Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 665) to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of Federal real property, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2012, was favorably reported by voice vote by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in November of last year. I'm proud to be one of the sponsors of this bill. There are 39 cosponsors of this bill, and, in particular, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for his great and passionate work on this, Mr. Connolly, and Ms. Norton. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle that have passionately worked on this issue.

I'm proud to report, Mr. Speaker, that this is very bipartisan in its nature. I also want to thank our chairman, Chairman Issa, who was very instrumental in passing it out of committee to the floor, as well as Ranking Member Cummings and certainly our majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for allowing and encouraging this bill to come to the floor. So I appreciate the bipartisan nature.

These are the types of things that we should be doing as a body to make sure that we're improving the process and streamlining the disposal of real property that happens in this country. Most are somewhat amazed to understand that our Federal Government has roughly 900,000 buildings and structures under its ownership. The GAO in 2011 estimated that the Federal Government holds 45,000 underutilized properties that cost nearly $1.7 billion annually in order to operate. And, again, these are underutilized. In fact, more recently, OMB Controller Daniel Werfel testified before a Senate subcommittee that the government controls 14,000 excess and 76,000 underutilized buildings and structures. That's going to happen when you consume and have so many Federal buildings. We have to make sure that we, as a government, are also streamlining and moving forward with the disposal of these properties when they become

something that is not as frequently used.

The Federal Government has accumulated excess properties because the disposal process is, in many ways, flawed. In 2003 and in 2011, the GAO designated Federal real property management as a high-risk area to the Federal Government. Thus, I think, as an independent group, going out, looking and assessing the situation, have come to the conclusion that we as the Federal Government believe this is a high-risk area that costs well over $1 billion a year, is starting to approach $2 billion a year and that it certainly is in need of some restructuring.

So the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act would streamline the disposal of high-valued properties while also overhauling the existing disposal process. The bill creates a 5-year pilot program that would expedite the disposal of Federal properties with the goal of maximizing profit. Ninety-eight percent of the proceeds under the pilot would be directed to the United States Treasury General Fund, and 2 percent would be authorized for use by homeless assistance providers, as has been the history of this government in the past.

The bill also permanently streamlines the existing disposal process by reducing administrative overhead, creating new agency incentives, and requiring greater transparency and accountability from the federal agencies. Again, this bill is bipartisan; it will direct revenue to the United States Treasury; it reduces operating and maintenance budgets; and it's presented in a bipartisan way.

I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. The nature and the approach that we're taking here, I think, is just good government. It's smarter, more streamlined, more efficient, and moves the ball in the right direction.

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, March 20, 2012.

Hon. Darrell E. Issa,

Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,

Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with respect to the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure in matters being considered in H.R. 665,

the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of

2011, which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform.

Our Committee recognizes the desire of the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform to move H.R. 665

expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to

jurisdiction over a number of provisions in the bill related

to public buildings and improved grounds of the United States

and waivers of certain no-cost conveyances, including those

related to aviation and highways, I do not object to bringing

the legislation to the floor without action by this

Committee. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual

understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision

to forego any referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also

asks that you support our request to be conferees on the

provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-

Senate conference. I would appreciate it if you would include

a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our

jurisdictional interest as part of the Congressional Record

during consideration of the bill by the House.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

John L. Mica,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I just want to simply thank the gentleman from Illinois. He's truly one who will stand on principle and work on both sides of the aisle, and for that we're very grateful and appreciative. This is what we are supposed to be doing, working in a bipartisan way.

H.R. 665, as amended, is a good bill. It's good government, it's something we should do, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it. I appreciate all the support from our leadership in making this point happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

For 4 consecutive years, President Obama has introduced a budget with a $1 trillion deficit--4 years in a row. This has never happened in our Nation's history.

Well, how much is $1 trillion? If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. No longer can we do this. We're paying more than $733 million a day in interest on our national debt. We deficit spend something like $4 billion a day.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot sustain the spending that we have. Our Nation is going bankrupt. It is imperative that this Congress get a grip on its fiscal future and put forward a budget that is responsible and over the course of time will actually balance our books and pay off the national debt.

Madam Speaker, the numbers are in. Once again, the Federal Government is going to achieve an annual deficit of more than $1 trillion.

Now, how much is $1 trillion? Because we throw around that number far too often. If you spend $1 million a day every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion, and our Federal Government is approaching $16 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $733 million a day as just interest on the debt.

