Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican manager and the distinguished ranking member, my good friend from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, it's been an Orwellian week in which black is white and white is black. We've got Members who voted for the shutdown who appeared surprised that that led to the closure of national parks, which didn't stop some of them from berating park Federal employees for enforcing the shutdown. We have other Members in this Orwellian week saying that the shutdown is all about respect, and we've got to get something out of this; we just don't know what it is.

So, finally, a moment of decency. Finally, we turn to the men and women who serve our country, the 800,000 Federal employees who are furloughed, and we do something decent for them. We alleviate the angst of whether there will be that paycheck whenever we get around to reopening the government.

This week, one of those dedicated civil servants from my constituency, Dave Lavery, received the prestigious Service to America Medal in recognition of his exemplary leadership of the 6,000-person team that conceived and executed NASA's incredible Curiosity Rover Mission to Mars.

America is unbelievably fortunate to have this kind of talented and passionate Federal worker like Dave Lavery, whose public service should be celebrated, appreciated, and yes, compensated.

On October 1, Dave was one of 17,600 NASA employees deemed ``nonessential'' and was furloughed. The irony was that Dave had to consult the Ethics Office of NASA to see if he could go to his own awards ceremony because of his ``nonessential'' furloughed status. That's what we're reduced to. So today's bill at least redresses one wrong in this otherwise Orwellian exercise called the Federal shutdown.

I thank my dear friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

I had a prepared talk, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to give it. I'm going to respond to the distinguished manager who has used phrases like ``revisionist history'' and ``my way or the highway.'' You know, those are words that are worthy of what surrounds this issue, but they are, of course, exactly the opposite of what the distinguished manager suggests.

It wasn't this side of the aisle that said: We'll fund the government on a condition, and that condition is you have to agree to what we could not achieve legislatively, what we could not achieve in the courts, what we could not achieve at the ballot box; we're going to hold you hostage. You're going to do it, or else.

You're right, it's my way or the highway, but it's you who are saying ``my

way or the highway''--one might say you.

In terms of revisionist history, this idea that we're just trying to help veterans and the National Guard and that's the least we can do, well, what about all the other agencies of the Federal Government? What about the rest of the people that need to be served?

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, my family has participated in the National Guard. My nephew has been in the National Guard--still is. He has served two tours of duty in Iraq and one tour of duty in Afghanistan. He is now a Blackhawk helicopter pilot for the National Guard and ready to go again.

I and my family and my colleagues need no lecture about patriotism and about service to country. What we do want--and what my nephew wants and all like him--is that we stand up in this Congress and fund the government. That's the least we can do for National Guardsmen and for the clerk who processes applications for people to qualify for Social Security. We owe that to our constituents. We owe that to our country.

Can we put aside the issues of revision and ``my way or the highway'' and come together and have a clean continuing resolution--buy ourselves some time to continue the debate on ancillary issues, but stop the hostage-taking for the sake of my nephew, and perhaps yours?

It is time to put an end to this reckless Republican shutdown. We are now in day 2 of this manufactured crisis, in which House Republicans are holding hostage the American people and the essential government services on which they rely.

The cavalier nature in which Republicans have allowed this shutdown to occur--if not outright advocated for it--is shameful. Some have even suggested that the shutdown has gone largely unnoticed. That is outrageous! Do they not see the very real pain they are causing in their own communities? I suggest they visit with some of the 10,000 seniors a day who now have to wait for their Medicare enrollment to be processed . . . or the small businesses that cannot open their doors and hire new workers because SBA loans have been put on hold . . . or the dedicated men and women of our federal workforce--the majority of whom live outside the DC region in their communities--who protect our borders, safeguard our food supply, and respond to natural disasters and now have to worry about how to pay their mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans say it is unacceptable for Republicans to shut down the government to meet their narrow, partisan demands. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce--along with the Prince William and Fairfax Chambers in my district--has urged Congress to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling without any extraneous provisions for fear of disrupting the economy.

That is what Democrats have offered to do, but House Republicans refuse to compromise on their demand to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, it's like our Republican colleagues have been overcome by a mass psychosis to satiate the rabid demands of the Tea Party crowd.

We know there are some sensible members on the other side of the aisle who want to do the right thing. I implore them to prevail upon their leadership to work with us in bipartisan fashion to end this shutdown.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman and, of course, my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, for their wonderful cooperation on this important bill.

