Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Public Service Academy Act of 2009, which will create the first stand alone university dedicated solely to producing highly qualified and well-trained civilian public servants.

The new century has brought immense challenges that require strong and prepared, competent and committed public servants. On the eve of the retirement of the baby-boom generation, our nation presses for a new generation of teachers, firefighters, and federal employees to fill the potential void these retirees will leave. Our civil servants will have to address the need to finance entitlement costs in an age of trillion dollar deficits; the need to educate and train a workforce that can compete and prosper in a global economy; the need to provide quality affordable healthcare; the need to protect and preserve the planet's fragile environment; the need to negotiate and reconcile differences with foreign nations; and the need to deter terrorism and keep our nation safe and secure. All of these challenges will require a professional public workforce, and yet because of shifting demographics our civil service faces a wave of retirement over the next decade that threatens the effective operation of government.

For these reasons, it is critically important that Congress provide young Americans with the best education and training that will allow them to become our nation's future leaders. Young Americans are ready to answer the call. According to the Higher Education Research Institute, approximately 70 percent of the 2007 freshman class expressed a desire to serve others. Applications to programs like Teach for America and City Year along with religious missions involving young Americans have greatly increased. A 2008 poll conducted by Social Sphere Strategies found that 88% of 18-29-year-olds supported the Public Service Academy, with 57% saying that they ``likely'' would have considered applying to the Academy had it been available when they were applying to college. College presidents, news publications and some of the leading voices in public service--both Democrat and Republican-- have endorsed the creation of the Academy.

Now is the time to tap into American's renewed sense of civic obligation and offer an avenue to serve others. Yet, the cost of pursuing public service opportunities after graduation is often prohibitive because college tuition has increased dramatically in the past decade--47 percent at private schools and 63 percent at public schools. As a result of these soaring tuitions, the average college graduate owes about $20,000, an increase of more than 50 percent in the past decade. These potential public servants often overburdened by the debts of college and university loans, are forced to choose more lucrative private sector jobs over public service opportunities.

Modeled after the military service academies, the Public Service Academy will provide a four-year, federally-assisted college education for more than 5,000 students a year in exchange for a five-year commitment to public service in areas such as education, public health, law enforcement, and local, state and the federal government. With its mission critical to the health of our public service, the Academy will strive to recruit the top students and faculty from around the United States, require intensive courses in leadership and public service, and eventually help place students in positions throughout the public sphere. Moreover, by providing students with a federally-funded education, the stress of debt would be eliminated, and their commitment to the public service sector for at least five years could lead to lifelong service.

Madam Speaker, last year, over 120 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives joined in the effort to create the Public Service Academy. I am encouraged by the early support of over 25 cosponsors in just a few weeks of circulating this year's proposal. The time to create a United States Public Service Academy is now. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the committees of jurisdiction to bring attention to this issue and make the Public Service Academy a reality.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge this week as Molecular Imaging Week. During this week, the molecular imaging and therapy community at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, and corporations around the world, will educate Congress and the public about health policy issues related to molecular imaging and therapy.

Annually, more than 20 million men, women, and children need noninvasive molecular/nuclear medicine procedures. These safe, cost- effective procedures include: positron emission tomography (PET) scans to diagnose and monitor treatment of cancer, diagnose neurological disease such as Alzheimer's and stroke, cardiac stress tests to analyze heart function, bone scans for orthopedic injuries and follow-up for breast and prostate cancer patients, and lung scans for blood clots. Patients also undergo procedures to diagnose liver and gall bladder abnormal function and to diagnose and treat hyperthyroidism and thyroid cancer.

Molecular imaging and therapy procedures provide safe, painless, and cost-effective techniques to image the body and treat disease. These procedures are crucial in the early diagnosis of cancer, renal disease, cardiac disease, and Alzheimer's. Imaging procedures often identify abnormalities very early in the progress of a disease--long before many medical problems are apparent with other diagnostic tests. The techniques that are used in molecular imaging include radiotracer imaging/nuclear medicine, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), optical imaging, the PET scan, ultrasound and others.

Molecular imaging offers unique insights that allow a more targeted approach to evaluation and management of heart disease. It also plays a pivotal role in guiding the management of cancer: diagnosis, staging (extent and location), assessing therapeutic targets, monitoring therapy, and evaluating prognosis; and is playing an increasingly significant role in conditions such as: tumors, dementias (Alzheimer's and other), movement disorders, seizures disorders and psychiatric disorders.