We have to change the trajectory. We can no longer borrow and spend the kind of money that we are. Please, ladies and gentlemen, we have to have systemic changes; and one of those things that we're going to talk about today is putting a freeze on pay.

We have to understand that there are a lot of good Federal employees out there doing great, great work, but your Federal Government has more than 450,000 people earning a base pay of at least $100,000. These are going to have to change.

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for bringing forward this important bill.

I want to refer to some facts here because we do have some good, hardworking Federal employees. Make no mistake about it: They're just as patriotic, if not more, than everybody else in our country. They work hard, and they deserve just compensation. But the compensation trajectory on which we're going forward in this country, Madam Speaker, is neither sustainable nor fair.

I was hoping that when the majority leader was addressing us that he would yield to the question, because one of the stats he threw out is that none of these people are earning as much as Members of Congress. Yet I would point out, for instance, that at the end of 2009 in the Department of Transportation, there was one person earning a salary of $170,000.

And yet 18 months later, there were 1,690 employees in the Department of Transportation earning at least $170,000 in compensation.

I would also point out that since President Barack Obama took office, until now, there are an additional 144,700 civilian Federal employees. These are new people added to the payroll, more than 144,000 new people on the payroll.

In 2010, more than 50 percent of all General Schedule employees received a step increase or a promotion, hardly a pay freeze that President Obama would have led us to believe was happening. Also for 2010, 62.9 percent of all General Schedule employees received an award or bonus. Now, in these dire economic times and people trying to tighten their belts in the private sector, I think it's stunning that close to 63 percent of our General Schedule employees, Federal employees, got an award or a bonus.

Now, this new CBO study that came out this week right here, the average Federal benefits that exceeded the private sector levels by 48 percent, the

benefits that are being given to the Federal employees exceed the private sector by 48 percent, according to the CBO. And the total average Federal compensation is 16 percent when you weigh that in with the other base pay, 16 percent above the private sector. Now, you can find an isolated case where maybe somebody is being undercompensated, but you can find a whole lot more people that are being overcompensated.

Now, most people, if you ask in your mind, how many Federal employees out there are earning at least $100,000 in their base pay, Madam Speaker, that number is in excess of 450,000 people on our Federal payroll who are earning in excess of $100,000.

In fact, if you go back and look at the payroll, the total Federal payroll for the Federal Government, in 2008 it was roughly $400 billion; in 2011 it's projected to be $452 billion. You should also look at one of the more stunning numbers that I saw, Madam Speaker, and that is from 2010 to 2011, there were 16,000 Federal employees that moved up to having at least a base pay of $100,000.

So to suggest that there has been some sort of pay freeze in place, I would argue, is wholeheartedly incorrect. It is a matter of fairness and balance.

I appreciate Mr. Duffy for his fine work in bringing this bill forward because we should limit the pay of Members of Congress. We should also do so for the Federal civilian workforce.

Madam Speaker, earlier it was referenced that there was another study showing that the compensation was 26 percent lower than the private sector. I would point out that that did not include compensation for benefits. Certainly when you look at someone's total compensation plan, you have to look at the benefits they are achieving.

I would also point out that in the CBO study on pages 10 and 11, the total compensation is actually more askew for the lower-educated people. People who earned high school diplomas or less are getting 36 percent more than they would in the private sector. It's actually the higher end, people with

professional degrees or doctorates who are actually being undercompensated, at least according to this study. And they only account for about 7 percent of our workforce.

So if you look at the bulk of our workforce, some roughly 93 percent, you're going to see a double digit percentage increase versus the private sector.

This is not an attack on our Federal workforce. Be grateful that you have a job. What we have to understand is that it's the taxpayers' money, and we have to be frugal with it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Eric Merkely, a 17-year- old student at Salem Hills High School. This remarkable young man was recently diagnosed with a form of cancer found in his leg called osteosarcoma. The cancer quickly spread into the surrounding muscle, bone, and nerves to the point that Eric had to undergo extensive surgery. While this surgery saved his life, it also took his leg.

