Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chair, and at this time I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), my co-author of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to join my colleague, Mr. Kildee from Michigan, in offering what I think is a commonsense amendment that protects public health and safety.

I didn't think it was possible, Madam Chair, but this bill may actually be worse than the anti-regulatory legislation Republicans rammed through the last Congress. The House majority

calls this latest version the Energy Consumers Relief Act, an Orwellian name if there ever was one, deceptively titled as Congress heads for recess, but the title does not reflect reality. This bill more aptly might be called the Blocking Public Health Protections Act.

Shamefully, this is yet another attempt by the majority to gut public health and safety protections so they can give more handouts to big energy producers, many of which of course have financed the majority in this House.

Not only does this bill block or delay the EPA from finalizing rules, Madam Chairman, to reduce pollution that threatens the air we breathe and the water we drink. It also gives unprecedented power, as the distinguished ranking member of the committee pointed out, to the Department of Energy to veto EPA rules--nonsensical and a non sequitur if there ever was one.

We know rules already in place, like the mercury and air toxic standards that effectively regulate carcinogens, neurotoxins, smog and soot pollution, prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 47 heart attacks, and 130,000 asthma attacks every year. So I ask my colleagues: Why are we trying to prevent proven protections on public health?

Our amendment will continue to put public health first by ensuring that EPA retains that authority to implement the vital safeguards that protect air and water quality that previous generations in this House on a bipartisan basis believed were necessary and important to protect the public we serve.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I understand our friend from New Jersey

apparently doesn't like Metro or the clientele it serves. So much of what he said I think is, in fact, distorted.

The Metro system in metropolitan Washington is one of the great success stories of regional cooperation in the United States of America. In less than 40 years, this system has created the second highest transit utilization in the United States. New York's is well over 120 years old; we're less than 40.

In addition, my friend talked about taxpayer money. Not a dime of Federal money sustains or subsidizes Metro's operating costs. That's a problem because 40 percent of the Federal workforce uses Metro every day; and it is subsidized not by the Federal Government, I say to my friend from New Jersey, but by local governments in the metropolitan area. And I know because I was chairman of one of them, and I had to write that check every year for the subsidy for Metro--not the Federal Government, the government of Fairfax County. And we were happy to write the check because we saw the value in Metro.

Metro also has the highest fare box recovery rate in the United States of any transit system. Subsidies, we recover 80 percent through the fare box. It's the most efficient recovery in the United States. It lacks a dedicated source of revenue. It's the only major transit system in the United States that lacks a dedicated source of revenue.

That's why I say to my friend from New Jersey, my Republican predecessor introduced this legislation you want to cut. Tom Davis was the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He was a Republican Congressman from Virginia, from the 11th District of Virginia I now am privileged to represent, and he and I saw eye to eye on this subject. We needed Federal help, and the Federal Government has a special responsibility because this is the Nation's Capital.

Twelve million visitors use that Metro system at some point or another during the course of a year, unsubsidized by the Federal Government. In fact, the only subsidy we ever get is every 4 years when there's an inauguration, there's some consideration made. Other than that, we're kind of on our own.

And so Tom Davis, my Republican predecessor felt, as did all of us in the region, that there was a special obligation to at least help on capital improvements because it's an aging system. And with that aging system, elevators need to be replaced, escalators need to be improved, canopies need to be replaced.

And so we came up with a capital improvement idea. The deal was this: in a Republican Congress, that if the local governments would come up with a match, dollar for dollar, we, the Federal Government, would provide $150 million a year for that capital improvement, to get new cars that are safer so we can avoid the kind of tragedy that occurred a few years ago in the system, because we have original cars still in the system from almost 40 years ago.

So the local governments came up with that match, $150 million, 50 for Maryland, 50 for D.C., 50 for Virginia, and we amended the compact, the contract that created Metro, to put Federal representatives on the board for the first time with voting privileges.

If we adopt this amendment today, we turn our back on that Republican idea, that Republican legislation, and we turn our back on the faith that the local jurisdictions have expressed in keeping their commitment as part of this bargain.

Metro is a very important part of our Nation's Capital, and it is wrong to disinvest in it, and it's even wronger to break a contract, a commitment we made several years ago when my Republican predecessor introduced this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would say to my friend from New Jersey, I do not question his motivation; I question his action. His action suggests, just as he just said, we're no different than any other transit system.

Well, we are different. This is the Nation's Capital, and we bear the full responsibility of moving the Federal workforce, the bulk of the Federal workforce to work every single day. That is not a responsibility the New York subway system bears. It's not the responsibility Boston bears, or the BART system in San Francisco bears. It is unique.

And we bear the responsibility in this region of welcoming 10 to 12 million fellow Americans every year to visit the Nation's Capital, many of whom use that Metro system, again, something that is subsidized on an operating basis, by the local taxpayer. That is unique to this area.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to ensure that every State that chooses to allow coal ash impoundments as outlined in this bill has a strong emergency response plan in the unfortunate event of a leak or spill.

Sadly, the 2008 failure of a coal ash impoundment in Kingston, Tennessee, highlights the very devastation a spill can have on a community. As was widely reported at the time, a breach in a surface impoundment pond at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Kingston

facility released more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash, covering more than 300 acres in toxic sludge, damaging and destroying homes and property. As we speak, there is still a Federal Superfund cleanup site where the total cost could top more than $1.2 billion. Absent a plan, what could go wrong?

