Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 64 African American history makers in Alexandria, Virginia on their induction into the Charles Houston Mural and Hall of Fame.

To walk through the streets of Alexandria is to walk through the annals of African American history in America from slavery to the Civil War to the Civil Rights era. The brick passageways chronicle the vast array of history makers and symbolic structures honored with the unveiling and dedication of the Charles Houston Ad Hoc Committee's ``Charles Houston Mural and Hall of Fame'' photographic exhibit.

``As an Alexandria History Maker, your legacy of service had added to the vitality and spirit of this community,'' the Committee wrote in honoring the contributions 64 inductees made to the historic city's African American heritage and culture.

It has been over 60 years since civil rights attorney Charles H. Houston passed away, but the good works recognized at this dedication show that the strength of his legacy has endured. Just like Mr. Houston, the honorees have played a major role in the City and have served as an integral part of the civic life of Alexandria and its citizens for generations.

The dedication ceremony was attended by 800 familiar Alexandria faces. Among the honorees present were Mr. Ferdinand Day, the first African American School Board Chairman for the state of Virginia, Police Chief Earl Cook, Mr. Eugene Thompson, former Director of the Alexandria Black History Museum, author Marie Bradby, journalist Judy Belk, athletic director and basketball coach James ``Jimmy'' Lewis, Minister Charles Hall, and community activist Dorothy Turner. Other honorees include athlete Earl Lloyd, John Naismith NBA Hall of Fame, educator Harry Burke, Dr. Thea James, Gen. Leo Austin Brooks Sr., and attorney Samuel Tucker who led what is believed to be the first public sit-in in the Nation, the 1939 protest of the Alexandria Library's ban on African Americans.

Historic structures on the mural include: Beulah Baptist Church, the Franklin & Arm filed Slave Office & Pen, the Freedman's Cemetery, Seminary School, Fort Ward, the Odd Fellows Hall, Alexandria Home Bakery, the Capital Theater, Out Cross Canal, Colored Rosemont, the Carver Nursery/American Legion, the Johnson Pool, the Robert Robinson Library and the Departmental Progressive Club.

The photographic mural will be permanently located at the Parker-Gray Way, the Wythe Street entrance to the Charles Houston Recreation Center. It establishes the African American footprint in the city and celebrates neighborhoods, schools, churches and businesses vital to Alexandria's African American community. The intent of the Hall of Fame is to honor and memorialize the achievements of African American history makers in Alexandria; document the contributions of Alexandria's African American community to the city's history; and foster appreciation for diversity of the African American experience in the City of Alexandria.

Besides the City of Alexandria's sponsorship, the project committee consulted with George Mason University faculty and received support from Hoop Academy International, Simpson Development, and the historic Alfred Street Baptist Church, among others.

Mr. Speaker, these 64 individuals honored by the Charles Houston Mural and Hall of Fame are a testament to the human spirit, an example for resilience and defiance in the face of hardship, and an inspiration given what they achieved in their lifetimes. Thank you.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say Asian carp, is a very troubling situation. In fact, we've got the snakeheads in this part of the country that can walk on dry land from river to river and pond to pond. Something's happening, and it's not good. But I'm glad that the issue was raised.

Madam Chairwoman, I do have an amendment with our colleague, John Dingell. The amendment simply strikes section 107 of this bill. The reason for doing that is that section 107 would prevent the Corps of Engineers from updating regulations and guidance defining what waters and wetlands are subject to the Clean Water Act.

Even though everyone, including the building industry, agrees there's confusion regarding what waters fall under Federal jurisdiction, section 107 would deliberately continue this confusion. In fact, many private commercial interests have gone on record in support of clarifying the term ``waters of the United States,'' but that clarification would be prohibited under section 107 of this bill.

Madam Chairwoman, there have been two Supreme Court cases on this subject: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County in 2001 and Rapanos in 2006. Combined, these two rulings have created confusion and uncertainty regarding the limits of the Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In layman's terms, the Court called into question the Federal Government's jurisdiction the further away the water was from where you could float a boat all year long. In both cases, though, a majority of the Court could not agree on where Federal jurisdiction should end. Intermittent streams and rivers that only flow seasonally, are they under Federal jurisdiction? Sixty percent of all stream miles in the lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or ephemeral; in other words, they don't exist for some part of the year, yet they receive 40 percent of all individual wastewater discharges.

