Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our Nation's wounded warriors, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Jerome E. Kelly, of Alexandria, Virginia. A 1965 graduate of West Point Military Academy, Lieutenant Colonel Kelly was awarded the Bronze Star for Valor and a Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam, where he suffered a severe head wound in combat.

After a long recovery during which he was nursed back to health by his loving wife Lee, he attended Washington & Lee School of Law and was admitted to the District of Columbia Bar. After graduation Lieutenant Colonel Kelly completed his active duty career in the United States Army as a member of the Judge Advocate General Corp, with tours of duty in Virginia and with U.S. forces in Seoul, South Korea. After retiring from active duty in 1986, Lieutenant Colonel Kelly continued his service to the Nation as a civilian employee to the Army at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, Colonel Kelly has recently taken ill and I would like to wish him a speedy recovery. I would also like to extend my appreciation to his wife Lee for her sacrifices throughout the years. I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Lieutenant Colonel Jerome E. Kelly for his many years of dedicated service to our Nation.

Offered By: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 13: Strike sections 528 and 529.

Mr. Chairman, the Catholic Church is still trying to live down condemning Galileo for suggesting that the Sun, instead of the Earth, was the center of the universe. But fortunately, our military and our President is on the right side of history and science.

Our military is listening to the facts and acting on the fact of climate change by ensuring that its assets are capable of withstanding more frequent and severe weather conditions, building resiliency in their command and control structures, planning military response contingencies that recognize the effects climate change is having on people, countries, and organizations around the world that may wish us harm. That is what this amendment would prevent the military from doing, because they are now reacting to the facts from these studies.

Climate change is a national security concern. It is a new form of stress on military readiness. The Navy, for example, just last week identified 128 naval installations that are going to be underwater in the near future if we don't take steps now to deal with it. It is a catalyst for instability and conflict around the world.

As my friend from California mentioned, the military's Quadrennial Defense Review states that ``the pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.''

The results will be a higher demand for American troops abroad, even as we struggle to deal with the devastating impacts caused by flooding and extreme weather events at home. We have volatile regions around the world that are going to be driven to desperation and resort to terrorist activity in

response to the impacts of climate change and the resulting resource competition.

This is what the military is telling us. Climate change's ``effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad, such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions.'' It is a catalyst for conflict.

For the sake of our military, for the sake of our national security, we have got to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, Guantanamo is a rallying cry for extremists around the world. Until we transfer and try these detainees, it is hurting our national security, and Gitmo is expensive. We are spending about $2.7 million per detainee per year at Guantanamo compared to $34,000 per inmate at a high security prison in the United States. In fact, the Pentagon is going to spend $435 million this year in operations and personnel costs for this facility.

The reality is we have 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism that are currently incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons with no escapes or attacks in attempts to free them.

When the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Afghanistan expires, we have no plans. What are we going to do with these prisoners of war?

The Smith amendment should be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a proposed policy that could have a significant adverse effect on jobs, private property, tax revenues, and economic development in several major American cities that host airports, and their surrounding communities.

The proposed change seeks to significantly alter current criteria used to evaluate structure heights around airports by changing the way a single engine failure at the moment of takeoff scenario is considered. This more rigorous standard would effectively lower the maximum permissible structure height around airports, affecting nearly 4,000 existing buildings in 48 States that would exceed the new criteria, not to mention a number of planned developments.

No one disputes aviation safety must be the top priority when considering these proposals. However, every air carrier is already currently required to individually plan for a single engine failure scenario. These contingency plans may result in costly measures for the carriers such as greater fuel burn, reduced cargo, or reduced numbers of passengers. For this reason, FAA has historically considered OEI as an economic issue.

Given the potential far-reaching economic impact of this change and the competing economic interest at stake, we believe that this action should only be accomplished in accordance with standard rulemaking procedures, requiring a cost-benefit analysis with input from OMB and other agencies, and taking into consideration the real-world effects of such a change. A bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators wrote to Secretary Foxx and Administrator Huerta earlier this year asking for this very thing.

Last month, FAA posted a notice of policy change to the Federal Register announcing their intention to proceed with consideration of OEI via a change to policy, thus bypassing the rigors of a formal rulemaking. This action allows FAA to circumvent the rigors of cost- benefit and federalism analysis under Executive Order 12866 by calling this significant change to Part 77 a policy change, when it is, in fact, a rule change.

