Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Sherry Barbara Shapiro on her retirement following 40 years of extraordinary federal service.

Ms. Shapiro began her federal service in July, 1973 working for the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, which later became the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration (ARBA).

In 1975, she left ARBA to join the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress as a government and law bibliographer. In this position, prior to the wide availability of commercial and academic electronic databases, Sherry indexed and abstracted thousands of articles to serve as authoritative resources for public policy makers conducting congressional business

Working collaboratively with the Government Printing Office each year for many years, Sherry coordinated CRS's compilation of materials to support the annual high school and college debate manuals.

Sherry's primary work assignment was to respond directly to Member and committee research requests related to foreign affairs, regional studies, and national defense. Sherry at the same time served the information needs of the analysts and senior specialists in CRS's Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division. Her research supported the production of hundreds of CRS reports and CRS analyst testimony during her 40-year career.

During her tenure at CRS, she supported a number of congressional programs, among them democracy-building programs conducted by Members of Congress working on the Frost-Solomon Task Force, the House Democracy Assistance Commission, and later the House Democracy Partnership. Her knowledge of foreign affairs and regional studies made her the go-to person for information compiled for Congressional delegations to East Timor, Hungary, Mongolia, China, South Korea, and Indonesia. Sherry accompanied Commission members and staff on several congressional delegation trips to work with members of foreign legislatures. Her specialized knowledge and her genuine concern for the people of the countries she visited resulted in many lasting friendships, and the high regard in which Sherry was held by those she met provided enhanced opportunities for congressional delegations to learn a great deal from their experience of travel to these countries.

As Sherry supported and participated in congressional delegations, she also trained foreign parliamentary and government agency librarians and encouraged literacy in developing countries such as Mongolia and Kyrgyzstan. Whenever she traveled abroad, she expanded her efforts to reach students in fledgling democracies to share her knowledge of what it means to be a librarian in a functioning democracy.

While at CRS, Sherry also spent considerable time reviewing electronic resources and developing innovative ways to increase access to these resources by staff serving the information needs of the Congress.

Another important aspect of Sherry's work at CRS was her work as a mentor to new librarians. Her knowledge of federal librarianship and the work of the legislative branch allowed her to develop a new generation of librarians.

Sherry's dedication to her work at CRS was based on responding to each person she encountered with kindness and respect, fairness, and a willingness to go the extra mile to make sure each one had the tools and skills to locate the information needed to help develop legislation, answer constituent requests, or examine the critical issues of the day.

Outside of her many duties and responsibilities at CRS, Sherry not only raised five children with her husband John, but was actively involved in community activities. Sherry works tirelessly in our community of Alexandria. The Girl Scouts, the elderly and memory- impaired, a soup kitchen, an animal rescue organization, and others, all have benefitted from her determination to make our community better.

During my own time at CRS, I knew and worked with Sherry, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on projects that will benefit our community.

I congratulate Sherry, her husband John, and their children, Matt, Daniel, Emily, Lauren and Nora on this momentous occasion.

I personally thank her for 40 years of service to the United States Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2019.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the ``Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'' report indicated that there are now dire new estimates for the rate of warming around the planet in the next century. The report represents the latest finding from the international scientific community that not only is the planet warming, but there is a 95 percent certainty that that warming is being caused by human activity.

We've known for over 100 years how greenhouse gases work in the atmosphere to trap heat. It's basic physics. We also know that atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases have been rising, based on decades of direct measurements. As we directly track and measure the human activities that release heat-trapping gases, such as burning fossil fuels, we understand we are responsible.

Unfortunately, there are some politicians in this body that are content to ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus. That's being done at the bidding of the oil and gas lobby. The House of Representatives has to listen to these experts and take action on climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Stratford Landing Elementary School in Alexandria, which is proudly celebrating 50 years of providing an excellent education to the students of Fairfax, Virginia.

Built on land once owned by George Washington, Stratford Landing Elementary School officially opened its doors with Principal Eleanor N. Hollandsworth on September 3, 1963 with an initial enrollment of 301 students in grades one through six. This student population would more than double the next year.

In response to a rapidly growing community and an influx of military families the following year, Stratford Landing underwent its first renovation in 1966, adding an additional hallway of classrooms.

As schools across the Nation began to implement kindergarten classes to comply with the Federal Head Start initiative, Stratford Landing opened its first half-day kindergarten program in 1968.