By the way, I believe we are going to be joined by Mr. Resnick's widow and daughter very soon. Our colleague Mr. Grimm is going to be accompanying them here to the House.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as already indicated, will rename the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, located in the 11th District of Virginia, in honor of Supervisory Special Agent Michael Resnick, who was instrumental in the creation of this very critical component of our national security network.

I am pleased to sponsor this bill, along with my fellow Virginia colleagues Frank Wolf and Jim Moran and with my colleague Richard Hanna of New York.

Like so many of the brave men and women throughout our law enforcement community, Mike Resnick was seized by the mission of public service and gave every ounce to ensure the safety of those he was sworn to protect. In his more than 20 years with the Bureau, Mike held numerous tactical and supervisory roles, but his greatest contributions came in the field of counterterrorism at precisely the time we needed it.

Following the attacks of 9/11, Mike Resnick was instrumental in laying the foundational policies and architecture for the screening and watch list system now administered by the interagency Terrorist Screening Center. He was later assigned to the National Security Council, where one of his last assignments was in promoting timely and effective information-sharing among Federal, State and local law enforcement partners. As a former local government leader myself, I can tell you how vital such collaboration is to the safety of our communities. Tragically, Mike Resnick was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May of 2010, but he continued to staff his post through the physical and emotional strain of his treatments.

CIA Director John Brennan, who at the time was the Assistant to the President For Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said that Mike wanted to make sure everything was in order for those who will carry on with his work.

He died on February 2, 2011, at the age of 50.

Mike is survived by his wife, Sarah Chamberlain, and their daughter, Jordan. It was one of my former colleagues, Amo Houghton of New York, who introduced Mike and Sarah by setting them up on a blind date. They were married here in Washington, and they enjoyed tennis, golf and travel when they could find the time. Mike played as hard as he worked. In fact, I'm told he was known to give some of our Republican colleagues a run for their money on the tennis court.

He grew up in Bayside, Wisconsin, where his parents, Sheldon and Ruth, still reside. It will come as no surprise that Mike was an Eagle Scout growing up. He was a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-- Madison and of the DePaul University College of Law. Prior to his service with the FBI, he spent a brief period as a prosecutor.

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller said that Mike was not motivated by recognition but by a desire to get the job done, help others and to see those around him succeed.

Though he shied away from the spotlight, renaming the building in which he invested so much of himself offers a fitting recognition and a lasting tribute to the memory of one of our Nation's most dedicated public servants, whom the President characterized as no less than an American hero. I hope we remember that as we debate the issue of a shutdown of the Federal Government. Our Federal Government is filled with such noble public servants who are serving this country.

Let me close by again thanking the chairman and ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and of its Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, and I urge the passage of this fitting tribute, this legislation, this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to hear that our colleague from Colorado has had his insurance canceled or threatened with a 100 percent premium increase. That is precisely what ObamaCare was designed to stop--the capricious actions of cancellation of coverage, especially when

you get sick, by insurance companies. That's exactly what it's going to do. It's going to end that kind of practice and give you more choices.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans object to House Republicans holding hostage the basic government services our citizens expect and need just so they can poke the President in the eye once again by trying to repeal the signature health insurance reform law.

In a recent poll, 8 out of 10 respondents said it is unacceptable for Members of Congress to threaten to shut down the government in order to achieve narrow ideological goals. After last week's House vote on the Republican hostage plan, another poll found more than half of Republican respondents want Congress to keep the government open rather than shut it down over the Affordable Care Act.

So why can't House Republicans accept the Affordable Care Act, which was adopted by Congress and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed in an election just 10 months ago in this country? They have held 42 votes to chip away or outright repeal this signature law, and they have failed in every one of those attempts.

Senator John McCain, a prominent and respected Republican, tried to counsel his Republican friends on the futility of this effort on the floor of the Senate yesterday by reminding them that elections have consequences. The man who lost the 2008 election to President Obama noted that a majority of Americans reaffirmed their support of this President and his agenda, and by extension his signature initiative, in last year's election.

What is particularly disappointing in this protracted debate is this false narrative that the Affordable Care Act is not working, that it will somehow cause an economic calamity, as the majority leader claimed last week. What truly worries House Republicans, one suspects, isn't that the Affordable Care Act will fail, but precisely the opposite-- they are frightened to death it will succeed.