I, along with a bipartisan group of my colleagues, have introduced legislation today that would allow FAA to continue with adoption of OEI criteria only if the policy is adopted via a formal rulemaking, requiring input from OMB, OIRA, and other agencies, as well as a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis weighing competing economic interest and proposed practices versus current ones. This bill applies only to OEI consideration, and would not preempt the agency's ability to act in the event of an emergency situation.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Chair, I want to thank my good friend from Florida for her leadership on this bill, as well as my very good friend from Oklahoma, who has done a terrific job as chair. Both of you take your responsibilities extremely seriously, as you should.

This is the bill that funds the institution itself, and you have both resisted efforts to demean this institution and to suggest that traditions and resources that have been available to this institution in the past are not necessary.

Both of you understand, because you are institutionalists and revere this institution, there are a lot of things that go on in this institution that play an important role toward serving the American public.

I do regret the fact that there was an amendment that was not made in order. I didn't expect that this amendment would have passed, but it was an issue that needed to be discussed on the House floor because it sets a precedent, what I believe is a very dangerous precedent.

This year, this bill freezes congressional compensation. It is the sixth year in a row that we have frozen our own salaries, but by putting it in this bill, I have been part of this institution long enough to know that, once you do that, there is a very high likelihood that neither political party, no matter who has the majority, is going to be willing to ever take it out; and so it will acquire an aspect of permanence.

So what I suggested is that we have a $25 a day housing stipend, just for those Members that live at least 50 miles from Washington, D.C. I am 10 miles. It wouldn't affect me. None of the other things that are available to Members, small as they might be, affect us either.

Obviously, we can't change our own pay. We can't raise it. So it wouldn't apply till the next term. I am retiring, but I will never lose my love for this institution, and that is why I am doing it.

It just happens that we will be in session 112 days, times 25, that would come, not coincidentally, to exactly what the salary increase would have been had we not frozen it.

The reason for doing this is that, since I was first elected to the Congress, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the compensation to Members has gone down by one-fifth. In the meantime, the cost of rental housing in D.C. has increased substantially.

Rental housing is going up as fast or faster than most other metropolitan areas of the country. In fact, the median cost per month, it is $2,250; per year, it is $27,000.

The problem is that if we continue to freeze the compensation to Members, my fear is--and Mr. Cole, I know, is going to provide a different perspective, but I think the fear is legitimate--that what we will wind up with is a composition of the Congress composed primarily of Members who don't need the pay, who are independently wealthy, who can blithely send the check back and take credit for it because they don't need it. In fact, more than half the Congress today, I understand, are millionaires.

On the other hand, you may have some who figure, well, I will serve one, two, three terms and then go into the private sector and use that experience, albeit limited, to enrich themselves. A lot of people do it. I am not being particularly critical, but I want to raise the issue as to what that means for the Congress itself, for this institution.

I don't think this is the right thing to do, Madam Chairman. We need people who represent those folks who barely make it, who have to pay a mortgage, who have student loans to pay, who have kids to raise. They represent the majority in this country, and it is so difficult for Members to maintain two residences.

I wouldn't have expected us to lose an opportunity for self- flagellation, but I do think we should have raised this issue.

I thank my very good friend.

I think I have made my point. We need to be as representative of the country as possible. For all our failings, for all our deficiencies, for all our needs, our struggles, we need to be able to empathize with people who have the same kind of financial constraints.

I know people think this is a lot of money, but if you are not going to show respect to yourself as an institution, you can't expect the public to show you much respect either.

We are the board of directors of the largest economic entity in the world. We deserve that respect. We ought to stand up for ourselves, defend this Congress--because what we do is defensible--and show that we merit adequate compensation, so we can be wholly representative of this great American public.

Madam Chairman, I could not agree more with my good friend from Oklahoma, the chairman of this subcommittee, the idea that my colleague from Wisconsin would suggest that this program has outlived its usefulness when the Russian bear is hungrier than it has been in decades, when Putin seized Crimea and now he is trying to take parts of eastern Ukraine.

Let me explain what this program does. It takes emerging leaders in Russia and Russia's satellite countries, former members of the Soviet Union, who show exceptional talent and interest in speaking for themselves and it brings them over to the United States and puts them in homes and communities where they will learn how our rule of law works, what equal justice under the law means in a truly democratic country. It shows them how to participate in the democratic process. It shows them how we have taken the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and Solzhenitsyn and we have implemented them in a country that respects individualism and puts individualism higher than statism. It is a direct threat to communism. It is a direct threat to Mr. Putin. Because if you do this, Mr. Putin can't keep his $60 billion he has taken from corruption. He can't continue to make his people dependent upon the state. This is disruptive to him. It is a direct threat to him. That is why it is important.