During the 1970s, Stratford Landing initiated one of the first Gifted and Talented Centers in Fairfax County Public Schools, developed to offer a unique academic program to qualifying students in grades three through six from multiple local elementary schools. Stratford Landing also expanded to include two preschool programs, which supported early intervention for young children identified with autism and developmental delays.

Over the years, the school underwent other renovations to add a gym, music room, day care facility, playground, 10-classroom modular unit, and seven learning environment trailers. It also created an English as a Second Language program to better meet the needs of students.

In 2009, Stratford Landing developed and continues to refine a Discovery Garden, supporting environmental and science studies. The school also began offering a full-day kindergarten program with the last phase-in by Fairfax County Public Schools for the 2011--2012 school year.

Stratford Landing continues to stay abreast of technological changes by adding Smart Board technology to all classrooms, increasing the number of mobile laptop carts, investing in hands-on voting systems, and using other technology tools to support the needs of 21st century learners.

Stratford Landing Elementary School, the parent-teacher association, and the school community continue to work in partnership to benefit student success and achievement both in the classroom, on the school grounds, and through diverse after-school programs. And while the school mascot and student fashions have changed over the years, Stratford Landing Elementary School has remained cotnmitted to providing an academically challenging and positive learning environment in which all students thrive.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to commend Stratford Landing Elementary School as it marks 50 years of providing educational opportunities to the children of Fairfax County.

Mr. Speaker, this is one more bill designed to punish the Federal workforce and to discourage the very people whom we need to join the Federal workforce. It's singling it out for harsher treatment than we would apply to ourselves or to our workforces, frankly. You need to be able to reward your best workers. If this were a private sector corporation, our revenue would have dried up; our stock value would have imploded; and our employees would have left.

Federal employees stick with it because they believe in this government. They hope that, one day, the legislative branch will appreciate what they do. I worked for the Federal Government 40 years ago; and while I worked 10 or 12 hours a day, there were people working longer than that. They did that for about 40 years, and they worked very hard and in a dedicated way.

This legislation isn't even properly thought through. No congressional hearing has been held on this measure that, in fact, jeopardizes law enforcement. It would intrude upon and disrupt sensitive phases of many Federal civil and criminal investigations and law enforcement efforts, as well as litigation involving the government. We

hear that from the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. We hear from the FBI employees that this proposal risks undermining criminal investigations by reducing the willingness of individuals to cooperate with law enforcement. It would result in the creation of recordings of law enforcement conversations that could jeopardize sensitive and important criminal counterterrorism investigations. We hear from Federal law enforcement officers that it puts law enforcement activities at risk and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals.

This is bad legislation. We know why it is being offered. We also trust that it's not going to become law. So you have to ask, Why are we doing it? We are doing it to send a message.

The message it's sending is that our Federal employees are not to be valued, that our managers are not to reward people for good work, that, in fact, we want the government to shrink, that we don't want it to be able to carry out its necessary activities. When we do that, we do a disservice to our constituents and to this country. This stuff has got to stop.

Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association,

Washington, DC, July 29, 2013.

Hon. Darrell Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Elijah Cummings,

Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Cummings: On behalf

of the membership of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers

Association (FLEOA), I am writing to oppose H.R. 2711--the

``Citizen Empowerment Act,'' as amended by the Committee and

urge you to further amend the bill to ensure that law

enforcement and other public safety activities are not

covered by its provisions.

As originally written, the legislation contained general

exceptions for situations where classified information,

public safety or an on-going law enforcement investigation

would be at risk. This language was necessary to ensure that

federal law enforcement officers and the critical work they

perform are not adversely impacted by this bill. In fact, the

original language should have gone even farther to make clear

that law enforcement activities would not be jeopardized in

any way.

For incomprehensible reasons the committee approved an

amended bill that removed even basic exceptions.

When a federal law enforcement officer is conducting a

criminal investigation via telephone, i.e. on a suspect of

terrorism, the officer should not have to notify the suspect

of the right to record the conversation and whether the

officer is recording the conversation. Obviously,

conventional wisdom tells us that any thought of conducting a

successful investigation after disclosure of this type is

impossible. There is no logical reason why criminal

investigations shouldn't be exempted from the proposal.

