Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, later today we are likely to see bipartisan support for an amendment to authorize the Secretaries of Defense and State to provide limited assistance to properly vetted factions within the Syrian opposition as part of the broader effort to ``degrade, and ultimately destroy'' the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The President specifically asked Congress to provide these authorities, and I somewhat reluctantly will agree to support it.

But I want to add a caution, that this action should not be interpreted as granting congressional authorization for the broader use of military force to combat the growing threat posed by ISIL. Quite the contrary, the amendment specifically prohibits the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities absent such explicit authorization.

Now, the President asserts he already has the authority to confront ISIL. In his most recent notification to Congress, he cites the executive's constitutional authority ``to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief . . .'' While this issue has been the subject of long-simmering debate between our branches and among historians and scholars, I would modestly note that the Constitution explicitly grants to Congress, and only to Congress, the power to declare war. If there are inherent unenumerated powers in the role of Commander in Chief, most surely logic dictates there are similar inherent, unenumerated powers Congress is vested in with our role to declare war.

Let us make no mistake, we are confronting here on this issue a matter of war and peace. Yet, in the same breath we are discussing the danger, we are preparing to shutter Congress for another 7 weeks until after the election.

The President said he welcomes congressional support for this effort to show the world we are ``united in confronting this danger.'' I am glad he welcomes congressional input, but I, for one, believe the President actually needs specific congressional authority, whether he wants it or not, for what he himself acknowledges will be a prolonged campaign to eradicate the cancer-like ISIL. Anything short of that is an abrogation of our sworn duty to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

This isn't President Obama trampling on the Constitution. This is Congress, in a long 60-year history, of winking and blinking about our responsibility because we don't want to bear it. But on matters of war and peace, we either live up to our constitutional responsibility, which is quite clear, or we go on a 7-week recess.

My colleagues know there are historical cases in which congressional acquiescence has been construed to confer support or authorization where none has been given. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution is certainly a case in point. It led to a prolonged war and 55,000 U.S. deaths.

The 93rd Congress adopted the War Powers Resolution to reassert Congress' role after both Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult with Congress prior to introducing American forces into hostilities.

The administration has recently argued that the aerial strikes do not constitute hostilities because they don't involve sustained fighting. But again, out of the President's own words, he said last week this would be ``a comprehensive and sustained effort.'' That doesn't sound like a temporary action by the Commander in Chief.

And to put an even finer point on the issue, I remind my colleagues of H. Con. Res. 105, which was adopted in July, that prohibits the President from deploying or maintaining U.S. Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization.

I agree with the President when he said we are strongest as a Nation when the President and Congress work together. On the most important issue we ever vote on, war and peace, we must come together, and this branch must live up to its constitutional responsibility at long last.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend Mr. Engel from New York, and I congratulate the authors of H. Res. 726. They have done a great job in building bipartisan support for this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. The United States must stand with the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia's naked aggression and reverse violations to Ukrainian sovereignty and prevent further Russian meddling and attacks on what they consider former Soviet republics.

We must remember that this assault began in Crimea, part of Ukraine. It was in Crimea that Russian military forces violated, initially, Ukrainian sovereignty, and it was Russia then that ultimately illegally arranged for the annexation of this territory, territory of a sovereign country.

Subsequently, we have witnessed further incursions by the Russian military into eastern Ukraine. Now Europe is attuned to the threat, but, Mr. Speaker, I am stuck on Crimea. Ignoring Russian aggression in Crimea only emboldened Putin to do it again in eastern Ukraine.

I am very pleased that the authors of this resolution adopted the principles of our bipartisan legislation introduced earlier this year with Mr. Steve Chabot, and like the Crimea Annexation Non-recognition Act, which is H. Res. 726, formerly and utterly rejects Russian sovereignty over Crimea and calls on our allies to do the same. Without a clear stance on the issue of Crimea, the West ultimately becomes unwittingly complicit in Putin's further aggression and interference throughout Ukraine.

What is next? Moldova? Georgia? The Baltic Republic?

Congress must address the Crimea underlying issue if we are going to have credibility on the whole issue of Putin's aggression in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the authors of this resolution for doing just that; and again, I thank Mr. Engel and Mr. Royce for the way they comport the House Foreign Affairs Committee in true bipartisan fashion.

I thank my dear friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this amendment. The President has laid out a bold and decisive strategy to lead a multilateral operation designed to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL.

This is a threat the United States, sooner or later, must address. I prefer sooner. ISIL's acts of genocide are undermining the stability of Iraq, threatening our partners in the Kurdistan region, and reversing gains made by moderate forces in Syria.

I believe Congress has a constructive and collaborative role to play here in the effort to eliminate the ISIL threat. I appreciate that the measure before us takes a step in that direction while addressing many concerns that have been raised about the effort to train and equip the moderate Syrian opposition.