Haven't we done enough for Mr. Putin's interests to cut this program by 43 percent by preventing these young emerging leaders from being able to come over to this country? Do we now have to deny Ukrainian leaders the ability to gain an understanding of what a country that is not corrupt, of what a country that respects individualism, respects democracy, respects equal justice under the law is all about?

That is what this program is all about. We spend half a trillion dollars on our military, and yet programs like this will accomplish more for sustainability of peace among nations by giving an opportunity for people to speak for themselves, to speak out for the rule of law, to speak against corruption. That is what we as a nation want. We don't want to dominate anybody else. We want to be an instrument of our values and our vision. We want to be that beacon of light and hope for other nations. This is one of the ways in which we achieve that objective. A small amount of money, but an enormously valuable contribution to world peace.

I thank my friend representing Princeton, New Jersey, who has a doctorate in physics, who is a ``Jeopardy!'' award winner, who is, perhaps, one of the most academically advanced Members of the Congress. It is interesting that he is the one who knows enough to know what we don't know in this Congress. My concern is that many of us don't know enough to know what we don't know.

Madam Chairman, the size of computers is shrinking by about 50 percent every couple of years, and their capacity--their power and their speed--is doubling, yet we can't understand the implications of that, which applies to all of our constituencies. We just mandated that 30 percent of the energy that the military spends, which is billions of dollars, has to be from non-carbon-polluting forms of energy. Do we know whether that is achievable? We just committed yesterday $11 billion for computer interoperability for electronic medical records.

We have to understand the implications of our decisions, and the OTA helps us to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act. This legislation would restrict the use of exotic, non-domesticated animals in traveling entertainment.

Based upon publically available research, including video and photographic evidence, it is clear that traveling circuses cannot provide proper living conditions for exotic animals. This legislation is intended to target the most egregious situations involving exotic and wild animals in traveling circuses. Keeping elephants in chains, confining lions and tigers in small cages, forcing them to perform unnatural tricks for the sole purpose of human amusement is increasingly difficult to justify the more we learn about these intelligent, social creatures.

The Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act would comprehensively tackle the use of all exotic animals in circuses. The bill would end the confinement of animals for extended periods in temporary facilities, stop cruel training and control methods employed by circuses, and limit the danger these animals pose to public safety. The bill intentionally targets only the most egregious conditions these exotic animals are subjected to and would not impact zoos, aquariums, rodeos or other static facilities with captive wildlife.

While this Congress needs to take action on a variety of issues vital to our nation's well-being, I believe we should also take the opportunity to focus public attention on instances of fundamental animal mistreatment. How we choose to treat animals is a reflection of our nation's values, for better or worse. Too often, however, inhumane activities are hidden, rarely discussed, and left to continue unabated.

The Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act will ensure this significant animal protection issue, the use of exotic animals in traveling entertainment, receives proper scrutiny. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important animal protection legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my very good friend, Judge Hastings of Florida. Thank you very much for your service to this country, Judge.

Mr. Speaker, my comments, although critical, will be in no way personally critical of my very good friend from Oklahoma with whom I serve on the Appropriations Committee. He knows my very high regard for his integrity, his judgment, his character; and I value our friendship.

I rise in opposition to this rule, not the Military Construction- Veterans part--because that is an open rule, that is not at issue--but with regard to the Legislative Branch.

There are several amendments that should not have been made in order, should not, in my view, have even been taken seriously, but the reason I oppose it is particularly because there was an amendment that was not made in order that should be discussed on the floor of this House.

I offered an amendment, a very modest one, to provide $25 a day to the Members in the form of a housing allowance for the days that we are in session--only the days we are in session. Now, we have been in session an average of 112 days per year recently, so that would have come out, not coincidentally, to exactly what our salaries would have been raised by, had there

not been a freeze included in this Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Frankly, it is an incentive for the Congress to be in session more days, but it is far more important than that. It would also have only applied to people who live more than 50 miles from Capitol Hill. I live 10 miles. In fact, it would not apply to any of us directly anyway because we can't raise our own salaries. It would only apply to future Congresses.

That is what this amendment is about. It is about the composition of this Congress, this institution, in the future, and that is why it is important.

