Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Durham Literacy Center and to honor its founder (and my constituent), Mrs. Mary Whaley Paul. Mrs. Paul has led a remarkable life and, along the way, she managed to spearhead the campaign against illiteracy in Durham, North Carolina.

Like so many people who achieve great things, Mrs. Paul didn't set out to become a literacy advocate. In 1975, she was a widowed mother of two nearing retirement age. But she attended a workshop on teaching literacy skills to illiterate adults, and the course of her life was forever changed. By 1978, Mrs. Paul had begun leading her own literacy- instruction workshops, and she had become director of the Yates Baptist Literacy program that same year.

The creation of the Durham County Literacy Council in May of 1985 was a direct result of Mrs. Paul's efforts to spread adult literacy instruction and increase the number of literate adults throughout Durham County. This Council later became the Durham Literacy Center.

The Durham Literacy Center targets the provision of its services to those most in need: adults who lack basic literacy skills, recent immigrants, and out-of-school teenagers. Since its inception, a small but dedicated staff has trained more than 2,000 literacy tutors who have served more than 12,000 Durham residents. The Center currently serves more than 550 adults per year at seven locations in Durham.

Growing along with Durham, the Center has evolved from a small organization to a pivotal provider of a variety of educational services. In addition to instruction in reading and writing, the Center helps individuals gain educational credentials (such as a GED) and provides instruction in workplace, computer, financial, and health literacy.

The impact of the Center on the lives of its graduates is Mrs. Paul's most compelling legacy. For starters, graduates earn an average of $7,500 more per year than their counterparts who lack a GED or are not proficient in English. But in addition to securing better employment because of the skills they learn at the Durham Literacy Center, they also go on to receive promotions, purchase homes, improve their health, and enjoy a better quality of life.

Over the years, the Durham Literacy Center has become one of Durham's greatest assets, and the organization's achievements have much to do with the foresight and dream of Mary Whaley Paul and those who followed her. Mrs. Paul helped to illuminate a hidden segment of the Research Triangle populace--the non-reader--and has been instrumental in alleviating the severe economic and social stigma under which they struggle. She also has been a beacon of hope and inspiration for thousands to volunteer and make a difference in the Durham community.

It is in that spirit that I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Durham Literacy Center and in honoring Mrs. Mary Whaley Paul for her efforts to empower the people of Durham County through literacy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the North Carolina delegation to note with sadness the passing of former Representative Ike Andrews, who represented North Carolina's Fourth Congressional District from the 93rd to the 98th Congress, 1973 to 1984.

Ike Andrews rose from humble beginnings in the small town of Bonlee in Chatham County, North Carolina, to the Halls of Congress, and he never forgot his small town roots. He maintained a modest demeanor that sometimes belied the depth of his knowledge on complicated policy issues.

Ike's service to his county began as an Army master sergeant. Ike served his country during World War II as a field artillery forward observer, earning a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. When Ike came back from the war, he earned both an undergraduate and a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, beginning a long relationship, a lifetime relationship with that school.

Before coming to Congress, Ike served as both a North Carolina State senator and a State representative advancing the cause of desegregation in North Carolina's schools. His work in North Carolina was an opening act to a congressional career particularly devoted to the cause of education. Education changed his life, and he wanted to make sure that other people of modest means would have the same opportunity.

In Congress he served as chairman of the Education and Labor Committee's Human Resources Subcommittee, where he worked to advance volunteerism programs and programs to reduce juvenile delinquency.

When I was elected to this body 2 years after Ike had left it, he was always there to offer advice and encouragement. Today, as I think of his work in this body, I acknowledge with appreciation that it helped shape North Carolina's Triangle region as we know it today, a vibrant place of learning and research and innovation.

Ike Andrews is survived by his wife, JoAnne, and his daughter, Alice.

On behalf of the Members of this body, I want to express condolences for their loss; on behalf of my wife, Lisa; all of the Members of this body; all present and former colleagues.

At this point, I am happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina, the dean of our delegation, Mr. Coble.

I thank my colleague.

Now, Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask that we observe a moment of silence in honor of the memory of former Representative Ike Andrews.

Madam Speaker, I rise to direct the House's attention to Public Service Recognition Week, a time in which we honor the more than 20 million men and women who serve our Nation as Federal, State, county and local government employees.

On May 4, 2010, I joined the Partnership for Public Service at an event they hosted to commend all of our Nation's public servants and to recognize one in particular: the late Vicki Levin, wife of our colleague from Michigan. The Partnership presented a plaque to Representative Sandy Levin with the following inscription: ``In memory of Vicki Levin with deep appreciation for three decades of dedicated service to our country.'' I was pleased to offer the following remarks to commend our Nation's public servants and to honor Vicki Levin. I also wish to enclose in the Record a column reflecting on Vicki's exemplary public service, written by the Levins' son, Andy.

remarks at the partnership for public service reception honoring vicki

levin

Thank you for inviting me to join you at tonight's

celebration of Public Service Recognition Week. It's a

pleasure to be here and to help acknowledge the contributions

of our nation's public servants--and of one very dedicated

individual in particular.