Just this week, we received further confirmation that, in fact, it is delivering on its promise to reverse the skyrocketing costs of health care, unlike the narrative of my friend from Colorado. When the insurance exchanges open for enrollment next week, the Department of Health and Human Services says consumers will find an average of 53 health plans to choose from and premiums 16 percent lower--not higher-- than expected, and that's before any tax credits are applied. In my district, for example, a family of four, earning $50,000 a year, will be able to find a silver-rated insurance plan for less than $300 a month, and they could pay a zero premium with that subsidy for a bronze-rated plan.

The Affordable Care Act is working for seniors. Premiums and deductibles for Medicare are lower, not higher, and seniors have saved more than $7 billion so far in prescription drug costs thanks to closing the doughnut hole of Medicare part D. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans has gone up 30 percent since 2010, and premiums have dropped 16 percent since that time. That's a far cry from the kind of demonizing and the ``wolf's at the door'' rhetoric of some of my friends on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the Affordable Care Act that puts America at risk of economic calamity, but the reckless actions of my friends on the other side of the aisle who are willing, once again, to hold the American people hostage because they don't like it. They have an ideological agenda that is going to create deep hardship in every one of those households my friend from Colorado just discussed and in every one of the households throughout America.

Let's get on with the business of America, and let's stop the practice of hostage-taking on the floor of the House.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest at its worst. And what's ironic is it's a program that works. Cutting $40 billion, 3.8 million Americans thrown off supplemental nutritional assistance that works, that gives them a ladder to success, children, the disabled, adults that find themselves in a difficult period for a period of time. The distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee points out, 9 months is the average.

Don't do this.

In a different Congress at a different time on a different issue, there was a famous lawyer who turned to Joe McCarthy and said, ``At long last, sir, have you no decency?''

I ask that of this Congress, on this very important issue, have we no decency?

Mr. Speaker, it was bad enough when the House majority tried to ram through a Farm bill that cut SNAP by $20 billion and would have kicked 2 million people off nutrition assistance, including more than 200,000 children. Thankfully, a bipartisan group rejected that bill.

Rather than learn from that defeat, House Republicans have decided to double down on this darwinian philosophy. The impact will be devastating. In my district more than 13,000 families are at risk of losing assistance.

Beyond the face of hunger, lost in this debate is a tragic irony. As the majority moves to gut SNAP, Congress once again refuses to end taxpayer handouts to big agribusiness, including some Members of this Chamber.

The American public should be forgiven for smelling the stench of hypocrisy. The very people who repeatedly call on this body to reign in government and cut spending, seem to have no problem collecting tens of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies.

To allay this conflict of ideology I have twice offered an amendment to ensure Members of Congress do not receive farm subsidies. How can elected officials ask taxpayers to cover their risk, and then tell those at risk of hunger they are on their own? Yet the majority refuses a floor vote. The silence is damning.

So I ask you Mr. Speaker, who are the real takers?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Here we go again. Another week, another attempt by the House majority to gut critical environmental protections that we know save lives and communities. Right before we left for the August recess, a break I urged the Republican leadership to forego, the House passed a reckless offshore oil drilling bill that risks our shoreline communities along the Atlantic, Pacific, and gulf coasts. And for what? To continue our dependence on fossil fuels.

H.R. 761 is not unknown to Congress. In fact, we had passed a rule and were set to consider it only a few weeks ago before the House majority abruptly pulled it from the floor and rammed through a partisan farm bill instead--a bill that protected farm subsidies, crop insurance guarantees, and handouts for Big Agribusiness, including some Members of this very body, at the expense of the neediest among us, including more than 210,000 children.

Yet here we are today. Once again, the House majority is attempting to not only remove environmental safeguards provided under the National Environmental Policy Act, but to set arbitrary deadlines for its approval process.

I am pleased to once again offer this commonsense amendment that will preserve NEPA protections and ensure that a thorough safety review is conducted.

In 1969, Congress passed the National Environmental Policy Act, a bipartisan act with strong Republican support, including President Richard Nixon, who understood then that environmental impacts on large projects must be explored, understood, and eventually mitigated.

Under NEPA, any infrastructure project that could have a significant impact is now subject to an environmental impact statement, which outlines the purpose of the project, possible alternatives, the affected environment, and the consequences of completing the project. The findings are then considered prior to final project approval.