I know it is not going to be popular among our constituents. When the word got out I suggested it in Mr. Cole's subcommittee and on full committee, we got hundreds of calls, all of them negative, most of them profane; but that doesn't mean that it is an issue that should not be discussed on the House floor.

We have denied pay increases to ourselves 11 times since I came into the Congress. There was a deal made a couple decades ago that said, if you don't receive money from speeches and honoraria, in return, the Congress will simply increase its pay by the cost of living each year, so it will be less politicized.

But what we did not only eliminated those outside sources of income, but we have in fact, politicized the issue by freezing our pay consistently. In fact, over the last 5 years, we have frozen our pay. This will be the sixth year in a row, and it is creating a serious problem, a problem that is only going to be exacerbated in the future.

I know the opinion of our constituents, but one of the things they may not be aware of is that the District of Columbia has one of the highest rental costs in the Nation. It is about $27,000 a year right now for a very modest rental apartment, and it goes up each year.

At the same time, since I came into the Congress, congressional pay has gone down by one-fifth. We are paying ourselves one-fifth less than we were in 1992, so it is very difficult for many Members to afford to live here.

This is the first time that this pay freeze has been included in a Legislative Branch appropriations bill. It sets a precedent, and it is a precedent that is going to be very difficult to reverse. I don't think either party is going to take it upon themselves to try to change this. It is going to become obligatory in each successive Legislative Branch appropriations bill.

So I suspect, 5, 10, 15 years from now, it is still going to be the same; and what is the result of that?

Well, it means that the Congress is probably going to be composed of two types of Members. One will be those Members who come in for one, two, three terms and then, frankly, cash out, go into the private sector, take advantage of that experience, albeit limited, in the Congress, and then provide well for their families.

The second class of Member is likely to be those who are independently wealthy, who, in fact, as some do, could afford to give back their salaries because they don't need it.

I thank the Member.

So what does that mean? It means those people who are in their thirties, and early forties, who have young families, who, in fact, have home mortgages, who have unpaid student loans, who are small business owners, they are all going to be less likely to represent our constituencies who are most represented by those folks who have difficulty meeting their costs day after day.

I think this is very dangerous. It is a dangerous precedent. We should be able to discuss it. And that is all we ask for. I didn't expect a positive vote, but I expected a discussion of a very important issue as to how this Congress is going to be represented in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 411, which specifically restricts the Defense Department from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

Striking section 411 would enable the U.S. military to be able to make the most responsible decisions on transferring the 77 detainees who have been cleared by our intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be able to go to their home countries and bring those not cleared for release to the United States to be charged, tried, and sentenced.

The Obama administration has made some real progress on this issue over the last year, but it is still the case that Guantanamo is a rallying cry for extremists around the world, and until we transfer and try these detainees, there is no denying that Guantanamo is in fact hurting our national security.

We need to reevaluate our response to the long-term threat of terrorism and realize that policies that mock the rule of law make it more likely, rather than less likely, that we will be attacked again.

How can we expect Americans who are captured abroad to be accorded the right to be sentenced and brought to trial when we hold 154 prisoners in Guantanamo without charge and without trial?

Some of my colleagues are going to argue that detaining or trying suspected terrorists in the United States would endanger national security, but it is not the case. More than 400 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11. That includes the Times Square bomber; the shoe bomber; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried and convicted in my congressional district for his role in the 9/11 attack.

All of them are in our prisons here in the United States. Most Americans don't know that because there haven't been any security incidents. In fact, more than 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons within the United States, with no escapes and no attempts to free them.

There are six Defense Department facilities less than half full where Guantanamo detainees could be held here in the United States.

The current approach of military commissions has proven unworkable because many of these prisoners merit a trial, but they are not getting the kind of trial that can withstand scrutiny. In fact, the only two guilty verdicts these commissions issued were both overturned.

Keeping Guantanamo open is expensive. We are currently spending $2.67 million per detainee each year at Guantanamo, compared to $34,046 per

inmate at a high security Federal prison here in the United States.

This year alone, the Defense Department estimates that it will spend $443 million in operations and personnel costs to operate this detention facility.

When we are facing the negative effects of sequestration, it just does not make sense to continue what is in effect a permanent scar on our judicial system.

In conclusion, the political and legal expediency of the detention center at Guantanamo has not been worth the cost to America's reputation around the world, nor to the erosion of our own legal and ethical standards here at home.