First, the amendment provides for careful congressional oversight. The Department of Defense must report to Congress on the vetting process for trainees 15 days prior to providing any such assistance. The President must report to Congress on how this operation fits within our overall regional strategy, and the Department of Defense must submit a report every 90 days updating Congress on the status of this operation. These are prudent measures and consistent with the constitutional role of congressional oversight.

Second, this amendment does not provide a blank check for military operations. No additional funds are provided by this measure, and the Department of Defense must submit any reprogramming requests to this Congress.

Third, this is not an open-ended commitment. The limited activities authorized by this amendment will remain in effect until the earlier of the date of the expiration of the CR or the enactment of the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.

Almost 1 year ago, in response to the President's consultation with Congress on the deepening crisis in Syria, I introduced a resolution authorizing the President to carry out airstrikes against the Assad regime. In that case, Congress chose to demur. Today I hope we act not only on this resolution, but ultimately on a new Authorization for Use of Military Force allowing the President to carry out airstrikes against ISIL. The 2001 AUMF has gone stale, and it is time for a new, focused AUMF targeting ISIL.

I believe the President would find bipartisan support here in Congress for airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. This tactic, thus far, has effectively bolstered our partners on the ground, protected American assets, and facilitated the humanitarian missions.

But instead of taking up this charge and debating issues of war and peace, we are about to break for another recess. While I support the measure before us today, I hope Congress will do more to assert its constitutional role and responsibility and act as a stakeholder in the fight against this terrorist threat.

I thank my good friend from Florida.

I listened to my friend from Utah and I heard him make reference to fact that he thought he might be spending some time in purgatory. I just want him to know that I rise in support of him. I want to help him expiate whatever transgressions he has committed and lessen that time in purgatory by opposing this rule. I think that is how we ought to begin.

Madam Speaker, here we go again. Should it surprise any of us that the most antienvironmental House majority is once again engaging in science suppression and denial simply because they don't like the findings and where they take us?

Apparently, the narrative is environmental regulations and rulemaking can only be abuse. My friend from Utah used that word. That is the choice: ``Do you like being abused or not?'' And I find that not only something I have to reject, but I don't think that is, in fact, the choice we face at all.

I think environmental regulation, since we adopted rigorous standards in 1970 under the Richard Nixon administration, a Republican President, actually has served the American public, by and large, very well, the story my friend from Utah tells about the farmer, the sugar beet farmer, notwithstanding.

There may be anecdotes that are compelling and where, indeed, Federal regulators abuse their authority. That does not characterize rulemaking, and it can't serve as a substitute for protecting, not abusing, the American public and its environmental safety.

We have all grown accustomed to repeated efforts here on the floor to gut important environmental safeguards that protect public health.

All told, my friends on the other side of the aisle have had something like 200 votes to block action to address climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to undermine protections for public lands, coastal areas, and the ecology. The bill that will be before us if this rule passes is more of the same.

What really should alarm the American public is the House majority's effort to suppress and openly reject science. They have done it in denying climate change. They have done it in opposing commonsense protections against mercury, lead, and arsenic. And today they want to throw out the scientific findings of the proposed clean waterways rule and prohibit them from being used moving forward.

Where does that end?

This know-nothing kind of approach fails the public we are sworn to protect and serve and again abandons the model of environmental leadership going back to the Republican days of Teddy Roosevelt.

I thank my friend.

We, as elected officials, have to recognize the valuable role science must play in making good public policy--not anecdotes, science. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best when he said: ``The good thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in it or not.''

Let's have science inform our public policymaking and our legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying repeat legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the tremendous contributions of our former colleague, Edith Starrett Green, who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1955-1974, representing Oregon's 3rd District. During her tenure in the House, Mrs. Green was one of the nation's leading advocates for expanding access to higher education for all Americans and ensuring equal pay and opportunities for women and minorities.

Among her many accomplishments, Mrs. Green authored two landmark pieces of legislation that continue to shape the field of post- secondary education, including the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, which authorized the use of Federal funds to expand and improve classrooms, libraries, and laboratories on college and university campuses. She also sponsored the Higher Education Act of 1965, which for the first time authorized Federal financial assistance for undergraduate students. President Lyndon Johnson referred to the Higher Education Facilities Act as ``the greatest step forward in the field since the passage of the Land-Grant Act of 1862.'' Her commitment and success earned Mrs. Green the monikers ``the Mother of Higher Education' and ``Mrs. Education.''

Mrs. Green, a native of South Dakota, also was concerned with the issues of equal opportunity and equal pay for women and minorities and advanced pioneering legislation addressing both issues. She was appointed to President John F. Kennedy's Commission on the Status of Women and chaired its Civil and Political Rights Committee in the early 1960s. She was the author of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which she helped push across the finish line eight years after first introducing it. She followed that by winning support for her amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965 to expand the scope of the bill to include training opportunities for urban youth.

