Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Christine Taillon for her 32 years of service at General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts, and to congratulate her on her recent retirement.

Christine started as a temporary employee in 1979 but soon became a permanent member of the GE staff. While raising two sons, working full time, and completing a bachelor's degree at Salem State College and a master's degree in Management at Lesley College in Cambridge, Christine progressed in various roles throughout the Lynn Aircraft Engine unit and became one of the first women in the company to become a Six Sigma Black Belt--a team leader responsible for measuring, analyzing, improving and controlling key processes that influence customer satisfaction and productivity growth.

Christine completed her General Electric career at the end of 2011 as a Senior Tech Manager for Turbo Shaft & GE38 Marine & Commercial Programs. The GE38 engine is believed to be the most technologically advanced turbo shaft engine in its class, and it is my understanding that the United States Marine Corps has selected it to power the Sikorsky CH53K Super Stallion helicopter.

General Electric has been in Lynn since 1892, and members of Christine's family have proudly worked there for most of that time. Christine's grandfather, Martin G. Higgins, entered the apprentice program at Lynn General Electric in 1904 and worked there for 34 years. Her father, John J. Higgins, worked at GE for 33 years, from 1943 to 1975. Christine's husband, Michael Taillon, also worked for 41 years at Lynn GE. In total, that is 140 years of service to General Electric in Lynn.

I congratulate Christine on her remarkable career and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to this bill. It will not kill the bill, and it won't send it back to committee. If adopted, we will then vote on the passage of the bill, as amended.

When families in my district and across the country sit around the kitchen table to try to balance their budgets, they know that costs don't stay the same every year. They know the price of milk and gas and college and health care all go up. Yet H.R. 3578, left unamended, holds the budgetary baseline constant instead of allowing it to reflect increases in costs, making simple inflation adjustments look like increases in spending.

Ignoring increases in costs will dramatically lower program levels in the baseline. Translated, this means that the priorities we support to help sustain the middle class and those aspiring to it, the programs we pay our taxes to support, will be cut as inflation eats into the accounts set in the budget.

The Republican majority argues that America's middle class must make even more sacrifices to address our debt. The majority's mantra is that austerity alone, spending cuts focused only on nondefense discretionary domestic spending with no additional revenue and without closing any special interest tax loopholes, is all they think should be done.

Never mind that it's largely their policies enforced under the last administration, aided and abetted by the then-Federal Reserve Board chairman, that were largely responsible for the debt situation. Never mind that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has since testified that this was wrong, that his ``unconstrained free market'' ``winner- take-all'' theory had never worked in his 80-plus-year life span. Never mind that in the 1970s, we used to spend 5 percent of our national income on discretionary domestic spending, like education, job training, health, research, veterans, and infrastructure; but more recently, we've already pared that back to 2.5 percent.

With this bill, the majority tries to balance the budget on the backs of workers, middle class families, small businesses, and society's most challenged. They refuse to consider a fair distribution of our tax obligations. They even refuse to close special interest tax loopholes.

This bill, if not amended, chooses shielding the extraordinarily well-off from any fair share of taxes over sustaining Pell Grants, student assistance promising opportunity to families. It chooses allowing hedge fund managers the benefit of especially low tax rates over Meals on Wheels for seniors. And it chooses special tax credits to the mature, extremely profitable oil and gas companies over providing the security of housing for homeless veterans returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The austerity-only approach to addressing their largely self-induced debt is not the smart response to our economy's needs. We need to deal with our economic situation in a smart way, as attested by the majority of economists from all across the political divide. We need a gradual approach, balanced between spending cuts and revenue increases fairly distributed. Those need to be appropriately targeted in amount, share and time, not applied in bludgeon fashion like this bill on the floor today.

Choking off the middle class by cutting spending for education, health,

jobs, job training, research, senior care, and our obligations to veterans is shortsighted. Studies and reports from international and national economists tell us that a vibrant middle class is essential for the well-being of our economy; imperative for businesses so they have customers for their goods and services; important to employers so they have the next generation of innovators, inventors, scientists, teachers, engineers, and a generally capable workforce; and important to families and individuals as they seek personal and economic security.

We shouldn't need to argue the moral imperative of meeting our obligations to those suffering from debilitating health conditions and the families that support them; to the care of our seniors, especially those aged, alone and poor; nor to our duty to our military forces, especially the wounded and disabled.