As a political scientist by training, I am often asked

about how the academic perspective of government compares

with the day to day reality. The question itself is as

interesting as the answer, because it reveals the tendency of

both academics and civilians to view government as a kind of

abstract entity. But in a representational democracy,

government is very much a living entity. It is intended to be

an instrument of our common purpose, and like most

instruments, it doesn't play itself. People make government

work.

People keep us safe from terrorist threats and food-borne

illness; people develop new treatments for diseases; people

protect our natural resources. The list goes on and on, and

yet, far too often, we overlook--or simply take for granted--

these people: America's public servants. And so for all you

do to make government work in pursuit of the greater good,

let me say thank you.

You stepped up to the plate, and we urgently need to find

more people who are willing to take up the mantle of public

service. In the next few years, an estimated one-third of the

government's top scientists, engineers, physicians,

mathematicians, economists, and other highly specialized

professionals are expected to retire.

Since a high-quality workforce is the key to success for

any organization, we need to both inspire the next generation

to enter government service--and make sure we have the tools

to compete for the country's best minds. I'm pleased to have

worked with the Partnership for Public Service on legislation

to do just that: The Roosevelt Scholars Act (H.R. 1161). This

legislation would create a much needed pipeline of talent for

the federal government by awarding graduate-level

scholarships to students who commit to public service.

Another element of our personnel and recruitment efforts

must be recognizing public servants and lauding the intrinsic

rewards of a career in government service. I believe it is

the personal stories of our public servants themselves that

will best help us make this case.

One such person is Vicki Levin, the dear wife of our friend

and colleague Congressman Sandy Levin, who passed away in

September 2008.

The Levin family has a long record of service in our

justice and judicial systems both in their home state of

Michigan and here in Congress. Sandy chairs the Ways and

Means Committee in the House while his brother Carl chairs

Armed Services in the Senate; they are the longest-serving

brothers in congressional history and one of the few sets

ever to serve as chairman simultaneously. And yet Sandy's

son, Andy, who oversees workforce development and adult

education programs for the state of Michigan, says it was not

his father or his uncle who inspired him to choose a career

in public service.

Andy wrote a column about his mother shortly after her

death, the sort of column any of us would be immeasurably

proud to have our children write. Andy says this about the

source of his inspiration: ``my mom . . . not famous and

never elected to office . . . a classic `Washington

bureaucrat'.''

Vicki worked for nearly three decades--until health reasons

forced her to retire--as a science research officer for a

variety of agencies within the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS). During her career there, as well as

for much of her

life, she was a tireless advocate for research on children's

mental health. In fact, it was her interest in this issue

that prompted Sandy to spearhead an effort to rewrite

Michigan's special education laws during the time he was

serving as a state senator.

The official description of Vicki's work on an NIH

scientific review committee is that she ran a committee of

scientists who decided which research proposals to fund in

the areas of infant and children's mental health. However, as

with many of our public servants, that description simply

doesn't give a full picture of what her job really was, or

more importantly, what her work meant to the average person.

Since her death, volumes of letters from coast to coast

have been sent to the Levin family. Some credited Vicki Levin

with helping develop the emerging field of development

psychopathology; many highlighted how she improved the lives

of children by advancing research on the biological and

environmental factors necessary for a healthy childhood; a

number of scholars credited her with nurturing and

encouraging their work at a critical point; and others told

personal stories about how Vicki helped them through a

personal situation.

In his column, Andy Levin noted that Vicki ``was like so many others among the 21 million federal, state, and local public servants who make sure we have clean water to drink, safe roads and park lands, and who try to protect us from things such as tainted Chinese milk without setting up crippling barriers to international trade.''

Vicki Levin serves as a perfect example of the kind of person that conducts government work: someone whose goal is promoting and protecting the common good. Her story is a stirring reminder of the recognition that public service professionals merit, and an inspiration for others to join her son and commit to a life of public service.

From the Detroit Free Press, Nov. 27, 2008]

Be Grateful for Public Servants, Maybe Become One Yourself

(By Andy Levin)

I come from a family of public servants, people who work

for the people.

In recent years, this calling has fallen out of public

favor. Approval ratings for the federal government sank to

37% this year, from a high of 73% six years earlier,

according to the Pew Center. While much of this has to do

with the economy and attitudes toward the Bush

administration, distrust of ``Washington bureaucrats'' is an

enduring feature of the American polity.

But two developments herald a public service comeback.

The first, of course, was the election--and the campaign--

of Barack Obama. More than any other successful presidential

candidate since John Kennedy in 1960, Obama placed at the

center of his campaign a call for each of us to serve and to

sacrifice for the common good.

The second is the financial meltdown. In the last quarter

century, Democratic and Republican administrations alike

participated in the mechanistic trend of ``less government is

better'' to the point where banks and investment houses could

engage in virtually any scheme to make money with no one

really responsible for making sure decisions were sound. And

the companies were able to pay their executives outrageous

sums that bore no relationship to performance.

In this moment of political opening in reaction to economic

crisis, people seem to be realizing that we need public

servants, people whose goal is promoting and protecting the

common good, to build a new financial system that encourages

investment, the building of real things and the provision of

useful services, and that holds financial decision makers

accountable for their actions--the essence of capitalism.