Beyond that staggering price tag, let us not forget that the lasting economic and health impacts in the surrounding communities resulting from this spill are catastrophic. Families were displaced from their homes. Some residents still suffer from respiratory illnesses and other side effects. Arsenic levels where the Kingston coal ash runoff were disposed of are measured at 80 times higher that the amount legally allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the EPA already has said such exposure significantly increases a lifetime risk of cancer. These are just the impacts we know of today. Who knows what the unknown health consequences might be.

The Kingston incident is not an isolated event, sadly. According to Earthjustice, there have been more than 211 known cases of coal ash contamination and spills in 37 different States. According to the EPA, 45 impoundments are currently considered high hazard, meaning that a failure will probably cause loss of human life. Of course, this bill doesn't concern itself with those problems or apply the lessons learned.

In response to the Kingston incident, former Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen even acknowledged that ``the State's environmental regulations, mostly written in the 1970s, don't take into account a disaster such as the ash spill and need a top to bottom review.''

And he said we need a top-to-bottom review of those policies.

As we have already seen, the Federal Government is forced to step in when disasters such as these take place. Yet, rather than make the Federal Government a partner, or even a resource, this bill turns sole responsibility over to the States. There ought to be a clear minimum set of standards for EPA to identify and remedy State program deficiencies, stronger groundwater protection standards, and clear and appropriate authority for taking potential corrective action on unlined or leaking impoundments. That seems common sense.

The original amendment would have ensured that States certify their coal ash permitting plans annually, including up-to-date emergency response plans. The House majority thought regular reporting was nothing more than a paperwork exercise, so I now offer this revised amendment in keeping with their concerns to ensure, at a minimum, that States have thorough and comprehensive emergency response plans to address a spill or a leak. We cannot simply count on private enterprise to be prepared for a spill. The State and local governments, who are the first responders, must be active partners. By requiring them to provide EPA simply their own emergency response plans, we are taking a modest step to ensure they are prepared to respond to an emergency.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I look forward to working with him.

I yield to the distinguished ranking member.

I thank the gentleman.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, CBO's May report shows the deficit has dropped another $220 billion. The Federal deficit continues to fall faster now than it has since post-World War II demobilization in the late forties and early fifties.

Earlier this month, OMB released its mid-session review that estimates deficits will be reduced to below 3 percent of GDP by 2017, and will continue to fall, reaching 2 percent by 2023. This recent good news hasn't eliminated the need to address our long-term fiscal crisis, but it has created some breathing space for us to renew our investments in America.

We're now 5 years removed from the financial crisis, and have yet to demonstrate an ability to balance competing needs between the long-term deficit reduction need and investments in the future that made America great. House Republicans have been obsessed by the debt, but struggle to recognize any need for investment in education, R&D, and infrastructure.

A few weeks ago, Larry Summers best summarized our predicament when he said:

Just as you burden future generations when you accumulate

debt, you also burden future generations when you defer

maintenance.

Given the current market, we're refusing to maintain our infrastructure at a time when investors are literally throwing money at us. To be clear, yields on the 5-, 7-, and 10-year Treasuries have been negative for the past 2 years. This past month, we've witnessed a rate jump as markets fret about QE3, yet real Treasury yields still remain below 1 percent. When accounting for inflation, rates have not been this low for many, many decades.

Republicans look the other way when it comes to this question, and I'm shocked that my colleagues who persistently say we ought to run the government like a business have so little interest in taking advantage of one of our generation's great opportunities in financing investment for the future. This is a far cry from the party of Lincoln that invested in the Homestead Act, invested in the Transcontinental Railroad, or Eisenhower's interstate highway system.

Unfortunately, Congress continues to fiddle while Rome burns. Two months ago, the I-5 bridge collapsed in the State of Washington. It was a miracle nobody died considering that 71,000 vehicles a day use that critical connection, the main route connecting Seattle to British Columbia.

According to the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, my own State of Virginia has 3,500, nearly one in four

bridges, that are either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete; and we're not unique in America.

In addition, many of the country's water mains and pipes are more than 100 years old. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates it will take $298 billion over the next 20 years to fix this situation. Otherwise, many Americans are going to get wastewater when they turn on their faucets.

More than 100,000 residents of the National Capital region learned this the hard way just a week ago when, because of lack of infrastructure, lack of infrastructure maintenance, they almost went without water.

Our choices not to invest in maintaining the critical infrastructure and the backbone of our economy is putting America at a competitive disadvantage in the next century. The Panama Canal, for example, its expansion will be completed in 2015, radically altering global trade capacity throughout the world. Yet the east coast will have only four ports capable of receiving the new post-Panamax ships.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports these new ships will make up 62 percent of total container ship capacity in the world by 2030. Right now, China and Korea not only surpass the United States in this capacity; they lead in terms of container traffic as well. This didn't happen by accident. They invested.

Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that leaving our grandchildren with unsustainable debt is irresponsible. But what are they to think when they look back and realize we left them with a Nation of potholes, contaminated water, and crumbling bridges?

Our global competitors aren't waiting around for things to pick up here in America. They're actively investing in infrastructure to gain ground in the hopes of overtaking us in global competition. The Chinese spend billions on ports, rail, and highways; and they're not alone.