Even more importantly, more than 117 million Americans get some of their drinking water from these very streams that don't flow year round. Section 107 of this bill, though, would ensure that these sources of drinking water remain at increased risk of pollution. And with rising temperatures, more severe droughts and climate change, the protection of our waters and wetlands are a greater concern than ever. That's why I mentioned the Asian carp and the snakeheads. Extreme things are happening, but the most important thing that's happening is that climate change is creating a very extreme threat to every American, and we're seeing it in bodies of water across the country.

Before my colleague suggests that we shouldn't worry about climate change, that the States have authority in the absence of Federal authority, I should tell my friends that that argument doesn't hold water in States that use the Federal definition to run their program. Forty-eight States share common water bodies. Without Federal jurisdiction, no State can tell an upstream State what to do unless we have a baseline minimum Federal standard that all States must abide by.

Through a public comment process and appropriate congressional oversight, we can allow the administration to finalize its guidance and eventually move forward on a formal rulemaking process, or Congress could define navigable water ourselves. But why would this Congress do its job when it can complain about the administration not doing its job?

Madam Chairwoman, 2 years ago, the Court and EPA issued a draft guidance to provide additional clarity on this issue. They took public comment on the draft for 90 days and received over 230,000 comments on the guidance, comments that were overwhelmingly favorably. The draft guidance provides a more predictable and consistent procedure for identifying waters and wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act. It focuses on protecting smaller waterways that keep downstream water safe from upstream pollutants and on protecting adjacent wetlands that filter pollution and store waters and help keep communities safe from floods. The guidance also maintains all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges and identifies specific types of water bodies to which it does not apply, areas like artificial lakes and ponds and many types of drainage and irrigation ditches.

It does not extend Federal protection to any waters not historically protected under the Clean Water Act, and it's fully consistent with the law and the decisions and instructions of the Supreme Court. So I think we should let the administration go forward, provide greater clarity, and we can only do that by striking section 107.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my colleague, John Dingell and I have another amendment that strikes, in this case, section 112 of this bill because section 112 would prevent the Corps of Engineers from updating regulationsdefining the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.

Presently, the Army Corps issues a section 404 permit if the ``fill material'' discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of that water body or converts an area to dry land.

When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and that's why Mr. Dingell is so concerned about this, the 404 permit process was supposed to be used for certain construction projects, like bridges and roads, where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting an area into dry land was simply unavoidable.

But then, some clever attorneys in the George W. Bush administration found a way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams without a rigorous environmental review process. They simply changed the definition of what qualifies as ``fill material.''

Under a 2002 rule change, the Bush administration broadened that definition to, and I'd put this in quotes, ``include rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburden from mining or other excavation activities.''

Now, these guidelines are simply not well-suited for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, such as mining refuse and similar materials, into a water body or wetland.

When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for the first 30 years of its passage, the law helped keep America's lakes, rivers and streams safe from mining pollution, protected wildlife and drinking water. But that's no longer the case today.

Perhaps it would come as no surprise to many that, in 2009, the Supreme Court upheld this newer, broader definition of ``fill material'' that was adopted by the executive branch in 2002. The Court allowed this new definition to be used for a Kensington mining operation near Lower Slate Lake in Alaska.

I want to point out this anecdotal example, although it's a very important one. So the permit allowed the discharge of toxic wastewater from a gold ore processing mill to go, untreated, directly into the lake, despite the fact that the discharge violates EPA standards for the mining industry. Today, all of Lower Slate Lake's fish and aquatic life is gone, dead.

Now, Madam Chair, that's why we raise this amendment to strike section 112, which would permanently preclude the Corps from considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit process. I would

note that, to much of the environmental community's frustration, the Corps hasn't issued any regulations to change the definition of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material.''

You can go back to that language that came about as a result of that clever change in 2002. You can find no effort by the Corps to change it, and the Corps hasn't expressed any plans to do so. That's disappointing.

But since there is no time limit on the provision in this appropriations bill, it would not only block the current administration but any future administration from considering any changes, even one less sympathetic to the adverse health and environmental consequences of discharging hazardous waste into our drinking water.

Madam Chair, this provision that's in this bill is intended to be a preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water. We should not be putting this kind of legislation onto an appropriations bill, particularly when it has such adverse consequences to the future health of our population. And that's why I would urge my colleagues to join me in removing this section from this appropriations bill.I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 1: Page 11, beginning on line 8, strike

section 107.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 2: Page 13, beginning on line 1, strike

section 112.

