Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gail Pennybacker, an award-winning, longtime television journalist who has covered local news in the District, Maryland, and especially Virginia for the ABC Channel 7 news team since 1986.

During her time as the northern Virginia bureau chief, Gail has garnered the respect of law enforcement, legislators, and everyday citizens alike. Gail has covered the Capital region's top stories for the last quarter century, including the September 11 terror attacks, the beltway sniper shootings, and the Columbine High School massacre. She has reported directly from the Persian Gulf during the Iraq war, conducted exclusive interviews with nationally known individuals, and earned several Edward R. Murrow Awards and other accolades.

Active in her community, Gail has been deeply involved with a variety of civic associations and organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association and the American Diabetes Association.

Her recognition by the Northern Virginia Victims Coalition for the ``objective, fair, and compassionate portrayal of crime victims'' is truly a testament to her respect for all persons, no matter their situation.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I'm honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gail Pennybacker upon her retirement from ABC7. Her dedication to making news reporting a reliable source of information has made her an institution in our community. While Gail's familiar face will be missed, we wish her only the best as she begins the next phase of her life.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about what is happening in Syria today as we speak.

What began as peaceful demonstrations against a nonrepresentative minority government quickly became violent when Bashar al-Assad chose the path of violence over an inclusionary government. Since the uprising began in March of last year, at least 16,000 Syrians have been killed, countless thousands have been seriously injured, and at least 200,000 people have been displaced.

In neighborhoods like Homs, as well as in defenseless refugee camps, women and children are being attacked, sexually assaulted, and summarily executed. Accused civilian sympathizers are being brutally tortured, I won't even go into the manner in which they are torturing them with all the acid burns, and sexual assaults, and so on.

And, this country's violence is only going to get worse. We read what happened yesterday when some of President Assad's closest military advisers,

including the minister of defense, were assassinated in Damascus. As the unrest spreads, as all this violence continues, the international community has had to sit on the sidelines, unable to take action because of Russian opposition at the United Nations. Mr. Chairman, perhaps one reason the Russians oppose more forceful steps against Syria is because they are the regime's principal weapons supplier. They have a vested economic interest. That's why they won't cooperate with the rest of the international community who is trying to act responsibly.

Just last year, Moscow sold Damascus $1 billion in arms. In particular, a Russian state-owned firm, known as Rosoboronexport, has provided Assad's regime with mortars, sniper rifles, attack helicopters, and even recently agreed to provide advanced fighter jets. In a recent letter from the Pentagon to the Congress, the Pentagon wrote that there is evidence that this Rosoboronexport's arms are being used to kill the civilians in Syria. As we speak, more Russian arms, including refurbished helicopters, are steaming towards Syria on a ship. I raise this ongoing humanitarian disaster in Syria and the role of this particular Russian firm in it because the U.S. Government has substantial business dealings with Rosoboronexport, and that makes us in some ways complicit in what is happening.

To date, the Department of Defense has purchased 23 Mi-17 helicopters from Rosoboronexport for use by the Afghan National Security Forces. Just this past weekend, DOD agreed to purchase 10 more, which will not be delivered until 2016, 2 years after we've left Afghanistan. I don't know about you, but I'm nervous about how those helicopters might be used 2 years after we've already left the country. Who are they going to be used by? And who are they going to be used against?

Even more distressing is that DOD is buying these helicopters for our Afghan allies from Syria's main arms supplier through a no-bid contract. It's an earmark for the Russians, no less. There has never been competition for supplying rotorcraft for the Afghan National Security Forces. If there had been, our American firms would have won it.

Mr. Chairman, I should think it's troubling to all of us that we are purchasing helicopters from a Russian firm that is directly complicit in the deaths of thousands of innocent Syrian men, women, and children. This has got to stop.

What this amendment would do is to simply say no more purchases from this Russian arms supplier. We don't need to be purchasing any more helicopters for years in advance when we're not even going to have a military presence in the country.

The Russians have vetoed U.N. resolutions designed to stop this violence in Syria. They are preventing an expansion of the current U.N. mandate. Our financial support for Rosoboronexport, has to be stopped. We have to divest ourselves from dependence on this state owned arms supplier.

This amendment would stop our business dealings with Syria's principal arms supplier. Otherwise, our condemnations of Syria's regime ring hollow.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the American taxpayer and for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, first of all, for your support of this amendment as well as your leadership of this committee.

I think this is an excellent idea. Perhaps, if we were to get into conference with the Senate on this bill, which I expect we will, we could add that national security waiver at that time and, thus, we would not be compromising the things that don't need to be discussed on the floor.