I support the President in his recent statements, and I encourage the Members of this body to support this amendment. It is the right thing to do morally, ethically, and legally.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us reflects the concerns that Congress has had over senior executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs receiving performance bonuses when VA hospital standards were not up to par and when we continue to see a backlog of disability claims.

I share those concerns that VA truly does need to tackle. But recent actions taken by this Congress through the good work of the MilCon Appropriations Subcommittee and the Veterans Administration have, in fact, improved the operational efficiency of those hospitals and reduced the backlog.

The VA has also instituted much greater transparency in the process of awarding bonuses for its Senior Executive Service. In fact, VA has centralized senior executive award decisions. They have added an additional level of review in consideration of those awards. And the VA has significantly reduced the value of those awards compared to prior years. Most importantly, the Secretary has already demonstrated his willingness to use the bonus system as a way to reward and penalize staff based on their performance. As it stands, the Secretary has all the authority he needs to use bonuses to influence performance.

I think this amendment is something of a political ploy, Mr. Chairman. It is designed to misdirect our frustrations to the good men and women who have chosen to serve their government in the civilian workforce. I take serious issue with this very popular practice of continuing to punish a workforce that is predominantly composed of hardworking Federal servants that have already suffered a disproportionate amount.

If we want to retain the individuals that make up what is, in fact, the best large Federal civil service in the world, we need to change this culture very quickly. After 3 years of pay freezes, pension cuts, pay cuts, and furloughs, our Senior Executive Service, which is largely composed of the best of the best in the Federal workforce, has, at the very least, earned these bonuses.

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that Federal employees in highly skilled professions could be earning much more in the private sector. Why do they choose public service? Not for monetary gain but for love of country and the opportunity to make people's lives better, particularly our veterans. But they have families to feed and mortgages to pay and children to send to college. Where does it end?

No matter how many times this House majority says the government can't solve problems, can't create jobs, can't help the American people, it will never be the case. The fact is this government does help the American people. We should be proud of our government, not punish our civil servants. And the fact is that you can find far more veterans who are appreciative of the good work that the people in the Veterans Administration do than those who disparage it.

So I would urge rejection of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize April as IBS Awareness Month. Irritable bowel syndrome, or IBS, is a functional gastrointestinal disorder. It is characterized by recurring abdominal pain or discomfort related to changes in intestinal function. Other GI symptoms, such as nausea or bloating, and non-GI symptoms, such as sleep disturbances or headache, may often occur. IBS affects up to 15 percent of the U.S. population and accounts for roughly 40 percent of all referrals to gastroenterologists.

There is no cure and there are few treatments options for IBS, many of which are only marginally effective. Individuals with moderate to severe IBS struggle with symptoms that significantly limit their physical, emotional, economic, and social well-being. For example, a recent study found that employees with IBS had higher average total healthcare costs, and significantly higher medically related work absenteeism.

People of all ages are affected by IBS. One study found that 14 percent of high school students and six percent of middle school students have IBS. Children with IBS are also more likely to experience anxiety and depression and a disruption of normal activities and social interactions. In addition, veterans and active military personnel are disproportionately represented by those suffering from IBS and other functional gastrointestinal disorders due to their exposure to increased risk factors.

I am encouraged by efforts by non-profits to provide education, support, and advancing research. Recently, the International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (IFFGD) developed a smart- phone app that allows patients to access information on IBS, including treatment options. These are the kind of new initiatives that need advancing so that the millions of Americans with IBS can be treated more effectively.

I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support research efforts and to raise awareness for IBS. As an institution, let's agree to lessen the stigma for IBS patients and urge those who may be affected by IBS to find out more and get the help they need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the American Medical Group Foundation, based in Alexandria, Virginia, for hosting the first ever Measure Up/Pressure DownTM National Day of Action: Roll Up Your Sleeves! on May 15, 2014. On this day, medical groups, health systems, partners, and sponsors across the nation will take one ``action'' to improve blood pressure control in their communities. The services will range from free blood pressure screenings and patient education, to employee brown bag lunches and media outreach.