Mr. Chairman, what this bill does could have very serious consequences to Virginia's economy. By looking at multiple sales, you lose sight potentially of the harmful impact of individual parcels.

For example, drilling the close-in parcels could have a very adverse impact to the tourism industry in Virginia Beach. Other parcels would affect the absolutely essential shipping channels to Baltimore and Hampton Roads. Opening up other parts of Virginia's waters would have a very serious and consequential impact upon the ability of the Navy to use that area off Virginia's shores. Other parcels would have an adverse impact upon the fishing industry.

So what we are suggesting is to look specifically at these individual parcels. If you look at the entire broad scope of these sales, you're going to lose sight of some of the most serious adverse consequences.

Madam Chairwoman, I don't have any sugar manufacturing jobs in my district, let alone any sugar beet farms or sugar cane fields, but all of my constituents and all of the constituents of every Member of this body pay a share of the $3.5 billion annual hidden food tax on consumers. So it seems to me that's what this is about.

And to go from the personal to the national, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, for each sugar production job saved, this sugar program has eliminated three jobs in food manufacturing. Three jobs lost for every job saved. So if we're really about creating jobs and not losing them, we ought to reform this sugar program.

Current policy keeps sugar prices higher than the world market price and that encourages food manufacturing jobs to move offshore. As a result, between 1997 and 2011, 127,000 jobs were lost in segments of the food and beverage industries that use sugar to make their products.

I also object, Madam Chairman, to the idea of paying $239 million in taxpayer purchases for a sugar-to-ethanol mandate. It ought to be eliminated, which this amendment would do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is a very complicated issue, and I have great respect for our ranking member, but it does seem that we ought to be removing government production limits from our dairy program. Expanding distribution markets throughout the world is one of the best ways to grow American business and create jobs, and that should be one of the roles of government: to remove barriers to expansion and growth.

The fact is that the world demand for dairy products is growing at a faster rate than milk production increases in those regions that produce the most milk, like New Zealand and Australia. The U.S. dairy industry is best positioned to benefit from this growing world dairy demand, but this export growth is threatened by the proposed Dairy Market Stabilization Program in this bill. This provision would give USDA the ability to require every dairy producer enrolled in any level of margin insurance protection to reduce production to meet supply quotas.

As a result, domestic dairy producers would be constrained in their ability to respond to international market opportunities, and that results in lower growth and fewer American jobs. It's this type of supply management plan that has failed in previous farm bills and would have the dangerous effect of stifling export growth. That is why I ask support for the Goodlatte-Scott amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because it would improve the Environmental Quality Incentives Program by targeting support for the smaller and midsize farms where the investment will buy a bigger bang for the buck.

Just 1 percent of agribusinesses get more than 20 percent of EQIP payments, and about 70 percent of that funding is used to build structures to store manure and lay irrigation pipeline, purchase sprinkler systems and other equipment.

This amendment doesn't do anything to prohibit or restrict large farming operations. In fact, the limits in this amendment would have impacted less than half a percent of all EQIP contracts between 1997 and 2010, where we have statistics.

Our limited Federal funding, I think, would be better targeted by helping small and midsize farms engage in more sustainable practices, such as transitioning to farming methods that use fewer antibiotics and pesticides.

I think it makes sense to target where we can get the biggest bang for the buck because more intensive production practices, if not properly managed and mitigated, contaminate our drinking water, pollute the air, and diminish the quality of the soil, placing future production yields at risk.

And it seems to me in austere budget times we ought not cut or do away with conservation incentives but, instead, make them more efficient. And that's what the gentleman's amendment would do, so I rise in support of it. I think it's a good amendment. It helps small and medium-sized farms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the founding of the Arlington Food Assistance Center (AFAC). Arlington County is the third wealthiest county in the United States; amidst this wealth, many residents and their families do not have the resources to adequately provide nutrition for either themselves or their families. This group includes many different groups in our society--the disabled, elderly, unemployed, under-employed, and homeless students in Arlington public schools.

Hunger is the physical sensation that results from not having enough food to eat. However, when talking about ``hunger in America,'' what is often meant is more accurately called ``food insecurity.'' Food insecurity is defined as a lack of access to enough food to fully meet basic needs due to lack of financial resources. A recent survey of Arlington County residents found that more than 4 in 10 individuals making $60,000 or less are having these struggles. Nearly 15,000 people in Arlington County currently suffer from food insecurity.