This legislation puts law enforcement activities at risk

and does a disservice to the brave men and women who are

asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from

terrorists and criminals. FLEOA opposes any actions by

Congress that lessens the ability of our Citizenship to

remain safe and secure and jeopardizes the ability of federal

law enforcement officers to continue to perform their sworn

duties to protect them.

As the Chair and Ranking Member with jurisdiction over H.R.

2711, we urge you to ensure that the bill is not considered

on the Floor unless it is amended to exempt law enforcement

from its provisions. Until that time, FLEOA will continue to

strongly oppose this legislation.

Respectfully,

Frank Terreri,

National Vice President for

Legislative Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, for the last four years, Congress has frozen federal employee pay.

And this year, we are at it again, extending the freeze.

Congress has also increased federal employee pension contributions for new hires without a corresponding increase in benefit.

And, through furloughs, we are essentially imposing a 20% pay-cut and continuing to punish these people who took an oath to support and defend our country.

All of this has added up--Over the last four years, Congress has reduced federal employee pay and benefits by $118 billion. Per capita, that's nearly $50,000 per employee--far more than any other American has been asked to contribute towards deficit reduction.

I take issue with the practice of continuing to punish a workforce that is predominantly composed of hardworking Americans, simply because they happen to work for all of us.

Your public servants have already been injured financially by a series of spirited provisions that are now law.

The bills before us today would strip the ability of managers within the federal government to reward our federal workers. In fact, they end up punishing some of our highest performing federal employees.

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that federal employees in highly skilled professions could earn much more in the private sector.

The Federal Salary Council issued a report in 2012 finding that federal employees were being paid nearly 35% less than similar occupations in the private sector.

Why do they choose public service? Clearly, not for monetary gain-- they do it for love of country and the opportunity to make peoples' lives better.

But they have families to feed, mortgages to pay, and children to send to college. Where does it end?

From my first job as a budget officer at HEW through to my service today, nearly 40 years later, I have witnessed countless occasions where the federal government and federal employees have been a positive force, improving the lives of their fellow Americans.

No matter how many times the House majority says the government cannot solve problems, cannot create jobs or cannot help the American people, it will never be so.

Why does this Congress insist on continuing to punish federal employees for their service to the American people?

Bearing a disproportionate share of deficit reduction has directly hurt them and their families. It's time to stop singling them out.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, 29 prominent policymakers and experts who understand Iran and international relations, which includes former CENTCOM Commander, Ambassador Tom Pickering, stated in a letter to President Obama just 2 weeks ago: ``No further sanctions should be imposed or considered at this time.''

There were 131 bipartisan Representatives who also urged the President to test the opportunity presented by Iran's recent election to avoid actions that could delegitimize the democratic election that just took place in Iran, because the fact is that the Iranian people rejected the very cleric of government that we have all opposed that has been defined by hostile actions against the United States. In fact, when Mr. Rouhani was running, the people of Iran knew he was a former nuclear negotiator, and he promised greater nuclear transparency and to pursue, in his words, peace and reconciliation with the outside world.

Isn't that just what we are looking for?

I can't imagine we are looking for another war of choice, that we want to escalate the rhetoric. This is the best opportunity we have had in at least 8 years, if not more. Why throw that away?

Now, some will say, ``Well, what we do in the House doesn't really matter. The Senate isn't going to do anything,'' but that's a nuance. We may understand why the House is acting, but the rest of the world doesn't likely understand what's going on here.

The fact is that this bill empowers the very hard-liners who are the problem. The Iranian people are extraordinarily diverse. In fact, they used to be America's best friend in the Muslim world, and they just rejected a government that represented all of the things we oppose, and they did it democratically. I can't imagine that we have to operate in such a vacuum that we are going to continue to impose sanctions, that we are going to take away the President's ability to exercise leverage in those negotiations, and that, in fact, we are even going to lay it on further by taking away the exemption for necessary food and medicine.

This is destructive because it punishes the Iranian people and empowers the hard-liners. We have no problem with punishing the clerical government and many of the people in the military. They don't represent our values, but we want the Iranian people to seize democracy, to represent our values, to enter into negotiations. We've got to be able to bring about a more peaceful and productive world.

So I would strongly urge this House to hold off. Let the new President at least be inaugurated. Let him at least take over. Let's see what we can do. Let's not act so prematurely and destructively.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Safe Climate Caucus, I want to applaud President Obama's commitment to address global climate change.