Projects with less environmental impact may be subjected to a less detailed environmental assessment instead. Some projects, like the construction of a foot trail, may be deemed to have no significant environmental impact and can receive a categorical exclusion.

Make no mistake, the bill before us today has no foot path. We are talking about major mining projects that could devastate entire communities. There are many aspects of mineral exploration policy for which statutory changes should be considered, such as closing Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act loopholes. Unfortunately, that's not what we're doing here.

As I've noted before, considering that all other major projects, even transit projects with clear environmental benefits, must still go through an environmental impact statement, it is absurd to turn around and exclude from such analysis activities or put an arbitrary time limit on it that has such potential to actually destroy ecosystems and regional economies.

My commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply restore that process so that there can be peace and comfort of mind to affected communities, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is left on this side.

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

I certainly respect my friend and his point of view about the mining industry. I wish it were true that the other side of the aisle respects the NEPA process; but, frankly, we've had bill after bill and amendment after amendment in excess of 100 that actually attack everything from the Clean Water Act to the Clean Air Act that have resisted regulation even when it comes to public health and particulate matter, for example. They have assaulted the NEPA process every step of the way.

In this bill, there's a huge carve-out for one industry--the mining industry. It is not true that the average is 7 to 10 years. It may be true that some have had that. But it is also true that a NEPA process protects communities. It answers questions. It answers the very uncertainty my friend talked about. But sometimes it answers that uncertainty in a way that the industry and its supporters don't like.

I think our job here is not so much to protect wealthy advocates of a particular industry who may also positively influence the financing of campaigns. I think our first duty is to protect public health and safety, those communities that have found themselves devastated because proper environmental analysis, in fact, had not been done. We have seen that all across America from Appalachia to southern Illinois to in the West.

I, too, want to make sure we unlock strategic minerals and that the United States has them available when it needs it. But I don't believe that the tradeoff has to be at the expense of every community that could potentially be the site of a mine.

Mr. Chairman, I actually strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this commonsense amendment to restore an environmental analysis process that, in fact, has worked.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Charles A. Reimer, a resident of the 11th District, for his years of service to our country and to congratulate him on the occasion of his retirement following 33 years of military service and 27 years of federal civil service.

Mr. Reimer enlisted in our United States Army in August 1966 and served honorably for 3 years. In 1969, Mr. Reimer began his federal civil service, and, in 1970, he joined the Massachusetts National Guard. For the following 13 years, he served concurrently as a civilian employee in the Department of the Army as well as fulfilling his duties in the Guard.

During this period of concurrent service, Mr. Reimer became an expert in personnel management and focused on development of training programs and enhancement of training though facilities management. His innovative techniques were used to support the development of training programs for the National Park Service, U.S. Marshall Service, U.S. Marine Corps, and other federal and state agencies. In 1980, his expertise was invaluable in helping to implement a new initial entry training for the Army as well as more specialized training for inter- service personnel. Mr. Reimer's civil service evolved to more technical positions in developing strategic education programs aimed at preparing individuals for senior leadership positions in the military as well as foreign area officers and strategists.

In June, 1983, Mr. Reimer was ordered into Federal Active Duty with the National Guard, where he served with distinction in personnel management and later in the areas of environmental management, diplomacy, and international affairs. His military career culminated with his service as Chief, Africa/Asia/Pacific Division, International Affairs Directorate for the National Guard Bureau. He was released from active duty in August 1999 and returned to federal civil service. His last assignment as the Strategic Planning Officer for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau was a culmination of all the years of service and experience supporting federal, state and local officials and organizations.

In recognition of his exemplary service in uniform and as a civilian federal employee, Mr. Reimer has received numerous decorations, awards, and medals including: Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Award (4), Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Reserve Component Achievement Medal (7), Good Conduct Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal (2), Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Gold Hour Glass Device, Medal for the Defense of Freedom, Superior Civilian Service Medal (2), Commander's Award for Civilian Service, Army Superior Unit Award (2), Texas Medal of Merit, and Massachusetts Emergency Service Award.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending Charles A. Reimer for his dedication and service to our country while serving in the National Guard and also as a dedicated public servant. I also thank his family for their support and sacrifices which have enabled Charles to contribute so greatly to our country. He has made immeasurable contributions to our nation, and I wish him a healthy, happy, and well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Boy Scouts of America Troop 150 on the occasion of its 85th anniversary. Boy Scouts of America is one of the largest youth organizations in the United States, with more than 4.5 million current members. Since its founding, nearly 84 million boys have participated in scouting.