In early 1988, a small group of concerned citizens in Arlington County gathered together their resources to found an organization whose sole purpose was to alleviate hunger among their neighbors in need. This group was soon joined by six congregations, all of whom operated food pantries serving small groups of families. Since then, AFAC has grown into the largest food bank serving Arlington County and is the only organization in the County solely dedicated to alleviating hunger.

At the time of its founding, AFAC was serving approximately 200 families. AFAC has grown considerably since then. They currently distribute food to over 1,600 families and almost 4,500 individuals through 16 locations spread across the County. Over 35 percent of their clients are children. The elderly, who often have to choose between food or medicine, make up 30 percent of their clientele.

Annually, this organization seeks to lower the incidence of hunger in our community by distributing over three million pounds of fresh vegetables and fruit, meat, eggs, milk, bread, and other groceries.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to honor the Arlington Food Assistance Center as it marks 25 years of dedicated service to the residents of Arlington County.

Mr. Chairman, you can pretty much win any battle you want to fight with superior military might. But for wars of consequence, you have to be fighting from the high ground consistently. That's what this amendment is all about.

We will win this war against violent extremism; but in order to do so, we have to win over the hearts and the minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who want what we have. They want equal justice under the law. They want fairness and truth and transparency and democracy.

The vast majority are young, idealistic, and very impressionable; and, unfortunately, too many of them are misled and manipulated.

We have a superior set of values and principles. It's what defines us as a Nation. But we have to hold steadfast to those values and principles. We have to show that even when we are challenged, even when it's politically difficult, we believe in equal justice under the law. We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. We believe that every life matters. We believe in human rights, we don't believe in torture. But we do believe in our justice system. It's not our justice system that's operational at Guantanamo. It was set up there to be outside our justice system so we could detain people indefinitely.

At this time in our history when we're furloughing 650,000 Department of Defense employees, how can we justify spending $1.5 million per detainee at Guantanamo when half of them have been cleared for release? It doesn't make sense. And now in this bill we're authorizing another quarter of a billion dollars to be spent at Guantanamo. Those are misguided priorities. It costs $34,000 to jail very dangerous terrorists in this country, but in this country, we can convict them.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

We are about to authorize more than half a trillion dollars for our military. The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says ``we don't want or need this extra $5

billion.'' What's our response? We tell him, No, you have to spend that, but you also have to cut $50 billion from our military in the most stupid, irresponsible, irrational manner possible. And within that $50 billion you have to get $2 billion of savings by furloughing 650,000 Department of Defense employees.

So we are going to save $2 billion by furloughing 650,000 people, but we are going to force them to spend $5 billion over in Afghanistan while we furlough people here.

What's the rationale? We can't justify that. Of course we should hold to what our military says they need in Afghanistan. We ought to also give them what they feel they need here in the United States.

I thank my very good friend from Connecticut--and the chairman of the committee because I trust that he will support this as well.

This amendment passed overwhelmingly last year, bipartisan vote. The problem is that the Defense Department ignored it. They went ahead, continuing to buy weapons from Rosoboronexport, the very same Russian arms supplier that is enabling President Assad to kill more than 90,000 of his own people, who is now, we confirmed, using chemical weapons against his people. 1.6 million Syrian refugees are scattered across five countries; and within the year, half of the Syrian population is going to be in need of aid. So this has to be fixed. This is not a sustainable situation.

The Obama administration says, well, we are going to have to get more aggressively involved, supplying more military assistance to the insurgents. But think about this: the problem is that Assad is getting all the weapons he wants. In fact, he's asked this Russian arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, for advanced S-300 missile defense batteries, 20,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, 20 million rounds of ammunition, machine guns, grenade launchers, grenade sniper rifles with night vision sights. Mi-17 helicopters are also made by Rosoboronexport, and we're buying helicopters from them. Can't we coordinate the right hand with the left

hand? We should not be basically subsidizing Rosoboronexport, which is a large part of the problem in Syria.

Some have suggested that without Russia's aid, President Assad cannot continue killing his own people. Now, I don't know that we can ever convince President Putin to stop this--it's obviously a state-owned arms supplier--but surely the Congress can say, no, don't purchase from the same person that is supplying the Syrian regime.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Miriam Hughey- Guy on her retirement following 20 years of extraordinary service as the principal of Barcroft Elementary School in Arlington, Virginia.

For 20 years, Ms. Hughey-Guy has been the energizing force motivating Barcroft students to be active learners. The innovative educational programs she brought to Barcroft have produced one of the best, most flexible schools in the County, which has some of the best schools in the country.