It's time to turn our attention back to the seemingly unglamorous, but critical, business of fixing America's infrastructure--our roads, our ports, our airports, our bridges and our water systems--to ensure for future generations America stays strong.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to recognize the recipients of the 2013 Best of Braddock Awards, presented by the Braddock District Council of Community Associations. These awards are given annually to deserving individuals, organizations and companies in the Braddock Magisterial District of Fairfax County, Va., who have demonstrated an outstanding commitment to the community.

The goal of the Braddock District Council is to promote the civic, community, and general welfare of the citizens of the Braddock Magisterial District of Fairfax County. The Council represents the interests of community associations that lie within the Braddock District, facilitates cooperation and coordination between community associations, and provides a path of communications between associations and officials/elected representatives of the Braddock Magisterial District. I am pleased to join the Braddock District Council of Community Associations in recognizing the Recipients of the 2013 Best of Braddock Awards:

Citizen of the Year--Diane DiPietro, former president of Kings West Swim Club, for her tireless efforts to turn the blighted pool property into Rabbit Run Park.

Outstanding Business--The Peterson Companies for the development and management of the Fairfax Corner Center.

Most ``Can-Do'' Public Employee--Ed Richardson, Manager, Park Operations Division, Fairfax County Park Authority for working with Braddock District residents to effectively carry out the FCPA mission areas of promoting and protecting our cultural and natural resources, and providing safe recreation facilities for activities and programs.

Neighborhood Enhancement or Beautification--Dave Bowden, Fairfax County Parks Authority and Craig Carinci, Fairfax County Storm Water Management, who led their teams through the successful conversion of the blighted Kings West Swim Club property to Rabbit Branch Park.

FCPA Team: Dave Bowden, Isabel Villaroel, John Lehman, Tim Scott, Julie Cline, Brian Williams, and Charles Smith.

Storm Management Team: Craig Carinci, Rose Barrie, Ron Tuttle, Elfatih Salim, Dave Anglin, Brad Melton, Yudhie Brownson, Paul Thaler, Mannan Qureshi, Joseph Adzovie, and Bruce Goudzari.

Organizations Making a Difference in the Community (2 honorees)--Food for Others (Annandale Site); and Friends of the Burke Centre Library.

Special Achievement or Recognition--The Audrey Moore Recreation Center Rescue Team--Sophie Polnow, Tim Polnow, Connie Polnow, Corey Stoney, Faith Garrish. While swimming laps on May 18, Doug Padrutt started to feel dizzy. The next thing he knew he was on the deck surrounded by lifeguards and EMTs. Due to an arrhythmia, his heart had stopped and he sank. The team pulled Mr. Padrutt out of the water, started CPR, administered the AED, called paramedics and got him conscious and calmed down all in few short minutes. Because of their quick actions, Mr. Padrutt survived and has no permanent heart damage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these outstanding residents and companies and also in thanking them for their service to our community. Their efforts and leadership have been a great benefit to Northern Virginia and truly merit our highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and commend Susan E. Mittereder on the occasion of her retirement after a distinguished career in public service to the residents of Fairfax County, the largest local jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the National Capital Region. For the past 25 years, Sue has been the primary legislative liaison for Fairfax County, serving as the eyes, ears, voice, and chief advocate for local government in the halls of the Virginia General Assembly and Congress.

Her success in educating state and federal legislators about the interests of local government stems from her background as a classroom teacher. Having once attended classes in a one-room schoolhouse, Sue initially pursued a career in education. She received her Bachelor of Science in Education and Master of Education degrees from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. She taught first grade and gifted elementary classes for the Newark and New Castle school districts in Delaware before pursuing advanced and doctorate degrees in education administration at Virginia Tech. It was during that experience that she developed an affinity for public policy, and after graduation she took a position in the government relations office for Fairfax County Public Schools.

Four years later, she became the chief legislative liaison for Fairfax County. During the General Assembly's annual winter sessions, Sue became a familiar face in the halls of the state capitol, setting up a temporary outpost from which she and her colleagues could keep close tabs on legislative proposals affecting Fairfax County. Her attention to detail, dedicated work ethic, and mastery of the legislative process made her a resource for colleagues representing other local governments and also for the legislators themselves. The legislative battles produced more than a few chocolate-fueled late nights for Sue and her team as they analyzed the impacts of changes to state funding for local services or to local government authority over matters such as land use planning, zoning enforcement, taxes, transportation, human services, education, and public safety.

Whether it was a state delegate, senator, cabinet secretary, or governor, Sue was never afraid to assert the County's position. In fact, many a legislator has been known to wilt in the face of Sue's tenacity. It is that doggedness that helped her maintain the trust and confidence of six county executives and five chairs of the Board of Supervisors during her tenure. She also managed to maintain her roots in education, helping to mentor numerous young staff members throughout the County government and the legislature, including those who will now succeed her.

I worked closely with Sue during my 5 years as Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and my 14 years as Chairman of the Board's Legislative Committee. During the General Assembly session, Sue and her colleagues would rush back to the County for our regular late Friday afternoon meetings so that we could pore over the hundreds, if not thousands, of legislative proposals introduced each year with the rest of the Board, looking for those efforts that aligned with our priorities and those that were an affront to them, which, unfortunately, was more often the case. Because of that dynamic, Sue's institutional presence was invaluable. She was not only defending Fairfax County, but also safeguarding the interests of local governments throughout the Commonwealth. And passionately. It truly is one of the most unsung but critical functions of local government on behalf of our citizens.