Why is molecular imaging important? It is revolutionizing the practice of medicine and is critical to quality health care. Molecular imaging delivers on the promise of ``personalized medicine''--it can provide patient-specific information that allows tailored treatment of disease. It can show a precise (molecular) level of detail that provides new information for diagnosis, for determining which kinds of therapy will and will not work for which patient, and for tracking the results of a specific therapy to see exactly how well it is working. It is also key to the development of pharmaceuticals and genetic therapy. Molecular therapy utilizes targeting molecules that deliver the therapeutic agent directly to the site of interest, bypassing normal tissue that is responsible for the toxic side effects of many current therapies.

Based in Reston, Virginia, the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) is an international scientific and professional organization founded in 1954 to promote the science, technology and practical application of nuclear medicine. Its 16,000 members are physicians, technologists and scientists specializing in the research and practice of molecular imaging and nuclear medicine. In 2005, SNM created the Molecular Imaging Center of Excellence, an organizational component within SNM, dedicated to all aspects of molecular imaging in the detection and management of disease. The primary focal areas of the Center are educational programs, professional and intersociety networking, and serving as a resource for development and implementation of SNM policy in this specialized area.

I applaud SNM and its members for their efforts to educate others on this major healthcare innovation during Molecular Imaging Week (April 19-25), and I urge my Colleagues to join me in supporting policies that will continue to keep our nation on the cutting edge of molecular imaging research.

Madam Speaker, since the mid-1990's the authority to regulate the towing industry had been in limbo. Through a provision slipped into the Federal Aviation Administration Act of 1994 that defined the tow truck industry as an interstate carrier, state and local regulatory authority of tow truck operations has been preempted. One year later, passage of the Interstate Commerce Termination Act struck down the federal regulatory body that oversaw the towing industry.

With no federal regulator and confusing restrictions and conflicting court rulings on what states and localities are permitted to regulate, no level of government has been able to adequately regulate the towing industry. This lack of regulatory authority has led to more than a decade of major consumer abuses by some unscrupulous towing companies across the country. These bad actors have continued to taint an otherwise much needed and respectable profession.

Complaints about exorbitant towing fees and abusive operators grew so bad that in 2005, Congress agreed, through an amendment to the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act--a Legacy of Users (SAFETEA-LU), to allow some limited state regulation in the area on non-consensual towing. The amendment also directed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study to identify additional means to protect the rights of individuals whose vehicles are towed.

That study offers some recommendations that track with conclusions I made several years ago, that consumers and tow truck operators would be better served by removing the last vestiges of federal preemption. It notes that consumers needing redress for overcharges today or other unfair treatment would: no longer be in the Catch-22 position of having their State case thrown out on preemption grounds only to find that they may have no real recourse at the Federal level either. Since business practices vary from place to place, it may also be more practical to have nonconsensual towing regulated by the States rather than by the Federal Government.

States are the more logical place to regulate towing. They already have an established body of law in place to do so. This legislation I am introducing today will bring those laws back into effect.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Michael F. Jaggard, Captain, USN (RET), who is retiring after more than 41 years of faithful service to our Nation, as both a military officer and career civilian employee. He has offered selfless dedication to which we are all grateful.

In 1967, Mr. Jaggard began his federal career in the United States Army as an Infantryman, serving with the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment in the Republic of Vietnam from January 1968 to January 1969. Upon his release from active duty, Mr. Jaggard returned to civilian life and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Texas A&I University in 1971.

Mr. Jaggard continued his government service by enlisting in the United States Navy in 1973. Upon graduating from Officer Candidate School and until 1977, he served as the Supply Officer aboard the USS Will Rogers (SSBN 659). He subsequently worked as an instructor at the Navy Supply Corps School in Athens, Georgia, and in 1979 he served as Assistant Supply Officer aboard the USS Emory S. Land. Upon completion of that tour in 1981, he attended the Navy Postgraduate School where he earned a Masters of Science in Management degree.

After graduate school, Mr. Jaggard became a Principal Contracting Officer at the Naval Sea Systems Command for four years. From 1986 through 2001, he continued his federal career completing many successful tours in the Navy, assuming various leadership roles that have taken him across the world. He served as the Executive Officer and Commanding Officer of the Naval Regional Contracting Center, Philadelphia; Submarine Supply Support Officer to the Commander Submarine Force, US; Supply Officer aboard the USS Orion home ported in La Maddalena, Italy; Commander, Defense Contract Management Command, United Kingdom; and Deputy Commander for Contracts at the Naval Sea Systems Command.