But I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I appreciate the gentleman's deference to concerns that HASC might have. With that, I do appreciate the very distinguished chairman's support.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I very much thank my friend and colleague, the ranking member of the committee.

That is an important point to make. The Pentagon not only has to be concerned about the operability in Afghanistan, which is quite different.

It is very unique. Plus, the Afghans need helicopters they can maintain after we leave. They are used to maintaining Russian helicopters. During the occupation, they learned that. I understand they are easier to maintain than some of ours.

But notwithstanding that, I think the gentleman would agree that there is reason for some apprehension after we have left the country to continue supplying these helicopters.

The other point, if the gentleman would further yield, is this firm is not someone we ought to be dealing with unless we absolutely have to. These are people that have violated our concerns about providing nuclear capacity to Iran. They have been cited about that. They are supplying a billion dollars of arms to Assad; and its principal reason, I suspect, because it's a state-owned firm, that Russia won't comply with the rest of the world.

It does need to be seen in that context, as well, to send this kind of a message. It's not a message I am necessarily sending to the Pentagon. It's a message we're trying to send to Russia: Let's get on board.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Gail Pennybacker, an award-winning, longtime television journalist who has covered local news in the District, Maryland--and especially Virginia--for more than a quarter century. During her time as the Northern Virginia Bureau Chief for ABC7 News, Channel 7, Gail has garnered the respect of law enforcement, lawmakers, and everyday citizens alike.

Gail joined the ABC7 News team in 1986. She has covered many of the capital region's top stories, including the September 11th terror attacks, the Beltway sniper shootings and the Columbine High School massacre. Gail has reported from the Persian Gulf during Iraq War, conducted exclusive interviews with high-profile, nationally known cases, such as Zacarias Moussaoui, and followed hundreds of high profile local crimes and trials including the abduction/murders of sisters Kristin and Katie Lisk, and Sofia Silva in the 1990s.

Along with winning prestigious Emmy and Associated Press awards for her reporting, Gail has also been awarded several Edward R. Murrow Awards, as well as the national Quill and Badge Award from the International Union of Police Associations for ``consistent, effective reporting.''

Gail has also been active in several civic associations and community organizations, including the Alzheimer's Association and the American Diabetes Association, where she was awarded a Distinguished Public Service Award. Gail's active involvement shows that she was interested in the entirety of her community--she did not simply just show up to report. Her recognition by the Northern Virginia Victims/Witness Coalition for the ``objective, fair and compassionate portrayal of crime victims'' is truly a testament to her respect for all persons, no matter their situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Gail Pennybacker upon her retirement from ABC7 News, Channel 7. Her ability to bring light to news reporting for countless individuals epitomizes the dedication and excellence that makes news reporting a reliable source of information for so many. Gail's familiar face will be missed by many, but we wish her only the best as she begins the next phase of her life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gail A. W. Goodridge, a leader in international development and a valued advisor and constituent, who recently passed away after a brave battle with cancer on June 18th.

Gail is an example of national heroes who remain too often unsung-- those who answer a call to serve directly those most in need, regardless of their location around the world. Working in the field of global health and development with Family Health International (FHI 360), she contributed to the lives of vulnerable women and children during extended postings in the Caribbean, where she began her career, and in East Africa, where she confronted the misery of the HIV/AIDS epidemic by founding and directing a truly innovative program (known as the ROADS Project) to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS along African transport corridors.

At home, Gail was just as active on behalf of social justice, working in Arlington through St. Charles Boromeo Catholic Church and in secular advocacy organizations promoting immigrants' rights and affordable housing. Wherever she was, Gail was renowned for her creativity and hospitality, guided by her faith and her belief in doing the right thing. She was often in my office representing those without a voice with fierce idealism always tempered with compassion. She is remembered by her colleagues at home and abroad and by her faith communities, not only in Arlington, but in Kenya as well--by St. Joseph's the Worker Church.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in paying tribute to this worker in global human development and in offering condolences to Gail's family and colleagues on her passing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a longtime Virginia resident and dear friend, Ms. Mame Reiley, whose decades-long service to the Democratic Party and local non-profit institutions has had such a positive impact on people's lives both locally and nationally.

In 1989, Mame was the one who convinced me to run for Congress. Because of her legendary ability to make people see the art of the possible, and my confidence in her timing and instincts, we took on a tough race, beating the odds. She served as my Chief of Staff for the next six years, ably guiding me to some major policy successes and a coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee in only my second term.