For most people this experience would be considered a tragic loss. However, Eric has grown from the experience and greatly impacted his school and community. Even though many were concerned about his health, Eric turned his illness into an opportunity to give back to those less fortunate than himself. He raised money by selling wristbands and donated the proceeds to a children's hospital.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of a young man who turned his personal trials into an opportunity to give to those less fortunate and who is great example for the community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the incredible service and dedication of Sgt. Guy Mellor, a resident of Fayette, Utah and a real American hero. As he served his country as a member of the Utah Army National Guard, he set aside his personal aspirations of becoming a Civil Engineer to prepare for the Army's Best Warrior Competition Noncommissioned Officer for 2011. With much preparation he won the State, Regional, and National level competitions.

Sgt. Mellor had to compete against twelve Major Army Commands in a series of tests including physical fitness, marksmanship, battle drills, a written exam, and a board interview conducted by seven of the Army's top leaders. This is only the second time in the history of this competition that a National Guard Soldier has won this prestigious award.

I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the accomplishments of this valiant man who placed service to his country above that of his own ambitions. Sgt. Mellor is a great example of the men and women that are currently serving our country in various branches of the armed services. I am grateful to every one of them for the great sacrifice that they make every day.

Thank you. I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which we do this. These are truly American heroes who have made a difference in our lives and something we should all be proud of and never forget. I worry as these gentlemen get older that somehow generations in the future will maybe forget this.

I appreciate you, Mr. Gosar, for your commitment to them. I know you're passionate about this. I can see it in your eyes when you talk about it.

I wanted to recognize and pay special tribute to somebody who's originally from Utah, Samuel Tom Holiday. He was a Navajo Code Talker. He served in the United States Marine Corps 4th Marine Division, 25th Regiment, the H&S Company. We're fortunate to still have him here with us in our presence today.

Mr. Holiday was born in 1924 on a Navajo reservation near the Monument Valley area of Utah, down near the Four Corners area. He was a Navajo Code Talker in World War II. As you have talked about before, Code Talkers transmitted tactical messages by telephone and radio in the Dine language. It was a code the Japanese were never able to break and was very instrumental in our war efforts.

At a young age, Samuel and his brothers hid from government agents who came to send Navajo children to boarding schools. Holiday said he was ultimately caught and forced to attend a boarding school where he was not allowed to speak his native language. As he said, ``One of the hardest times I had was learning to talk English. I would hide cookies in my pockets to pay the older boys to teach me English. Whenever they''--the school instructors--``found out I had talked Navajo, they made me scrub floors, scrub walls. I spent much of my first year scrubbing the wall.''

Mr. Holiday attended the school until he was 18 years old and he was recruited into the Marine Corps. Mr. Holiday served in the Pacific theatre from 1943 to 1945 in Saipan, Tinian, Kwajalein Atoll, and Iwo Jima.

From Mr. Holiday: ``A lot of time they sent us where it was a very dangerous spot, and I sent messages. They didn't know we were Navajo Code Talkers using Navajo language.'' The very language he was punished for using in his boarding school was suddenly a major asset to the United States Marines.

Mr. Holiday remains active with the Navajo Code Talkers Association. He's traveled throughout most of the United States conducting presentations about the Code Talkers and about his life experiences before and after the war. I was very pleased to see that Mr. Holiday was awarded the Congressional Silver Medal, something he was very worthy of, obviously.

It's interesting to me that the Navajo Code Talker Program was actually a secret until after the war and was not declassified until later in 1968. It was another 14 years before the Navajo Code Talkers were recognized by the United States Government. In fact, in December of 1982, President Ronald Reagan recognized the Code Talkers for their dedicated service, unique achievement, patriotism, resourcefulness, and courage.

August 14, 1982 was proclaimed National Navajo Code Talkers Day. I think President Reagan did the right thing. I think it's something that all Americans--I want my kids and people in Utah and across the Nation to recognize the contributions and sacrifices that these people made. They truly made a difference in our lives; instrumental in the war.

I appreciate this time to be able to recognize their achievements and help to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3012) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the per-country numerical limitation for employment-based immigrants, to increase the per-country numerical limitation for family-sponsored immigrants, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3012, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act. I would first like to thank Chairman Smith for his work and diligence and commitment on this issue. We wouldn't be here today without his efforts and his commitment to this. I also want to thank Ranking Member Conyers and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren. She cares deeply about this and has also been very instrumental in putting this bill together to make it something that we hope will pass today, and I thank her for her work on the Judiciary Committee.

The Immigration and Nationality Act generally provides that the total number of employment-based immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign country in a year cannot exceed 7 percent of the total number of such visas made available in that year.