Left as is, this bill is a step to undoing all the progress, however slow, so far made in moving from the near depression caused by the failed policies of 2001-2008. Simply cutting spending on the middle class, at the same time businesses and families have been forced to limit spending, and just as municipalities and the States are trimming back, just adds to the downward spiral of fewer customers for our businesses, less growth for our economy, more layoffs, and on and on in a repeating circle.

Make no mistake, this bill, if not amended, makes the dream of post- high school certificates or degrees or acquired job skills more remote for many; makes the visit of a neighbor and delivery of perhaps the day's only warm meal for seniors less likely; means research on debilitating health conditions or diseases may be delayed, and the cure of cancers a more distant goal; and consigns our veterans to longer periods of homelessness and more difficulty getting the services they need to get a job.

This amendment would allow the effects of inflation to be factored into the budgetary baseline so as to avoid automatic cuts in purchasing power that would otherwise result from this bill. Passing this amendment allows us to at least start on a path to the kind of America most of us envision, or at least it lessens the obstacles to that America that are thrown up by this legislation in its current form.

Let's pass this amendment and start down a path that recalls what makes this country exceptional, the notion that everyone, no matter what economic or social condition one is born into, should have an equal opportunity to reach our goals; to an America reflecting that its people should shoulder and will shoulder any burden, suffer any sacrifice, if shared fairly.

Let's pass this amendment and add back at least a modest degree of balance and fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that for those who count on us to be fair and just, or to make smart, targeted, and balanced approaches to our complex challenges, we could at least do that.

I urge support of this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is relatively straightforward. It ensures that two important Army Corps of Engineers accounts--construction and operation maintenance--be funded at last year's levels. I certainly understand that the committee was challenged by the allocation it was allotted, and that was $1 billion below fiscal year 2011 and nearly $6 billion less than the President's request.

Despite that, I appreciate that Chairman Frelinghuysen has added $195 million to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers. He is to be commended for that. Unfortunately, I think that Congress can and must do better. According to the Army Corps, we have 59 ports and harbors that carry about 90 percent of our economic activity in this country--2.2 billion tons of cargo and $1.4 trillion in commerce.

In testimony before the Senate committee last year, an official from the United States Chamber of Commerce discussed the importance of our ports, inland and coastal waterways to America's businesses. This is what the official said:

The business community, from ports to barge operators to agricultural exporters, depends on a marine transportation system to move goods to domestic and international markets. They are also important parts of the Nation's economic engine and are drivers for job creation in America. Maintaining our Federal channels to their authorized and required dimensions is a critical part of ensuring that this commerce can continue uninterrupted.

Yet we continue to have a significant dredging backlog, and I am concerned that this bill's allocation for the Army Corps is insufficient to appropriately

address that backlog. It doesn't just affect commerce; it impacts people's lives very intimately as well. I hear from constituents in my district, particularly those in Newburyport and the Plum Island part of Newbury, who tell me that their homes are quite literally about to fall into the ocean unless the Army Corps can rehabilitate a jetty that hasn't been repaired in 40 years. That's not an uncommon story on our waterways.

The least we can do for these families is to ensure that the important Army Corps programs are funded at last year's levels. The subcommittee allocation makes that incredibly difficult for Members to address, and I understand that. Taking care of perceived deficiencies in a bill are going to need attention. I expect there will be some concerns, which I am perfectly willing to address in my further comments.

In anticipation of what might be brought up, either Congress can fund these important Army Corps functions at last year's levels by making modest reductions to two Department of Energy programs that, when combined, receive more than $1 billion in this bill or Congress can choose to sustain the level of commitment to the Army Corps and slightly reduce the Department of Energy's fossil fuel energy research and development and the nuclear energy programs.

I think it is a relatively easy call. For my constituents, it certainly is. Congress should be on the side of increasing its investments and repairing and modernizing its water infrastructure and putting people back to work, so support for this amendment would ensure that we don't diminish our commitment to those critical Army Corps functions.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a revised amendment that deals with the objection raised by the chairman on the previous amendment that was proposed on this matter. It still gets to the fundamental issue here, that we need to restore the Army Corps of Engineer budgets here through the Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts to the point of at least where it was in fiscal year 2011.

We have serious issues confronting our economy. This is a way to make sure that the Corps has the resources it needs to deal with its numerous issues--our ports, dealing with our economy, moving the cargo, and essentially putting people to work, and also protecting the homes and the welfare of people that live along ways that need dredging or that need jetties repaired that haven't been repaired for decade after decade.