Ms. Hughey-Guy was the first to introduce the modified school year to Arlington County, reorganizing Barcroft's school year to provide more continuous learning, dividing the long summer vacation into shorter, more frequent breaks. Ms. Hughey-Guy recognized the benefit children received from these shorter breaks, and ensured that the intersessions between telins kept the students engaged, supported, and challenged.

She was also the leader in bringing the Leonardo da Vinci Project to Barcroft, which brings creative and scientific thought to the learning experience, challenging students with focused thinking and problem- solving activities. Ms. Hughey-Guy promotes this type of learning every day, by engaging the children directly in conversations about experiential learning and consistently calling on them to make a difference with their new found knowledge.

Her dedication, and these innovations, are just part of the reason she is consistently recognized as a leader within her profession. In 2001-02 she was awarded the Woman of Vision Award. In 2002-03, she was Arlington Public Schools' Principal of the Year. In 2003, the Washington Post awarded her with a Distinguished Leadership Award. And, in 2003, Miriam Hughey-Guy was given the Ebone Image Leadership Award from the National Coalition of 100 Black Women's Northern Virginia Chapter. Further, she is recognized as a leader among the numerous organizations that call on her to speak, such as NPR, CNN, the Virginia State Reading Association, and within the Arlington County school system.

Miriam has shared her life with hundreds of children and families over the years, many who continue to call for her advice. She has supported her staff with their ideas, goals, and professional growth. Mrs. Hughey-Guy has truly led by example. She is a mentor, boss, leader, teacher and advocate for Barcroft's children, their families, and the teaching profession.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to salute her for a job well done and wish her a happy and healthy retirement.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, section 533 would prohibit any funds being used for the transport, release, or assistance in the transfer or release of any Guantanamo detainee housed in Cuba on or after June of 2009. My amendment would change that date to December 31, 2005.

Now, in 2006, people who were truly the worst of the worst, those detainees who were housed in CIA black sites were transferred to Guantanamo. Now, prior to 2006, Guantanamo was populated with detainees who were simply not as deserving of indefinite detention, as this latter group, in my view, is. Eighty-six percent of the people of

the first group, prior to 2005, were arrested in exchange for a bounty. The vast majority never committed an act of violence against the United States or any of its allies. About 5 percent may have been affiliated with al Qaeda.

Now, Madam Chairwoman, it seems to me that it's time that we clarify the definition of who is at Guantanamo. I listened very closely to my good friends yesterday, including Mr. Wolf, who cited Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in defining who was at Guantanamo. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one of those worst of the worst. I don't care what you do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. As far as I'm concerned, from everything I know, he deserves whatever happens to him. But we're not talking about him if this amendment were to pass. We're talking about people who were brought there initially, more than half were already released, of the 779, by the Bush administration. Eighty-six more have been already cleared for release.

Now, Madam Chairwoman, the fact is we're spending $150 million a year to house these folks. About 150 of them are people that were brought there before 2005. We've authorized up to half a billion dollars to be spent to further modernize the facilities so that we can keep them indefinitely. It's expensive. We're spending $1 million per detainee now, and then we would be talking, if we spent that 500, many more for indefinite detention.

The problem with that, in addition to the money, is the national security issue, because Guantanamo is a recruiting tool and a rallying cry for the enemy. It's not the only thing they cite, but, invariably, it's one of the principal things they cite and why the United States is not the country that it truly is.

They suggest that we are not good to our word, that we don't believe in the very principles of our jurisprudence system, that people are innocent until they've been proven guilty, that they ought to be charged with crimes. We don't believe in indefinite detention. That's what other countries do. We don't do that. We give people a fair trial. But the reason we have Guantanamo is that this was set up to be above the law. It's extrajudicial. The rules don't apply. The rest of the world looks at this and it undermines our credibility and our security as a Nation. That, Madam Chairwoman, is exactly why we should distinguish.

The worst of the worst, keep them there, keep them in some kind of isolated structure, but you sure don't have to spend half a billion dollars for 12 to 15 people. Those other 150, of whom many of them are now on a hunger strike, a majority are on a hunger strike because they believe there's no hope, there's nothing to live for, they're going to be there forever. In fact, more than 30 of them--37, to be exact--are being forcibly tube fed. If this was in another nation, we'd be on the floor--Mr. Wolf would be on the floor objecting to this.

That's why this amendment should pass, Madam Chairwoman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank my very good friend from Virginia. I would like to address a few points that my other very good friend from Virginia made.

