Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 100th anniversary of the South San Francisco Unified School District in San Mateo County, California. This K-12 school district serves over 9,000 students in 15 schools in South San Francisco, San Bruno and Daly City.

As a South San Francisco native, I received my early education in primary and middle school at Magnolia, Spruce and Parkway from 1955-64. There is no question that the years in the South San Francisco school district molded my life.

Today, the South San Francisco Unified School District has nine elementary schools, three middle schools, two comprehensive high schools, one continuation high school and one adult school, but its beginnings were very humble. In 1866, an elementary district was formed under the original name of San Bruno District. In 1878, a one-room school near the railroad station known as ``Twelve Mile House'' became the first school in the area. It had one teacher and three trustees. The first major school in the area was built around 1885. Baden Avenue School had four rooms, a library, a principal's office and sanitary arrangements outside the building.

In 1913 the high school district was established. Four years later, South San Francisco High School graduated its first class of three proud seniors on the new campus on Spruce Avenue. The flu epidemic of 1918 took a serious toll on the area. All schools were closed and the high school was converted into a soup kitchen.

From the 1920s through 1940s, the district built several schools, including Martin, Magnolia and Grand Avenue Schools. Buildings were expanded, renamed, demolished and replaced. The district was able to serve its students. That changed after World War II when the post-war baby boom created a shortage of schools. South San Francisco's population doubled to almost 40,000 and 40 percent of them were under 18. The district embarked on a massive construction project and built seven schools--Parkway Intermediate, El Camino High School, Ponderosa Elementary, Serra Vista Elementary, Monte Verde School, Foxridge Elementary and Skyline Elementary.

In the 70s, Magnolia and Spruce were closed due to seismic concerns and Avalon and El Rancho were closed and sold. In the 80s, Southwood Junior High School closed and Parkway, Alta Loma and Westborough converted to a middle school format.

With continuing declining enrollment, Foxridge and Serra Vista closed in 1992. Parts of Foxridge were leased to a childcare facility and Serra Vista eventually became the home of the NCP College of Nursing. In 2005, Hillsdale Elementary closed its doors and the facility was leased to Mills Montessori Schools. While the school district has experienced expansions and contractions over the last century, it has always kept the focus on quality education and lifelong learning. The 439 teachers, Superintendent Alejandro Hogan and the Board of Trustees are committed to educating our future generations and to giving them the tools to achieve their highest potentials.

Plato said over two millennia ago: ``The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to commend the South San Francisco Unified School District for having started thousands of students in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Arthur Roy Jensen on the day he is retiring after a remarkable career serving water customers of the Bay Area for 37 years. Art has served as the CEO of the Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency since its creation ten years ago.

I had the great honor to work closely with Art on the creation of BAWSCA while I was in the California Legislature. BAWSCA is tasked with protecting the health, safety and economic well-being of water customers in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda counties who depend on the Hetch Hetchy water system.

Art, as the father of BAWSCA, he led the agency ably for 10 years. He has always been smart, strategic and exceptionally knowledgeable about water--California's gold.

Starting in 1995, Art was the General Manager of the Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), BAWSCA's predecessor. In 2002, the California Legislature authorized the multi-county agency and in 2003 it was formed. BAWSCA has three goals: a reliable supply, high quality water and a fair price. Today it serves 1.7 million residents, 30,000 businesses and thousands of community organizations.

Under Art's leadership, the agency has negotiated a 25-year water supply agreement with San Francisco that saves residents in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda millions of dollars, created regional water conservation programs, brokered an agreement to share limited water supplies during droughts, and initiated a long-term reliable water supply strategy, among many other concrete results.

Before joining BAWUA and BAWSCA, Art served as Assistant General Manager and Director of Planning at the Contra Costa Water District for five years. From 1984-1990, he was the Deputy and Acting General Manager of the San Francisco Water Department. His time there included the Loma Prieta earthquake and the initial years of the most recent drought. From 1977-1984, Art worked as a senior engineer at Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers where he performed studies of the San Francisco regional water supply, treatment and delivery system. He also taught engineering at UC Berkeley. Before that, he was an acting assistant professor at Stanford University from 1976-1977 teaching courses in water management, hydrology, hydrologic modeling and hydraulic engineering.