The bill completely eliminates the per-country caps for employment- based visas and raises the per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent for family-based visas--all without adding even a single additional visa. In other words, there is no net increase in the total number of visas. What I want Members on both sides of the aisle to understand and recognize is that there is not a net increase in the total number of visas; but it does make important adjustments that will allow us to better service and fix legal immigration, which is one of the commitments that I have in working in this Congress.

While per-country limits make some limited sense in the area of family immigration, they make no sense in the context of employment- based immigration. American companies treat all highly skilled immigrants equally regardless of where they come from. Our

immigration policy should do the same. H.R. 3012 creates a fair and equitable, first-come-first-served system. Under this system, U.S. companies will be able to focus on what they do best: hiring smart people to create products, services, and jobs for Americans.

Per-country caps are the antithesis of the free market. Companies recruit employees based on their talent, not their country of origin. Hiring and keeping the best people, whether from America or around the world, is the primary objective of American companies. This bill will help ensure that employers meet that objective.

Fears that these changes will lead to an influx of cheap labor are totally unfounded. Two concerns in particular rely on the false assumption that the removal of these caps will have a negative impact on American workers. The first concern applies to the removal of the per-country cap on employment-based visas. Some people argue this provision will displace American workers with cheap foreign labor, which will not and cannot happen. Current law prohibits U.S. employers from hiring foreign workers to fill these jobs unless there are insufficient U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available. This bill does not change that requirement, but it does encourage high-skilled immigrants who are educated in the U.S. to stay and help build our economy rather than using the skills they learned here to aid our competitor nations.

The second criticism I hear applies to the provision that raises the family-based per-country cap from 7 percent to 15 percent. The fear seems to be that this change will result in an increase of unskilled foreign immigrants who will be a burden to our system. To the contrary, those who benefit most under the family cap adjustment are the law- abiding workers who have demonstrated their respect for the rule of law by waiting in line for many years, if not decades. An unmarried minor child in Mexico, for example, who is the son or daughter of U.S. citizens and will receive a green card in November of this year has been waiting in line since April, 1993. That's an 18\1/2\-year wait. Rewarding those who are patiently waiting to come to this country legally will incentivize more people to enter our country legally through the means that we have set forth.

This bill does not add a single new green card to the system. There's no trick or compromise involved. We are sending a message we want people to come to America legally, and we're sending that message without massive comprehensive reforms. This is simple, straightforward, and consistent with where I think most Members from both sides of the aisle stand on the issue of immigration.

This legislation is pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-family. I would like to thank Compete America and Immigration Voice for their tireless efforts in helping to get this bill passed, and again thank Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and Ms. Lofgren for their work in helping to bring this bill forward.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Lamar Smith of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers.

I just want to, again, thank Chairman Smith. I also want to recognize the good work and the working relationship that I have with Ms. Lofgren of California and the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez, who was also very instrumental. I think it does demonstrate that we can work in a bipartisan way to pass important legislation that really will have an effect on businesses, jobs, our economy, and a whole lot of families that are deserving.

I urge support of H.R. 3012, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2192) to exempt for an additional 4-year period, from the application of the means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 90 days.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 2192 currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before us today is an important bill sponsored by my colleagues from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

On the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001, Americans paused to honor the memory of the innocent victims who perished that tragic day. We also were reminded of the bravery of American military personnel and thanked military families for their sacrifice. The last 10 years have been trying on our uniformed men and women, including our military reservists and members of the National Guard. About 1 million reservists and guardsmen have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan over the past 10 years. For that, we are very, very grateful.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to ease the transition of reservists and guardsmen back into civilian life upon their return home from war. Many of them return home with physical handicaps. For many others, psychological challenges face them and their families. Some of these veterans and their families have suffered financial hardships, and frequently bankruptcy is, unfortunately, the last resort.

In a chapter 7 bankruptcy, a debtor surrenders virtually all their assets to the bankruptcy trustee and receives a discharge at the end of the short case. In contrast, in a chapter 13 case, the debtor retains their assets but must commit their disposable income over the next 3 to 5 years to the repayment of their creditors before receiving a discharge from their debts.