Mrs. Green was known as a shrewd legislator, once called a ``bare- knuckle fighter'' by one Congressional observer, and those skills helped her advance this and other issues close to her heart. She spent much of her public life working to eliminate the social and legal obstacles preventing women from achieving equality in post-secondary education.

Perhaps most notably, Mrs. Green was one of several members to introduce legislation prohibiting federally-funded colleges and universities from discriminating against women after the idea was born out of seven days of hearings she held on the topic in her role as Chairman of the Education and Labor Subcommittee on Higher Education. ``If you can make every young girl know that there's no ceiling of expectations, that there is not height to which that young girl cannot go, she'll aspire to that,'' Mrs. Green said in a 1978 interview. Ultimately, she collaborated with fellow Representative Patsy Mink, of Hawaii, and Senator Birch Bayh, of Indiana, on the groundbreaking Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which opened new academic and athletic opportunities for women and has had a transformative effect on future generations of girls and women across America. Upon her retirement in December 1974, former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan remarked that ``she presided over the enactment of the most important education legislation in the history of the Republic, and I hope someone would say so.'' Mrs. Green returned to Oregon, where she taught college government classes and passed away in April 1987.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said before and surely deserves repeating: The passionate and persistent efforts of Congresswoman Edith Green have forever transformed our modern classrooms, athletic fields, and employment settings for the better, and she deserves our sincere respect and gratitude. I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the tremendous record of accomplishment compiled by our former colleague, Edith Starrett Green, and in thanking her family for their sacrifice and support of her career, which continues to help advance opportunities for so many others.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican House is about to go out for 5 weeks, but first, they are going to sue the President and hope that we don't pay attention to the unfinished business of this country. I only have 1 minute, so I am going to have to read it fast.

Let me list for you some of the bills they are not going to address: comprehensive immigration reform, propping up the highway trust fund, funding the Federal Government, reauthorizing the Ex-Im Bank, providing additional resources to fight wildfires in the West, bipartisan Federal IT procurement reform, raising the minimum wage, extending emergency unemployment insurance, reauthorizing terrorism risk insurance, comprehensive tax reform, modernizing the Voting Rights Amendment Act, and ensuring equal pay and nondiscrimination of the workplace.

I have run out of time, but our constituents have run out of patience with this majority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the strongest support of H.R. 1771, the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2014.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also want to thank the distinguished chairman. He and I had a conversation several months ago where I encouraged that we put this on the schedule, the agenda, for a markup on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and he did so with alacrity, and I really appreciate his consideration and leadership.

This legislation, which I am pleased to have cosponsored, provides us with the opportunity to communicate that the House of Representatives is resolved to hold the Orwellian North Korean regime accountable for unspeakable brutality against its own people and the erratic and dangerous manner in which it conducts itself on the world stage.

The bill imposes the first comprehensive sanctions on the North Korea regime, and those in other countries, who abet its arms smuggling, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile development, human rights abuses, and terrorism support.

It imposes asset freezes and seizures and visa denials on persons who materially contribute to North Korea's WMD missile development and proliferation, as well as its human rights abuses and support for terrorism.

H.R. 1771 requires the Treasury Department to determine if North Korea is engaged in money laundering, and, if so, it blocks any entity from access to the entire United States financial system if it conducts direct or indirect transactions with North Korea's banks.

It also requires a public report identifying North Korean human rights violators and political prison camps. It calls for a feasibility study of providing North Korean nationals with Internet communication devices that can overcome the incredible censorship in that country.

Mr. Speaker, these sanctions are warranted. North Korea is a reckless international actor that has amassed a litany of violations and abuses of international law that one would think belong in a fictional novel. It continues to develop nuclear weapons programs in defiance of the Security Council and worldwide condemnation.

North Korea supports the development of Iranian missile technology and nuclear capabilities. Hamas and Hezbollah, both designated foreign terrorist organizations by the United States Government, receive missile technology and training from the North Korea regime that they have used to attack Israel, an ally of the United States.

The Security Council at the United Nations' resolutions deterring missile tests and launches are routinely flouted. It is clear that a pattern of behavior has developed in North Korea that should be concerning to all in the international community, not just this body.

The U.S. will not and cannot allow an authoritarian regime to operate with impunity and threaten our national security and that of our allies.

Of course, the United States and the international community should not only address the aggression North Korea has projected outward. The atrocities committed within the borders of North Korea are, of course, of equal concern and deserve similar condemnation.

The status of human rights seems to have regressed under Kim Jong Un, if that is at all possible. A recent United Nations report recounts in horrifying detail the ``offenses'' which land individuals in labor camps, including the misspelling of Kim Jong Il. Deplorable conditions persist in the nation's system of gulags that reports say contain as many as 200,000 prisoners.