If you've been in Michigan for any time at all, you may

recognize my last name from our family's long line of public

servants. My grandpa, Saul Levin, served on the Michigan

Corrections Commission. Saul's brother, Theodore, was a

federal judge, and Uncle Ted's son, Charles, served on the

Michigan Supreme Court. My dad, U.S. Rep. Sandy Levin, and my

uncle, U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, have quietly become the longest

serving brothers in the history of Congress.

But it's none of these men who set me to wondering whether

we're about to see a public service renaissance. No, it was

my mom, Vicki Levin, not famous and never elected to office.

For almost 30 years, until she was forced to retire in the

spring for health reasons, Mom worked hard as a federal

employee--a classic ``Washington bureaucrat.''

We kids thought we knew a lot about Mom's career. She ran a

committee of scientists who decided which research proposals

to fund in the area of infant and children's mental health.

We watched her read through mountains of papers, often

bringing work home. We watched her sweat in preparation for

the thrice-yearly meetings of her committee, making sure all

the details were just right.

But I don't think I ever appreciated what her work meant to

her and to others, not fully. Back when I lived in the

Washington, D.C., area, I tried to convince Mom to retire so

she could spend more time with my four kids and her other

grandchildren. After all, she was in her early 70s. Why not

kick back? Mom bristled at the idea, saying her work and her

relationship with colleagues were central to her life.

When her battle with breast cancer forced her to retire in

April, we all learned just what Mom was talking about--and

just how much public service can mean. Letters of tribute

poured in from colleagues, dozens and dozens of research

scientists at universities from coast to coast. (You can read

them at http://eskoink.com/VL/Vickilevin.pdf.)

Many scholars, some now department chairs, told detailed

stories about how they got their research start with Mom's

help, or how she co-authored a paper with one scientist that

is still her most cited work, or how her committee was the

intellectual salon of their field.

Some credit her with helping create the emerging field of

developmental psychopathology. More than one said she has

made the lives of children everywhere better by helping spawn

and nourish path-breaking research on the biological and

environmental factors necessary for a healthy childhood. Many

of them told personal stories about how Mom had counseled

them through a divorce, adoption or rocky situation at the

office.

OK, this is my mom, so you can imagine how reading all this

felt. But if you step back, Vicki Levin was like so many

others among the 21 million federal, state and local public

servants who make sure we have clean water to drink, safe

roads and park lands, and who try to protect us from things

such as tainted Chinese milk without setting up crippling

barriers to international trade.

Thanksgiving will be hard for my family this year. Mom died

Sept. 4 just a few weeks shy of my parents' 51st wedding

anniversary. But as we gather together, and each work

privately through our losses and gratitudes, I wonder whether

our nation is ready to move on from the simplistic notion

that ``government is the problem.''

Perhaps, with the consequences of unregulated greed staring

us in the face this holiday, we are ready to give thanks for

the humble public servants, who forgo the greater monetary

rewards of the private sector to toil for the good of us all.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has served his country and this institution with distinction as an officer of the United States Marine Corps. I will be joined in this tribute by my friend and colleague from the House Democracy Partnership, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Major Speros Koumparakis joined the Marine Corps Office of Legislative Affairs in October 2006. He was hired immediately for a yearlong fellowship by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin). After completing his fellowship, Major Koumparakis joined the House Liaison Office as a legislative liaison officer, and was promoted subsequently to deputy director of this office.

Like many of my colleagues, I have had the distinct honor and pleasure of getting to know Major Koumparakis over the past 2\1/2\ years as he served as the interface between the Marine Corps and the U.S. House of Representatives on matters large and small. Throughout this time, I have been deeply and consistently impressed by his dedication, his professionalism, his ethnic of service, and above all his integrity--qualities which exemplify the ideals promoted by the United States Marine Corps.

Major Koumparakis has displayed a unique ability to develop relationships of trust and confidence with many Members and staff of the House, combined with an uncanny ability to deliver results. Anybody who has ever interacted with him on a policy matter of importance to the Marine Corps, an issue affecting a constituent servicemember, or a logistical challenge arising in the course of an overseas delegation can't help but be struck by his equanimity in the face of crisis and his infectious confidence that everything will be resolved as expeditiously as possible. If anybody can pull it off, one is led to conclude, certainly it must be Major Speros Koumparakis.

I have witnessed these traits personally in my capacity as chairman of the House Democracy Partnership, a bipartisan commission that works to strengthen legislative institutions in 15 developing democracies around the world. Along with my distinguished colleague and friend, David Dreier, the commission's founding chairman and now its ranking member, I have led or traveled on numerous congressional delegations which Major Koumparakis has planned, coordinated and escorted. By our count, House-wide he has escorted no less than a dozen HDP congressional and staff delegations over the last 2 years, and he has contributed in various ways to our programming right up until the very end of his tour. House-wide, Major Koumparakis has organized more than 50 congressional and staff delegations during his tour in the House Liaison Office, including trips for high-ranking Members such as the House minority leader and the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee. But we like to think that

he reserves a special place in his heart for the House Democracy Partnership, often forgoing travel to more glamorous destinations in order to escort our commission to countries such as Liberia, Afghanistan and Timor Leste, where the need for the kind of institutional support we can provide is the greatest.