In addition to her legislative accomplishments, Sue has a wonderful sense of humor,

which as we know is invaluable for enduring what can be a long legislative process, and she often served as the ringleader for the merry band of County staff that joined her for the annual sessions in Richmond. The revolving door included staff from the legislative office, the Office of the County Attorney, and the departments of transportation, tax administration, zoning enforcement, housing, public safety, public works, stormwater management, environmental quality, and many more.

Sue's other professional accomplishments include being a graduate of Leadership Fairfax, serving as a board member of the Liberal Arts and Human Resources Development Committee at Virginia Tech, and serving as a member of the National Association of County Intergovernmental Relations Officials. In 1996, she was recognized by Virginia Tech as an Outstanding Woman Graduate for her contributions to her community and her profession. She also serves on the education committee of her local homeowners association in Northern Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, Sue Mittereder's commitment to our community and the mission of local government are unparalleled, and she leaves behind a legacy that will benefit our community for generations to come. Her career in public service, beginning with her service in the classroom, is truly commendable and deserving of our sincere appreciation. When I was Chairman of the County Board, we often joked when retirement announcements like this came before the Board that we should not allow such talented and dedicated staff to leave public service, and I certainly wish that was the case here. I wish Sue the best of luck in her retirement, and I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in expressing our appreciation for her commitment to serving the residents of Fairfax County.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, residents from across the country participated in the One Million Bones demonstration on the National Mall to raise awareness about the acts of genocide and mass atrocities in Africa and the Middle East.

Many of the participants visited with their respective Congressional offices, and I am pleased to enter into the Congressional Record a statement on behalf of my constituents, Alison Luckett and Taylor Lane, who met with staff from my office.

We the House of Representatives resolve that:

In support of the One Million Bones efforts to raise awareness of on-going genocides and mass atrocities in the world today;

Consistent with the UN's having defined genocide as ``Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group;''

In remembrance of the lives lost in past acts of genocide including the genocides in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Sudan in which:

The Holocaust was an act of genocide by Nazi Germany to eradicate Non-Aryan population during World War II in which 11 million people were killed;

The civil war in Rwanda from April 6, 1994, to July 16, 1994, in which acts of genocide were committed by extremist Hutus through the militia, the Interhamawe, and the government army against Tutsis, moderate Hutus, and the Twa in which over 1 million people were killed;

The events in Sudan from 2003 to present have involved acts of genocide by the Muslim Arab Sudanese against the Muslim black Sudanese through the Janjaweed militia and the Sudanese army in which 6 million people were killed before 2003 and since then an additional 400,000 have died.

Resolved that we--

1. view all human beings as equals no matter their nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion;

2. recognize these events as genocide and condemns them as such

3. urge all Members of Congress to condemn those responsible for the acts of genocide from occurring;

4. will continue to work with the One Million Bones project to educate all people on the horrors of genocide and to prevent any future acts of genocide from occurring

5. will take action through available means to prevent future acts of genocide from occurring.

Mr. Chair, I represent Virginia's two largest school districts, which have a combined enrollment of more than 265,000 students. As a parent and former member of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, I know the success of our community and others across America is directly related to the quality of our local schools. Fortunately, we have strong local support for our schools, particularly within the business community, which recognizes the value of investing in our young people and future workforce. As a result, our community has the nation's premier high school for science and technology and strong academic achievement across all student groups. That has attracted families and employers to our region, which now is home to Virginia's largest public university and 10 Fortune 500 companies.

The long-overdue reauthorization of ESEA presents us with a tremendous opportunity to improve learning conditions for students and teachers. Sadly, the Republican bill before the House today retreats on that promise and, contrary to its title, will not provide the necessary tools for all students to succeed. H.R. 5 cuts federal education support by $1 billion next year and locks in the reduced levels of funding under sequestration for the foreseeable future. It also changes how those dollars are allocated, diluting services for low-income students and English language learners. That represents a disinvestment in our classrooms, and it will put our children--and our nation--at a competitive disadvantage. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce specifically cites the lack of rigorous college- and career-ready standards in opposing the Republican majority's bill. Fairfax County Public Schools Superintendent Karen Garza also expressed concern about the reduced level of funding in this bill, and I am including a copy of that letter.

I also am troubled by the changes being made in the standards for children with disabilities. For all of its flaws, one of the positive outcomes of No Child Left Behind was the fact that it held school districts accountable for the progress of every child, which provided students with disabilities the opportunity to learn--and in many cases master--grade level content and advance alongside their peers. The Republican bill will cast that success aside and allow states to teach and assess students with disabilities under an alternate, less- challenging set of standards. That is unacceptable, and it is one of the reasons why organizations such as the National Disability Rights Network oppose this bill.

Further, the Republican bill does not adequately address two other important programs that support students in our community. First, H.R. 5 eliminates the dedicated funding for before- and after-school programs that have a proven record for providing academic and social support, particularly for at-risk students, and for improving classroom achievement. For example, when I was Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, we received a federal 21st Century Community Learning Center grant. At the time, we were concerned with the growing rate of gang participation and gang-related crime being committed by young people. We used that federal grant to help expand our after- school programs from just 3 middle schools to all 26. Community and business partners also came forward to provide summer-school scholarships and mentoring support. As a result, gang participation dropped by half. Unlike H.R. 5, the Democratic substitute offered by Ranking Member Miller would create a separate dedicated funding stream to support before- and after-school programs so that we are offering positive enrichment opportunities for young people.

