing this resolution to the floor, particularly because my daughter, who was married in this town on Sunday, is on her way to Hawaii to celebrate her honeymoon and I believe will actually still be there on the 5th of June, so that she will see that up close and personal.

I would urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement on June 2nd 2011, we rise to thank Mr. Al Powers for his more than twenty-nine years of distinguished service to the United States House of Representatives.

Al began his career with the House working in the office of Representative Bob Whittaker as an Office Assistant, and when the Member retired, he was the office Press Assistant. Time spent handling press issues led to the idea for the House Enterprise Facsimilie Service which he was instrumental in helping to develop when he joined House Information Resources (HIR) in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Office of the CAO) as a Systems Engineer. This service is currently used by the House. Al was also instrumental in the inception of many services that are critical to the House today-- including the current E-mail system.

Al's knowledge, experience, dedication and consistently outstanding performance in his daily tasks has set a fine example in providing superior customer service and has earned the respect of his co-workers.

On behalf of the entire House community, we extend congratulations to Al Powers for his many years of dedication, outstanding contributions and service to the United States House of Representatives.

We wish him many wonderful years in fulfilling his retirement dreams.

Mr. Speaker, I know we want to get to a vote very, very soon and normally I would refrain from speaking on this except that because this is such an important issue and some of the things that have been stated on the floor are so patently untrue, there is an obligation for those of us who have been working on this issue for some period of time to make sure that the public is not misled by statements that have been made here on the floor.

Number one, the Fourth Amendment is not implicated.

We have heard statements on this floor that are absolutely not true. They are the same statements that were made the last time we had this on the floor, the same statements that were made when we reauthorized this a few years ago. And one of the most amazing things is there is a continuation of this argument that we haven't done proper oversight. I don't know where you have been, but many of us on this side of the aisle have been in briefings and on hearings on these very issues seeking out the truth on these things.

The canard that somehow we are tearing the Constitution up just does not stand any kind of inquiry whatsoever. The suggestion that somehow we are invading the civil liberties of citizens is negated by the language in the three sections of the bill that we have before us. And the argument that somehow, since we got rid of Osama bin Laden, we don't need this, is the most absurd at all.

One of the lessons of our successful mission being executed against Osama bin Laden is that you need actionable intelligence over a long range of time that you can connect together with analysis to give you the information that you need. It doesn't fall from heaven. It doesn't come like manna. You have to go get it. We have carefully constructed these provisions to allow us to do the kind of work that is necessary not to collect the bodies after a successful terrorist attack has occurred but, rather, to prevent these terrorist attacks.

One of the things people should keep in mind is that we have the intervention of Federal judges in these three different areas of the law. It is not something where the executive branch is allowed to go unfettered into looking for this information. Rather, they must justify it to an independent Federal court; and some say, oh my gosh, it is a secret court. It is a secret court because, in fact, there are certain secrets that must be maintained as we attempt as best we can to save this Nation and our citizens from those who would attack us.

One wonders at times whether we have the sense of urgency that is necessary to continue with the efforts to make us safe. The fact that we have thwarted successfully terrorist attacks is not a reason to dismantle the means which allowed us to do that. It is, in fact, a reason why we should continue this.

Any honest examination of the history of this Judiciary Committee and the Crime Subcommittee will reveal that we have done the oversight necessary to ensure that we have the tools to fight the threat of terrorism and at the same time preserve the civil liberties of American citizens.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore the record. To suggest it's unconstitutional is to somehow ignore the decisions made by every Federal court that has looked at this.

But you can continue to make these statements, you can continue to confuse the public, you can continue to raise alarm where alarm ought not to be raised.

With all due respect, while everybody is entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. They must take the facts as they are. And the facts are this is constitutional, it is workable, it is necessary. We have to do it, and we have to do it now.