In 2005, Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, often referred to as BAPCPA. A significant policy goal of that act was to combat a perceived abuse of chapter 7 bankruptcy. In BAPCPA, Congress inserted into the Bankruptcy Code a way to determine whether a debtor has a disposable income that can be used to pay their debts. This is commonly referred to as the means test. If a debtor is able to pay some portion of their debts from their disposable monthly income, then their filing of a chapter 7 bankruptcy is presumed to be an abuse of the bankruptcy system. The debtor remains eligible for relief under other bankruptcy chapters, including chapter 13, where they can restructure how they pay their debts from their disposable income.

In 2008, Congress recognized that military reservists and National Guardsmen sometimes suffer unique financial difficulty resulting from their military service, so we enacted the National Guard and Reservist Debt Relief Act, which President Bush signed into law in October of 2008. That act allows reservists and National Guardsmen to bypass the means test, making it easier for them to file a chapter 7 case. When they return from the front lines of war, they have endured enough. They do not need to also suffer a presumption of bankruptcy abuse if they are in need of a quick, fresh start in bankruptcy. That act expires in December of this year. H.R. 2192, which Mr. Cohen and Mr. Forbes have introduced, extends the sunset date of the act that was passed in 2008.

America is still a nation at war, and we continue to call on our guardsmen and reservists to perform heroic tasks. During these trying times, Congress should not make life more difficult for these brave men and women by allowing these means test exemptions to lapse. The bill extends the sunset date by 4 years, at which time Congress will have the opportunity to reexamine whether this means test carveout has served its purpose and whether it is needed any longer.

I want to thank, again, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Forbes for introducing this important and timely legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time. I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this. It's a good day when we can come to the floor of the House and vote in support of our Guardsmen and those serving in our military.

I appreciate, again, the good bipartisan support and work of Mr. Cohen, Mr. Forbes, and others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2061) to authorize the presentation of a United States flag at the funeral of Federal civilian employees who are killed while performing official duties or because of their status as a Federal employee, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 2061, the Civilian Service Recognition Act of 2011, was introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) on May 31 of this year. H.R. 2061 enjoys the support of 21 cosponsors on both sides of the aisle, and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform reported this bill by voice vote on June 22 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, each year a small number of Federal civilian employees tragically lose their lives as a result of the duties they pledged to fulfill. Sadly, nearly 3,000 Federal civilian workers have died on the job since 1992.

Many civilian employees are veterans and thus are entitled to military

funeral honors. In addition, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security have regulatory authority over burial benefits related to civilian employees who die as a result of their service with an Armed Force in a contingency operation.

The Federal Government lacks a policy authorizing the presentation of a United States flag to the families of Federal civilian employees serving elsewhere who lose their lives as a result of their employment. For those civilian employees who make the ultimate sacrifice in the course of service to their country, H.R. 2061 authorizes agencies to give a United States flag as a way for the Nation to formally express sympathy and gratitude.

H.R. 2061 is supported by a broad coalition of Federal employee organizations, including the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, American Foreign Service Association, American Federation of Government Employees, and the Service Executives Association.

I would like to thank Representatives Hanna and Hinchey for bringing this important issue to the attention of this Congress. I would also like to thank the minority for working with us to bring this legislation to the floor for our consideration.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of New York, the primary author of this bill, Mr. Hanna.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just merely point out that since Barack Obama took office until now, there are more than 141,000 additional Federal workers on the payroll. So while there has been some discussion about not appreciating Federal workers, I fully appreciate the Federal workers--they're patriotic people, they work hard, they do a good job. But I do think we have an expectation that people do a good day's work for a good salary. And there is nothing that has been brought up today to suggest we're doing anything other than recognizing those who are paying the ultimate sacrifice. We have been increasing the number of Federal employees; some of us are concerned about that. That is a discussion for another day.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been very active on this issue and cares passionately about this issue.

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While the gentleman from Maryland and I may disagree on the statistics of the number of Federal employees, I think we can be united in supporting this bill, H.R. 2061.

There are so many good people who are doing the right thing, they're working hard, they're patriotic, and somehow, some way, unfortunately they pay the ultimate sacrifice.

We simply urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this. It may seem trivial to some, but I guarantee you that to the families who have suffered a loss of such consequence, of such magnitude, a flag presented from the United States of America is appropriate, it's something we should do. I congratulate Mr. Hanna for bringing this bill forward, and I encourage all of my colleagues to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of H.R. 461, the South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act of 2011. I would first like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee for advancing this needed bill to the floor. It wouldn't have happened without good support and consideration on both sides of the aisle. For that I'm very grateful.