Art also serves on the advisory board of Sustainable Silicon Valley and the citizens advisory committee of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Art was born in Berkeley in 1954. He earned his B.S. in Engineering Physics from UC Berkeley and both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering Science from California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

He and his wife of 37 years, Mary, have one daughter, Catherine. In his well-deserved retirement, Art is looking forward to spending more time with family and friends. His many interests, including photography, aviation history, Buddhism, chess, harmonica and guitar, will undoubtedly keep him engaged and active.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to honor a brilliant engineer, a water expert and a dear friend. He leaves behind giant shoes to fill and his leadership will be missed by his colleagues and Bay Area residents.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Deputy County Manager Mary McMillan upon the occasion of her retirement after 23 years of stellar service to the residents of San Mateo County. Ms. McMillan's accomplishments are the definition of public service and these accomplishments are legion.

As a leader in our county, she has been a passionate advocate for foster children. There is a rental apartment building in South San Francisco that exists today because years ago Mary saw that foster children who aged out of the system were often homeless and forgotten. This type of vision and compassion are typical of Mary McMillan.

Mary led the county's efforts to create its vision. She included citizens in the process of setting county priorities through innovative town hall-type forums in which citizens ranked county priorities and discussed their expectations about such services as mental health, parks, child protective services and services for the elderly.

As a leader, Mary volunteered for the boards of multiple nonprofits and has most recently been serving on the board of Puenta de la Costa Sur in the rural community of Pescadero. This nonprofit community center serves farm workers in that community, and their families. This agency's vital services are near to Mary's heart: Providing for the clothing of children, the feeding of families, and the direction to healthcare services when needed.

The San Mateo County delegation to the state legislature knows Mary as the tireless advocate of the county's priorities. Woe to the state legislator who failed to heed Mary's advice. She was always the best prepared advocate in the room and often knew more about a topic than the State Senator or Assemblymember. Mary McMillan is not a particularly tall woman, but she fits the image of the mouse that roars. She roared on behalf of the county's parks. She roared on behalf of special education funding that was otherwise targeted for state budget cuts. She roared on behalf of child support for indigent children. Mr. Speaker and Members, Mary's example sets the standard for public service because there was no cause too slight or complex that it evaded Mary's examination and advocacy. The people of San Mateo County owe her a debt of gratitude for her remarkable talents as exhibited throughout the halls of the State Capitol. These are talents that were honed over many years as a legislative staffer, and then turned toward the service of San Mateo County.

Finally, Mary McMillan is much beloved by everyone who knows her. It is a tribute to a person who has been in the public eye for so long that everyone has a wonderful story to relate about her character and judgment, as well as her personal kindness.

Mr. Speaker, this retirement will be a tremendous loss for San Mateo. The county may someday have another advocate, but it will be hard- pressed to find such a talented steward of its trust. We wish Mary McMillan well on her next journey in life. We have no doubt that, wherever she goes, she will continue to be the mouse that roars.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Willy ``Clipper'' Cahill who is being honored today with a USA Judo Lifetime Achievement Award. I can't think of a more deserving person to receive this exceptional honor. Willy has empowered thousands of children and adults through an ancient art form that builds confidence and enhances independence.

I was one of those lucky children. Willy was my judo teacher from third through sixth grade. He was a fantastic role model, the embodiment of discipline, humility and grace.

His teachings have served me well throughout my life. A few years ago, Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central's Colbert Report came to Capitol Hill to interview me. He was, of course, not interested in ordinary footage, instead he made me get on a skateboard and cruise through the halls of Congress. He goaded me about my judo experience and dared me to throw him onto the marble floor in the Capitol. Colbert ended up on the floor and so did the footage--on the cutting room floor. Without my early lessons and Willy's guidance who knows what would have happened?

Willy was born in 1935 in Honolulu, Hawaii. He started his martial arts education under his father, Professor John Cahill, Sr. who had studied under Professor Okazaki's Kodenkan System of Jujitsu in Hawaii. When Willy was 12 years old, he was treated and cured of Polio. He walked out of the hospital--a miracle for which he credits Professor Okazaki.

After graduating from South San Francisco High School, Willy attended San Mateo Junior College. His father founded Cahill's Judo Academy in Daly City in 1948. Professor Cahill's dream was to get one of his students to the Olympics. That dream was cut short by his tragic and premature death at age 50.