H.R. 5 also reduces funding for homeless students despite the fact that we've seen a 57% increase in the nation's homeless student population in the past four years as a result of the Great Recession. Even in my district, which is ranked as one of the wealthiest in the nation, we have nearly 2,500 homeless students in our classrooms. That is a 40% increase compared to five years ago. We must do more, not less, to support these young people who should not have to worry about where their next meal will come from or where they will sleep tonight while they try to navigate the social and academic challenges of a typical school day. The Democratic substitute will ensure more students suffering homelessness will receive the vital support they need to have some sense of stability in their lives.

Mr. Chair, the education of our children should not be driven by partisan ideology, yet that is what House Republicans have brought before us today. Their so-called reforms will, in fact, leave children behind. If we are to fulfill the promise of having a world-class education system, then we need to provide adequate support and funding for our schools, teachers, and students. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and to support the Democratic substitute so we can do just that.

Letter from FCPS Superintendent Garza

Honorable Gerry E. Connolly: We wish to share our comments

and concerns regarding the Student Success ACT (H.R. 5), a

proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA), which may be on the House floor later

today.

The Fairfax County School Board strongly supports the

ideals embodied by ESEA, namely that every child is capable

of learning and that every school and school division must be

held accountable for educating every student to his or her

potential, but has been deeply concerned about the intrusive

administrative and fiscal burdens placed on local school

divisions by ESEA in its current form. In terms of the

entirety of H.R. 5, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

agrees

with the position taken by the National School Boards

Association (NSBA); which supports the long overdue

reauthorization included in H.R. 5 in concept, but which

urges some significant changes (such as the reinstatement of

state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) provisions as well as

removal of authorizing funding caps which would hold

appropriations to current sequestration levels and then

freeze them for five years) prior to its eventual passage. We

would also concur with NSBA in opposing any amendments

proposing to add private school vouchers or Title I

``portability'' to the legislation.

We specifically want to draw your attention to one possible

amendment to H.R. 5 which could have a very significant

impact on FCPS. It is our understanding that Congressman

Glenn Thompson (R-PA) plans to introduce language similar to

his All Children Are Equal Act (ACE Act, H.R. 2658), which if

adopted would have a significant negative impact on FCPS

Title I funding (a projected loss of $5.4M in Title I funding

over four years, see chart below) and on Fairfax students who

are living in poverty. We would urge you to reject that

amendment.

Title I is intended ``to ensure that all children have a

fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high

quality education.'' Students living in poverty and schools

with high poverty rates have educational needs that require

additional resources from Title I funding to ``level the

playing field'' regardless of their location. Some states are

divided into many small school districts, some of which have

only one secondary school and very few elementary schools.

Other states have designated school districts in alignment

with very large geographic counties, where districts may

include hundreds of schools. Large school districts may

include urban, suburban and rural-like components all within

the boundaries of one large division. Children and schools

located within ``pockets'' of poverty in a large district

have the same educational resource needs as those in smaller

school districts with fewer students. The diverse settings of

schools with high poverty rates from state to state require

diversity within Title I funding formulas so that schools

from both small and large districts can receive resources to

support needy students.

The particular amendment the House may consider seeks to

phase in a shift in the funding distribution formula for

Title I from calculations that are currently based on both

absolute numbers of students in poverty as well as on

percentages of students in poverty, to one reliant only on

percentages. Given Fairfax's size (with over 180,000

students); FCPS has a relatively low overall poverty rate but

a very significant number of students in poverty. As of 2011,

there were an estimated 15,915 children between the ages of 5

and 18 living at or below the poverty rate in Fairfax County.

That number exceeds the total student population in all but

15 jurisdictions in Virginia (there are 133 total school

divisions in Virginia). While Fairfax's overall percentage of

free lunch eligible students was just over 20% in the 2011-

2012 school year, 22 Fairfax schools had a free lunch

population of greater than 50% (with the highest schools

having over 74% eligible students). In total, over 46,000

Fairfax students are eligible for the free and reduced lunch

program, which has an eligibility threshold of up to 185% of

the poverty rate.

For small school districts, the percentage system can be

advantageous, as they may not have large absolute numbers of

students. For larger school districts with ``pockets'' of

poverty, the absolute number system may level the playing

field so that schools with high poverty rates may receive

appropriate resources, even though the overall poverty rate

of the entire division may not be as high as a smaller

division with fewer schools.

If only the percentage system were used, as would be

proposed by Rep. Thompson's amendment, students in high

poverty schools in larger school districts would lose Title I

funding support. Students in poverty are not able to choose

whether they live in a small or large school district, nor

can they determine the percentage of poverty in the school

district in which they live. Nonetheless, regardless of where

they live, their needs are similar and they deserve

equivalent access to Title I resources.

The current system, which includes the options of both the

percentage and absolute number calculations, provides a

balanced approach for both small and large districts, and

thus provides necessary Title I resources for students in

high poverty schools, no matter where they live. For these

reasons, the current two alternative weighting systems,

percentage and absolute number, should be continued in

calculating Title I funding allocations, so that students in

high poverty schools can equitably receive Title I resources

whether they live in a small or large district.