On October 1, 2001, Mr. Jaggard retired from the Navy as a Captain. Upon retirement he was appointed to the Senior Executive Service in the civilian ranks and served as the Chief of Staff/Policy to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Acquisition & Logistics Management in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. He has been taking on the challenges of military acquisition and procurement ever since.

It is through the commitment and sacrifice of Americans like Mr. Mike Jaggard that our nation is able to continue upon the path of democracy and strive for the betterment of mankind. I am proud, Madam Speaker, as a fellow Virginian, to thank him and his family for his long and honorable service to our nation. On behalf of the citizens of Virginia's Eighth Congressional District, I wish him fair winds and following seas as he concludes a distinguished career.

Madam Speaker, a couple of recent Washington Post headlines deserve mentioning on the House floor. The first was on March 16, where the Red Cross Confirmed that the United States Violated International Laws Against Torture.

Last Sunday's article points out that that torture policy applied to an individual by the name of Abu Zubaida sent our government officials on any number of false leads. It produced no reliable information. It turns out that that suspect, Abu Zubaida, wasn't even an official member of al Qaeda. He told our professional interrogators what he knew to be true, until--under pressure from the Cheney White House to torture him--he sent our government on any number of false leads. As usual, people being tortured tell you what they know that you want to hear in order to stop the torture.

The point for the Congress to act on is that if we are ever going to prevail in our struggle against violent extremism, we need to stand up for America's defining principles of equal justice under the law. We have to hold those people accountable who pressured and enabled American government officials to perform actions that were counterproductive to our national security, that were illegal, and were immoral, and thus were anti-American. Only through such judicial accountability can we regain the moral high ground and once again lead the world by practicing what our founders preached.

Madam Speaker, I was not intending to speak, but it does seem to me there should be some historical accuracy within the Congressional Record. And while the gentlelady from North Carolina is certainly entitled to her own set of opinions, she is not entitled to her own set of facts. So let me review some of the facts in terms of the economic history she purported to describe.

I agree that we did have a substantial fiscal crisis in the 1980s, but it was the Bush administration that has told us that today we are faced with the most severe fiscal crisis since the Great Depression.

Now in the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was elected on a platform that any President who submitted an unbalanced budget should be impeached. Well, not only did he never balance any budget that he submitted, he tripled the national debt. Every single budget was unbalanced.

President Bush, the 41st President--referred to as Papa Bush or whatever; it's important to distinguish between the two--in 1990, realizing how bad the Republicans' supply-side gimmickry had failed, what damage it had done to the economy, he brought the Democratic leaders and the Republicans together and came up with a fiscal plan. That plan put together by the 41st President, formed the foundation of fiscal responsibility for the next decade. It was called PAYGO. And it worked. Basically, you don't cut taxes unless you cut spending and vice versa. You don't increase spending unless you raise that same amount of revenues.

So we implemented that, and then President Clinton came in, passed a balanced budget, adopted that President Bush the 41st PAYGO concept, and, in fact, balanced the budget. That produced surpluses. And, in fact, at the end of the Clinton administration, he handed over $5.6 trillion of projected surplus based upon this concept of fiscal responsibility.

President Bush took it--this is the 43rd President now--takes that $5.6 trillion and immediately started squandering it by negating the concept of PAYGO. One of the first things that was done by the immediate past-Bush administration was to say, ``We are no longer going to be bound by PAYGO concepts. We'll cut taxes and we'll increase spending.'' They started a war of choice that cost us $1 trillion--not one dime was ever paid for--and then passed two tax cuts which have cost trillions of dollars, $3.5 trillion. Not one dime was ever cut to pay for that, either.

So here we are now with the largest deficit we have ever faced, a deficit that is greater than the deficit created by all the previous Presidents in American history, and basically it was because we had a Congress of the same party as the White House who got all the spending programs they wanted, primarily in the defense area, and cut all the taxes they chose.

Now, of course, the money was not well distributed, and that's one of the problems. It went to the wealthiest people in the country. In fact, one of our problems is that more than 90 percent of the income growth that has occurred over the last 8 years went to the top 10 percent. 90 percent of this country's wealth is now controlled by 1 percent of our population. And that's one of the reasons why the bottom 90 percent had to borrow from their assets, their equities, their homes which created this bubble.