Willy had big shoes to fill, but he lived up to the challenge and beyond. In honor of his dad, Willy opened a new Cahill's Judo Academy Dojo in San Bruno in 1963. Setting the highest standards and goals for himself and his students, Willy has surpassed his father's dream.

His coaching and mentorship has produced 1,200 national and international medal winners. He accepted the position of U.S. Olympic Judo Coach in 1988 and of U.S. Paralympic Judo Coach in 1999. In the 2000 Paralympic Games in Sidney, his team made world history and brought home two gold medals, one silver medal and one bronze medal. Four years later at the games in Athens, his team won two silver and one bronze medals. It is important to point out that since judo was introduced as an Olympic discipline in 1964, no team--sighted or not sighted--had ever won gold. Coach Cahill's students have won 75% of all medals in judo on the Olympics and Paralympics level.

Willy has been successful in making judo accessible to people of all ages and abilities. In 2003, he cofounded the Blind Judo Foundation. The non-profit provides blind and visually impaired athletes the chance to train and compete in judo. To advance to the Paralympic Games these athletes often have to compete with sighted competitors. In judo, the same rules apply to the Olympics and the Paralympics.

In addition, Willy has trained U.S. Army Green Berets, Navy Seals, US Secret Service, and Homeland Security. He is the judo coach at Stanford and San Francisco State Universities and of the Junior Pan American Championships and Goodwill Games.

Willy has always led by example. He is a 10th Degree Black Belt in Jujitsu, the highest rank, and an 8th Degree Black Belt in Judo. He has been inducted into the Black Belt Hall of Fame and the Black Belt Coaches Hall of Fame. He was recognized by three presidents at the White House. He received the U.S. Jujitsu President's Leadership Award and earned the title of Professor Willy Cahill from the U.S. Jujitsu Federation. None of these prestigious awards and accomplishments has tainted his humility. He will not let others call him Professor or Sensei, he simply wants to be called Coach. His 10th Degree Black Belt entitles him to a red belt, but Coach always competes in a black belt. The tenets of judo define Willy's life. He has practiced for 65 years and at age 77 still does so five to six days a week.

He has been married to his wife Ellie for 24 years. He is the proud father of two children from his first marriage, Carin Lockwood and Curtis Cahill, who have given him four grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to honor Coach Willy Cahill, an extraordinary teacher and human being who's physical and spiritual embrace has enlightened thousands. Because of Willy, the world is a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the 150th anniversary of St. Matthew Catholic Church in San Mateo, California. Since its founding in 1863 the buildings, parishioners and pastors have changed, but the church has always been a place for comfort, solace, community and friendship for everyone.

A century and a half ago, Archbishop Alemany sent Father Denis Dempsey to San Mateo to establish the first parish in the county. A small wooden-steeple church was built on the corner of Third Avenue and A Street--today Ellsworth Avenue--on a piece of land donated by Charles B. Polhemus, an investor in the San Francisco-San Jose Railroad. Father Dempsey was the pastor for 18 years and earned the admiration and love of his parishioners. It is said that his funeral mass was attended by local officials and dignitaries from throughout the State.

Sadly, the next pastor, Father William Bowman, only had a tenure of seven months before he passed away. He was followed by Father Peter Birmingham who presided for three years until he was transferred to San Francisco. Longevity was the signature of the fourth pastor, Father Timothy Callaghan. He served St. Matthew Church for 53 years. During his tenure, a parish cemetery was established and a new church was built. The congregation was growing and the threat of a fire destroying the old wooden church led to a fire resistant brick church on Ellsworth between Second and Third Avenues. The dedicating mass was held in September of 1900. Father Callaghan was elevated to Right Reverend and witnessed continual growth of the parish.

Father Henry J. Lyne became the fifth pastor and established a parish school in 1931. Seven Sisters of the Holy Cross taught 140 students in the first year. He is credited with starting Catholic formal education in the Archdiocese of San Francisco on the peninsula. In 1947, Pope Pius XII appointed him a Domestic Prelate with the title Monsignor.

Father Edward J. Meagher, the sixth pastor, saw unprecedented growth of the Catholic population after World War II. In 1952, total enrollment from Kindergarten to the 8th grade had grown to 861. Father Meagher raised funds to build an independent parish in Shoreview which was named St. Timothy as a tribute to Monsignor Timothy Callaghan. Soon after that, the Western portion of St. Matthew

parish was detached with the establishment of Bartholomew parish. Father Meagher's successor, Father Bernard C. Cronin, oversaw the building of a new St. Matthew Church and Rectory at Ninth Avenue and El Camino Real which opened in May 1966. The downtown church also remained open. Father Cronin was elevated to Right Reverend Monsignor in 1972.