As the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere climbed past 400 parts per million this past spring, which is a level not seen since before the dawn of humans when sea levels were 75 feet higher than they are today, we are facing the potential for irreversible climatic consequences that could trigger mass extinctions and endanger the future of humanity. So, it would be irresponsible for the President not to address this clear and present danger.

With the powers the President has been granted under existing laws, he has taken the responsible course, insisting upon limiting carbon emissions at existing major sources like coal-fired power plants, promoting renewable energy development on public lands, squeezing greater efficiencies out of household and commercial appliances, motor vehicles, and government facilities and operations, and working with other nations on a global strategy to address climate change.

For the sake of future generations, I do hope that the Republican majority will take a more responsible role in helping us to preserve the future of a more livable world.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my close friend from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), who not only called the House to order but who has been an extraordinary champion of transit systems for years, especially of Washington's metropolitan transit system, because he gets it. He understands how important this transit system is.

There was a previous discussion, a dialogue, between Mr. Connolly and Mr. Garrett. The outcome of it was a suggestion that Washington's Metro system is somehow extraordinarily subsidized. The fact is that it's subsidized but that it's subsidized primarily by local governments. We have been trying on our side to provide subsidies to transit systems all over the country, including in the New York-New Jersey area-- apparently, given the results of some of the votes, without much success on this bill.

The point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that Metro is our Nation's transit system. It was created largely to serve the needs of the Federal Government. Forty percent of Metro's peak ridership are Federal employees, so a Federal role is both necessary and appropriate. WMATA is also the primary means of transportation for visitors to our Nation's Capital. Whether they come to experience our historical legacy, to participate in rallies on The Mall or to meet with their Members of Congress, they use our Nation's Metro system.

Now, in recognition of this special relationship and of WMATA's urgent need for additional capital funds, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 authorized $1.5 billion over 10 years for WMATA's capital and preventative maintenance projects. It was bipartisan. As Mr. Connolly suggested, his predecessor, Mr. Davis, largely led much of the effort, and it was to be matched dollar for dollar by the jurisdictions that WMATA serves--the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

That bill represented a compact between WMATA and the Federal Government, which was granted representation on the WMATA board. That was part of the legislation, that you've got to put Federal representation on the board in return for the funding. Up to this point, the Federal Government has upheld its end of this compact. That's why we object so strongly to the Garrett amendment. Currently, this appropriations bill on the floor today provides $125 million, which is consistent with this compact in its funding for the Metro system. It's a 16 percent cut already below the authorized level, which, in fact, has been fully funded in previous fiscal years, but Mr. Garrett's amendment would eliminate even that reduced funding level.

The elimination of WMATA funding would be deeply detrimental to the system and would diminish the ability of thousands of employees to get to work--two-fifths of them Federal employees. Critically, the further cuts mandated by Mr. Garrett's amendment would limit WMATA's ability to continue improving the safety of the system and fully implement the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board that resulted from the 2009 Red Line crash. That's what we need to implement. We wouldn't be able to do it with this amendment. Eliminating Federal funding would also jeopardize State capital funding for the Metro system by breaking the matching compact that has been agreed to by all the parties.

So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary amendment, which would irreparably harm America's most critical transit system.

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

I thank the gentleman from our Judiciary Committee for yielding.

And I want to say to my very good friend from Florida, the chair of the Defense Appropriations Committee, whom I greatly respect, I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding. This amendment is only about those detainees who have been cleared for release or transfer. This is not about the entire 166 people who are there.

These are the people who, after a very careful review, have been cleared for release by the intelligence community and by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So we're holding these people without cause. We're holding them because we've let our rhetoric get ahead of ourselves.

The fact is that they would be released to their countries of origin. Their countries of origin are going to watch them. But these are people who we have found we have nothing to charge them with, and we have determined that they are not a threat to the United States or to anyone else. They shouldn't have been rounded up. They shouldn't have been detained. And they've been detained for 12 years.

46 detainees are now having to be tube-fed. They're strapped down and a tube is forced down their nose and into their stomach. They're strapped down for 2 hours so the liquid gets digested.

People that have been cleared for release, how can we justify doing this to them?

And what's the end game of our current policy?