First of all, the case that my good friend from Virginia referred to is actually a case in point. As Mr. Connolly pointed out, the American jurisprudence system worked. He was tried and he was convicted and he was executed. And, in fact, no convictions have been achieved with these military commissions. Two guilty verdicts, but they were overturned.

I would say to the gentleman, if they were totally separate, then I don't know why he brought that issue into this debate. The fact is there is a lesson, and I want to explain what that lesson is, because our American jurisprudence system worked. He was convicted in a U.S. court.

In fact, before he was executed, there was a description of this person--I don't want to call him a ``gentleman.'' He was crying uncontrollably, and apparently the reason was that all of the conceptions that he had had proved to be misconceptions. He had been screaming about how bad the United States was, how unfair the trial was, and then he realized he was wrong.

It's too late for him to realize that now, but the American jurisprudence system worked. In fact, we have tried more than 1,000 terrorists in the United States. We are currently holding 373 people convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country. There are six Department of Defense facilities in which detainees could be held in the United States, and they are only at 48 percent capacity. There are 98 Justice Department facilities, as the gentleman well knows, and there is one in Alexandria where Guantanamo detainees could be held in the United States.

I just want to show the rest of the world that our justice system works. That is what defines us as a Nation and as a people. Guantanamo doesn't define us. It's just the opposite of what we believe in, what we profess to believe in. That's the problem. Nobody suggested that 9/ 11 happened because of Guantanamo. We know our history. We know when Guantanamo was established. The fact is that we could cite any number of situations in which our enemy cites Guantanamo as a reason for these young, impressionable men joining the forces of al Qaeda--because they just want to suggest that we really are not who we say we are.

This amendment would let us be who we are. Let the President close this facility that never should have been established in the first place. The Bush administration recognized that when it released more than half of the detainees--779 of them turned in for bounties in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's not the way we arrest people. They released them. The majority of the people at Guantanamo today have been cleared for release. They ought to be released, or they ought to be tried. As far as the worst of the worst, do what you want with them, but you don't have to spend $500 million to upgrade the facilities at Guantanamo so that you house people indefinitely. That's not who we are. That's why this amendment should pass.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Disabled Military Child Protection Act. This important bill would enable military retirees, investing in a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), to transfer their benefit to a Special Needs Trust (SNT) to provide long-term care for a disabled child.

Under the SBP, a military retiree can have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly survivor benefit (55% of base amount of military retired pay at the time of the retiree's death) to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipient(s). However, by directing SBP annuity payments to an SNT, the retiree may ensure that a dependent, disabled child might continue to qualify for certain benefits, such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicaid, that are means tested. As you know Mr. Speaker, assets placed into an SNT are not generally counted as income or assets for the purposes of determining eligibility for these benefits. Current individual care costs for a disabled child could exceed $100,000 a year if he/she has assets greater than the Medicaid threshold.

A SNT can be created by anyone, but there is no current mechanism for a military member to designate a Trust as the beneficiary of his/her SBP. This legislation would enable a SNT transfer similar to what is available to the general public today. This is an equity issue; currently, civilians can create a SNT for their permanently disabled children to ensure they receive care beyond their guardian's death, and are not subject to an income means-test. It is only fair to allow retired military personnel to prepare for the long-term care of their disabled children.

As of March 2011, CBO estimates that the bill would increase mandatory outlays by $123 million over the 2012-2021 period. The mandatory cost is not directly attributed to DoD, but rather reflects the increased costs to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicaid, since affected dependent children who are currently ineligible for those benefits would become eligible. This legislation would impact approximately 1,065 military dependents who are currently incapacitated beneficiaries under SBP.

This bill would help many Americans who have nobly served our country, like one of my constituents who has a son named Thomas. Thomas was diagnosed with severe autism by the age of 2 and is non-verbal, communicating primarily through hand leading to express he is hungry, wants to take a shower, or go for a car ride. He is unable to independently perform routine activities of daily living such as dressing or tending to his personal hygiene, much less make himself something to eat, ask for help, or let someone know he is in pain. Thomas requires supervision and assistance, around the clock, to ensure his safety needs are met. Other than his severe autism diagnosis, Thomas is healthy and expected to live a normal lifespan. Our constituent, a single parent, is nearly 38 years older than Thomas, and has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The passage of this bill would allow him the flexibility to plan for Thomas' future care and well- being.