Mame fell in love with politics as a youngster, cheering Jack Kennedy on to his historic Presidential election and playing a significant role in college for his brother Ted's run. In the years following, she has become a force within the Party, chairing the Women's Caucus for the DNC, and having played a major role in the career of virtually every major Virginia Democrat from Doug Wilder to Tim Kaine. Among her many positions she's held over the years: running inaugural activities for Governor Mark Warner, serving as political director of his PAC, One Virginia, serving as senior advisor to Governor Tim Kaine, and directing my brother Brian's gubernatorial run.

Mame's skill, knowhow, and hard work led Governor Warner to appoint her to the Board of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) in 2002. While on the MWAA Board, she quickly gained the respect of her peers, rising to the position of Chairman of the Board, and the Board's prestigious Dulles Corridor Committee. Her efforts helped pave the way for Rail to Dulles, the largest expansion of the Metro rail system since it was created.

Commitment to public service and the Democratic Party has been the theme of her life's work. Mame's involvement with the DNC and other influential local organizations continues to this day. In 1992, she was elected to the DNC from Virginia. Since that time, she has risen to Chair the Women's Caucus and serves on the DNC's Executive Committee and its highly influential Rules and Bylaws Committee. She is also a member of the Economic Club of Washington and the Federal City Council Executive Committee. In her spare time, Mame has continued to operate the Reiley Group, a well-known public relations and event planning firm.

Mame has garnered the respect of countless individuals and admirers. She is a force to be reckoned with, her honesty and advice frequently sought-out, and if you're in a foxhole, she's the person you want next to you, protecting your back and bringing levity to even the toughest situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the contributions and accomplishments of my long time friend and mentor, Mame Reiley.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Senior Executive Service Reform Act of 2012. To put it simply, this bill will make the Senior Executive Service more attractive to senior General Schedule employees by reforming SES compensation, improving SES career management, reforming the SES hiring process, and increasing diversity within the SES.

Today approximately 64 percent of the nearly 7,100 Senior Executives will be eligible to retire by 2016. According to officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), there are insufficient numbers of candidates to replace outgoing Senior Executives. The Senior Executive Service is not broken, but needs reform to continue to attract, retain, develop and reward our nation's most talented civil servants.

Although Senior Executives can earn more at the upper ranges, lower- level Senior Executives have significant pay overlap with upper-level GS-14 and 15 employees, who receive locality and overtime pay. Pay compression, as the phenomenon is known, reduces the attractiveness of joining the SES, where employees work longer hours and are more susceptible to being geographically relocated.

To address pay compression, this bill would provide an automatic pay raise equal to the annual average GS pay raise for any SES that receives a ``fully successful'' rating. Additionally, this bill would allow Senior Executives to count performance awards and bonuses towards their High-3 annuity calculation. Each reform is intended to alleviate pay compression, making the SES more financially attractive for high- performing GS employees.

Mr. Speaker, more attention needs to be given to ensuring that Senior Executives receive continuing professional development throughout their careers. This bill will require each agency to establish onboarding programs for newly appointed Senior Executives. Agency programs must include an overview of the mission, priorities, strategic plan of the agency and the roles and responsibilities of the new appointee.

To improve the hiring process, agency heads will also be required to advertise vacancies for a sufficient period of time to allow a larger pool of applicants to apply. The bill will reduce the exhaustive amounts of paperwork that needs to be submitted into a more manageable process that will allow agencies to provide timely notification to applicants regarding the status of their application.

Finally, I am proud that this bill will require each agency to create plans to increase diversity within their agencies. The plan, which will need to be updated biennially, will maximize the opportunities for the appointment of minorities, women and individuals with disabilities to the SES.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the SES Reform Bill of 2012 with my colleagues Representatives Gerry Connolly and Chris Van Hollen, who have been such great leaders on federal employee issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and acknowledge Colonel Gregory F. Dragoo upon his retirement after having served this great Nation for 29 years. Colonel Dragoo most recently served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Special Access Program Central Office, responsible for the DOD coordination of programs assigned to the Air Force.

In 1983, Colonel Dragoo received his Second Lieutenant commission from the Officer Training School at Lackland AFB, TX. He completed his undergraduate navigator training and was assigned to B-52Gs at the 46th Bomb Squadron in North Dakota in 1985.

After being selected a part of the initial cadre of aircrew selected to fly the B-1, Colonel Dragoo was selected in 1989, as the first B-1 Weapon Systems Officer to attend the USAF Test Pilot School at Edwards

I would say to our good friend from Pennsylvania that it is hard to believe that Chairman Bud Shuster would not be as troubled as we are by the state of the transportation bill. And he would be saying as we are: Just do it.

You have suggested any number of things where we would reach agreement, I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, but this has been going on for almost 3 years. It was back in October of 2009 that we got a 1-month extension. Then, we extended it for 48 days; then 72 days; then 16 days; then 9\1/2\ months; then 2 months and 4 days; then 6 months and 25 days; then 6 months, and 91 days, and now we're talking about another 3-month extension.