The South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act would clarify ownership of an electric distribution system that was built as part of the federally sponsored Strawberry Valley Project. Construction of the Strawberry Valley Project began in 1906 and currently includes the Strawberry Dam and Reservoir, diversion dams, canals, three power plants, and a 296-mile electric transmission and distribution system.

Since 1906, various Federal, State, local, and private partners have been involved in the construction, management, and ownership of the Strawberry Valley Project. Currently, the nonfederal South Utah Valley Electric Special Service District owns, operates, and maintains the electric distribution system. Recently, the Bureau of Reclamation discovered that portions of the electric distribution system remain titled to the United States. This discrepancy exists due to the construction activities that occurred both before and after a 1940 repayment agreement. The Bureau has not yet quantified how much of the system it actually owns, but it has been predicted that an inventory would take multiple years and be very costly to taxpayers.

The South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act would authorize a title transfer to resolve this ownership uncertainty. By transferring title of the entire system to the district, the Bureau would divest itself of future Federal liability while also providing the district--the entity already operating and maintaining this system--with greater certainty and autonomy in day-to-day and long-term operations.

Title transfers are noncontroversial and common practice. Since 1996, portions of 27 Bureau of Reclamation projects have been transferred to nonFederal partners. These transfers benefit both parties. When the Natural Resources Committee favorably forwarded the bill to the House of Representatives, the accompanying report stated, ``In general, title transfers benefit both local communities and the Federal Government.''

Further, the legislation is in line with the Bureau of Reclamation's 1995 framework for transfer of title. This policy outlined criteria needed for the title transfers in order to move forward: Number one, the Federal Treasury, and thereby the taxpayers' financial interest, must be protected; Number two, there must be compliance with all applicable State and Federal laws; Number three, interstate compacts and agreements must be protected; Number four, the Secretary's Native American trust responsibilities must be met; Number five, treaty obligations and international agreements must be fulfilled; and Number six, the public aspects of the project must be protected.

The South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act is in line with the Bureau's framework. And, again, I would like to thank Chairman Hastings and members of the Natural Resources Committee for advancing this bill to the floor, and help on both sides of the aisle.

The South Utah Valley Electric Conveyance Act is beneficial to both the Federal Government and localities in Utah's Third Congressional District, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor Sherri Winder, a beautiful and devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and excellent member of my staff. Sherri passed away on Sunday, September 11th, 2011 in a tragic car accident in southern Utah. We are all stunned by the sudden and devastating loss of this wonderful woman.

As a faithful employee, Sherri brought grace and style to everything that she did. She was an elegant lady. She was an extremely kind, caring, and selfless person. She was a faithful volunteer in her community and church. She made an immediate and profound impact in my office. My staff and I are each deeply affected by her loss.

I am honored to have been one of the many people touched by Sherri's kindness and generosity. Sherri lived the principle of gratitude-- always expressing her appreciation to others and making them feel valued. Sherri was perpetually positive and instantly brought a smile to all those with whom she came in contact. Her love of life and sincere caring was contagious and welcomed by all.

Sherri was involved in politics for all the right reasons. She was the first volunteer in Jon Huntsman's 2004 gubernatorial campaign, she was a prolific grass roots organizer, organizing the efforts to incorporate Taylorsville as a city, and she was a stalwart employee serving all who needed assistance. Sherri simply wanted to help people and strengthen our community. She was known and loved by people all across the Salt Lake Valley. But no more so than by the five loving children she and her husband Kent raised together.

Sherri Winder leaves behind a legacy of service and gratitude. She is survived by her husband, Kent, and their five adult children, Mike and Karyn Winder, Aimee and Matt Newton, Tami and Tom Larsen, Nathan Winder, and Isaac and Candalyn Winder, as well as 11 grandchildren with one on the way.

On behalf of both my staff and the constituents of the Third Congressional District who were served so well by Sherri, I extend my deepest sympathies to Kent and his family. Our thoughts and prayers go out to them during this most difficult time.

And although we mourn the loss of Sherri at this time, we will always celebrate her brilliant life, cherish her wonderful friendship, strive to emulate her amazing qualities, and work as she did to improve the world and community around us. She will be sincerely missed, but her profound legacy will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the message of the President be referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, September 9, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Gang of Six? The Gang of Six? How about that gang of 234 people yesterday, Republicans and Democrats, who passed the plan that doesn't raise taxes and averts the crisis?