Founded in 1928, Troop 150 was the first Boys Scout Troop in Fairfax County and remains one of the longest-standing active troops in the country. Since its founding, every meeting, including the very first which consisted of only 10 boys, has been held at the Annandale United Methodist Church. The relationship between the church and Troop 150 not only has endured; it has grown. The Annandale United Methodist Men have been the predominate partner over the years. The first Scoutmaster, John Walter Mercer, is buried at the church cemetery, and a memorial fund bearing his name was created 20 years ago by John Webb, an original member of Troop 150. This fund sponsors annual trips designed to develop the leadership potential of deserving scouts.

Troop 150 plays a prominent role in the wider community as well. The Troop 150 Color Guard leads the annual Annandale Parade and also has performed this honor for Tee Ball on the South Lawn at the White House. Troop 150 has built community gardens, collected food for the needy, repaired trails, and participated in many other projects for the betterment of the community. More than 80 young men from this troop have earned the rank of Eagle Scout. Many of our country's greatest leaders have been scouts, and having been a scout, especially reaching the rank of Eagle Scout, is an achievement that is highly prized by our Military Service Academies.

Scouting develops leadership skills and ethics that foster future success in life. Troop 150 exemplifies the values and tenets of the Boy Scouts of America and supports the character development that encourages responsible citizenship and self-reliance. Members of this troop adhere to the Scout Law: ``A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent'' and by the Scout Slogan: ``Do a good turn daily.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Boy Scout Troop 150 on the occasion of its 85th anniversary and in thanking its Scoutmaster, volunteers, family members, and community sponsors for their commitment to our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Greater Reston Arts Center (GRACE) on the occasion of its 40th anniversary and to recognize the contributions this local institution has made to the cultural life of throughout Northern Virginia.

Founded in 1974 by artists and friends of the arts as a source of cultural enrichment for what was then the ``new town'' of Reston, GRACE has enriched community life by promoting involvement and excellence in contemporary visual arts. GRACE initially operated out of the landmark Heron House on Lake Anne and offered classes in sculpture, painting, and weaving for children and adults. In 1976, GRACE began training volunteer ``docents'' to lead interactive discussions of art history in elementary schools. This signature program now reaches more than 20,000 students in 42 schools across the region.

From its current location in Reston Town Center, GRACE provides a year-round program of contemporary visual art exhibitions, education programs for all ages, and special events. In recent years, GRACE has introduced new traditions such as the seasonal ``Focus'' exhibition series, and has engaged the community with events such as free gallery receptions, holiday wine tastings, and string quartet performances. The annual Northern Virginia Arts Festival, operated by GRACE, is widely recognized as a signature event that features more than 200 juried, national artists and draws tens of thousands of attendees/buyers annually. Such activities greatly enhance both the cultural life and local economy of Reston and Fairfax County.

Looking forward, GRACE intends to fill the need for a more dynamic artistic and cultural presence brought about by Reston Town Center's emergence as an international business destination and regional attraction. Under the leadership of Executive Director Damian Sinclair, GRACE recently announced its ``40 Forward'' campaign to develop a more robust Fine Arts Festival, enhance its gallery exhibitions, extend its education program online, and partner with other institutions to promote a stronger commitment to public and performance art.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating GRACE on its 40th anniversary and thanking its staff, volunteers, and supporters for their ongoing contributions to the quality of life in Northern Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate and celebrate the life of one of Fairfax City's most, prominent citizens, Mrs. Geraldine `Gerry' Estep Sherwood. Mrs. Sherwood passed away on August 5, 2013 leaving a legacy that will benefit Fairfax City and the Northern Virginia community for generations to come.

Mrs. Sherwood's passion for the musical arts emerged at an early age. When she was just a small child, she was asked if she would like a large, toy piano for a present; she responded by saying that she would ``wait for the real thing.'' The wait was not to be very long, she began piano lessons at age 6 and continued her education through college where she majored in music.

Mrs. Sherwood's involvement in Fairfax City began in 1947 when she accepted a position as a teacher at Fairfax High School. At Fairfax High School, she initiated a choral music program and shepherded its growth for seven years. At that time, Fairfax was a `village' of about 1,000 residents. The area was surrounded by farmland described by Mrs. Sherwood as ``a wasteland as far as music was concerned.''