People seeking refuge from the oppressive regime must disregard public executions used to intimidate the populace and brave a ``shoot to kill'' set of orders levied against citizens who are simply attempting to make a living somewhere else. Family reunifications between South Korean families and their loved ones on the other side of the DMZ remain limited to fleeting reunions.

I really want to thank Chairman Royce and our committee staff on both sides for working with us on an amendment that makes the suspension of sanctions in this legislation conditional on North Korea making significant progress in planning for unrestricted family reunification meetings, including for those individuals among the 2 million strong Korean American community who still have relatives in North Korea.

Pyongyang must pay, and the lives of North Koreans must be improved.

I applaud this legislation for levying extensive sanctions against bad actors in the North Korean saga while recognizing the urgency of humanitarian, medical, and food assistance for North Korea's citizens. Rest assured that no such reprieve is offered by the regime in Pyongyang.

Again, I commend my colleagues, the chairman, and the ranking member of our committee for finding, once again, common ground on the North Korea sanctions issue and for taking decisive action against this despotic regime.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on this side.

I urge passage of this legislation. I think it can send a very important message to our allies and to our foes and to, especially, the North Korea regime itself. I think the timing is right.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 4490, the United States International Communications Reform Act.

I want to congratulate, again, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel on the bipartisan legislation before us today to reform the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

I am pleased to join them in cosponsoring these commonsense reforms that will result in a more clearly defined mission for the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its components, and a more efficient operation on behalf of the taxpayers.

Like many of my colleagues, I was troubled to hear former Secretary of State Clinton tell the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the Broadcasting Board of Governors had become ``practically a defunct agency in terms of its capacity to be able to tell a message around the world.'' And as the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee just said, we need that ability right now, given the events that are going on in Russia and the Ukraine.

As my colleagues know, this bill responds to critical reports issued early last year by the Government Accountability Office and the State Department Office of Inspector General, which were the subject of a hearing before our committee last June. Those reports highlighted structural deficiencies and overlapping functions within the Broadcasting Board of Governors' federally operated programs Voice of America and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the private but federally funded broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, and Radio Free Asia.

This legislation also clarifies the mission statements of the Federal and non-Federal broadcasters. Voice of America, for example, will now confine itself to its public diplomacy mission to foster positive relationships between the United States and the rest of the world.

There were concerns about mission creep within the Voice of America, blurring the lines between it and the mission of the international broadcasters to provide uncensored and objective news and analysis on a local and regional level in those places lacking a free press.

The bill also includes necessary structural reforms, including a new International Communications Agency

with a CEO to manage the day-to-day operations of VOA and other federally run operations.

As we learned during last year's hearing, there was growing concern of micromanagement by the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the challenge of achieving a quorum at the board meetings needed to make operational decisions. This will put the Board of Governors in a more advisory role.

Further, the bill will consolidate the non-Federal broadcasters under the same umbrella, known as the Freedom News Network, achieving economies of scale, saving money, as the chairman has indicated, and allowing for closer collaboration on other more global efforts.

Importantly, this legislation maintains the requirement that U.S. Federal programs serve as an objective source of news and information and not as a mouthpiece for U.S. foreign policy.

This bill has been a collaborative effort that included outreach and input from key stakeholders, including the board itself, the broadcasters, and agency staff. This is the kind of bipartisan oversight on which we should be focusing. I wish more committees in this body would follow this example.

Once again, I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Eliot Engel for their bipartisan leadership and for bringing our committee, once again, together on this very important piece of legislation.

Having no further speakers on this side, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, four of the seven appropriations bills considered by the House this year have passed with bipartisan support. Those votes harken back to the spirit of cooperation that brought an end to last year's reckless government shutdown and the subsequent Bipartisan Budget Agreement that restored some of the harmful cuts from sequestration. Unfortunately, this week's consideration of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for next year diverges sharply from that practice. I have multiple objections with the agenda House Republicans are advancing with this bill, and I want to highlight a few of them.

For starters, this bill continues the Majority's assault on the mission and personnel of the Internal Revenue Service. The bill, as introduced, cuts $340 million from the IRS and comes on heels of $850 million in cuts over the past four years. Making matters worse, an amendment was adopted during debate Monday night that would cut another $788 million or 10% from IRS enforcement activities. I remind my colleagues that the IRS plays a critical role in helping taxpayers to understand and comply with our nation's complex tax code and ensuring that those tax laws are enforced fairly.

Unfortunately both of those activities have suffered in the last few years because of these punitive cuts. Basic assistance for taxpayers has dropped off sharply because of a reduction in workforce of 8,000 positions, and training for those that remain has been cut 87% in the last four years. As a result, caller wait times have almost doubled and the number of unanswered calls has increased by half. It's no wonder public frustration has increased. Tax enforcement has also suffered. The amount of staff devoted to enforcing our tax laws has been cut by 15% since 2010. As a result, revenue collected by enforcement actions has fallen off by $4 billion during that time.