In 1979, Father James Ward, a graduate of St. Matthew School, class of 1937, became its eighth pastor. Father James Ward was devoted to the school and the students. During his tenure, the downtown church was demolished after suffering seismic damage. He and the archdiocese fought hard, yet unsuccessfully, for the vacated property that was eventually leased to Walgreen Drug. Father Ward died from a leg infection in 1995. Monsignor James McKay succeeded him and oversaw fundamental renovations of the newer church at El Camino Real and Ninth Avenue that are still in place today.

In 2004, the tenth and current pastor replaced Monsignor McKay. Father Anthony McGuire now oversees the St. Matthew parish of 2,500 and is credited with growing the diverse parish and attracting an ever increasing number of Hispanic and Asian families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to rise with me to honor the rich history of St. Matthew Church in San Mateo which has been a place of spiritual and social growth for thousands of families for 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the remarkable Sharon Williams, the long-time director of Menlo Park-based JobTrain. Sharon is retiring after forty years of instilling optimism in each JobTrain client and building life skills amongst an entire community. I have watched with amazement over these many years as Sharon has guided the JobTrain organization.

Sharon earned her BA in English from the University of the Pacific in 1965 and her teaching credential from San Francisco State University in 1968. She joined JobTrain in 1973 as a GED teacher. She became Director of Development in 1978 and a short time later took over as Executive Director. Conducting job training classes and connecting people with jobs was very difficult in the late 1970s. Sharon guided JobTrain and its clients through difficult financial times and build a stunningly successful career and job education center.

With Sharon's outstanding leadership, JobTrain has offered cutting- edge and traditional job training, everything from solar panel installation classes to computer repair to culinary arts to laboratory technician training for biotechnology facilities. Knowing that life skills are a large component of the training done by JobTrain, Sharon and her staff insist that clients learn how to show up on time to work, become team members in the modern work environment, and learn how to balance work and the demands of a family.

Mr. Speaker and Members, Sharon Williams has infused JobTrain with the same ``can do'' attitude that she insists from her clients. I've visited JobTrain on several occasions, most recently in the last few months.

It's a very busy place. JobTrain helps 8,000 persons per year, and 600 of them receive full-time vocational training. At least 85 percent of those who enroll complete their training. Seventy five percent of those persons are placed in jobs, and 12 months after placement, 84 percent are still working. JobTrain's success is spelled out in these numbers. Sharon's contributions to the Peninsula are not limited to JobTrain. She currently serves on numerous boards, including the Center for Excellence in Nonprofits, and East Palo Alto Digital Village. She has also previously served on the boards of the East Palo Alto Senior Center, the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula, Leadership Mid- Peninsula, and the San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board.

After forty years at the helm of JobTrain, it is time for Sharon Williams to bid her beloved nonprofit goodbye and to head off in new directions. The only thing missing from JobTrain's smorgasbord of classes at the moment is a class on how to make eyeglasses. That's not surprising. Sharon sees quite clearly the need for human dignity through productive work. Why would she believe that anyone else in the community needs glasses when her own sight is both perfect and prescient? Let us give Sharon the highest compliment that any employer can offer an employee. Let us say, ``Job well done.''

Mr. Speaker, when Jerry Spencer told his family that he was gay, his mother told him not to worry about it because they would ``fix it.'' This began 7 years of going through so-called ``conversion therapy'' to try to make him straight.

He was forced to put blocks of ice on his hands while he looked at pictures of guys holding hands and would only be given relief from the pain if he pleaded to see a picture of a man and woman holding hands. Other survivors of this quackery were told to strip down and hold their genitalia or snap themselves with a rubber band each time they experienced same-sex attraction. Jerry said that after each therapy session he was ``a little more destroyed.''

These attempts to change LGBT youth are extremely harmful and can cause depression, substance abuse, anxiety, self-destructive behavior, and even suicide. These practices have been rejected by every mainstream mental health association as neither safe nor effective. These efforts frequently increase family rejection, which we know make LGBT youth eight times more likely to report attempting suicide, five times more likely to report high levels of depression, and three times more likely to use illegal drugs.