Are we going to keep them until they die in prison? People who have been cleared for release and transfer, and we're just going to keep detaining them until they die?

Because that's the only result of the current policy.

Once they get cleaned, they should be released.

Who are we, as a Nation to detain people indefinitely, without legal cause?

It doesn't make sense. It's not American. It's a complete violation of our Constitution, of our most fundamental principle of equal justice under the law.

Mr. Chairman, we just approved $260 million in the defense authorization bill for Guantanamo. In addition, we approved another $186 billion to construct a new temporary facility, almost half a billion dollars, in addition to what we're now spending. We've spent this year alone $2,670,000 per Guantanamo detainee. Eighty-six of them have been cleared for release. We have no reason to keep them. And yet, we spend that much money on each of them.

In U.S. prisons we spend $34,000 per year per maximum security prisoner. Imagine the discrepancy. We have now convicted 300 terrorists in U.S. prisons. They're being held at 98 Federal prisons for a fraction of the money. And we have no convictions at Guantanamo that haven't been overturned.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes to begin with.

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

My amendment would enable the U.S. military to transfer or release the detainees who have been cleared by the intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to their home countries and bring those not cleared for release to the United States to be charged, tried, and sentenced.

Those who advocate the continuance of Guantanamo don't seem to realize that so many of the prisoners still held at Guantanamo were, in fact, wrongly captured. The majority never engaged in hostile actions against the United States or its allies.

The fact is that we know today Guantanamo continues to serve as a rallying cry for extremists around the world; and until we transfer and try the detainees, there is no denying that Guantanamo is hurting our national security.

We need to re-evaluate our approach to the long-term threat of terrorism and realize that policies that mock the concept of equal justice under the law, and that undermine our respect for human rights, make it more likely, rather than less likely, that we will be attacked again.

How can we expect Americans held captive abroad to be accorded the right to be sentenced and brought to trial when we hold 166 prisoners in Guantanamo, without charge and without trial?

Eighty-six percent of the Guantanamo detainees were captured in exchange for a bounty, in many cases a very large bounty that represented a whole year's pay for people turning them in. The majority of them, as I say, have never committed hostile acts against the U.S. or its coalition allies; and yet they have been held for more than 12 years without charge.

My colleagues like to argue that detaining or trying suspected terrorists in the U.S. would endanger national security, but that's simply not true. More than 400 defendants charged with terrorism crimes have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11, including a former Gitmo detainee who was tried in New York City, the Times Square Bomber; the Shoe Bomber, Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill innocent Americans on 9/11. They've all been charged; they've all been tried; they've all been convicted--all of them here in the United States, and no security incidents.

More than 300 individuals convicted of crimes of international terrorism are today incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons within the United States, with no escapes or attacks and attempts to free them.

There are six Department of Defense facilities where Guantanamo detainees could be held in the United States that are currently only at 48 percent capacity.

Mr. Chairman, I'll yield myself another minute.

Now, it should be said in the context of an appropriations bill how expensive it is to keep Guantanamo open. We're currently spending $1.6 million per detainee, compared to $34,000 per inmate at a high-security Federal prison here in the United States.

And in the defense authorization we just provided another $260 million in operations costs and another $186 million for construction to continue this temporary facility, almost half a billion dollars. This does not make sense.

And now we've got the hunger strikes because people see no future ahead of them. They're afraid that they'll be jailed indefinitely for charges that they can't even defend because they haven't been given the opportunity.

That's not who we are as a Nation. We're a Nation of law. We're a Nation of respect for human life.

But to hold these detainees and, in some cases, 46 of them are being tube-fed, strapped down for hours while a tube is inserted down their nose, that's not what we do.

So let's stop it. Let's close down Guantanamo and do the right thing.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to pancreatic cancer. As you know, it is one of the most deadly forms of cancer; the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and eighth worldwide. It is the only major cancer with a five year survival rate in the single digits.

This year, 45,220 Americans will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 38,460 will die from this deadly form of cancer. Seventy-three percent will die in the first year of diagnosis. African Americans have the highest risk among racial and ethnic groups; a risk 32 to 66 percent higher than other groups. Further, while most cancers' death rates and incidences are declining, the incidence death rate of pancreatic cancer is increasing. The number of new cases is expected to increase by 55 percent by 2030.