Yet, some of my colleagues have shown no shame in criticizing the IRS for not maintaining its email files when it is their actions that have left the agency stretched so thin. Rather than adequately fund the IRS--which generates nearly $6 in revenue for every $1 invested--House Republicans have starved the agency, crippling its ability to meet demands and leaving $300 billion to $400 billion per year in uncollected taxes. That's more than half of the projected deficit of $583 billion for this fiscal year.

In addition to that contradiction, Mr. Chair, I would note that the conservative crowd that says, ``the level of government closest to the people governs best,'' is poised to overturn a decision by the local government right here in the District of Columbia. Twenty-three states--nearly 1/3rd of which have Republican governors--and the District have decriminalized the limited use of marijuana. In fact, the home state of this provision's sponsor is one of those states, but the reach of Congressional Republicans under this bill does not allow them to interfere with the decision of his home state or that of other states. They can, however, restrict the use of funds provided to DC, and so we're doing so simply because we can. There is no merit or consistency in this action, which is nothing more than a raw power grab by House Republicans, who continue to block attempt by the citizens of the District of Columbia to exercise local control.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I take exception to the fact that this bill does not sufficiently support the Administration's Information Technology Oversight and Reform initiative, known as ITOR. That program is funded $11 million below the request of $20 million--a relatively modest amount in light of the considerable savings of $2.4 billion this office has already achieved in the last four years. Under the direction of the U.S. Chief Information Officer, ITOR is leading the Federal Government's efforts to improve the effectiveness of digital services to provide citizens and businesses with world class user experiences; reduce waste in Federal IT acquisitions; and identify savings that can be re-programmed to better serve taxpayers and optimize the use of scarce agency resources.

In addition to these important activities, ITOR also supports recruiting and training the next generation of talented Federal IT personnel, and it supports the Office of Management and Budget's coordination of Federal cybersecurity programs. As the recent cyber breach at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management highlights, we must be vigilant in continuously monitoring Federal IT systems to safeguard sensitive information national security information.

As the Committee notes, ITOR has notched commendable achievements in enabling agencies to more efficiently utilize cloud computing and begin optimizing and consolidating Federal data centers. Of course, much work remains to be done. I appreciate and share the Committee's concern over recent Federal IT failures. In recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive IT program failures that ring up staggeringly high costs but exhibit astonishingly poor performance. The deplorable rollout of the HealthCare.gov site last year is a symptom of a broader disease that ITOR is helping to address--the broken Federal IT acquisition process. The annual price tag of this wasteful spending on IT programs is estimated to be approximately $20 billion. That status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable.

That is why I joined the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to develop a comprehensive, bipartisan, Federal IT acquisition reform legislative proposal--commonly referred to as the Issa-Connolly bill, or ``FITARA.'' Our bipartisan bill represents the most dramatic overhaul of Federal IT procurement policy since the seminal Clinger-Cohen Act was enacted nearly two decades ago, and it would directly support and complement the mission and aims of ITOR. It enhances CIO authorities, empowers CIOs to recruit and retain talented IT staff, and accelerates data center optimization and strengthens the accountability and transparency of Federal IT programs The Issa- Connolly bill has now passed the House three times--twice as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act and once as a standalone bill. The Senate recently passed a similar version of the bill, and we are working with our Senate colleagues to harmonize the differences.

While I am pleased that a bipartisan consensus is finally forming around the urgent need to streamline and strengthen how the Federal government acquires and deploys IT, this bill would actually under fund in those programs that are proven to save money over the long term.

Mr. Chair, as I said at the outset, this bill veers sharply from the bipartisan model we had been working toward. By attempting to disinvest in the IRS, House Republicans are actually disinvesting in our taxpayers and undermining our efforts to enforce the law and reduce the deficit. They are further eroding the notion of local control by continuing to meddle in the local decision making of the District of Columbia. And they are making a shortsighted decision to not invest more in IT reforms that have proven to save money. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the remarkable efforts of Shelter House, Inc., and to congratulate the recipients of the 2014 Volunteer Awards. Shelter House is a community-based, non-profit organization that works to break the cycle of homelessness by offering support to those most in need in the Northern Virginia community. Shelter House provides crisis intervention, temporary, transitional, and permanent housing, training, counseling, and programs to support self-sufficiency. Of course, none of this would be possible without the hard work of dedicated volunteers.