Recognizing these harms, California and New Jersey have passed laws to protect minors. State legislatures in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio are considering similar measures.

This week, I will introduce the Stop Harming Our Kids resolution to encourage other States to pass laws to protect LGBT minors from these harmful and damaging practices.

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

Mr. Chairman, the majority earlier said that this measure is just common sense. So I have a question: Is it common sense not to consider the interests of State and local governments in allowing FERC to have this permitting process?

My amendment is quite simple. The concerns of State and local communities must be considered in any natural gas pipeline permitting process and should not be disadvantaged by a permit approval process that weighs heavily in favor of the pipeline industry and could deem approved a permit that tramples the concerns of communities that are affected.

This issue I know all too well.

Three years ago, a pipeline exploded in my district. I don't want that to happen to any of you. Let me tell you what happened in my district.

First of all, when it exploded, no one knew that there was a pipeline running in the middle of a densely populated area. The fire department didn't know, the police department didn't know, the city manager didn't know, and the city council didn't know.

It took over an hour and a half for the local gas operator to go to another destination, pick up a key, come back to the community, and open the gate so they could turn off the valve.

Meanwhile, what happened?

There were 8 lives lost; 38 homes totally destroyed, with just a concrete pad left; and 45 other homes badly damaged. Three people were considered missing for more than 2 weeks because there was so little DNA left from the intense fire to positively identify them.

There are people in that community today 3 years later who are still shell shocked, and the city's fathers and mothers are very concerned about making sure that pipeline safety includes notifying local communities.

One of the truly frightening lessons of the San Bruno tragedy was that the many pipeline operators don't even fully know the conditions of their own pipelines. I can tell you that my communities are much more aware and engaged in natural gas pipeline safety and location decisions.

The concerns and objections of State and local officials must be adequately considered and taken into account in the decisionmaking process on where to place potentially dangerous natural gas transmission lines. The consequences of these decisions to local communities cannot be overstated. They have a fundamental stake in these decisions on whether to permit a new pipeline project in their communities.

I ask you to support my amendment, which would ensure that, at the very least, FERC considers and responds to local and State concerns or objections submitted as part of the FERC permit process before a natural gas pipeline permit is approved or potentially deemed approved.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, recently, a courageous 21-year-old female Naval Academy student was bold enough to report that three men on the Navy football team raped her while she was drunk. Little did she know that when she came forward, she would be put on trial, forced to testify, and be cross-examined for more than 30 hours. She was harangued by the defense team and asked humiliating and abusive questions for hours, with the clear objective to intimidate her and destroy the case.

What is so unbelievable is that her case hadn't even made it to trial. This was only the equivalent of a preliminary hearing, called an Article 32 hearing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is supposed to be used to determine if a case should go forward to trial. The truth is that Article 32s have mutated and now serve to put the victim on trial, not the accused.

Her experience of not only being sexually assaulted but revictimized by the judicial system is all too common in the military. In Article 32 proceedings, it is standard operating procedure for the defense team to subject the victim to every irrelevant, indecent, and outright degrading question you can imagine.

In the Naval Academy case, the victim was asked by one of the defense attorneys, ``How wide do you open your mouth for oral sex?'' Another question was asked of her, ``Did you feel like a 'ho' the next morning?''

These questions would simply never, ever be permitted in a civilian criminal trial, let alone in a preliminary hearing. None of this is in pursuit of the truth, of course. It is all an effort to make victims think twice about even coming forward or pursuing a case.

At one point in the Naval Academy proceedings, the victim asked for a recess because of fatigue. Lawyers for the alleged rapists scoffed, ``What is so stressful about this?''

In the civilian world, a preliminary hearing is used to determine if there is probable cause and if a case should go to trial. Oftentimes, the victim is never even called, and the victim is certainly not berated for hours about their previous sexual history. These proceedings are very brief, and the scope of the hearing is limited to the question of probable cause.

The 5-day, 30-hour proceeding is such a glaring example of the difference between what justice looks like in the civilian courts and what it looks like in the military justice system. Simply put, Article 32 hearings are rigged in favor of the accused. The scales are so tilted in favor of the accused, the system is upended.

The proceedings also have a significant chilling effect on sexual assault reporting. Although the numbers have climbed, only 10 percent of the estimated 26,000 annual assaults are actually reported. Now, think about this: 26,000 assaults every year in the military of both men and women--and mostly men, I might add--with only 3,000 reported. Are we at all surprised that the numbers of reports are so small? Less than 1 percent of the offenders are ever convicted. This is called military justice?