Also in 1947, Mrs. Sherwood met a young veteran, Mr. Stacy Sherwood, who had served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II. They married in 1950 and together became a force in Fairfax City. Mr. Sherwood served on the town and city councils, and was instrumental in having Fairfax City identified as the location of what is now George Mason University. While Mr. Sherwood continued his civic activities, Mrs. Sherwood dedicated herself to promotion of the arts in Fairfax City.

Following public school teaching, Mrs. Sherwood provided private lessons in piano and voice and directed junior and senior choirs at a local church which she continued through 2010. She served with the Fairfax Symphony Orchestra, the Fairfax Music Guild and the Fairfax Choral Society, and was a founding member of the Arts Council of Fairfax County. Mrs. Sherwood was named the Honorary Chair for the 2010 Spotlight on the Arts Festival.

In 2007, Mrs. Sherwood offered to donate $5 million for the construction and operation of a community center in the heart of Fairfax City. Although a centrally located community center had been contemplated since the 1960's, it was not until her generous offer that the dream could become a reality. Named in honor of her husband who passed away in 2002, The Stacy C. Sherwood Center opened its doors in February, 2011.

The Stacy C. Sherwood Center was immediately recognized as a superior, state-of-the-art facility, earning the prestigious ``Best New Facility Award'' from the Virginia Recreation and Parks Society in 2012. Containing over 14,000 square feet, the Center caters to a wide range of arts, activities and programs. This center is also used as a venue for weddings, private business and social activities, in fact the Center contains the largest performance and banquet space in the City of Fairfax. This Center not only provides a facility to expand and promote the arts, it enhances the identity of the region and is a gift to the community that will live on.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the life and contributions of Mrs. Geraldine ``Gerry'' Estep Sherwood. Mrs. Sherwood will be missed, but will always be remembered as the driving force that changed Fairfax City from a ``wasteland as far as the arts were concerned'' into a regional treasure. I, and the constituents of the 11th Congressional District of Virginia, owe Mrs. Sherwood a debt of gratitude that cannot be repaid.

I thank my friend from Maryland.

Madam Speaker, the distinguished manager on the other side of this bill says you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, in taking to task my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) in his reading of this bill. And I've got the bill in front of me. It says that ``at least 30 days' advance written notice stating specific reasons for the proposed action''--that is to

say, the removal or suspension of an employee--``unless there's a reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime or the agency determines, as prescribed in regulation, that the employee's conduct with respect to an action covered by the subchapters proposed is flagrant and such employee intends to engage in such contact,'' and then you can be removed without that notice.

So Mr. Lynch was right: facts are stubborn things.

If we really wanted to understand the motivation behind the legislation in front of us, it is a cynical political ploy before this Congress goes out on recess to allow one whole party and its Members to go home and avoid discussing the tough issues of the day and make the Federal employee the bogeyman. That Federal employee, whoever he or she is, vaguely abuses you, and you need to be protected against them.

So we are going to pass a bunch of bills that had no hearings, that are flawed in their drafting, that had to be removed from the floor yesterday and redrafted in order to come back today to qualify for a vote, because they otherwise wouldn't have passed on a suspension rule, and it is all part of this consistent and flagrant and, in my opinion, reckless campaign to demonize the public servants who serve us. And the loser ultimately in this game, this political game, will be the constituents they serve and we are supposed to serve.

It is not right to demonize Federal employees, and we've done that. We've cut their pay. We've frozen their pay for 3 years. We've raided their pensions to try to finance things that have no relationship whatsoever to Federal employment per se, and we've characterized them in disparaging and negative ways that are not worthy of this body.

So it's all right. Go home, campaign against the Federal employee, and maybe you will make some headway. Maybe, in fact, it's a brilliant move short term, in terms of short-term political gain. But it's at long-term expense--expense at the truth and expense of the men and women who serve this country ably every day and who deserve better from their elected representatives.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of this committee throws a picture up on the floor and, of course, doesn't allow me to respond when he demands ``is this what the gentleman from Virginia is talking about.''

It is wrong for the chairman of the distinguished committee to suggest or allow the inference to be drawn that somehow that picture represents all Federal employees. And the gentleman who just spoke, talking about rights, what about the rights of the employees who serve our country, what about their rights that are being trampled on in this legislation?