But the point is, there was a lack of fiscal responsibility, and that is what is plaguing us today. This President is trying to reinvest in the American people, ultimately balance the budget and put us back on the course that President Clinton set us on and that Democrats want to put us back on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill and, particularly, for three bills that I was proud to sponsor that are included, the FERS Redeposit bill, the Part-Time Compensation, and the Parity For Retirement Systems. I want to mention a word about the parity for retirement systems.

At a time when those who are in the Federal Employee Retirement System are seeing their Thrift Savings Plans tank by 30, sometimes 40 percent, it's particularly important that they be fully compensated for unused sick leave. The reality is that, in the earlier retirement system, the so-called CSRS system, Federal employees are fully compensated for all unused sick leave at the end of their careers. But under the FERS system, if they don't use that sick leave, they lose it. And so the Government loses $68 million in productivity from those employees who take their sick leave at the very end of their careers. That's not an intelligent plan, and the fact is that this bill corrects that disparity.

The entire bill should be passed, and I hope we'll have bipartisan support for it. And I thank Mr. Lynch for his leadership on behalf of Federal employees.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, I was inadvertently delayed from making the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Access to Justice Act. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a right for an alien to file a motion to reopen a case in removal proceedings if the alien can demonstrate that counsel or a certified representative provided deficient performance.

In one of his last actions as Attorney General, Michael Mukasey ruled that immigrants have no constitutional right to effective legal representation in deportation hearings. After more than 20 years of precedent in special immigration courts overseen by the Justice Department, those now facing deportation have no remedy for the errors committed by incompetent, inattentive lawyers, or even those who claim to be lawyers.

This 11th hour regulation not only goes counter to what has already been established by a long line of decisions in the federal courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals but also is a matter of equal protection/due process. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated in an opinion, ``Vulnerable immigrants are preyed upon by unlicensed notaries and unscrupulous appearance attorneys who extract fees in exchange for false promises and shoddy, ineffective representation.''

The Supreme Court has found that non-citizens are ineligible for court appointed counsel in civil cases. Removal proceedings are not considered criminal and therefore, immigrants who are in the process of being deported must find their own counsel. Judge Katzmann on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said in a recent New York Times article, ``Justice should not depend on the income level of immigrants.'' A study in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics found that only 35% of individuals in removal proceedings had counsel; yet asylum seekers who have counsel are three times more likely to succeed in their claim compared to those without representation.

Because of this Supreme Court decision incompetent legal representation is now ``discretionary'' and thus unreviewable. So the former Attorney General, the final arbiter in immigration cases, decided in his final hours in office without any consultation with Congress that the 6th amendment right to counsel only applies to criminals, not to non-criminals who have privately retained lawyers in civil removal proceedings. Imagine in our great melting pot of an immigrant nation a decision that gives greater access to justice to those who might have committed a felony more than to those who want to be Americans. When a lawyer fails to show up to court or forgets to file the required paperwork, the individual being deported will have no legal right to appeal on the grounds of deficient counsel.

That is why I am introducing The Access to Justice Act, a bill that would create a legislative fix to the Mukasey decision. This bill creates a right to file a motion to reopen a removal case if deficient performance of counsel can be demonstrated. To provide relief to

those who are currently in removal proceedings under this decision, enactment of this bill would allow them to file an appeal.

I urge my colleagues to support the Access to Justice Act. This important and urgent legislation will bring justice to those affected by Mukasey's midnight ruling and ensure fairness in removal proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, we will never know how many millions of people around the world have suffered debilitating, shorter lives from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, and a host of other illnesses and diseases as a result of President Bush's decision to severely restrict stem-cell research.

But we do know that human civilization has only progressed when its leaders had the courage to resist religious, political and economic dogma in pursuit of truth and scientific discovery. Science and medical research offers us all an opportunity to reduce human suffering and advance human potential. I believe that is God's will.

President Obama did the right thing in reversing that anti-science presidential directive, but now it is up to the Congress to reverse the existing Congressional restriction on Federal funding of stem-cell research.

I am honored to have a moment to speak on this resolution, and deeply grateful to Chairman Skelton for introducing it and advancing it.

You know, they say that an army travels on its stomach. In other words, the physical well-being of an army has to be taken into consideration. They have to be well fed, they have to be cared for.