On these trips, Major Koumparakis has not only excelled as an expert travel coordinator, diplomat and logistician, he has also established himself as an adviser to HDP's work, and an integral part of our programming with partner legislatures. And, of course, he has demonstrated his legendary ability to solve problems and deliver results in the most difficult circumstances.

Let me give one striking example. On one occasion last year, we had a particularly ambitious around-the-world itinerary that included a stop in Hungary to commemorate the fall of the Iron Curtain followed by working visits with the legislatures of Mongolia, Indonesia and Timor Leste. But, unfortunately, our arrival in Budapest was delayed twice by a vote on a major bill here and then weather. By the time we were finally bound for Mongolia, we had nearly exhausted our window to pass through Chinese air space. We faced the prospect of having to divert our mission and forgo the opportunity to make progress with the Mongolian parliament. Well, Major Koumparakis came to the rescue. Working literally through the night, he somehow managed to persuade an official of the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to rouse a Chinese official at his personal residence, on a weekend, no less, and call in a favor to get us the clearance we needed. That is an anecdote that says a lot about the major. It is a small example of his dedication and creativity and good humor. He has just been an indispensable member of the House Liaison Office, and he leaves some very large shoes to fill.

Now in recognition of his service and leadership potential, he has been assigned to what can only be assigned as a hardship billet in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he will attend a command and staff program at the Argentine Naval War College. As he departs Capitol Hill for this next step in his career, we bid him farewell with heartfelt respect and admiration.

I thank the gentleman. I will be very brief, but I do want to add a word.

The gentleman is never at a loss for talking points. I am assured of that. We do need to say something, and I want to do it, acknowledging Major Koumparakis's wife Bree, who also deserves our gratitude and our respect for supporting her husband through 3 long years of early hours and frequent travels and an uncertain schedule. She shows a lot of the same dedication and selflessness that the major himself does. And we are just hopeful that this new assignment in Buenos Aires is going to offer her some light at the end of the tunnel, just as it will the major.

Madam Speaker, today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the annual global celebration of the bounty and natural wonders of our planet and a reminder of our individual and collective obligation to be good stewards of it.

Managing our natural resources and minimizing the impact of human activity on the environment are both profound and fundamental responsibilities. The very survival of the human race depends upon our ability to effectively fulfill these responsibilities.

Since April 22, 1970, people have gathered on this day to renew their commitment to making our planet greener and healthier, and to encourage their leaders to take action on critical environmental policy issues.

We have made substantial progress since that first Earth Day, when twenty million eco-pioneers brought environmental protection to the forefront of the national consciousness. Their advocacy gave birth to the green movement and a green generation that has been critical in shaping our society. The green generation spearheaded community support for passage of the laws that we still rely on to improve the quality of the air we breathe, ensure the availability of clean drinking water, and protect endangered species and fragile ecosystems.

But this struggle is not over. We continue to face significant environmental challenges, and as a nation, we must pursue policies that promote responsible stewardship here at home and provide leadership in the global arena as well.

Perhaps our most acute challenge--and one we have ignored for far too long--is climate change. This is no idle threat: Scientists tell us that we must reduce emissions by roughly 80 percent by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. As the world's largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases, our nation has a unique responsibility to work towards a comprehensive emissions solution that includes a 21st century energy policy. We must find the political will to do just that.

We took a significant step forward in December, when President Obama played a critical role in establishing the international Copenhagen Accord. Although this is a nonbinding agreement, it represents a major departure from the prior Administration's abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, and demonstrates our nation's commitment to being a partner and a leader in finding a global solution to climate change.

I applaud the President's leadership on this issue and urge him to continue working with Congress to develop comprehensive, science-based legislation to provide climate and energy security for us and the generations to come. The House has approved robust legislation to address this issue, and today I call on my Senate colleagues to move forward as well.

I also urge the President and my colleagues in Congress to continue to promote policies that safeguard the environment and facilitate sound management of our natural resources. And I encourage all Americans to renew their commitment to the environment and to take actions in their individual lives to reflect it.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague (Ms. Fudge) for yielding, and I thank her and Mrs. McMorris Rogers for their support of H. Res. 1242 and their help in bringing it to the floor.

I am the proud sponsor of this resolution, which congratulates the Duke University men's basketball team for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I National Championship. I have introduced the resolution as the Member of this body privileged to represent Duke University, and I'm pleased to say that it has the support of the entire North Carolina delegation.

From its roots as tiny Trinity College in 1838 to its current status as one of the world's premiere research and educational institutions, Duke University, like its basketball team, is a testament to the virtues of hard work, determination, and excellence--in the classroom, in the community, and in Cameron Indoor Stadium as well.

I actually have the distinction, not always enviable, of representing both sides of college basketball's most intense rivalry. UNC-Chapel Hill is just down the road from Duke. It's also in the Fourth District. I've had an interesting vantage point, having attended UNC and having taught at Duke. Trust me, I understand the importance of team loyalties to Members of Congress, and I also understand the need, occasionally, to balance these loyalties. But I think we can all agree today that the Blue Devils should be commended, and they should be commended unanimously, for reaching this pinnacle of men's college basketball.

At the risk of stoking the flames, let me just talk about the record for a moment. I'd be remiss if I didn't remind my colleagues that the Duke Blue Devils have a long history of success at men's basketball. They've played in 15 Final Fours, and this is their fourth title win in the last two decades.