While I understand that the chairman had a difficult role and opportunity was limited due to the amount of money that was allocated for him and this committee, and I respect what he tried to do, simply speaking, I think we have the choices to make here, and those choices are to protect the interests of people, to make sure that we get people back to work, to give the Army Corps the resources that it needs, at the same time reducing other accounts by a rather minimal amount so that we effect our purposes without causing too much destruction to programs that other people may favor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Susan E. Egan and congratulate her on her forthcoming retirement. For the past 38 years, Mrs. Egan has served as the Head of Harborlight Montessori School, which she co-founded in 1973. She has served as an active leader of the school and has made numerous contributions to the school's development as well as to the community.

Under her leadership, Harborlight grew from a 27-student, one-room school located in the basement of the First Baptist Church in Beverly, Massachusetts, to a model Montessori school enrolling more than 250 students in 17 classes. With the addition of several wings for a preschool, an expansive school library, and additional rooms for art, music and language lessons, Susan's vision of making the Montessori method of teaching accessible to all children of the North Shore continues today.

An active member of the community, Susan serves on the Board of Symphony by the Sea as well as the Lynch Park Advisory Committee. Her dedication to service is instilled in the fabric of Harborlight, where students are involved in community service projects that partner with local organizations.

Prior to serving as the Head of Harborlight, Susan earned a master's degree in education and completed post-graduate work in counseling psychology. She is a licensed Mental Health Counselor and a Marriage and Family Therapist, as well as a licensed teacher, school director and Registered Nurse.

As she concludes her tenure as the Head of Harborlight Montessori School, I wish to recognize Susan Egan for her remarkable achievements as a teacher and mentor and wish her all the best in her retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 30th anniversary of the Massachusetts Senior Action Council (MSAC). For the past 30 years, the MSAC has served as a champion for low- and moderate- income seniors, achieving gains in promoting the rights and well-being of seniors.

Since its first meeting in April 1981, the MSAC has brought together thousands of area seniors to participate in public meetings, rallies and government hearings and has succeeded in bringing necessary services to seniors in need.

Shortly after its inception, the MSAC restored local bus routes, established medical

and transportation services, and ensured the improvement of maintenance at local subsidized housing complexes. It has won hard-earned victories in creating low-cost drug programs for seniors, passing legislation to provide home care as an alternative to institutional care, and ending ``balance billing'' for Medicare patients.

Today, the MSAC has over 1,000 active members of all ages working at the grassroots level to continue to ensure that seniors have access to the resources they need most. Seven chapters throughout Massachusetts provide support, leadership training, and opportunities to advocate for those members of the senior community who otherwise would have no voice.

I join my friends in the North Shore chapter and so many others in congratulating the Massachusetts Senior Action Council on 30 successful years. I wish them the best as they continue to serve as a voice for all vulnerable residents of Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which incorporates four of my amendments as part of the en bloc, and I want to therefore thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for the bipartisan approach in which they have dealt with these amendments today.

One of my amendments officially recognizes Salem, Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the National Guard. Salem was the site where the country's first military regiment mustered in 1637. The militia was the foundation of what would become the National Guard.

It is in commemoration of the celebration of the men and women who serve our country and those Salem residents who came together almost 375 years ago to protect our Nation that I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Next year will be the 375th anniversary of the first muster, and so it's particularly pleasing to see this matter passed in time to celebrate that.

In my limited time, I also want to touch on the other three amendments that are included in the en bloc. Those are good government amendments, which were the result of oversight work done by the Subcommittee on National Security which I chaired in the last two Congresses, but which reflect a good bipartisan oversight effort. These amendments will be seeking to strengthen our manufacturing and defense industrial base, will be increasing coordination of foreign police training programs which currently involve efforts by no less than seven different United States Government departments and agencies, and we will be creating a new leadership position within the Pentagon to ensure appropriate oversight on wartime contracting.

At a time when every line item in the budget is being scrutinized, these amendments are intended to make our country stronger, to make systems work better, and to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment for some very good reasons on that.