Let's just do it. That's why there's instruction to accept the Senate bill. If we know what we need, then let's reach compromise and get it done. Because meanwhile, people are unemployed. The American people are hurting, and the American public is disgusted with the Congress.

When we had a 13 percent approval rating, I was wondering how we had so many family and friends. Well, sure enough, now it's dipped down to single digits. Why? Because they don't see us doing anything. They don't see us compromising.

In the Senate, we have a Senate transportation bill where people as conservative as Republican Jim Inhofe, the ranking member of Surface Transportation, has approved this. It passed. Three-quarters of the Senate approved this. Why can't we just accept this and get it done?

We're talking about almost 3 million jobs that would be saved or created. We are in desperate need of jobs. There are jobs in this country, and they're going to have a lasting dividend once we improve our roads and our bridges and our public transit systems.

We need to get this done. The American people have been waiting 2\1/ 2\ years for this surface transportation bill. That's why the motion to instruct is so important and why I support Mr. Hoyer, because this is what the American people want. And the fact is that, while it maintains current funding levels for highway and public transportation, it consolidates highway programs, establishes a national freight program, and any number of things.

We can agree it's not perfect, but it's the best we can do. And the American people deserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't oppose the bill, but I do have concerns about one element of this bill, and that is the provision that affects whistleblowers in the Public Health Service.

The law that would apply to these employees is that of the military, the Defense Department, which, frankly, is weaker than that which applies to protecting whistleblowers who are in the civil service, civilian whistleblowers.

I do think protection of whistleblowers needs to be a priority. In this case, I would hope that we could work in subsequent legislation to protect the rights of whistleblowers who are essential to our being able to do our job, as well as those people in the executive branch. I just wanted to make note of that point.

I thank the very distinguished gentleman, the ranking member on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct conferees to include the Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act into any final conference agreement on the surface transportation authorization bill.

The bill my colleague seeks to include in the surface transportation bill is bad policy. It has nothing to do with transportation, and it would place communities living downstream from coal ash ponds in real danger.

When properly recycled, coal ash and other residuals from burning coal do have economic value--that's not the issue here, but managed improperly, they can be extremely hazardous. Coal ash shouldn't be dumped in unregulated ponds to contaminate water and spill into nearby streams and rivers.

In 2008, as Mr. Rush pointed to, the Kingston fossil plant in Tennessee failed to properly maintain its coal ash impoundment pond. The pond collapsed, and it dumped 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash slurry into the Clinch River and inundated several houses with up to six feet of ash and mud. And then when they independently tested the Clinch River after the Tennessee Valley Authority impoundment collapse, it showed high levels of arsenic, copper, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and thallium all related to that spill. The spill contaminated the water, it killed the fish, and it destroyed property. The cleanup pricetag is still being assessed, but it's estimated to cost between $700 million and $1 billion. The motion my colleague from West Virginia is proposing

would prevent EPA from setting standards for this type of coal ash dump, allowing these problems to continue unchecked.

We need to preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to advance regulations that discourage improper disposal of coal ash and to encourage recycling. Every year, coal-fired power plants and industrial boilers in the United States generate about 67 million tons of coal ash and slag and about 19 million tons of coal sludge.

While fly ash, bottom ash, flue gas desulfurization mineral, and boiler slag all have a number of beneficial reuses in concrete, road, wallboard, and roofing, they also contain heavy metals--including lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, as well as radioactive elements. These hazardous components dictate that we must be careful in the handling use, reuse, and disposal of the material.

Contrary to much of the publicity surrounding the coal ash issue, EPA is not trying to ban the beneficial reuse of coal ash. In fact, EPA proposed two separate possible regulatory regimes to encourage recycling and reduce improper coal ash disposal. EPA wants to ensure that coal ash reuse is preserved while guaranteeing that any disposal is done safely and effectively.

EPA's proposed rules received extensive public involvement, including thousands of public comments and eight public hearings around the country. The Coal Residuals and Reuse Management Act is designed to deprive EPA of the ability to use the best available science in its decisions, and it would negate those thousands of public comments that were received after the rule's proposal. It would also give a free pass to power companies to pollute at taxpayer expense.

Coal ash is a national, interstate issue and should be subject to Federal regulation.

As Congress stated when passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:

The problems of waste disposal have become a matter

national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal

action. Disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste in or on

the land without careful planning and management can present

a danger to human health and the environment.