Despite this record, the team wasn't favored to win a national championship at the beginning of this season. But they peaked at the right time. They finished the year with 10 straight wins. They shared the ACC regular season championship and won outright the ACC tournament championship and the national championship. They finished the season with a 35-5 record, a tie for the most wins this season nationally.

This improbable end to this season underscores that anything is possible in basketball as in politics. It's also a testament to the very idea of what a team should be, greater than the sum of its parts, an idea Duke teams have long exemplified.

I will enclose in the Record at the end of this statement the full roster of this remarkable team, the men on the team and their hometowns.

Special credit is due to head coach Mike Krzyzewski, known far and wide as Coach K, who's built one of college basketball's most stellar programs since he came to Duke in 1980. This season Coach K brought his overall record to 868-279. He won his 77th NCAA tournament game, and he won his fourth national championship. Needless to say, this places this Hall of Famer in elite company. Only Adolph Rupp and John Wooden have won an equal or greater number of national championships.

But his achievements have not been bounded by the baselines of the court. Coach K's success is about mentoring young men, about coaching them to succeed, not just on the court, but also in the classroom and in life. His teams consistently uphold a high standard of academic excellence, achieving a graduation success rate of 92 percent and boasting a strong tradition of Academic All-Americans.

Each step of the way the team was buoyed by its fans, its incredible fans--the Cameron Crazies, they're called--who make Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium one of the toughest places to win in the country. That again proved true this year when the Blue Devils went undefeated on their home court.

This year's national championship game was considered by many to be one of the closest and most exciting title games in tournament history. It literally came down to the last shot.

Butler University and Coach Brad Stevens are also to be congratulated for their strong season and for their effort in a title game that reminded us anew of why the American people simply can't resist March Madness. Both teams deserve recognition for their dedication to sportsmanship and fair play throughout the entire season.

So it's a unique privilege, Madam Speaker, to introduce, I have to note for the second year in a row, the resolution in this body recognizing the NCAA Men's Basketball National Champion. And I'd like, Madam Speaker, for the Record to reflect that I'll be perfectly happy to introduce such a resolution again next year.

In the meantime, I and Duke's many friends and alumni in this body look forward to welcoming the Blue Devils to the White House and to Capitol Hill.

Duke Blue Devils Roster 2009-2010 Season:

#2 Nolan Smith--Upper Marlboro, MD

#3 Seth Curry--Charlotte, NC

#5 Mason Plumlee--Warsaw, IN

#12 Kyle Singler--Medford, OR

#20 Andre Dawkins--Chesapeake, VA

#21 Miles Plumlee--Warsaw, IN

#30 Jon Scheyer--Northbrook, IL

#34 Ryan Kelly--Raleigh, NC

#41 Jordan Davidson--Melbourne, AR

#42 Lance Thomas--Scotch Plains, NJ

#51 Steve Johnson--Colorado Springs, CO

#52 Todd Zafirovski--Lake Forest, IL

#53 Casey Peters--Red Bank, NJ

#55 Brian Zoubek--Haddonfield, NJ

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the disaster relief and summer jobs supplemental appropriations bill, which includes $5.1 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. The administration has requested this amount in emergency funding to pay for recovery from catastrophic events and to be able to respond to disasters and emergencies through the balance of the fiscal year.

This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina, such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital.

Because we are still dealing with these monumental recovery efforts, the Disaster Relief Fund is being depleted at a rate of nearly $500 million per month this fiscal year. This has nearly doubled the noncatastrophic 5-year average that FEMA bases its estimates on. At that rate, OMB projects FEMA will be completely out of disaster relief funds by the end of March.

It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in the position of running low on funds just halfway through the fiscal year. I agree that FEMA needs to find a better way to budget, to account for the known costs of these catastrophic events when formulating the budget request. I have pressed them to do that and will continue to do so. But it is disingenuous for those on the other side of the aisle to lecture us on this issue when, to a large extent, as they well know, this supplemental is required to deal with the mess inherited from the

previous administration. And by ``the mess,'' I mean the practice of lowballing projected disaster costs as well as billions in deferred obligations.

The fact of the matter is the last administration failed to bring these major public infrastructure projects in the gulf coast to a resolution. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of liabilities that were just kicked down the road. So no lectures, please, on irresponsible budgeting. Over $2 billion of this supplemental could be spent dealing with unresolved Katrina costs.

The FEMA administrator brought these issues to light in a recent hearing before our subcommittee. He has now committed to correcting these deficiencies, to cleaning up the mess he inherited, and to making sure FEMA accounts for its recovery costs, fully accounts, rather than punting them to the next administration.

Based on the impending shortfall in the fund, FEMA announced last month that it could only pay for ``immediate needs'' for disasters, which includes assistance to families and individuals, as well as debris removal and emergency protective measures. All long-term rebuilding projects are being deferred until Congress acts. To put that into perspective for my colleagues, that means that over $367 million worth of projects in 43 States and four territories will continue to be delayed if we fail to act.

And this backlog will only continue to grow. When you add the expensive Katrina-related issues, FEMA is currently liable for nearly $2 billion in costs.