In the name of decency and fairness, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and allow our military personnel some well-deserved peace of mind, knowing that their disabled children can be adequately provided for long after they are gone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the outstanding contributions of Terri Lynch in making Arlington and the Commonwealth of Virginia a better place to live in your twilight years.

Terri Lynch, MPA, has been the director of the Arlington County Agency on Aging since 1982. She helped to establish a network of services and programs in the Arlington Aging & Disability Services Division, including many that became state and national models. She consistently provided assistance and expertise to the Arlington Commission on Aging and Commission on Long-Term Care Residences. In 2006, she provided primary staff support for the County-Board's Elder Readiness Task Force that assessed the status of Arlington's capacity to serve older adults.

Ms. Lynch was president of the Virginia Association of Area Agencies on Aging from 2000 to 2002. She was a cofounding director and vice chair of the Consumer Consortium on Assisted Living from 1996 to 2003. She has served on the Policy Board for the Northern Virginia Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, the Advisory Committee for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, the Board for the Virginia Elder Rights Coalition, and the Virginia Legal Services Corporation Board. She is a founding member of Northern Virginia Womenade, a giving circle that aids nonprofit organizations.

Ms. Lynch has been a long-standing driving force in the Northern Virginia Aging Network, comprised of the region's agencies on aging and commissions on aging, as well as aging service and advocacy groups. NVAN has produced a state legislative platform since 1983, which has resulted in advances in community-based aging services, accessibility, housing, mental health and long-term care.

Ms. Lynch has been a leader in the field of aging at the local, state and national levels. She has received more than 20 distinguished honors, letters of appreciation and superior performance awards. She received the prestigious Winston Award from the Arlington County Bar Foundation in 2007 which recognizes members of the local community for longstanding public service, promotion of democratic ideals and the advancement of the rule of law. She received the Culpepper Garden Elder Services Award in 2009.

Ms. Lynch has been recognized multiple times by elected officials, policy-makers, community advocates and colleagues. They acknowledge her creativity, strategic thinking, administrative and advocacy skills, energy, and sheer ability to make things happen for the benefit of older people. She is always innovative, ahead of the curve, and exercises leadership that counts for elders. Ms. Lynch is retiring on June 28, 2013, and I salute her long track record of success and the positive differences she has made. I look forward to her continuing work in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented young musician in the 8th Congressional District, Samuel Matzner of Arlington County, Virginia. Samuel was selected on March 4th to participate in the first ever National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America.

Sam plays the Viola at Wakefield High School, as well as for the Washington Metropolitan Youth Orchestra. Due to his extraordinary abilities, he will join a group of 120 of the finest young musicians in the country aged 16-19, representing a selection process that included all 50 states, who will act as musical ambassadors during their worldwide tour in July. Organized by the famed Carnegie Hall in New York City, the group will travel to New York for two weeks of rehearsals at Purchase College, State University of New York, and then embark on an international tour that includes Moscow, St. Petersburg, and London.

The National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America is a unique and un-paralleled opportunity for young, high school-aged musicians in the United States to be recognized as the pinnacle of our musical training system. The success of Venezuela's El Sistema has generated increased international interest in the value of youth orchestras, and I am thrilled that Carnegie Hall has spearheaded this initiative to showcase our nation's talent and reinvigorate interest in youth musicianship at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, we are proud of these cultural ambassadors, and their commitment to musical excellence. I look forward to hearing the orchestra play, and wish them the best of luck on their tour.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that would strike section 413 of this bill.

First of all, I have great respect, even affection, for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, and their exemplary staff, Mr. Washington. But section 413 of this bill, Mr. Chairman, would prohibit funds to construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the U.S. for the purposes of housing Guantanamo detainees.

According to a recent GAO report, there are prisons in the U.S. that could hold the Guantanamo detainees as safely and securely as the security conditions at the Guantanamo facility. The Department of Defense and the Department of Justice both operate detention facilities comparable to Guantanamo Bay and currently hold convicted terrorists and other felons connected to terrorism.

The GAO report, however, noted that existing facilities would need to be slightly modified, and current inmates would need to be relocated perhaps. But this would prohibit that.

I can't imagine that there are Members of this Chamber that believe that indefinitely detaining individuals at Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives, without access to a fair trial, comports with American standards of justice.

Now, first of all, a few words about Gitmo itself. Eighty-six percent of the Guantanamo detainees were captured in exchange for a bounty. A majority of these young men never actually committed an act of violence against the United States or its allies. Five percent were perhaps members of al Qaeda. So let's assume that 5 percent were, because there seems to be some indication that they were; but 95 percent were not.