That was true in 1976, and 30 years later it's still true. In the years since, we have found that proper regulation of waste disposal encourages rather than discourages recycling. Implementing environmental and safety controls makes recycling far more attractive and far more likely to occur. Thirty years of data on solid and hazardous waste disposal and recycling have borne this out. Let's not revisit the Wild West past of hazardous waste disposal.

We need to stand up for the same principles Congress stated in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act over 30 years ago. That's why I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the McKinley motion. Prevent more Kingston ash impoundment disasters; they will be replicated, and it will be our fault. We need to allow EPA to regulate responsibly and to allow the beneficial use of coal ash.

I thank my friend from Florida very much.

Mr. Chairman, not only do I oppose the amendment, I don't think we should be shutting down this program. This was a bipartisan program one of whose principal sponsors was Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska. What it does is to give voice to leaders within countries who are suffering under oppressive forms of government.

I just met with the Ukrainian delegation. My friend, Mr. Crenshaw, may have had an opportunity to meet with them as well. They come through the Congress of the United States and the executive branch. They learn how our government works. And at a time when we are spending two-thirds of a trillion dollars on military security, this is the kind of program that can promote smart power by working with leaders in other countries. They want freedom of the press. They want democracy. They can't stand what communism did to their countries, but they don't want the kleptocracy of Russia. They don't want Russian domination. They want to be like the United States, and they want to come here and learn how to adopt the best principles that empower our democracy.

It's a good program. It's not much money, and the dividends that it yields are far greater than anything it costs us. I certainly agree we ought not eliminate the $1 million placeholder, but I wish we would not eliminate this program at all because it's a program we ought to be proud to fund.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I am offering jointly with Congress Members Welch and Pingree, would ban polystyrene products in our food service facilities here in the House.

Mr. Chairman, in 2011, the new Republican majority in the House instituted the use of polystyrene containers in our food service facilities. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds to purchase polystyrene products for use in the House cafeteria and eateries.

Removing polystyrene would show our concern for the health of our visitors and our employees, and for the future of our environment. We should be using recyclable and biodegradable products and avoiding polystyrene foam packaging.

Over 20 years ago, McDonalds and other for-profit fast-food restaurants replaced polystyrene foam with recyclable and paper board containers. The House of Representatives is the only place within the Capitol Complex to revert back to Styrofoam products. Neither the Senate, the Library of Congress, nor the Capitol Visitors Center

food services use polystyrene food products out of concern for the health of their patrons. We should be leading by example, and this amendment provides a way through which we can show environmental responsibility to the thousands of constituents who visit our offices each year. We should be concerned about their health and that of our employees.

Polystyrene is also very difficult to recycle. Most polystyrene containers end up taking up inordinately large amounts of space in landfills or incinerators. The problems with polystyrene include cancerous chemicals used during manufacturing, minimal recycle ability, enormous space taken up in landfills, and toxic byproducts released during incineration.

An EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process the fifth-largest creator of hazardous waste. Toxic chemicals leak out of these Styrofoam containers into the food and drinks they contain and thus endanger human health and reproductive systems. That's our employees and our visitors to the House office buildings we're endangering. With this amendment, we can reduce environmental hazards and landfill waste, and protect the public's health.

I encourage my colleagues to support what I think should be a no- brainer amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend from California, this amendment doesn't reintroduce the composting program, and it doesn't deal with those utensils--which I admit, some of them were not the best--but this deals with the polystyrene containers only, which is the greater source of concern for the health of our visitors and our employees.

At this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to our friend and colleague from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Well, certainly the gentleman makes a compelling argument here in terms of employment. But it is clear that when you talk to people who regularly use our cafeterias, that they are concerned about the health effects of polystyrene containers. In fact, there's a Facebook group that's been created called Stop the Styrofoam Invasion: Bring Cardboard Back to the House Cafeteria. Now, I'm sure these gentlemen see that effort on Facebook.

Communities across the country have rallied against polystyrene products, and bans have been instituted in cities and counties in California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maine, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, and New York.

Now, these are not statewide bans in all of these States. Many of them, they're cities and counties. But this is not something that is unique to the people supporting this amendment. Across the country, people are realizing that it is not healthy to use polystyrene as a material. It does take up too much land space in many places in the country, and we really ought to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, as the Clerk read, this would strike section 110 of this bill.

This is a legislative rider that is bad policy and does not belong in an appropriations bill. This rider, 110, permanently blocks the Army Corps of Engineers from fixing existing policies that are confusing and inconsistent and not working. It risks great harm to fresh sources of drinking water, and it jeopardizes flood protection and outdoor recreation, specifically because section 110 prohibits the Army Corps from clarifying the limits of Federal and State authority under the Clean Water Act.

Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court cases over the last decade addressed the scope of the Federal Government's authority under the Clean Water Act. The Court's rulings did not require less regulation and protections, but urged the Congress and the executive branch to provide a sound rationale and consistency to clarify the limits of Federal authority. The Corps and the EPA have now issued draft guidance clarifying Federal authority that adheres to the Court's rules. Congress, by contrast, has not.

With this rider, Congress is about to make matters much worse--worse because blocking completion of the guidance and any subsequent regulations which the bill's rider would do would be bad for the public's health, bad for businesses, and bad for farmers. It's especially bad for 117 million Americans whose drinking water comes from headwaters and non-perennial streams. Shouldn't we be concerned about what toxic material is dumped into these streams?

It's bad for American businesses who need certainty. Without updated guidance, businesses will often not know when they need a Corps' permit in order to develop land.

This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability, and certainly will cost them extra money.

It's bad for farmers because this rider eliminates the agricultural exclusion for prior converted cropland that was added to the waters of the United States rule at the farmers' request.

Section 110 invalidates all rules issued after the rule dated November 13, 1986, but not until 1993 did the Corps and EPA define the waters of the U.S. to exclude ``prior converted cropland.''

Claims that Federal guidance and regulations are unnecessary because of State clean water programs are wrong as well. Thirty-three States joined a brief in the most recent of the Supreme Court cases urging the Court to uphold Federal protections for wetlands adjacent to non- navigable streams. States noted that Federal safeguards were critical (A) because water flows between States, (B) because maintaining a Federal floor of pollution control creates parity between States, and (C) because States have come to rely on Federal protections and would face serious administrative and financial burdens if they were solely responsible for these requirements.

Finally, even though the rider may block the guidance clarifying Federal and State authority, it does not make the Clean Water Act requirements for a permit go away. States are still required to implement and enforce the law, and dischargers still must obey it. Likewise, third parties may still file lawsuits.

The real consequence of this rider will be to frustrate the Federal Government's efforts to explain where State or Federal authority under the Clean Water Act ceases to exist. If this rider prevails, more lawsuits will ensue.

So I urge my colleagues to vote to strike this rider to bring clarity to a confusing issue.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that many of the groups involved have finally come together and realized that they need clarity on a very difficult issue. There are times when water goes underground during the summer and the surface dries up, but that water is still present, and much of that water is interstate. You need Federal control.

One of the biggest things that I think perhaps the gentleman may not be aware of is the fact that this rider, if it is passed in this bill, would eliminate the agricultural exclusion for prior converted cropland. The fact is that this rider invalidates all rules that were issued after November 13, 1986, and it wasn't until 1993 that the Corps and EPA defined the waters of the U.S. to exclude prior converted cropland. So a lot of the farm community is going to be very upset if the gentleman's rider is not removed. And the fact that 33 States have joined a brief asking the Federal Government to do what the EPA and the Federal Corps of Engineers is doing means that we are going to cause major problems if this rider is passed in this bill.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to ask the gentleman what we do about waters that are interstate, they flow down.

Yes, please.

But I suggest to the gentleman, they use the Federal definition in order to enforce the quality of the water coming from other States. That's the problem.

How do they control water from another State?

Mr. Speaker, last month we celebrated Earth Day with the slogan: One Billion People--192 Countries. During the celebration, people of different religious faiths in the United States and abroad participated, issuing proclamations on the moral imperative to be good stewards of the Earth and for action on climate change.

Since Senator Gaylord Nelson first introduced the idea of Earth Day in 1969 here in Congress and founded the first Earth Day in 1970, we have come a long way. An estimated 20 million Americans participated in the first Earth Day. Each year since, Earth Day has been observed around the world.

It is fitting that we remember that Senator Nelson's underlying premise behind creating ``a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment'' was to heed the call to action. Just like 1970, Earth Day 2012 comes at a time of great challenge for our nation and everyone on this planet.

The climate is changing and will endanger the very future of our children and grandchildren. The buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of human activities will lead to extraordinary heat waves, storms and floods will kill many people and harm many others. This increasing toll of death and destruction will not be limited to developing countries. Tropical diseases will increase their range of infection and exact their toll in human lives. Prolonged droughts will threaten the productivity of even our nation's agricultural lands. Ocean acidification will destroy coral reefs and the chain of sea life they support, endangering a leading food source for up to one-third of humanity.

If coastal ice shelves in the Antarctic continue to disintegrate, sea levels will rise several meters this century. At such a rate, many of the world's great cities will face chronic floods and many coastal settlements will disappear. Large-scale human migrations in response to rising sea levels, food and water insecurity and other climate-induced stresses will impoverish many people and threaten our national security. An increasingly harsh climate will greatly endanger future generations' life expectancy and diminish everyone's quality of life. Mass extinction of species is a distinct possibility, leaving a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world that we inherited.