These numbers are staggering. Clearly we need to increase our efforts to reduce the incidence of and treatments for this painful disease. Enacting the Recalcitrant Cancer Act

earlier this year was a significant step forward. This new law will direct and guide the National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in developing a strategic plan--a scientific framework--to address pancreatic cancer and other recalcitrant cancers: brain, esophageal, liver, lung, ovarian and stomach. NIH is the world's leading biomedical research institution and, with adequate resources, I am hopeful that we can make significant advances in finding new, effective treatments for pancreatic and all cancers while also finding their causes.

We cannot expect to reap the proposed benefits that will emerge from this strategic plan unless we come together and make a serious financial commitment to NIH. When adjusting for inflation, the NIH budget has decreased 23 percent since 2001. We are eroding the work and future promises of the world's greatest research entity. We are losing a generation of research scientists. And, we are losing lives. We must put NIH on a slow, but steady path of increased funding in order to establish the stability needed for long term research.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jan Roche on her recent election to the Board of Directors at the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU).

Ms. Roche is the President and CEO of State Department Federal Credit Union headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia. She has served in this role for over 10 years and has used her extensive accounting and credit union management experience to ensure that the State Department Federal Credit Union remains wholly committed to serving its 68,000 members at home and abroad. Ms. Roche is a Certified Public Accountant and graduated cum laude from the University of Richmond.

In addition to her service on NAFCU's Board of Directors, Ms. Roche also serves on the Administrative Board of the Filene Research Institute and is the vice chair of the Richmond Fed's Community Development Institutions Advisory Board. Ms. Roche is active in the betterment of our local community through her work supporting Credit Union Miracle Day, which helps plan the Cherry Blossom 10-miler each year benefitting the Children's Miracle Network Hospitals.

Undoubtedly, Ms. Roche will bring a tremendous amount of expertise to the NAFCU Board in navigating laws and regulations impacting the credit union community.

I wish Ms. Roche the best of luck in her new role on the NAFCU Board and look forward to working with her in this capacity. I ask that my colleagues join me today in congratulating her on this achievement.

Mr. Speaker, today I am proposing legislation to establish a program that would mirror the existing law for states. The legislation would allow certain types of delinquent local tax debt to be collected through the reduction of federal tax refunds. Providing local governments access to these needed and due funds is important both in principle and for budgetary purposes. In this challenging and uncertain economic environment, it is especially important to assist cities and counties to collect the taxes they are owed. The alternatives would be a reduction in vital services and jobs at a time when the government safety net for poor families and the unemployed has weakened significantly and increases in poverty in these hard economic times. Failure to collect what is due will impose significantly higher demands on local governments for police, housing and shelter, food, and other vital services. This bill offers a unique opportunity not just to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of desperately needed assistance at no cost to federal taxpayers but also to protect honest taxpayers from an increase in local property taxes. Under this legislation, the only cost is to the delinquent taxpayer, who would finally be made to pay his or her outstanding tax obligation.

This proposed program would have no additional cost to the federal government. Local governments would pay the federal government the fee of $25 for each offset refund. It would alleviate the administrative burden to Department of the Treasury by requiring the state taxing authority to act as the clearinghouse. Therefore, the client base for the Department of the Treasury would not increase.

This concept of an offset originated as a way to assist states with securing child support arrearages. It was expanded to allow states to submit other delinquent claims against an individual's federal tax return. This program has been very successful for the states. This bill would expand its successful idea and concept to local governments in all states. Doing so could potentially result in several billion dollars annually for local governments by effecting the collection of delinquent taxes. Under this legislation, the following order of priority for payment of an offset would be: (1) past-due federal income tax, (2) past-due state child support, (3) past-due federal government agency debt, (4) past-due state income tax, and (5) local government tax. The state taxing authority for each state would act as the clearinghouse for the local government tax debts, so this will not be an additional burden to Financial Management Services (which is a division of the United States Department of the Treasury and administers the Federal Offset Program). Doing so could potentially result in several billion dollars annually for local governments by improving the collection of delinquent taxes.

The bill would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury, upon receiving notice from any eligible state on behalf of a local government, that a named person owes such local government a past-due, legally enforceable tax obligation and provide, consequently, for the reduction of the federal tax refunds payable to such person by the amount of such debt. That amount would be remitted to the state for payment to the affected local government, provide for notification to the state of the taxpayer's name, taxpayer identification number, address, and the amount collected; and notification of the person due the refund that it has been reduced by an amount necessary to satisfy a past-due, legally enforceable tax obligation.