The way you win wars though, comes from the heart and mind of our soldiers, sailors, and airmen. And the way that you motivate them is to assure them that this country is providing for their families. That is what they care about more than anything else.

When they go to war, when they choose to serve this country in the Armed Services, their principal motivation, really, is their family. They are doing this to provide security to their children, to their parents, to their loved ones. And that is what this resolution is all about, recognizing the indispensable role that military families play.

We have lost more than 2,000 parents of young children in Iraq. But hundreds of thousands have known that when they say goodbye to their daddy or mommy, they may not see them again. And they have to live with that reality.

They comfort each other, families get to know each other, provide a support network. But it's absolutely essential that we, as a Nation, understand that we are putting these families on the front line. That they are prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice, that they are fully prepared to do whatever it takes to ensure that we have soldiers, sailors, airmen and women who will go to war, will risk their lives, knowing that they have the support of their families at home.

Now, we have tried to put more money into the veterans' bill to improve health care, particularly the type of health care that we have found a particular compelling need for--permanent brain injury, post- traumatic stress disorder, mental illnesses--that have increased dramatically in the last few years, particularly with IEDs and the violence that they cause in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when they come home, if we don't adequately treat them, the price is paid by the family.

It's the family that has to deal with sometimes uncontrollable violent urges, where the veteran of combat finds it difficult to control themselves, to make that transition to the society in which they need to take on the role of husband, wife, or parent.

All of these challenges are even greater than they have ever been before. And that is why this Congress, this Nation, needs to take every opportunity to focus on the needs of these families who show real patriotism and real loyalty to the principles and ideals and values of this Nation, and are willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to uphold those principles, ideals, and values, even the risk of loss of a loved one.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for introducing, for promoting this resolution and, most importantly, I thank you for being conscious of what this resolution is all about every single day throughout the year in the legislation that the Armed Services Committee and your colleagues in the Congress pass. It has to be a priority.

So, I know this will pass unanimously, and I appreciate the fact that it's offered on the floor today.

Madam Speaker, in 2006 representatives and leaders of Virginia's Native American tribes left their communities and flew to England to participate in ceremonies that were a prelude to the 400th anniversary of the first permanent English settlement in America. Some of the distinguished Virginia residents who made this trip are the blood descendants and leaders of the surviving seven tribes that once were a part of the Great Powhatan Confederacy that initially helped sustain the colonists during their difficult first years at Jamestown. Virginia's best known Indian, Pocahontas, traveled to England in 1617 with her husband John Rolfe and was received by English royalty. She died a year later of smallpox and is buried in the chapel of the parish church in Gravesend, England.

Two years ago, this nation celebrated the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. But it was not a celebration for Native American descendants of Pocahontas, for they have yet to be recognized by our federal government. Unlike most Native American tribes that were officially recognized when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six Native American tribes made their peace with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and King Charles II. This treaty has been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the past 331 years when the Governor accepts tribute from the tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the State Capitol. I had the honor of attending last November what is understood to be the longest celebrated treaty in the United States.

The forefathers of the tribal leaders who gathered last Thanksgiving in Richmond were the first to welcome the English, and during the first few years of settlement, ensured their survival. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who resisted quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia tribes survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their story of survival spans four centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions.

The Virginia tribes' history, however, diverges from that of most Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the federal government; the second explains why congressional action is needed today. First, by the time the federal government was established in 1789, the Virginia tribes were in no position to seek recognition. They had already lost control of their land, withdrawn into isolated communities and stripped of most of their rights. Lacking even the rights granted by the English Kings, and our own Bill of Rights, federal recognition was nowhere within their reach.

The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced at the hands of the state government during the first half of the 20th Century. It has been called a ``paper genocide.'' At a time when the federal government granted Native Americans the right to vote, Virginia's elected officials adopted racially hostile laws targeted at those classes of people who did not fit into the dominant white society. The fact that some of Virginia's ruling elite claimed to be blood descendants of Pocahontas in their view meant that no one else in Virginia could make a claim they were Native American and a descendant of Pocahontas' people. To do so would mean that Virginia's ruling elite were what they decreed all non-whites to be: part of ``the inferior Negroid race.''

With great hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed policies that culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act directed state officials, and zealots like Walter Plecker, to destroy state and local courthouse records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity.

To call oneself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. In defiance of the law, members of Virginia's tribes traveled out of state to obtain marriage licenses or to serve their country in wartime. The law remained in effect until it was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period between 1924 and 1967, state officials waged a war to destroy all public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian identity.