After Air Force Lieutenant General Richard Harding testified that 30 percent of the victims drop out during the investigative process, it is time for us to do something meaningful about Article 32 hearings. That is why I am introducing the Article 32 Reform Act along with my cosponsor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Congressman Pat Meehan, which will align these proceedings with what happens in a civilian preliminary hearing and will give victims the option of whether or not to testify at all.

Ironically, civilian victims are currently afforded this right in military courts but not servicemembers. That is right. We allow civilian victims not to testify in Article 32s but force the brave servicemembers who are victims to be subjected to this abusive process.

This bill has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and will finally put an end to these open-ended, abusive hearings that revictimize those who come forward and prevent others from reporting for fear of being savaged by defense attorneys who have only one goal: to shut up the victim and sully their reputations. The proposed reform will put prosecutors in charge. It will shift the focus to probable cause, and the threshold will be what it should be: whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial.

It is time that we give the same rights to brave servicemembers who come forward to report a crime, the rights that the rest of us have in civilian society. If we are serious about addressing the epidemic of sexual assault,

we must stop treating the victim as the criminal and stop protecting the sexual predators. It is time for us to clean up the military justice system.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to extend my condolences to the thousands of families both in the Philippines and here in the United States who have lost loved ones due to Super Typhoon Haiyan, the deadliest natural disaster in the history of this region.

I proudly represent the largest population of Filipino Americans in the continental United States, and many of them are in anguish right now wanting to know whether or not their loved ones are still alive. The question that some may ask is, Well, why should we help?

Well, there are the obvious humanitarian reasons, but more importantly, we must never forget that in World War II, President Roosevelt sought to have Filipinos take arms and fight for us--some 250,000 of them--during World War II. We must help.

We have sent the USS George Washington, which has arrived today. Seven other ships are on their way. There are C-130s and Ospreys that have also been put in operation.

The gentleman from California, Congressman Honda, and I have introduced a resolution, and I hope the House will take it up swiftly, seeking support for the Filipino people and providing the aid they need.

Madam Speaker, everyone has heard about ``The Price is Right,'' but on C-SPAN tonight, we are going to play ``The Price is Wrong.'' Before doing so, I want to put this in perspective.

A number of years ago, we were all aghast as taxpayers--even here as Members of Congress--when we found out that in the Department of Defense we were spending $436 on a hammer, that we spent $7,600 on a coffee urn, and that--oh, yes--we spent $640 on a toilet seat. Talk about flushing money down a toilet--we were doing it--but that fleecing that we thought had ended has actually continued.

Since 2010, the inspector general of the Department of Defense has found that we are spending more than $430 million over what we should be paying for spare parts--thousands of spare parts. So we are paying much more than the fair or reasonable price for these parts. What the military should do when it needs parts is go to what is called the Defense Logistics Agency, DLA--it is sort of like the defense hardware store--but sometimes they think it is cheaper and, maybe, faster if they go to a defense contractor and ask for those parts.

These audits also showed that the certain parts we have in such volume will last us 100 years. That is like having spare parts like, let's say, horseshoes dating back to World War I, and they are sitting around the defense hardware store today--more than 100 years' worth of certain spare parts. You might think maybe this is a little complicated, but it is really not complicated. The auditors go to the Department of Defense databases, and they can tell immediately, with just a click, whether or not these spare parts are in stock and how much they will be charged for those spare parts.

So let's play our very first game of ``The Price is Wrong.''

This is a ramp gate roller assembly. It is about the size of a quarter. This particular assembly sells for $7.71 in the defense hardware store. The auditors suggested--maybe because this is, in fact, for a Chinook helicopter--that it could be even a little bit more. What did the personnel within the Department of Defense pay for this little assembly? It wasn't $7.71. Was it perhaps $77.10? No, it wasn't $77.10. Was it $771? No, it wasn't $771. We paid for this $7.71 part $1,678.61.

The price is wrong, and the Department of Defense has got to clean up its act.

Let's move on to yet another game that we can play. It is called ``That's Too Much.''