This is not just an environmental or ecological issue. It is a national security, food, water, and quality of life issue. Knowing these potentially disasterous outcomes and knowing we can avert many of them makes this a moral and ethical issue. And it is why I am pleased that religious leaders from many faiths are willing to back the resolution I am introducing today that calls on Congress to take immediate action on climate change. This resolution calls for action on the part of the House to ensure that the energy, environmental, agricultural, national security, and foreign policies of the United States reflect appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to climate change, as documented by

credible scientific findings and as evidenced by the extreme weather events of recent years.

Many faith traditions proclaim our moral obligation to be good stewards of the Earth and the imperative to act upon the climate crisis. It is a call to our shared existence and our interdependence upon God's creation that transcends political considerations. By failing to act on climate change, we unjustifiably cause human suffering and death, which many vulnerable peoples are experiencing now, and which may visit our children and future generations.

It is a call to honor our moral obligation for equity and justice, which can be addressed by shifting to a sustainable, energy efficient and renewable energy economy that will create millions of good jobs and support healthy families and communities. Lastly, it is a call to protect the Earth, which is the source of all life. For, to disrupt the climate that is the cornerstone of all life and to squander the extraordinary abundance of life, diversity, and beauty of the planet is a moral failure of the first order.

I applaud these organizations and communities of faiths who have joined together to advance this critically important issue. I also applaud their commitment to be true to their faith by recognizing that we have a moral obligation to be good stewards of the earth and all of its creatures and processes.

I encourage my colleagues, to safeguard the welfare of the people of the United States by enacting policies that--

reduce energy consumption and increase energy efficiency;

shift the power supply strategy away from oil, coal, and natural gas to wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels;

capture and store carbon by planting and greening urban landscapes and improving land and forest management practices;

help people of the United States and abroad prepare for and withstand the significant impacts of climate change that are already occurring and that are likely to accelerate in years ahead; and

support the prompt introduction and passage of legislation to achieve these goals.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

It seems Republicans are incapable of legislating without exacting a toll from federal employees.

Earlier this year, in order to prevent a Social Security tax increase on all Americans, House Republicans insisted that future federal employees nearly quadruple the amount they contribute to their own retirement.

Without a corresponding increase in benefits, the larger contribution was simply a pay cut.

After the tax extenders bill, Republicans sought a toll from federal employees on the Transportation Reauthorization bill.

That bill's price for federal employees was a 1.5 percent reduction of agencies' contribution to their retirement benefit.

Federal employees would have been forced to make up the difference-- again, a pay cut.

The most egregious attack, unsurprisingly, came from the Budget Resolution offered by Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan's budget directed the House Oversight and Government Reform committee to indentify nearly $80 billion in ``savings'' from federal employee benefit programs over a ten year window.

The committee recommended increasing retirement contributions by 5 percent with no corresponding increase in benefits for all current federal employees, immediately increasing retirement contributions to 5.8 percent for all new federal employees, and eliminating the Social Security supplement for all federal employees who retire before becoming eligible for their earned Social Security benefit.

And just today, it was revealed that the Republican Leadership has proposed using federal compensation cuts to offset a student loan rate reduction extension. What a shame.

This evening I rise to speak against the federal employee cuts contained in the underlying bill.

The MILCON/VA bill would freeze the pay of some 305,000 civilian employees of the Veterans Administration and some DoD employees for a third consecutive year.

It is astounding that Members of this body would stand up this evening and proclaim the solemn debt our country owes to our veterans knowing this bill cuts the benefits of those who treat and care for our retired servicemembers.

Today there are approximately 100,000 homeless veterans. VA employees work every day to reduce that tragedy and as a reward this body will freeze their pay.

According to the most recent reports, veteran unemployment has actually dropped below the national average.

The VA counselors that assist veterans in their search for employment undoubtedly deserve some recognition for this trend.

To thank them, this body will again try to freeze their pay.

Finally, an estimated one in five veterans from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will return home with some type of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mental health providers and counselors in the VA and DoD will treat these wounded warriors.

In fiscal year 2013, if this body gets its way, they will see no increase in their pay.

The United States has unarguably the greatest civil service in the world.

Republican attacks against civil servants are unwarranted, unjustified, and extremely disappointing.

Every day, federal employees provide vital services that help keep our nation healthy, safe and strong.

I strongly oppose the federal employee cuts contained in this bill.

Mr. Chair, the amendment before us would correct a fundamental misunderstanding that has been allowed to slip into H.R. 5854, the FY 2013 Military Construction/VA Appropriations bill.