All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one fraught with complications that officials from the bureau have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable delays, and lacking in dignity. Virginia's paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon them.

It wasn't until 1997, when Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct state records, that the tribes were given the opportunity to correct official state documents that had deliberately been altered to list them as ``colored.'' The law allows living members of the tribes to correct their records, but the law cannot correct the damage done to past generations or recover documents that were purposely destroyed during the ``Plecker Era.''

In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly adopted a resolution calling upon Congress to enact legislation recognizing the Virginia tribes. I am pleased to have honored that request, and beginning in 2000 and in subsequent sessions, Virginia's Senators and I have introduced legislation to recognize the Virginia tribes.

There is no doubt that the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Nansemond, the Rappahannock and the Upper Mattaponi tribes exist. These tribes have existed on a continuous basis since before the first European settlers stepped foot in America. They are here with us today.

I know there is resistance in Congress to grant any Native American tribe federal recognition. And I can appreciate how the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimensions has influenced many Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues. The six Virginia tribes are not seeking federal legislation so that they can build casinos. They find this assertion offensive to their moral beliefs. They are seeking federal recognition because it is an urgent matter of justice and because elder members of their tribes, who were denied a public education and the economic opportunities available to most Americans, are suffering and should be entitled to the federal health and housing assistance available to federally recognized tribes.

To underscore this point, the legislation I am introducing includes language approved last session by the House of Representatives that would prevent the tribes from engaging in gaming on their federal land even if everyone else in Virginia were allowed to engage in Class III casino-type gaming.

In the name of decency, fairness and humanity, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and bring closure to centuries of injustice Virginia's Native American tribes have experienced.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Marwan Burgan, community activist, human rights leader, Democratic Party stalwart and dear personal friend. Marwan's long struggle with cancer has ended, but the contributions he made to Northern Virginia, particularly within the Arab American community, will continue as a lasting tribute to his life.

By his own example of civic engagement and leadership, Marwan served as a remarkable model for other first-generation Palestinian Americans. In 2008, he founded PACE

(Project for American Civic Engagement), to facilitate placement of underrepresented young people into Congress as interns and staff. His devotion to public service and efforts to politically empower young people, especially in the Arab American community, has charted a course for a next generation of engaged, enlightened and energetic leaders.

A lifelong civil servant, Marwan worked in Congress for eight years, first as a Foreign Affairs Legislative Assistant, then Legislative Director, and finally as Chief of Staff for former Congressman Mervyn Dymally. Later in his career, he dived into local government, serving as Chief Aide to Penny Gross, a member of the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County.

Ever since moving to Northern Virginia in the late 1980's, Marwan was heavily involved in local politics and the Democratic Party in Virginia. In his home county of Fairfax, he served as Vice-Chair of Fairfax County Democratic Committee (FCDC) for Voter Registration, chaired the Local Affairs Committee for FCDC and until his death, served on the Steering Committee for the Democratic Party of Virginia.

On the night he passed away, Marwan was planning to attend a dinner with Speaker Pelosi and Northern Virginia leaders at my home. He was feeling especially weak that day and had to decline. I wish he had been able to come. Despite his pain, it would have brought a smile to his lips to hear the Speaker explain how close we are to achieving universal healthcare and economic opportunity for all Americans and the renewed hope for peace throughout the world--issues he had spent his life fighting for.

Madam Speaker, when someone dies so young, it's important that we bear in mind the real tragedy of life is not at death but what dies inside of us while we live. In that sense Marwan lived a long and fruitful life. He never lost his passion, courage or commitment for justice and human rights. Without Marwan its now up to us to stand up and speak out all the louder for what he cared about: dignity of all human beings, the end of the violence and oppression which in many parts of the world is taken for granted, and the love of each other as precious instruments of our God.

Madam Speaker I rise today to recognize the 25th Anniversary of the Alexandria Transit Company's (ATC) Operation of the City's DASH Bus System. DASH stands for Driving Alexandrians Safely Home.

Back during the early 1980s, Alexandria Mayor Charles ``Chuck'' Beatley had a vision of a local bus system that would serve the transit needs of the Alexandria community and provide high quality transit service for its residents, workers, and visitors.