FCPS would strongly support additional overall funding for

the Title I program should that be part of the discussion,

but again urges you to reject Rep. Thompson's Title I formula

amendment if it is introduced. If you have questions or

concerns, please feel free to contact Michael Molloy,

Director of Government Relations, Fairfax County Public

Schools at [email protected] or 571-423-1240. Thank you for

your consideration and your support of the Fairfax County

Public Schools and public K-12 education.

Karen K. Garza, Ph.D.,

Division Superintendent, Fairfax County Public Schools.

I was going to talk about sequestration--and I will, Mr. Speaker--but I've got to respond to my friend on what he calls ObamaCare. It does everything he says he wants it to do, and I will remind those critics of ObamaCare that the individual mandate was a Republican idea; and far from putting government between patients and their doctors, it actually facilitates patients' care directly with their doctors and their medical providers.

Just 2 weeks ago, we celebrated our Nation's independence, and it reminded us of the full panoply of American history. American history, especially at the Constitutional Convention, is all about parties coming together for the common good and compromising.

The first great compromise created the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, allowing proportional representation here to protect the interests of the bigger States, but equal representation in the other body to protect all of the States. That was the first great compromise.

The second great compromise was between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It involved the Federal debt and the location of the future Nation's Capital. They had a dinner, and they compromised. Hamilton got what he wanted in the Federal debt, and Jefferson got what he wanted in terms of the Nation's Capital. It was all about compromise. That's what we have to now remind ourselves of as we deal with the horrors of sequestration--yes, horrors.

On July 5, the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the IRS completely shuttered their offices throughout the United States, furloughing 115,000 employees that day. It was the third such agency shutdown for those agencies. Last week, 680,000 Department of Defense civilian employees began a one-day-a-week furlough that will continue through the end of this fiscal year.

For my colleagues who are so fond of saying, Let's run government the way a business ought to be run, what business would furlough 85 percent of its workforce one day a week for 3 months? What CEO or chairman of the board would last one day advocating for that as a management practice? Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle think that's perfectly fine in order to manage the Federal Government.

I recently met with the members of the Federal Bar Association, who highlighted yet another unforeseen cost of sequestration, and that has to do with $350 million of cuts in the judicial branch.

Since July of 2011, spending cuts have forced the Federal court system to shed 10 percent of the total judicial staff through layoffs. Staffing of the court system is now at 2005 staffing levels, but the volume has only grown. Many Federal courts across the Nation plan now to close one day a week. Think about that. The American judicial system is looking at possibly only operating 4 days a week because of the lack of resources due to sequestration. This will result in the slower processing of civil and bankruptcy cases, which will have a ripple effect on local economies for individuals and companies all across this country. Court security will be cut by 30 percent, and we can only ask ourselves rhetorically what could go wrong with that. Probation will be affected.

These cuts will undermine our ability to fulfill the Sixth Amendment right of defendants to a speedy trial and representation for the indigent. Cuts to the Federal Defender Services program will lead to attorneys being furloughed up to 15 days for the remainder of this fiscal year. The office already is understaffed after losing 113 employees between last fall and spring as a result of budget cuts.

Mr. Speaker, the Judicial Conference of the United States recently called this situation an unprecedented fiscal crisis that will seriously compromise the constitutional mission of the United States courts--the same Constitution that so many of my friends on the other side of the aisle proudly hold up and say they believe in. It's just the latest in a string of what, I hope, are unintended consequences from sequestration and another reason we must act within the next month to resolve the situation and stop the mindless disinvestment in the important functions of government.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I think that, in many ways, this amendment--and I give credit to its author-- encapsulates a debate that's going on, not only between the parties, but in America.

It's premised on a narrative that is utterly ahistorical. It is a false narrative. If it's worth doing, the private sector will do it. That flies in the face of 237 years of this Republic's history.

George Washington understood that. He understood that there were investments only the Federal Government could make, and he made them.

Thomas Jefferson, an advocate for small government, also understood that. He subsidized the Rogers and Clark expedition that opened up the West and created an enormous enterprise for science.

Mr. Garamendi mentioned the 37th Congress and Abraham Lincoln. In the middle of the worst catastrophe this country's experienced, a civil war, that Congress understood that we had to make investments as a Federal Government if this country was going to prosper and grow, and allowed the private sector to take up where we left off.

And that's why they invested in the Transcontinental Railroad. That's why they created the Homestead Act. That's why they created the United States Department of Agriculture. That's why they created the land grant college/university system.

The idea that the private sector can do it, we don't need to do it-- well, the

Internet was 100 percent a Federal investment. It was called DARPANET, and it stayed a Federal investment for 25 years, until the commercial application was clear, and then it went private. Whatever we invested in DARPANET was worth every penny in how it's transformed American life.

GPS, entirely a Federal investment, not a private sector investment. And it's the private sector that's understood the commercial applicability.

That's the partnership that has characterized all of our history, not some of it. And to substitute a false narrative for that involvement will guarantee that the Chinese will clean our clock in the next generation.

I sat here hours ago and listened to our Republican colleagues from Washington and Tennessee say, without fear of understanding their own contradiction, we need the Federal Government to clean up these nuclear sites, not the private sector, the Federal Government.

This isn't just a bad amendment. This is about a profound philosophical disagreement about the future role of the Federal Government.