The Grimm Amendment would not have the effect of mandating that public contracting entities adopt Project Labor Agreements, as its opponents claim. In fact, as has been amply pointed out by my colleagues, Section 517 of the bill would prevent the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies from requiring the use of project labor agreements (PLA).

Similar efforts to bar PLAs have been tried in other venues, including a recent attempt in Michigan which was declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. The court correctly ruled that federal law explicitly allows for PLAs in the construction industry, when the government entity determines that it is in the best interest--in terms of efficiency, quality, safety or any number of other factors--of the local community.

But it isn't only constitutional; it is also smart. There is ample evidence demonstrating that PLAs can serve as an important tool to manage large construction projects and maximize efficiency by creating collective bargaining benefitting both contractors and workers. Washington Nationals Park, Disney World, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline all benefited from the use of PLAs.

In Northern Virginia, taxpayer interests were best served by employing a PLA in the first phase of the massive construction project on the rail extension to Dulles Airport. Facilitating better access to Dulles Airport is important to

my constituents in Northern Virginia, and it is important to me that the project makes the most of public money it receives. The PLA utilized has helped to accomplish this goal.

Academic research confirms that PLAs can contribute to the quality of large, complex infrastructure projects. The Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations released a study stating that PLAs ``make sense for public works projects'' and their use increases the efficiency of planning while reducing labor costs. The Federal Government does not mandate PLAs. Executive Order 13502 specifies that federal agencies may require them to be used on construction projects that are valued at more than $25 million. This is smart policy. It provides flexibility for local norms. At this time of concern over budgets as well as employment, we should retain that flexibility to make use of PLAs.

PLAs can contribute to efficiencies, quality and cost savings. We should not be forcing Federal, State or local governments to rule them out for large construction projects, based on misguided, ideological grounds, which assume that everything that benefits workers must be bad for everyone else.

I support the Grimm Amendment because it will ensure that government contracting authorities are not barred in a disingenuous effort to tie their hands with regard to the use of PLAs where they might be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Peter M. Chase, who is retiring after 41 years of dedicated and faithful service to the Department of the Navy, culminating in his position as the Director of Acquisition Policy in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition and Procurement (DASN(AP)).

Mr. Chase began his federal service in 1971 as a United States Navy (USN) Ensign aboard the USS Independence, CV 62, eventually rising to an Assistant Department Head. Lieutenant Chase's second uniformed posting was as Aide to the Commandant, First Naval District HQ, Boston, MA, assisting in policy formulation and public relations which included coordinating participation in programs with public organizations including the Navy League, the Boston Pops, and area universities.

Following four years of active duty, Mr. Chase entered the Navy's Civilian Contracting Intern Development Program at the Naval Electronic Systems Command (NAVELEX). Over the next six years, Mr. Chase developed foundational contracting skills, progressing to multi-million dollar procurements including both competitive and sole-source; production and research and development; fixed price and cost-reimbursement; and incentive and award fee actions.

In 1981, Mr. Chase received his contracting officer warrant, serving as the procurement contracting officer for the Integrated Tactical Surveillance System, executing acquisition processes from pre-planning to post-award management. During this two year period, Mr. Chase also served as the contracting officer for the AN/URN 25 TACAN Transponder and the Navy standard Desktop Tactical-support Computer, as well as many other acquisitions.

In 1983, Mr. Chase became the Head of the Undersea Surveillance Purchase Branch at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR). Mr. Chase was responsible for managing all contracting matters relating to the purchase of electronic and surveillance systems for the Undersea Surveillance Program Directorate, including major systems acquisition programs such as the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS), in support of the USN's undersea Cold War effort.

Mr. Chase moved into policy in 1989. While also responsible for Cost Estimating and Analysis, Mr. Chase provided authoritative analytical support and advice to the SPAWAR Commander and Executive Director regarding contracting and acquisition policy. For over four years starting in 1992, Mr. Chase left policy to become Director of the C4I Systems Purchase Division, overseeing three contracting branches before returning to acquisition policy in 1996.

In 1997 Mr. Chase joined the DASN(AP) overseeing Department of Navy Acquisition Policy; first as an action officer, and then in 2000, as Director. Mr. Chase analyzed and evaluated all laws and regulations related to Federal Government and Defense acquisition/contracting, determining and leading development of DON policies for the Navy and Marine Corps.

Mr. Speaker, through the commitment and sacrifice of Americans like Pete Chase, our nation is able to continue upon, and defend, the path of democracy while striving for the betterment of mankind. I am proud, as a fellow Virginian, to thank Mr. Chase and his family for his honorable service to our Nation. I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes his 41 years of distinguished public service.