In addition to addressing these past disasters, we must prepare for those to come. The National Weather Service, the Army Corps of Engineers currently estimate that one-third of the U.S. will be faced with the possibility of flooding this spring. Without these funds, FEMA will not be able to assist local communities and States responding to these flooding disasters. It's critical that we replenish the disaster relief funds now.

I remind my colleagues that we have always considered disaster relief funds to be emergency funding, under Republican and Democratic Congresses, under Republican and Democratic administrations. The last administration transmitted eight supplementary funding requests for the disaster relief fund between fiscal 2002 and 2006. Those disaster relief funds were always requested as an emergency and were not offset.

We all have a stake, Mr. Speaker, in the passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask our colleagues to observe a moment of silence in memory of our former colleague, Representative Fred Heineman, who represented North Carolina's Fourth District in the 104th Congress. Fred passed away Saturday, March 20, at the age of 80.

Fred Heineman was first and foremost a man who sought to serve his country. He was a marine, a law enforcement professional, and a Member of Congress.

He started out as a beat cop in Harlem. During his 25-year career with the New York Police Department, he shut down organized crime, he rooted out police corruption, and he tried to keep young people away from drugs and crime by giving them positive alternatives to the streets.

In 1979, he came to Raleigh, North Carolina, to serve as the capital city's chief of police. Fred played a role in making that city what it is today, one of the best places to live and raise a family in our country. I worked with him while he served in that role and admired his commitment to the State that became his home.

In 1995, Fred came to this body, serving in the 104th Congress from 1995 to 1996. In the Halls of Congress, he eschewed the title of Congressman or Representative, preferring instead to be called, simply, ``The Chief.''

Over the last few days, I have heard his former colleagues on the police force and in this institution recount the ways he affected their lives. Fred's colleagues respected his expertise on issues of public safety and his strength of conviction. The nature of this institution, I firmly believe, is such that those who remain true to their convictions, who fight for what they believe in, leave it with pride in the service they have rendered.

Fred is survived by his wife, Linda, and six children. I wish to offer condolences to her and the rest of the family on behalf of my wife, Lisa, and me, and on behalf of colleagues in this body.

I would now like to yield to my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the dean of our delegation, for his thoughts.

I thank my colleague and now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that our colleagues rise and honor Fred Heineman with a moment of silence.

Mr. Speaker, ``once to every man and nation,'' wrote the great abolitionist poet James Russell Lowell, ``comes the moment to decide.''

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in history when it becomes clear that we simply cannot wait any longer to do what is right. When we have the opportunity to take a significant step to make our country better, the sort of opportunity that comes only a few times in a lifetime. We face such a moment tonight.

Our health insurance system is falling far short of the American peoples' basic needs. It isn't working for families, who have seen their insurance premiums increase 75 percent over the past decade, while their earnings have risen only 14 percent. It isn't working for young adults, whose parents' policies stop covering them in their early twenties in most states, as if people that age don't need health insurance. It isn't working for people who have pre-existing conditions and can't find affordable coverage. It isn't working for the countless Americans whose coverage has been revoked when they get sick and need it most. And it isn't working for small business owners who want to provide coverage for their employees but can't access the low group rates that insurance companies willingly negotiate with large employers.

Over the past year, I have attended numerous town hall meetings and roundtable discussions. I have met personally with doctors and patients, parents and children, seniors and students, business owners and employees. I have read thousands of letters and emails from constituents about this critical issue.

In the course of these conversations, I have heard a rich and diverse range of views on the current state of our nation's health care system, but one conclusion has been shared by almost everyone: The status quo is unacceptable.

Our current system penalizes the sick. It sells young people short. It puts small businesses--the primary engine of job creation in our country--at a competitive disadvantage. And instead of medicine, it offers seniors the Medicare doughnut hole.

Why, then, would we continue to accept it? Particularly when we have before us a carefully crafted bill that directly addresses the system's flaws, preserves its strengths, and sets us on the path to meeting longer-term challenges.

The time for reform is now.

In an effort to defeat this bill, some of my colleagues have fabricated claims about ``death panels'' and damage to Medicare. They have raised the specter of ``socialism'' and ``government takeovers'' when they know quite well that this bill leaves the provision of

care, and most insurance, in the private sector. They urge us to ``start over,'' but when challenged to come up with an alternative, they produced a plan that leaves insurance discrimination in place as well as tens of millions of uninsured.

Reform will save money for employees, business owners, and taxpayers. It will end insurance company abuses. It will let young people stay on their parents' policies until age 27. It will extend coverage to 95 percent of Americans. It expands community health centers and increases the number of primary care doctors and nurses. And it will end the hidden tax that the insured pay every month in the form of higher premiums.

If my colleagues don't want to take my word for it, ask some of the people--right in their own backyards--who have lived through it firsthand. Ask David Swanson, whose insurance company raised the premium for his daughter's coverage 54 percent when she turned 17. Ask Blake Anderson, a small business owner who cannot afford coverage for his four employees. Ask Libbie Hough, who fears her 18-year-old daughter won't be able to find insurance when she finishes college because of a genetic disorder. Or ask the thousands of Americans who think they have good coverage until they get sick and hit annual or lifetime benefit caps, or lose their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the American people have waited long enough. We face an historic decision tonight, one that will resonate throughout our country, as have Social Security and Medicare, for decades to come. Let us seize the moment for the people we were elected to serve, and for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I wish to introduce to my colleagues my distinguished constituent and today's guest chaplain, Imam Abdullah Antepli. I also want to welcome in the gallery our many guests from the Duke University community, the Muslim community, the Turkish community, both from the triangle area of North Carolina and from the Washington area.