Mayor Beatley could have done no better than to name Mr. William B. ``Bill'' Hurd as the first chairman of the Alexandria Transit Company. In Mr. Hurd, Mayor Beatley found not only a person who shared his vision of a new transit service, but also a supremely competent administrator who worked tirelessly for the next 22 years to create and sustain the DASH service. During his tenure as chairman, he delivered safe and reliable service with clean buses and friendly, courteous drivers.

Today, ATC is recognized nationally and throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia for the service it provides and has won many outstanding achievement awards over the years, including the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) System Safety Award for five consecutive years, the APTA Public Transportation System Outstanding Achievement Award, the Governor's Transportation Safety Award, the APTA first place AdWheels Marketing Award for innovative and creative marketing efforts for four years, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) Outstanding Urban Public Transportation System Award, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) Innovative Program Award for six years, and the Virginia Transit Association (VTA) Outstanding Public Transportation Marketing Award for the ``Dash About'' service and ``DASHing Around Alexandria'' campaign. ATC was also recognized three years in a row by the Alexandria community as one of the top five city services for quality.

Today DASH continues to provide clean, safe, affordable and reliable service every day to thousands of commuters, city residents, and visitors, but it has also grown to meet the needs of a growing city and the changing times. Over the past 25 years ridership has grown by more than 330 percent. Annual ridership has eclipsed four million. Fourteen thousand people ride DASH everyday and 10,000 ride on weekends. Service has grown from 582,000 service miles in the first full year of service in 1985 to more than. 1.5 million service miles today.

Alexandria has many amenities as a charming, livable community; its historic homes and gardens, its street side restaurants and shops, the Potomac waterfront and its engaged, civic-minded citizenry. DASH contributes to Alexandria's high quality of life by preserving the city's livability, mitigating traffic, improving circulation and mobility throughout the City, and providing easier access to local businesses, retail and employment centers, residential developments, and the regional Metrorail and the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail systems.

And as we begin to focus on the environmental challenges of air pollution and global warming, DASH has a key roll to play in promoting a less carbon intense alternative to the automobile. To demonstrate its commitment to a greener, eco-friendly city, the new DASH building under construction will be a LEED Certified Silver building.

I salute ATC and DASH for twenty-five years of superb service. I also salute its employees and the Board of Directors, for their contributions and efforts to improve public transportation service throughout the City, for their achievements that have been recognized both nationally and by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and in providing the highest quality of service to Alexandria.

I wish them a successful future.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act,'' legislation that will reduce our nation's contribution to global warming by addressing the methane gas that escapes from municipal solid waste landfills.

Hardly a week goes by without reports of new evidence that the world climate is changing because of human activities that are putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Scientists predict that as the earth warms, droughts and flooding will become more severe, threatening the world's food supply. Warmer ocean waters are producing expanding oxygen-depleted zones that are unable to support sea life. Higher temperatures are shrinking the Arctic ice cap, threatening coastal communities with rising sea levels and destroying the habitat that polar bears depend

on for survival. It is imperative that we look at all the options available to us for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

While most of us are familiar with the harmful effects of CO2, methane is a greenhouse gas that is even more harmful. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that methane is over 20 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2. Decomposing waste in landfills is the largest source of U.S. anthropogenic methane emissions, accounting for approximately 24 percent of these emissions. About 138 million tons of municipal solid waste were discarded into 1,754 landfills in 2006, according to EPA estimates. Municipal and other landfills emitted over 6 million metric tons of methane gas into the atmosphere in 2005, the equivalent of 132 million tons of CO2.

The Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act will create a new national program to address these emissions. By requiring the owner or operator of a municipal solid waste landfill to collect a modest fee on each ton of waste disposed of, revenue will be made available to support programs to reduce the amount of waste entering landfills and to make beneficial use of the methane generated by decomposing landfill waste.

A fee of $5.00 per ton will produce close to $700 million in revenue for this program. The fees will be remitted to the local government having jurisdiction over the area in which the landfill is located. The local government could use the fees itself to undertake greenhouse gas reduction projects that were determined by EPA to be cost-effective. Alternatively, the local government could provide grants, loans, or other financial assistance to other entities to undertake such projects, or could transfer the fees to the State for that purpose. Projects could include waste reduction measures or recycling programs to reduce the amount of methane generated by decomposition, landfill gas recovery, and waste recovery including energy generation.

Americans understand the enormous challenge we face as a nation in preventing global warming and are asking how they can make a difference. With the funding provided by this legislation, local communities can identify and implement projects that will make a real contribution to reducing greenhouse gases. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Solid Waste Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act.''