The Measure Up/Pressure DownTM initiative is a national campaign that raises awareness and control of blood pressure by working with more than 150 medical groups and health systems, partner organizations, and sponsors. High blood pressure (hypertension) is one of the biggest risk factors for heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and diabetes complications. Nearly one out of three American adults has high blood pressure. Yet out of these 68 million people, only half have the condition under control.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the American Medical Group Foundation's contributions to healthier communities, applaud their national day of action, and ask that my colleagues and their staffs consider taking part in this important event.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mrs. Jill Roth for winning The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers Association of America's ``Young Agent of the Year'' award. Mrs. Roth and her family reside in McLean Virginia, within Virginia's 8th Congressional District. Jill serves as the Executive Vice President in the Ahart Frinzi & Smith Alexandria, Virginia office. In that role, Jill has worked tirelessly to serve our areas insurance needs.

In granting the award, the Association recognized Mrs. Roth's hard work, her passion, and her dedication to civic involvement. The annual award is given to only one outstanding agent per year.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my hearty congratulations to Jill Roth and her coworkers at Ahart, Frinzi & Smith for this achievement. I wish her the best of luck in all of her future endeavors, and I'm proud to serve as her representative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize April as IBS Awareness Month.

IBS, or Irritable Bowel Syndrome, is a gastrointestinal disorder that alters how the digestive tract functions.

It can cause extreme pain, alter lifestyles, and cost an individual thousands of dollars on healthcare expenditures.

There is no single cause of IBS, and no single cure.

Studies estimate IBS affects up to 20 percent of the adult population. However, only 5 to 7 percent of the adult population has been diagnosed with the condition.

This is partly because individuals with IBS are less likely to seek treatment.

Many are afraid of the stigma that is associated with the disorder.

People need to know that they don't need to suffer in silence. There are many ways to treat and manage IBS.

The first step is to find out about IBS, and have your questions answered.

As an institution, let's agree to lessen the stigma for IBS patients and urge those who may be affected to find out more and seek treatment.

Offered by: Mr. Moran

Amendment No. 5: Page 60, beginning on line 10, strike

section 411.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a very important organization based in my congressional district. Founded in Alexandria, Virginia, in 1989, The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) coordinates unbiased, scientifically rigorous water quality research among teams of federal, state, and local agencies that represent over 75 percent of the U.S. population served by waste water treatments plants, of the U.S. Under the leadership of founding Executive Director Glenn Reinhardt, WERF has grown from a few employees to a highly respected national center of water quality research with a full-time staff of 23 and an annual budget of over $10 million. The foundation's efforts have improved human and ecological health, fostered new water quality management processes and spear-headed the development of new technologies.

WERF has managed nearly 550 research projects, valued at more than $130 million, with $19 million (cash and in-kind) work ongoing annually. Its research has helped create many new tools for restoring water quality and informed better state and federal regulation, saving the U.S. water quality community well as much as $2 billion over the last twenty years. For instance, WERF's watershed trading demonstration projects led to hundreds of millions in regulatory savings while its investment of only $92,500 into new sewer designs, materials, and rehabilitation techniques reduced annual costs at wastewater collection systems nationwide by at least $75 million.

In times when federal spending on wastewater infrastructure continues to fall in real and inflation adjusted terms WERF research provides one of the few means to control or reduce the staggering cost of essential infrastructure upgrades, which by some estimates approach $500 billion over the next twenty years.

WERF focuses on the critical issues as identified by its subscribers, including wastewater infrastructure management, wet weather (runoff) control, biosolids handling, and wastewater utility responses to climate change. Newer challenges rising up the research agenda include nutrient removal, wastewater utility operations optimization, trace organics effects, wastewater services and costs, green infrastructure, and recovering energy from wastewater.

For many years, WERF received federal funding through Appropriation Committees on which I have served. Those funds have been leveraged at a 3:1 or better rate with monies largely from local wastewater treatment facilities. This highly successful public/private partnership should be celebrated and expanded, and I ask Congress to redouble its efforts to support water quality research. My congratulations to the entire WERF staff and volunteers for their fine work on behalf of us all and for reaching this significant milestone.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations are in order for a job well done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend congratulations to my constituent, Iram Ali, on her appointment to the Senior Executive Service at the Department of Defense as the White House liaison. Iram served in this body as a distinguished professional staff member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence under Chairman Reyes. After briefly working in the Senate, Iram was recruited by the Obama Administration to serve in the Department of Defense as the legislative lead for the Under Secretary for Policy.

She now returns to the Department with the duty of ensuring the President has the right personnel in place to implement his policies, a position of great responsibility and distinction. As one of the few Muslim-Americans serving in such senior positions, Iram represents the finest qualities of a public servant and is an asset to her nation. I am honored to have her as a constituent, and I wish her all of the best in her new position.