Imam Antepli has a long and distinguished record of faith-based and humanitarian service in countries ranging from his native Turkey to the Southeastern Asian nations of Burma and Malaysia. Since moving to the United States in 2003, he has been a true pioneer in the field of Muslim campus ministry, serving as the first Muslim chaplain at Wesleyan University and as the founding member of the Muslim Chaplains Association. He later served at Hartford Seminary, where he completed his doctorate on the challenges and opportunities facing the Muslim campus ministry in the United States.

In July 2008, he came to Duke University to serve as the school's first full-time Muslim chaplain. Although he has been on campus less than 2 years, he has made an enormous impact on the university community. His role is obviously to facilitate worship and study for the school's Muslim students, but he has taken on much more than that. He counsels students of all faiths, fosters understanding of the Muslim faith, and is much in demand as a speaker and a participant in a variety of community events. This is a

remarkable accomplishment at a time when religious differences still threaten to divide us from one another and from other nations.

I first met Imam Antepli last September at a meeting of Islamic study scholars in which he participated, and I was immediately struck by enthusiasm, his intellect and his readiness to engage. Throughout his career, he has truly exemplified the notion of faith in action and has made a habit of practicing the values of tolerance, understanding and respectful dialogue, which he preaches.

So, Madam Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of all of our colleagues to introduce and welcome Imam Abdullah Antepli to the House here today.

Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of this legislation. It has been five long years since an intelligence authorization bill was last signed into law, and each new revelation about the conduct of the previous administration testifies to the need for effective congressional oversight of the intelligence community.

This bill also provides an opportunity to move beyond questions of misconduct and abuse to address the longer-term challenges of improving our intelligence capabilities, making them responsive to cyber-security and other new threats, and ensuring that they are accountable to Congress and the American public.

I'd like to highlight two aspects of the bill on which I have worked in recent years (along with colleagues such as Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Holt), and which I believe are important steps toward improving the effectiveness of our intelligence operations.

First, the bill contains several provisions dealing with the use of private contractors by the intelligence community, which by some reports has come to consume nearly half of the annual intelligence budget.

It would require a comprehensive report on the number and cost of contractors employed by the intelligence community and the extent of their use for intelligence collection, analysis, and other covert activities including detention and interrogation.

It also explicitly prohibits the use of contractors for the interrogation of detainees, codifying a prohibition that the CIA itself has already adopted.

Both of these measures are based on my Transparency and Accountability in Intelligence Contracting Act (H.R. 963), and both were approved by the House in the last intelligence authorization bill but were not signed into law.

Secondly, the bill lays a foundation for making the practice of interrogation more effective, professional, and ethical.

I have worked closely with Subcommittee Chairman Mike Thompson in crafting a section of this bill based on H.R. 591, my comprehensive interrogation and detention reform bill.

Our provision would require the DNI to report to Congress on:

The quality and value of existing scientific research on interrogation;

The state of interrogation training within the intelligence community, including its ethical component;

Efforts to enhance career paths for interrogation specialists; and

The effectiveness of existing processes for studying and implementing best practices.

These and other key provisions of this bill are only a start, but they represent an important first step toward improving the effectiveness and accountability of our intelligence community, and ensuring that the necessary measures we take to protect our country do not come at the cost of our fundamental values.

Finally, I feel compelled to add that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are claiming that this bill--and this Administration-- somehow do not appreciate the threat our nation is facing have clearly neither read the text of this legislation nor given the issue much serious thought. Rather than holding up military commissions at Guantanamo Bay as a panacea for all of our ills, we should be confronting the threats we face squarely, soberly, and with vigilant attention to questions of effectiveness and ethicality--which is exactly what this bill does.

I thank Chairman Reyes, Ranking Member Hoekstra, and the members of their committee for their leadership and their continued attention to these vital issues, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker, and I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 160, honoring the contributions of the American Kennel Club on its 125th anniversary.

Over the course of these 125 years, the AKC has established itself as our Nation's leading not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement, study, responsible breeding, care, and ownership of dogs. Today, dog owners throughout the United States can be proud of the work the club does to promote the responsible care that dogs deserve.

With offices employing 300 constituents in my district in Raleigh, North Carolina, and additional staff in New York City, the AKC has also become a major source of good-paying jobs.

Each year, the American Kennel Club sanctions and regulates over 20,000 sporting events. It is also a leader in training inspectors and inspecting dog kennels, conducting more than 5,200 kennel inspections each year.

Through its national junior organization, the AKC has enrolled over 21,000 children aged 9 to 18 to promote responsible dog ownership, care, and handling.

In addition to serving as the world's largest purebred dog registry, the AKC has also started a mixed breed program to allow all dogs to participate in a variety of AKC's sanctioned events. Various AKC programs support the advancement of canine health and well-being, and educate the public on responsible dog ownership.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lynch, Mrs. Biggert, Chairman Towns, and Ranking Member Issa for moving this resolution forward, and my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and 51 other cosponsors for their help as well.