I am going to show you another part. This is a bearing sleeve, and you are going to tell me whether or not you think the price is too much. At the local hardware store, this would sell for $6. Again, this is for a Chinook helicopter. The inspector general says maybe, for this sophisticated helicopter, it would cost $10 for this part. So, what did we pay for this part? Did we pay $86? No, we didn't pay $86. Did we pay $286? No, we didn't pay $286. We paid $2,286 for this little part. Now, we didn't just buy one part. We bought 573 of these parts, of this little bearing sleeve, and it cost us $1.3 million.

All right. If you haven't enjoyed playing this game so far, we have one more game to play tonight. This game is the finale. It is called the ``Showcase Showdown.'' This is when we compare two packages and see which one costs more.

Our first items here are two simple ramp gate roller assemblies. Now, which is more expensive--these two ramp gate roller assemblies or a trip to Paris, France, for two, including airfare and hotel for four nights? Which is more expensive? If you guessed the trip to Paris, France, you would be wrong because a trip to Paris, France, if you go on one of the local Web sites, would cost $2,681, and we paid--or, I should say, the Army paid--$3,357 for these two ramp gate roller assemblies.

The Pentagon is playing games with taxpayer dollars, and let me tell you that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The worst part of this game is that it is rigged. The contractors always win, and the taxpayers always lose.

The inspector general found that the Army overpaid one defense contractor $13 million but that the Pentagon only recovered $2.6 million. Now get this: it is discovered that one defense contractor overcharged us $13 million for a number of parts, and then after it was exposed, they didn't even refund us what they should have. They only paid us back $2.6 million. It included paying twice the fair and reasonable price for kits and overpaying by $16,000 for a structural support that should have cost only $1,300.

Now, this bearing sleeve that I just showed you that was over $2,200, let's put it in kind of simple terms.

If we went into a local cafe and ordered the blue light special and the menu said it was $2,200, we would walk right out, and they would be laughed out of our community--but no, that doesn't happen in the military. As for that defense contractor who overcharged us and then didn't even pay us back what they had overcharged us--get this--the Air Force has just signed on the dotted line a contract with this defense contractor to do the following: to manage the supply chain. It is almost laughable that the defense contractor who ripped us off now has another contract to manage the supply chain.

Those are all of the games we have for tonight. Thank you for playing. We will see you next time on ``The Price is Wrong.''

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

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 14, 2013, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, we are now 16 days into a government shutdown and standing on the precipice of defaulting on our debt. Families around the country are worrying if they will be able to pay their water bills, but the Members' gym has stayed open during the government shutdown so my colleagues can live rent free in their offices and use the gym to shower and shave.

One of my colleagues who is using his office as a Holiday Inn has nearly 43,000 households on SNAP in his district. These people don't have the option of curling up in a government building or

getting dinner at a congressional reception to cut costs, but my colleague does. The only inconvenience for him is that his office doesn't have a kitchen, so he stocks his office annex with a crock pot, an electric griddle, a microwave, a toaster, and a refrigerator. He told CBS News:

You can put some frozen chicken in with some bouillon, some

vegetables. Let it simmer all day, and you are ready to rock

and roll.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. economy is not ready to rock and roll as long as Congress refuses to pay the government's bills. American small businesses are not ready to rock and roll when the markets worry that we will default and not pay the bills that we have already incurred. The American people are not ready to rock and roll when they don't know when the government will reopen to provide them with the services that they have already paid for but are not receiving.

The House of Representatives is not a campsite. It is embarrassing that Americans have been kicked out of Yosemite and national parks across the country; yet Members sleep in their offices that taxpayers foot the bill for.

As bad as this government shutdown is, however, the debate over the debt ceiling is taking this dysfunction nuclear. A default would bring on an economic catastrophe that would cost Americans who have been prudent with their money, paying their debts and investing in their 401(k)s, billions of dollars in lost value in their investments, in their homes, in their jobs, and in increased lending rates.

Every American in this country knows that every Member of the House of Representatives makes four times the amount of money than they do. We are paid to come up with solutions for the American people, not to sabotage their 401(k)s.

This is what Warren Buffett said last week about trying to use the debt ceiling as a political ploy:

It should be like nuclear bombs, basically too horrible to

use.

In military terms, it is known as MAD, mutually assured destruction. Some on the other side of the aisle seem intent on pushing the button and sending our economy into a nuclear winter. Debt ceiling deniers have now emerged, espousing the belief that the debt ceiling is a figment of our imagination, that it is a part of a liberal agenda to get them to the negotiating table: We are not going to default, there is no default. Or: We shouldn't accept this as the date beyond which we can't go without what they call default. We can go a long time. We can go indefinitely without hitting default, says another.