This bill offers a unique opportunity to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of desperately needed assistance at no cost to federal taxpayers. For Virginia localities, it is estimated that this bill will bring in between 65-70 million dollars in revenue during the first year in the program. From its participation in the Federal Offset Program, for FY 2008 the Commonwealth of Virginia received over $17 million dollars in offsets of federal income tax refunds and an additional $5 million in offsets of the tax stimulus checks. This legislation earned the official support of the National Association of Counties, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National League of Cities, the Treasurers' Association of Virginia, the United States Conference of Mayors, the Association of Public Treasurers of the United States and Canada, and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

This is a good-government bill. If the legislation is passed, it would allow federal, state and local government to work together. Good citizens, who pay their taxes, will appreciate that the federal government and the state government are assisting localities to help local government collect from the delinquents. Each citizen should share in paying his fair share of taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jon Mowl and the 180 deaf and hard of hearing athletes and coaches heading to Sofia, Bulgaria for the 2013 Summer Deaflympics. Held quadrennially, the Deaflympics are the world's second oldest multiple sports games after the Olympics. From July 26 through August 4 this summer, Sofia will host 14,707 athletes from over 90 countries.

The Summer Deaflympics are built on 89 years of tradition. At the recent 2009 Summer Deaflympics in Taipei, Taiwan, more than 2,500 athletes from 77 nations participated, including 140 Americans. The Summer Deaflympics are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee. For the 2013 Summer Deaflympics, the United States plans to bring its best team that has been training for four years for this opportunity. The need for separate games for deaf athletes is not just evident in the number of participants. Deaf athletes are distinguished from all others in their special communication needs on the sports field. Visual presentation of information during the Games for both athletes and visitors are a critical part of the Games infrastructure, which includes the use of video screens, captioning and information boards. A visual environment is critical for communication with deaf athletes, deaf officials and deaf spectators.

Unlike Olympians or Paralympians, elite deaf and hard of hearing athletes must

fundraise to pay their way and do not receive financial support from the United States Olympic Committee. This presents a twofold challenge for the Deaflympics athletes: fundraising on top of training for the Games. People like you who support the mission of USADSF and its athletes are the ones who make it possible for the athletes to accomplish their lifelong dream. Each Deaflympian must fundraise $2,350 (not including international travel and training camp expenses) to cover all costs at the 2013 Summer Deaflympics. Over 180 United States deaf and hard of hearing athletes and coaches are training for Sofia to represent the U.S. in 11 sports. Among them will be Jon Mowl of Alexandria, Virginia who will be competing in team handball.

An accomplished athlete, Jon scored over 1,300 in his four year career on the Gallaudet University basketball team and was on the team that went to the 2007 World Deaf Basketball Championships. This earned him a spot on the U.S. Deaflympics gold medal winning basketball team at the 2009 Deaflympics in Taiwan.

Mowl graduated from Gallaudet with a Bachelor of Science in mathematics and went on to become an adjunct mathematics professor at Gallaudet for a semester before getting a job at the Department of Health and Human Services. He was hired into the Workforce Recruitment Program and later transitioned to DLA Finance Energy. Mowl's primary responsibilities are budget formulation and execution of the $425 million sustainment, restoration and modernization program at DLA Finance Energy.

Since the 1935 London Summer Deaflympics, the United States of America Deaf Sports Federation has been sending elite deaf and hard of hearing Americans to compete in the Deaflympics. USA Deaf Sports Federation (USADSF) is the only national athletic association in the United States that coordinates the participation of American deaf and hard of hearing individuals in international sport competitions. USADSF is affiliated with the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). They support teams in 17 sports and represent over 100,000 deaf and hard of hearing athletes in the United States and have sent 2,031 Deaflympians to the Summer and Winter Deaflympics since 1935. The Deaflympics were the first international games for athletes with disabilities and, different from many other games, because athletes cannot be guided by sounds (i.e. a starters gun), they must rely on other methods of competition and refereeing.

Mr. Speaker, Jon Mowl and his 179 teammates deserve this body's support. Their success is an example of preserving talent through resilience and dedication in the face of hardship.