I urge my colleagues to join in support.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues this afternoon have once again raised the issue of Guantanamo Bay, so I would like to take just a moment to clarify the treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees in this bill and in previous bills.

As our colleagues surely know, this is an issue that was debated and addressed by Congress in mid-October in the Homeland Security bill, the bill produced by the subcommittee that I Chair. This has already been signed into law. The language in our bill restricts the movement of detainees from Guantanamo Bay. It requires greater transparency on the part of the administration as it disposes of each detainee's case. It allows the transfer of detainees to the U.S. only for prosecution and with requirements that the administration provide a risk mitigation plan for each transfer and advance notice to Congress and to the destination State.

That same exact language was carried in the Interior appropriations bill, which was also signed into law. The conference report before us restates this language yet again, exactly the same language. There shouldn't be any confusion at all as to where Congress stands on this issue.

Now, in conference, our Republican friends attempted, once again, to play ``gotcha'' with this Gitmo issue. They attempted to overturn these provisions included in previous bills and to bar the administration from prosecuting detainees in U.S. criminal courts. We ought to strongly oppose any such effort to stand in the way of bringing terrorists to justice. That's exactly what this is all about. We must not tie the hands of the Departments of Justice and Defense as they seek to prosecute, where appropriate in U.S. courts, terrorism suspects housed at Guantanamo Bay.

Our Republican colleagues would rather keep Guantanamo open, apparently, and would exclusively use military tribunals for prosecutions. They

seem to think that three convictions by military tribunals in the entire period of their existence is an impressive record. One of those was by a guilty plea. This isn't an impressive record; it's a dismal record. By contrast, recent analysis of the 119 terrorism cases involving 289 defendants tried over the last 20 years in U.S. courts shows a 91 percent conviction rate for the cases that had been resolved as of June 2.

I can't tell you whether one option or the other is better for any given case, but that's not the call we have to make in an appropriations bill. With current law, we can leave that decision to the experts in the administration who can best decide on a case-by-case basis who should be prosecuted in the U.S. and what mitigation plans are necessary to address any risks that may result from these trials.

The purpose of the Republican amendment, which was rightly rejected in the conference committee, was to shut off access to U.S. courts for terrorism prosecution. That is a proposition that is patently absurd and that, I dare say, our Republican colleagues would not be putting forward if there were a Republican President.

Is criminal prosecution an option we simply summarily want to close off? Of course, the answer is ``no.''

We should be using these carefully selected prosecutions to send a message to the world that we will not be intimidated by the prospect of bringing terrorists to justice or allow terrorism to undermine the rule of law in our country.

Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives approaches this historic vote, my mind travels back to the formative years when I first became engaged in politics, and also to hundreds of meetings I have had with constituents since the citizens of North Carolina's Fourth district first sent me to Congress.

I came of age as the civil rights movement of the late '50s and early '60s swept across the country. It shaped and transformed my social, religious, and political views. I remember the culminating moment in 1964 when, as a Senate staff member, I crowded into the gallery and witnessed the dramatic passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That momentous bill marked an expansion of democracy and of access to opportunity for millions of Americans. Today's vote is also momentous, and it also marks an expansion of democracy's promise. Today we resolve that never again will American citizens be denied access to health insurance, and that one of life's most basic needs--health care--will be available to all of our people.

As I think back on my years of congressional service, I remember meetings with parents terrified at the prospect that their children with serious illnesses would not be able to obtain coverage when they reach adulthood. I remember maddening stories of families coping with illness while simultaneously fighting with insurance companies. I remember young adults unable to buy affordable insurance, often because of allergies or other minor conditions. I remember retirees not yet eligible for Medicare being quoted rates of thousands per month because of their health history.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard these stories. They are unworthy of our country. And today we have the opportunity to bring such hardship and heartache to an end. The American people deserve a health care system that works for them--one that provides access to stable coverage, quality care, and affordable premiums and copayments. The legislation before us today will correct the failures of the American health care system without compromising its many strengths or adding to the budget deficit.

If you have coverage at work, you'll be able to keep it--but the loss of a job will no longer mean the loss of affordable coverage. And your insurance company will no longer be able to impose lifetime benefit limits; discriminate on the basis of age, gender, or pre-existing conditions; or cancel your policy if you get sick.

If you have coverage through Medicare, you'll have more benefits and lower out-of-pocket costs, including no more copayments for preventive and many diagnostic services, and a 50 percent discount on your brand- name prescriptions, and a progressive closing of the gap in coverage known as the ``doughnut hole.''

If you don't have coverage at all, you'll be able to buy it on the National Health Exchange at the same affordable group rates that big companies have always been able to negotiate for their employees. And you'll have more than one choice, so that companies will have to compete for your business instead of the other way around.

Landmark reforms--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--these things do not come easily. We were sent to Congress this year to do what is difficult. Despite the efforts of some shrill voices, we are on the verge of overcoming the special interests that halted reform more than a decade ago, to deliver on landmark legislation that will make a positive difference in the life of every American. It is an historical moment, an essential investment in our nation's long-term fiscal and economic well-being, and it's long overdue. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Affordable Health Care for America Act.