I thank my friend from Tennessee, and I thank him for his able leadership on this bill.

Listening to our friends on the other side of the aisle, I urge them all to re-read Upton Sinclair's ``The Jungle,'' because that's where you would take us. You would take us to a world in which there was no Federal oversight of the food supply in America, there was no oversight of child labor in America, there was no oversight of workplace safety in America. And tragedies ensued.

America's water, America's air is cleaner, more breathable, and healthier today precisely because of regulation. The narrative that all regulation is burdensome--it only entails a cost, it never entails a benefit--is absolutely false and needs to be rejected by this body.

Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it is once again shaping up to be a lost summer for Congress as a number of issues ripe for debate--not this one--will be left to wither on the vine as Members leave town for the next 5 weeks. That's frustrating, after this year began with so much promise.

I was pleased to be part of a bipartisan coalition that voted for the New Year's Day deal to avert the fiscal cliff. A few weeks later, that same bipartisan coalition banded together to provide emergency aid to communities ravaged by Superstorm Sandy. Thankfully, our success didn't stop even there. We came together again on a bipartisan basis to reaffirm the strong support for the Violence Against Women Act after it had languished in this body because leadership refused to compromise.

At that point, people were actually beginning to wonder if the 113th Congress had finally gotten the message--that the American people want us to work together to get things done, not to just make cheap political points. But sadly, that progress was not sustained.

The first fissure appeared after the Senate's adoption of its first budget in nearly 4 years. I guess my friends on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans, who had repeatedly beat up on the other Chamber for not doing its job with respect to the budget, are still dumbfounded that they in fact did pass one because it's been 4 months and they still have yet to appoint Members to the conference committee they claim they wanted.

Then the Senate managed to pass bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. Our Republican colleagues may talk a good game on immigration, but that's all they've done so far here in the House. Not one of the bills in their piecemeal approach has come to this floor for consideration.

And just recently, House leaders allowed extreme partisanship to not only derail what was originally a bipartisan farm bill, but to also cast aside a critical safety net that was founded on a bipartisan basis in both the Senate and the House decades ago to protect families who need help putting food on the table.

The list of unfinished business continues to grow as we enter the final days of summer, but where is the urgency to resolve them? I was puzzled to see House Republicans bring up a so-called ``jobs'' bill that once again provided less infrastructure funding than we did the previous year in what was called the T-HUD appropriation bill. Of course it wasn't a surprise they had to pull it from the floor in the face of bipartisan opposition. Their parting shot of this week will be the 40th attempt to repeal part or all of ObamaCare. That's 40.

When we return from this ill-timed recess, Congress will have just 9 legislative days to reach a deal on keeping the government open for business beyond the end of the fiscal year, and by that time we're going to be bumping up against the debt ceiling. We actually managed a bipartisan accord to suspend that debt ceiling earlier this year, but we haven't been able to rekindle that spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, the American people aren't taking 5 weeks off like we are, and neither should this Congress. We can't afford another lost summer.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend Myke Reid on the occasion of his retirement after a distinguished career as the Legislative and Political Director for the American Postal Workers Union, APWU. Mr. Reid dedicated his career to postal reform and played an integral role in the enactment of important legislation, including the Family & Medical Leave Act in 1993 and reform of the Hatch Act.

Myke Reid began his long and accomplished career with the United States Postal Service in 1976 as a clerk in Norfolk, VA. Mr. Reid's community involvement and enthusiasm for legislative reform won the recognition and admiration of his fellow union members, and he quickly rose to the position of state legislative director and state president.

In 1984, Mr. Reid arrived in Washington, DC, and joined the fight to preserve Social Security. For nine years, Mr. Reid served as the Special Assistant to the President of the APWU.

After the retirement of Roy Braunstein in 2004, Mr. Reid was appointed to serve as the Legislative and Political Director of the APWU. His service, his expertise on postal issues, and his accomplishments have earned the respect of many within the APWU and across the postal community and Capitol Hill. Commenting on Mr. Reid's retirement, APWU President Cliff Guffey spoke for many when he said, ``He has made great contributions to our struggle and will be missed.''