Investments have returns. Not all spending is the same, and we need to be enhancing investments in this bill, not cutting them back, if we want to hand over to the next generation a competitive America that still helps provide a shining light upon a hill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I have wracked my brain to try to find a Democratic amendment that the distinguished Republican manager could support, and I know I have hit upon it. It's a low-impact amendment, modest in the extreme, but with high payoff and gravy: a $3 million net savings, according to the scoring.

As we've learned time and time again, Madam Chairman, from weather disasters and other emergencies, having a reliable and resilient energy structure is absolutely vital to national security, our economy, and to the stability of the community. I appreciate the committee acknowledging in its report the current strain being placed on our aging power infrastructure and the need for more modern, efficient systems. In fact, I and other members of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Caucus have been advocating for increased Federal investments to meet those very needs for some time.

The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research and Development account--a mouthful, I admit--which supports the very technologies that will help modernize our power grid, unfortunately, is cut in this bill by 50 percent. I'm offering, as I said, this simple, modest, commonsense amendment I know will appeal to the Republican manager by transferring a mere $15.5 million from the Nuclear Weapons Activity Account, which received a $98 million increase above last year. This also would reduce outlays actually by $3 million, according to the CBO.

One of the energy-efficient initiatives that has a proven track record of improving power reliability, reducing electric costs, and creating jobs is combined heat and power, for example. It provides simultaneous production of electricity and heat from a single fuel source such as natural gas, biomass, coal, or oil.

During conventional power generation, up to two-thirds of the energy from the fuel used to generate power is lost as wasted heat. In contrast, combined heat and power systems capture that thermal heat that would otherwise be lost, making these systems twice as efficient. Thanks to that onsite generation, there's less risk of

power disruption and improved efficiency.

We've already seen the success of such systems. When Superstorm Sandy knocked out power to 8.5 million residents in the Northeast, including the distinguished Republican manager's home State of New Jersey, those facilities with combined heat and power systems had working electricity and heat. South Oaks Hospital on Long Island, for example, which includes a nursing home and an assisted living center, was able to maintain power during the storm and its aftermath. Similarly, during Katrina, Mississippi Baptist Medical Center was the only hospital in the Jackson, Mississippi, area to remain 100 percent operational during and after the hurricane.

Combined heat and power systems are currently used across the Nation and generate 82 gigawatts of electricity. That's about 9 percent of the total. That's the equivalent of 130 coal plants. Analysts say we can double that figure; and with the lower price of natural gas and new interest from the States that have suffered from natural disasters, the timing is ripe. These investments not only lead to a more efficient use of power but they also help create jobs. It's estimated that for each gigawatt of combined heat and power capacity, we can expect more than 2,000 jobs to be created.

The Federal Government has supported deployment of combined heat and power systems primarily in the manufacturing sector; but we need to expand that success to commercial and residential settings, especially after the experiences of Katrina and Sandy.

This is, as I said, a simple, commonsense amendment largely crafted to try to help the Republican manager find a Democratic amendment he can enthusiastically support.

With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I value and appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women in our Armed Forces. For that reason, I am happy to rise in support of this legislation. The bill would simply amend current law to provide qualified veterans service organizations with greater access to Federal surplus property. The bill enjoys bipartisan support and is noncontroversial. In fact, in May of this year it was considered by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and passed unanimously, a rarity in our history.

In December, 2010, President Obama signed the original FOR VETS Act into law. That legislation established the eligibility of veterans service organizations to receive surplus property under the Federal surplus property program. The wording of the statute suggests that those organizations should also demonstrate they are acquiring the property for the purposes of education or public health. The narrow construction of that language really hurts veterans service organizations, who are not always equipped to administer public health or educational programs, that not being their core mission. They have thus been prevented in some cases from accessing the Federal surplus property Congress intended them to access.

This legislation simply corrects any confusion and, if you will, that error to allow veterans organizations access to Federal surplus property to benefit veterans.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do better for our veterans, and I think this bill, H.R. 1171, is a good step forward. I urge Members to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I yield back, I just want to congratulate the gentleman on his legislation. It is correcting an error, and it will make a very positive benefit for so many veterans organizations, including the ones he enumerated. I am proud to support the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize recipients of the 2013 Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce Awards for Chamber Excellence.

The Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1982 as a business roundtable in the growing community of Reston, Virginia. For more than 30 years, the Reston Chamber has facilitated business growth and entrepreneurship through its programming, advocacy and engagement throughout the community. The Reston Chamber currently has more than 600 member businesses that together employ more than 10,000 people. It is the 6th largest chamber of commerce in the Washington DC- metropolitan region and is deeply embedded in the community.

The Reston Chamber hosts annual events such as Taste of Reston, Oktoberfest Reston, and Best of Reston, and it has received national recognition for its Ethics Day, a workshop for high school students on ethical decision making. Members use the INC.spire Education Foundation and free SCORE business coaching programs to help create and grow their enterprises. INC.spire has assisted more than four dozen entrepreneurs create 500 jobs and $45 million of business investment.

The Chamber was recognized by Fairfax County Public Schools for its involvement in local classrooms, received the Community Service Award from the Reston Community Center, and received the Best of Reston Corporate Philanthropy Award in 2012.