Mr. Speaker, a reckless faction of your party is not only holding your caucus hostage; it is holding the American people and the global economy hostage. Calling the dealings with this faction as ``negotiating'' is absurd. The reality is there is no negotiating with this reckless faction, which seems bent on the destruction of the American economy and the full faith and credit of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, these Members who are sleeping in their offices should be thinking of all of the Americans who will be sleeping in the streets if this reckless Republican faction gets its way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of uncomfortable being on this side of the aisle, but it is also, I guess, a recognition that this is truly a bipartisan effort, and I am really thrilled to be joining in it.

Imagine that when the farm bill was debated here, every single commodity program in the farm bill was amended, was reformed, with the exception of sugar. Now, why would that happen? Well, maybe it is because of some sweet-talking sugar lobbyists that made that happen.

But nonetheless, let's be clear about what this resolution doesn't do. It does not undermine the sugar program in this country. The sugar program that exists in terms of price support remains, the domestic marketing allotment for sugar remains, and it does not eliminate sugar import quotas.

What does it do? It basically says that the Secretary of Agriculture can make sure during the entire year, and not just 6 months, that the market supply is appropriate.

What do we know about research that has been done on the cost to consumers? It is said to cost consumers $3.5 billion. Now, this figure doesn't come from the candy manufacturers; this figure comes from a number of studies by the Government Accountability Office, by OECD, by the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Now, what has happened since July? Since July, the taxpayers of this country have spent $250 million because they are guaranteed as sugar producers to 17 cents per pound. When they couldn't get 17 cents per pound, the U.S. had to buy the sugar and then try to sell it to ethanol producers.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for us to reform the system.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple message: let your people go.

The American people are very frustrated by what we are doing here. They want us to end this shutdown. In fact, some 70 percent of them do not like the way you or the Republican majority is handling this crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, if you will just let your people go and allow us to bring a clean continuing resolution to the floor, we can end this. Despite your claims to the contrary, it is clear to everyone that we have at least 17 votes required from your side of the aisle to pass the continuing resolution. So, Mr. Speaker, why don't you just let your people go?

I have a simple question for you: If you think to the contrary that their votes are not there, then why not put your cards on the table and allow a vote?

The American people cannot afford more rounds of betting their economic futures on politicians' betting on a pair and thinking they have a full house. The American people think it's time to call your bluff. Mr. Speaker, let your people go.

We can reopen the World War II Memorial and the VA today. We can ensure that all military families receive death benefits and can travel to Dover Air Force Base to receive their loved ones' remains. We can end what Senators on the other side of the aisle have declared ``shameful and embarrassing.''

We can end this today, Mr. Speaker, if you let your people go.

Holding back on a vote prevents the opening of lifesaving clinical trials at the NIH. It prevents the opening of national parks and museums for use by families everywhere. The shutdown is costing taxpayers $12.5 million each and every hour you refuse to vote, and it is costing the American people already $2.5 billion.

Don't listen to me. Listen to your own caucus Members: Enough is enough, said one Republican in the House. Let's get on with the business we were sent to do.

Another Republican agreed with him: The politics should be over, he said. It's time to legislate.

Another said: I'd vote for a clean CR because I don't think this strategy is working.

Many more echo these sentiments, Mr. Speaker: let your people go. Instead, you seem to be listening to a small faction in your caucus that says they want to ``win at any cost.'' They say they won't be disrespected and that they need to get something out of this, but they don't know what it is.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will see what is clear to everyone around the world who is watching this spectacle: there are no winners. Mr. Speaker, let your people go.

It's blackmail to shut down the government because you don't like the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Speaker, listen to those blunt assessments from your own caucus who call the followers of this strategy ``lemmings with suicide vests.''

Traditional allies of the GOP, like the Chamber of Commerce, have said this is ``not in the best interest of the U.S. business community.''

The Wall Street Journal has called it a kamikaze mission, and in fact, in their editorial headline, they said: Are the Republicans nuts?

Another Republican Senator said: This strategy isn't good for America.

This last comment really says it best, that this is not good for America. Mr. Speaker, let your people go, and bring a clean CR to a vote.