In addition to his service to the nation's postal workers and his important contributions in the halls of Congress, Mr. Reid still found the time to serve his community. He served on many community-based organizations, including the Virginia Employment Commission Advisory Board, the Virginia Community College Board, the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority Board, and the Alexandria Democratic Committee. Mr. Reid is a native Virginian, born in Portsmouth. He received a B.A. from Norfolk State University and currently resides in Alexandria.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating Myke Reid on this occasion and in commending him for his service and his work to represent the interests of America's Postal Workers and working families.

I thank my friend and colleague from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what the distinguished minority whip had to say. These bills were rushed to the floor. They've been long in the planning on the Republican side of the aisle. They passed out of our committee on a party-line vote. Hearings were not held. And little niceties like the fact that there wasn't a law enforcement exemption on this particular bill get overlooked in drafting when you rush to the floor like this.

But of course the purpose of these bills is not really to protect American citizens, though we could have done that. Because I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), I'm deeply sympathetic to the plight he found himself in. I think we probably could have worked out a bipartisan set of proposals today that would have protected people like Mr. Kelly, now a Member of Congress and my friend from Pennsylvania. What he described is not acceptable and we do need to protect people from it, but that's not the purpose of these bills today.

The purpose of these bills is cynically political. It is to allow one side of the aisle, the majority, to go home and talk about an abusive government that they're standing up to. And in that narrative, you do terrible damage to the courageous men and women, the diligent men and women who serve our constituents, known as Federal employees.

It is part of a relentless--and I think reckless and inexcusable-- attack on Federal employees, on public servants because it serves a political agenda. But the long-term cost is the disparagement of public service and the difficulty we are going to have in the out-years in recruiting and retaining talent for the workforce of the future. That's why I oppose these bills, because of the context.

We could have made them better. We could have made them bipartisan. We could have actually worked together. But there was a cynical calculation not to do that, because the purpose of these bills is to continue to use Federal employees as a political punching bag and to make some cheap, short-term political gains.

I thank the Ranking Member for yielding me time . . . and I appreciate his comments in support of our dedicated Federal workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2711, 2579, and 1541.

These misguided, anti-Federal workforce bills are just the latest partisan jab at the dedicated Federal employees who serve on the front lines, protecting and helping our constituents every day.

Yet, House Republicans routinely use them as a punching bag--chipping away at their pay and benefits; stripping them of due process rights and Constitutional Protections; while denigrating the very concept of public service on behalf of our fellow citizens.

Take H.R. 2711, the so-called Citizen Empowerment Act. This hastily drafted measure was introduced a mere 14 days ago, and is now being rushed to the floor without a single hearing examining the bill, or the issue it purports to address.

It is ironic that on a day when Republicans are pushing an anti- Federal Government message, they are seeking to ram through a partisan messaging bill that would actually empower the Federal Government to pre-empt 12 existing State privacy laws.

Further, it is simply inexcusable that in the Republicans' rush to produce a political press release, they have slapped together a measure that does not contain any law enforcement or sensitive information exemptions that may be necessary to protect ongoing law enforcement or intelligence investigations.

To be clear, I do not oppose the principle of allowing citizens to record conversations with Federal employees in the course of official business--in fact, in many situations that can already be done today.

What I am certain of is that this measure--which is opposed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys--is not ready for prime time.

Of course, this is not even the worst bill the majority is attempting to jam through. H.R. 2579, or as I call it, the ``Fire First and Ask Questions Later Act,'' is even more egregious and indefensible than

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 850, which provides our diplomats the leverage they need to persuade Iran that the only viable course of action is to suspend work on its nuclear program.

The bill restricts oil exports from Iran and cuts off various Iranian industries from the global marketplace. It also expands sanctions on Iranian human rights violators. Lastly, this bill provides flexibility for the President to not apply sanctions when he deems it appropriate.

There is adequate time to test the willingness and ability of President Rouhani to pursue good faith talks and reach an acceptable resolution. That said, complete inaction could signal indifference or a weakening of our resolve to pro-nuclear forces in Iran. Incoming President Rouhani and the other regime leaders must be made to understand that U.S. economic pressure and other sanctions will remain in force until there is a reliable and verifiable halt to Iran's nuclear program. Given Iran's progress in nuclear enrichment, time is of the essence and Iran's past delaying tactics cannot be allowed to continue.

As an original cosponsor of H.R. 850, I urge my colleagues to send a strong, unequivocal message to the Iranian regime.