Shelter House was founded in 1981 by several faith groups, which came together to better serve low-income individuals and families. Shelter House operates three shelters: The Katherine K. Hanley and the Patrick Henry family shelters, which provide temporary housing for local families who become homeless, and Artemis House, Fairfax County's only emergency shelter for families and individuals fleeing domestic and sexual violence and human trafficking. By partnering with Falls Church Presbyterian Church, Shelter House added permanent housing to its portfolio at the Ives House. Construction of additional permanent housing began earlier this year.

The programs operated by Shelter House have contributed greatly to breaking the cycle of homelessness. In FY 2013, Shelter House served 1,858 people in 523 households and significantly reduced the average length of stay for families at each of its shelters. FY 2013 was an exciting year for Shelter House's Community Case Management program. With the support of a grant from the Fairfax County Consolidated Community Funding Pool, Shelter House hired a Community Case Manager and was therefore able to increase the number of people served. The Community Case Management program focuses on homelessness prevention by providing financial assistance and support.

Volunteers and community partners are essential to this success, as they provide the tools necessary to combat homelessness. Their expertise, financial support, and efforts compose the foundation of Shelter House's commendable work. This year, Shelter House has recognized the following individuals and partners for their outstanding commitment to ending homelessness in our community, and I am very pleased to enter their names into the Congressional Record:

Changing Lives Awards: McLean Bible Church Justice Ministry, Mars Incorporated, Gracing Spaces, Greg Ziegler.

Creating New Beginnings Awards: Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging; BB&T Insurance Services, Inc.; Emmanuel Lutheran Church; St. John's Community Services.

Community Champion Award: Supervisor John Cook.

I congratulate the 2014 Volunteer Award recipients on being recognized for their extraordinary efforts and dedication to Shelter House. I also commend all Shelter House volunteers, as well as the private sector and government partners, who constantly strive to better our community through efforts to provide secure, structured environments, and indispensable support for families in need.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our sincere appreciation to Shelter House and its many volunteers and community partners. Their selfless work benefits the entire Northern Virginia community and improves the lives of many of our neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to talk about transportation, but I must say to my friend who just spoke, there is a more humane and enlightened approach to comprehensive immigration reform that would address the issues he says he is concerned about. Railing against people because of their status when there are 11 million people who are here without documentation, a problem that hardly initiated with this administration, I don't think is helpful. It may rile up one's base, but it doesn't solve problems; and it is not the best of America, especially as we celebrate our Independence Day.

The urgency for Congress, Mr. Speaker, to address the shortfall in the highway trust fund grows with every passing day. Road and, eventually, mass transit improvements in every State are at risk of grinding to a halt in a matter of weeks in the heart of the summer construction time. Secretary Foxx notified all States last week that their Federal funding will drop by an average of 28 percent starting next month.

In my home State of Virginia, nearly every mode of transportation will be negatively affected. More than half of next year's road and transit projects were supposed to be funded with Federal dollars. If we don't replenish the trust fund, just in Virginia alone, 149 bridge replacements will be put on hold, 175 aging buses and train cars will not be replaced, 44 smaller transit systems will not be able to maintain service, and 350 transportation projects will grind to a halt.

When I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle say, ``No, no, we are concerned about jobs,'' well, 43,000 jobs in Virginia alone will be lost if we do not replenish the trust fund.

In addition, many States have advanced projects based solely on the Federal Government's participation, including private activity bonds used to finance such projects. If that money dries up, States would have to put projects on hold or redirect other precious State resources to cover the debt service or risk default.

I was relieved when my House Republican friends backed away from their reckless proposal to hold the highway trust fund hostage unless their demands were met to eliminate Saturday mail delivery service by the Postal Service. Set aside for a moment that paying for an on-budget transfer into the trust fund with off-budget cuts to the Postal Service violates both PAYGO and CutGo budget rules here in the House, that fundamentally flawed, nongermane proposal would have undermined a trillion-dollar American mailing industry that supports more than 8 million jobs and represents 7 percent of our GDP. There is simply no nexus between funding transportation and the Postal Service, despite the efforts of Republican leadership to suggest otherwise.

While the focus now has shifted to finding a short-term funding fix, I would argue that simply patching it over will not help our State DOTs, which need much more certainty as they do long-range planning. Transportation is not a short-term proposition. It is long-term planning and long-term investment streams that are needed.

The Federal Government historically has been a key partner in funding our Nation's infrastructure, but that level of investment has eroded over time. Just look at the recent Transportation Appropriations bill. It provides less funding for highway and transit construction than last year, and far less than the administration proposed for a 21st century transportation system in America. Public spending on infrastructure as a share of GDP now is half what it was in the sixties and seventies. No great country can walk away from infrastructure investment and stay great.

I commend Senators Murphy and Corker for tabling a bipartisan proposal to increase the gas tax by 12 cents over 2 years and then index it to inflation. It has been more than 20 years since the Federal gas tax was

last adjusted, and those dollars have lost 40 percent of their value in that time period. I know some of my colleagues will cringe at such a proposal, but funding for transportation is not going to miraculously fall from the sky.