From a national security standpoint, Gitmo has been too easily used as a rallying cry and a recruitment tool for our enemies. For that reason, its continued existence really is a direct threat to our national security.

Language such as is in this bill has constrained the President's options for closing this detention facility. President Obama still retains the authority to significantly decrease the prison's population, though, should he choose to do so. He could waive the certification requirements if receiving countries take actions to substantially mitigate the risk that a detainee were to re-engage in terrorism. That would clear the release of at least 86 detainees, about half of the entire prison's population.

Since Guantanamo was opened, the statistics indicate that about 13 percent may have become recidivists. But less than 5 percent of President Obama's transfers have.

Military strategy often dictates that by releasing lower-threat detainees, you mitigate the risk of radicalizing more. We released many foot soldiers in Afghanistan who are far worse than the Guantanamo detainees.

But what is most relevant to this bill's language is that 46 detainees have been designated for indefinite detention, either because they are too dangerous to release, or they can't be charged in a court due to evidentiary standards.

The President did establish a Periodic Review Board, but the panel has never been formed. Frankly, the President should do that.

But those detainees that cannot be transferred, I think, should be tried in courts here in the United States. The problem is, given the limitation that Congress has wrongly placed on such transfers, that can't be done today, notwithstanding the fact that our Federal courts have tried more than 1,000 terrorists.

The United States already holds 373 individuals convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country. There are six Department of Defense facilities where Guantanamo detainees could be held in the United States that are currently at a combined 48 percent capacity. In other words, less than half the capacity is being used.

Believing that they will never leave Cuba, more than 100 are protesting their indefinite detention the only way that they can, with a hunger strike. Thirty-seven detainees are currently being tube-fed. It's a procedure that requires a lubricated plastic tube to be inserted down a detainee's nose and into their stomach while they're being restrained. They are then held in a chair for about 2 hours to force them to digest the liquid.

The fact is that the President can't do what he needs to do as long as section 413 remains in this bill, and that's why my amendment would remove this restriction.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, section 413 prohibits any funds, no matter how small they might be, to renovate or expand any facility in the U.S. for the purposes of housing Guantanamo detainees. The fact is that the Department of Defense does have six facilities where Guantanamo Bay detainees could be held in the United States. Those facilities are currently operating at only 48 percent capacity.

Mr. Chairman, if we were to look deeply into this issue of detention at Guantanamo Bay, we would conclude: number one, that this detention facility doesn't meet the standards of justice that our American jurisprudence system demands; number two, the vast majority of people at Guantanamo Bay should have been released. Even the Bush Administration recognized by their actions, that the vast majority of the 779 people that were put there should never have been detained, because they released most of them; number three, the best place for them to be detained and then tried is in the United States; and number four, the continuance of the Guantanamo Bay facility represents an immediate security threat to the United States because it is a rallying cry and a recruitment tool for our enemies.

Right now, there are more than a hundred detainees that are protesting what appears to be an indefinite detention the only way they can--through hunger strikes. Thirty-seven of them are being tube-fed through their noses into their stomach. They're held for about 2 hours to make sure that this liquid stuff is digested.

Guantanamo has become an immediate humanitarian crisis. It needs to be addressed urgently because the rest of the world can't understand why we don't do the right thing by those detainees who still are at Guantanamo Bay, whom we have cleared. In fact, the Bush administration cleared them for release because they had no evidence on them. President Obama has asked the Congress to lift restrictions on detainee transfers. He's asked DOD to identify a site in the United States for military commissions.

They will appoint a senior envoy charged with transferring detainees to third countries and he's got to lift the restriction on transfers to Yemen. He's going to staff the periodic review board for those that cannot be transferred. I think he should use the certification and waiver provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to transfer detainees from Guantanamo beginning with the reported 86 detainees already cleared for transfer.

But he can't do what he needs to do for our national security as long as the language of section 413 is in this bill. That's why my amendment would remove this restriction. What we're doing does not comport with America's system of justice or with fairness. And as I say, I believe it's a direct threat to our national security.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we remove this language by voting for my amendment. We have Department of Defense facilities, they're being underused in the United States, and that's the way that we could clear up a situation that we never should have created in the first place.

At this point--well, can I reserve time in order to respond to Mr. Culberson?

I suspected not. So at this point I will yield back, and I'm anxious to hear from the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.