Each year, through the Awards for Chamber Excellence, the Chamber recognizes member companies, individuals, and volunteers who have demonstrated excellence, innovation and exceptional dedication to the Reston community. I am pleased to join the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce in recognizing the following Awards for Chamber Excellence (ACE) recipients:

Committee of the Year: Business Education Committee, Angela Inzerillo and Cindy Simons-Bennett (co-chairs).

Small Business of the Year: Conversion Pipeline.

Medium Business of the Year: Atrium Catering and Design.

Large Business of the Year: Access National Bank.

Member of the Year: Cynthia Hyland, Northrop Grumman.

New Member of the Year: Lindsay Mensch.

Volunteer of the Year: Laura Lee Spatzer.

First Responder of the Year Award: Sally Dickinson, North Point Fire Station 439.

Joe Ritchie Pinnacle Award: Marion Myers, Myers Public Relations.

President's Award: Bill Byers, First Virginia Community Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating this year's award recipients and in thanking them for their contributions to the local economy and outstanding service to our community. I also commend the Greater Reston Chamber of Commerce for its role as an invaluable partner to local businesses, nonprofits and schools. The efforts of the Chamber, the member businesses, and volunteers have helped make Reston a truly special place live, work and raise a family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the remarkable efforts of Shelter House, Inc., and to congratulate the recipients of the 2013 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. In 2013, Shelter House added permanent housing to its portfolio by partnering with Falls Church Presbyterian Church to open the Ives House to three homeless/unstably housed families to provide additional case management support to increase their self-sufficiency.

The programs operated by Shelter House have contributed greatly to breaking the cycle of homelessness. In FY2012, Shelter House decreased the average length of stay for families in its shelters by 30 percent, and 72 percent of families at the Katherine K. Hanley Family Shelter and Patrick Henry Family Shelter moved into permanent housing, representing a 12% increase over the previous fiscal year. At Artemis House, 67% of households moved to safe and stable housing--an increase of 5% from FY2011. In FY2012, Shelter house prevented 40 households from becoming homeless, and 80 percent of families staying in its transitional and permanent supportive housing programs increased their employment income by an average of more than $650 per month. Volunteers and community partners are essential to this success, as they provide the tools necessary to combat homelessness. Their time, money, and effort 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: Changing Lives Awards--Passion 4 Community, Lord of Life Lutheran Church, and St. Luke's United Methodist Church. Community Champions--Falls Church Presbyterian Church, Madison Ridge, and McLean Bible Church. Ending Homelessness & Domestic Violence Awards--Pat Kuehnel, Keller Williams Fairfax Gateway Office, and Lori Tagami. Youth Volunteer Award--Natalie Hancher, Molly Sullivan, Charlotte Lackey, Girl Scout Troop #1732, and Rock Spring UCC YORS (Youth of Rock Spring). These individuals and organizations certainly deserve special recognition for their dedication to Shelter House. However, we also must acknowledge the importance of 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, as well as 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 rise today to recognize the volunteers for Six Weeks to Make a Difference program.

These dedicated volunteers for Six Weeks to Make a Difference program helped seven conservation projects from March 16 through April 27 at local natural areas. Many of the families volunteered at several of the sites. Through the projects, they improved trails, disposed of tons of debris, tires and invasive plants, planted over 1000 trees and bushes, corrected erosion problems, and left our community better than the way they found it.

It is my honor to submit the names of volunteers for the Six Weeks to Make a Difference Program: Adam Family, Adams Family, Assefa Family, Awtry Family, Bean Family, Bebar Family, Bolton Family, Bradley Family, Bresnahan Family, Brown Family, Chenault Family, Chesonis Family, Cohen Family, Ferrufino Coronel Family, Cooper Family, Conners Family, Cunningham Family, Ekoh Family, Furman Family, Fyock Family, Gates Family, Gonzalez Family, Guidry Family, Hileman Family, Johnson Family, Johnston Family, Jones Family, LeBlanc Family, Marcucci Family, Martinez Family, McGhee Family, McNary Family, Melusen Family, Mitchell Family, Porterfield Family, Rosendale Family, Sanchez Family, Smallwood Family, Sullivan Family, Svetlecic Family, Verosko Family, Warner Family, Walther Family, Wright Family, Yeboah Family, York Family, Young Family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending these families for their service and in thanking them for their dedication to environmental conservation in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the volunteers of the St. Mark's United Methodist Church Teens Opposing Poverty (T.O.P.s) Program.

St. Mark's United Methodist Church T.O.P.s Program is a youth ministry initiative that teaches youth the true meaning of volunteerism through service to others. On the third Sunday of each month, Prince William County T.O.P.s program volunteers donate prepared meals and clothing to a Washington, D.C. homeless shelter. Spreading the goodwill of Prince William County in the Nation's capital, these teen volunteers learn the true value in serving others by humbly aiding those in need.

It is my honor to submit the names of volunteers for St. Mark's United Methodist Church Teens Opposing Poverty Program: Pam Bryan, John Tyler Cumberland, Shelly Cumberland, Allysa Hartman, Michell Housum, Maureen Kopp, Alexis Liller, Bill Liller, Bernie Posey, Rachel Rannebarger, Brittany Ripper, Robin Russell, Andrea VanPelt, Joel VanPelt, Cody UnThank, Michell Housum.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in commending the volunteers for the St. Mary's Methodist Church Teens Opposing Poverty Program for their efforts to assist those who are less fortunate. They faithfully promote a church without walls and we would do well to follow their example.