Many of us have supported efforts to advance innovative financing solutions but, at the end of the day, what we really need is more funding. The 495 Express Lanes here in the Nation's capital, built under a public-private partnership in my district, are considered a model for innovation. But 4 out of 5 dollars used to fund that project were Federal dollars in some fashion, whether it was Federal trust fund dollars, a federally subsidized loan, or the sale of bonds that receive a federally preferred tax deduction.

Again, looking at Virginia, last year, the Virginia General Assembly, with a Republican house of delegates, a Democratic senate, and a Republican Governor, came together for the first time in over 27 years and actually funded transportation long term, which was a multibillion- dollar effort. If the Virginia General Assembly can do it on a bipartisan basis, so can we.

Mr. Chair, I often say, there are some in this Chamber who seem to know the cost of everything yet the value of nothing. Without question there are savings to be found in the federal government, but sometimes to realize those savings we have to invest a little money.

Let's take the federal government's energy consumption as a case in point.

Since coming into office in 2009, the Obama administration has made it a priority to make the federal government a leader in reducing energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency. The administration recognizes that as the nation's largest energy consumer, the federal government has a tremendous opportunity and a clear responsibility to lead by example in energy efficiency.

The federal government operates more than 500,000 buildings and other structures comprising more than 3 billion square feet, and it operates a fleet of more than 600,000 civilian and non-tactical military vehicles. The total cost of energy consumption to the Federal government was nearly $25 billion in FY2012.

I am pleased the President has made energy efficiency in federal buildings a priority of his Climate Action Plan. The President's recent commitment of another $2 billion in energy efficiency in federal buildings is a critical step in reducing both energy costs and carbon emissions.

As a result of these actions we have reduced energy use per square foot in federal buildings by more than 9 percent since FY2008, curbing pollution and reducing utility bills. The federal government also purchased more than 7% of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar and wind in 2013, exceeding statutory requirements and promoting homegrown energy industries. And we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent from 2008 levels--the equivalent of permanently taking 1.5 million cars off the road.

However, I fear cutting the Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program by almost 30% will jeopardize this progress.

FEMP is a critical component in enabling federal agencies to meet their energy-related and sustainability goals. FEMP helps other agencies to accomplish energy, water, and greenhouse gas improvements within their organizations by providing expertise in federal

energy project and policy implementation and coordination to enhance national efforts in energy management.

In addition, FEMP activities reduce the energy intensity at federal facilities, lowering their energy bills and providing environmental benefits through increased use of performance contracting which includes energy saving performance contracts, utility energy service contracts, and power purchase agreements. From 2009 to 2011, FEMP negotiated performance contracts that saved taxpayers more than $3.5 billion in federal energy costs.

Through these and other efforts, FEMP strives to reduce the federal government's energy footprint by 30% by the end of 2015 compared to 2003 levels, reduce water consumption intensity by 16% by the end of 2015 relative to 2007 baseline, and increase renewable electricity energy equivalent to at least 5% of total federal facility electricity use.

FEMP plays other important roles both in interagency coordination to align federal government efforts related to federal energy management planning and legislation compliance, and in training federal agency managers about the latest energy requirements, best practices, and technologies available.

The savings FEMP has helped agencies achieve over the past 15 years is roughly equal to one year's worth of federal energy consumption, and it has produced more than a 2.5-to-1 return on investment. Mr. Speaker, we all want to find savings in the government, but let's not be blinded by short-term spending cuts that jeopardize this program that has proved it can save taxpayer dollars in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an outstanding group of first responders and public safety officers who have been honored with the Second Annual Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce ``Above and Beyond'' Award.

These awards honor Fairfax County Firefighters, EMTs, Police Officers and Sheriff's

Deputies who give back to the Greater Springfield area by providing service to the community outside their normal duties. In addition to the immeasurable contributions made every day in the line of duty, these men and women have distinguished themselves through their extraordinary efforts in the community, which largely go unseen. They willingly volunteer their personal time, energies, and support to activities for the betterment of our children, our neighborhoods, and our quality of life.

It is my honor to enter the names of the following individuals into the Congressional Record:

Master Deputy Sheriff Rodney Harrison has served the

Fairfax County Sheriff's Office for 26 years. Through his

church, MDS Harrison makes an annual trip to Africa for the

purpose of ministering and donating educational materials and

clothing. In addition, twice a year the Sheriff's Office

provides security for a portion of the will of President

George Washington between Mount Vernon and the Circuit Court.

MDS Harrison willingly participates and uses this opportunity

to educate others on the history of the will and how to

safely transport this important historic document.

Officer Long Dinh, Jr., endured traumatic head injuries

when responding to a call on duty in 2013. However, these

injuries did not deter him from continuing to serve his

community. He has applied his language abilities to the

Habitat for Humanity Restore program by creating tutorials

and helping to train volunteers. His tremendous contributions

to the program have been recognized by the Director of the

James Lee Senior Center. In March of 2014 Officer Dinh

returned to the police force.

Auxiliary Police Officer Thomas Oliver has volunteered his

services since 1999. In addition to his regular duties, APO

Oliver participated in over 70 community events for vehicle

or crime prevention displays in 2013. He has assisted in

``Operation Hands-On,'' which is a new process developed to

obtain information on cases previously closed. He helped

follow up on these cases and has educated members of our

community on how to keep themselves secure.

Officer Paul F. Stracke has just completed his second year

with the police force. He began his service at age 18 when he

attended the Fairfax County Volunteer Fire Academy and

obtained an Emergency Medical Technician certification. Apart

from his police duties, he continues to work 60 hours every

quarter at Fire Station #14 to maintain his firefighter

status. Officer Stracke was nominated in 2013 for a

lifesaving award and received the Volunteer Firefighter of

the Year Award in 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating and thanking each of the brave men and women who go above and beyond the call of duty to serve our community. They are part of the bravest and the finest who collectively ensure that Fairfax County remains one of the nation's safest communities in which to live, work, and raise a family. Moreover, the volunteer service exhibited by these honorees is one of the hallmarks of what has made Fairfax the thriving community it is today, and because of their efforts, that tradition will carry on for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the staff and volunteers for Action in Community Through Service Sexual Assault Victims Advocacy Service (ACTS SAVAS) as they celebrate 30 years of assistance and advocacy on behalf of survivors of sexual assault in Prince William County, Virginia.

There are more than 235,000 sexual assaults every year in the United States. That is one assault every two minutes. Forty-four percent of survivors are under the age of eighteen, and eighty percent of survivors are under the age of thirty. Sixty percent of sexual assaults are not reported and ninety-seven percent of attackers will never spend a day in jail. These are staggering statistics, and they illustrate the challenges faced by ACTS SAVAS. There are few safe havens for these survivors. ACTS SAVAS provides survivors with a safe, secure place to go and receive counseling from experts who can assist with the healing and recovery process.

SAVAS was first established in 1983, and in 2012, it joined Action in Community Through Service. ACTS SAVAS is the only center of its kind serving the Greater Prince William community. The staff and volunteers are dedicated to empowering survivors of sexual assault and their loved ones with the resources necessary to heal and move forward, while working towards ending all forms of sexual assault and combating human trafficking. ACTS SAVAS has provided assistance to more than 15,000 individuals in the areas of crisis intervention, a 24-hour hotline, court companions for victims, adolescent and adult support groups, and community education and outreach.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in thanking the staff and volunteers of ACTS SAVAS for their many contributions during 30 years of service to the Greater Prince William community. ACTS SAVAS engages an issue that threatens to undermine safety and trust in our community. For providing survivors of sexual assault with the resources they need to recover, ACTS SAVAS is certainly a vital service and is deserving of our highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the tremendous efforts of ``Do More 24--One Day. Our Community.'' Today, June 19th, thousands of residents from across the National Capital Region will help make a positive, lasting contribution to those in our community in need of assistance through the region's largest philanthropic giving day: Do More 24.

For 24 hours only, residents will go to domore24.org and choose an organization or cause closest to their hearts to support. They will be able to contribute to one or more of the 550 participating nonprofits serving our neighbors in Northern Virginia, the District of Columbia, and suburban Maryland by providing food, shelter, education, and access to medical care, affordable housing, and other essential services.

Launched by United Way of the National Capital Area last year, the Do More 24 campaign helps nonprofits raise money during the difficult summer months, when many nonprofits see a drop off in donations that creates gaps in their budgets. Last year, 11,000 donors contributed $1.3 million during the Do More 24 blitz. Their generosity allowed our regional nonprofits to serve more people, expand their programs, and buy necessary equipment.

For example, Martha's Table, which has been providing food to families for 35 years, plans to use this year's Do More 24 donations to expand its ``Summer Food Fund'' to provide breakfast and lunch for children who would normally receive those meals through school. Hunger doesn't take a summer break, and neither will Martha's Table.

Joseph's House, another nonprofit, provides nursing and support services to homeless men and women struggling with AIDS and cancer. Its mission is to ``nurture the living and accompany the dying.'' Thanks to last year's donations, Joseph's House was able to purchase a desperately needed new van and cover food costs that had exceeded its budget.

Mr. Speaker, Do More 24 encourages us to imagine a community where every man, woman, and child is healthy, fed, educated, and employed. I ask my colleagues to join me in commending the United Way of the National Capital Area for this initiative and in thanking the thousands of residents who participate. I encourage us all to consider how we can ``Do More'' for our local community on June 19th.