Let me explain what the medical loss ratio is. That is what the people in these private insurance companies call providing health care for the premium dollar you provide. For every time they give you a health service for your premium dollar, they think of it as a medical loss. The medical loss ratio is the amount of your dollar that they actually spend on health care versus CEO salaries, bonuses, stock dividends that are out of control, lobbyist costs that they might incur, advertisements, and so on down the line. The purpose of the medical loss ratio provision is in fact to make sure that they spend a higher percentage of your premium dollar on actual health care.

In 1993, the average used to be about 95 cents of every dollar would be spent by private health insurance companies on health services. Now, however, recent studies indicate that some of these private insurance companies are spending as little as 60 cents of every health care dollar on actual health services and the rest on lobbyists--probably some of whom are down here arguing to kill this provision--on high CEO salaries and bonuses and advertisements, and so on down the line.

The MLR, the medical loss ratio provision in this bill, says an insurance company for individuals or small company plans has to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care. And if you're in a large company plan, it's 85 cents. What a novel idea; you get some bang for your buck and the government would actually do something for you for a change, protecting consumer rights and making sure that companies do what they should be doing.

This isn't about profits. The companies are extremely profitable, and this is not going to cramp their style. In fact, this is about greed. The profits for the 10 largest for-profit insurance companies in this country show a whopping $9.3 billion in profits for the first three quarters of 2010. That's $2.1 billion

more than the first 9 months of 2009. So it's gone up 41 percent from 2009. What this is about is them avoiding having to pay premium dollars for health care.

Another provision that I like in this is they're going to have to tell the American public, they're going to have to be transparent in identifying what it is they term as ``health services,'' so people would know if they're trying to put lobbyists fees under health services or excessive bonuses or CEO salaries or advertisements, things of that nature. And I don't think they have any will at all to make sure that people understand where their health care premium dollars are going.

If you don't have a provision like this, we're going to return to what we were; you take the power away from the consumer and you put it with the insurance company. So how do they do it? They raise the premiums or they cut your health care. They take away health care for people that want to get on their parents' plan up to the age of 26 if they're working at a company that doesn't have coverage, or they don't have coverage otherwise. They put on caps annually or lifetime caps so you can't get coverage. They rescind your policy exactly when you're in the middle of your cancer or diabetes care. Or they make sure some other way that you don't get the coverage you ought to have.

Wendell Potter, who was a whistleblower, used to be with CIGNA, one of the larger insurance companies, made it real clear when he was testifying before committees that in fact this is what companies want to do, they want to keep that medical loss ratio in place where they benefit and the consumer loses.

I think we're a little perplexed over here. There's nobody on this side of the aisle that doesn't feel regulations ought to be reviewed. I don't think there's anybody on the other side that feels that way, and I think that everybody understands it's one of the roles of Congress, and particularly one of the roles of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee. It's in our rules. Every committee has already passed an entire plan for doing oversight.

So, essentially, the real question is we're spending 9\1/2\ hours here today to ostensibly give authority that already exists. So we're not spending 9\1/2\ hours on dealing with helping 14 million Americans who are out of work. Instead, we're not advancing any bill that would repair our economy or restore our manufacturing industry. We're not ensuring the country's global competitiveness. We're not enhancing our education system. We're not enhancing or reinvesting in our public infrastructure. We're spending 9\1/2\ hours allotting authority that already exists on that, and that just doesn't seem to be a good use of the time of this House. I think that's been noted over and over again.

It didn't stop Chairman Issa from issuing 170 letters looking at the regulatory matters the other day. It didn't stop him from having hours of a committee hearing yesterday where we beat this same drum over and over again. Everybody understands that some regulation is sometimes taken to excess and sometimes the enforcements are taken in the wrong direction.

I take a back seat to nobody. I spent 4 years as chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Policy and National Security. We had hearing after hearing exposing fraud, waste, and abuse in the billions in the Defense Department and related activities. So, yes, let's do it; but let's not waste our time talking about what we're going to talk about. Let's get out there and have the hearings. The committee is set up for that.

But let's also understand what's going on here. There's one side of this debate, my friends on the Republican side, who want to say the only factor to be considered when we're looking at regulation is its cost, and that's it. Well, if that were the case and we only focused on cost, there would probably be no regulations.

But if we look at our history, we've found it important and that there was undeniable progress when we implemented the regulations on child labor, on civil rights protections, 5-day workweeks, cleaner lakes and rivers, clean air, seatbelts and air bags, child-proof medicine caps, fire safety codes, and on and on.

There's value in some of these regulations that also have to be balanced against the cost. And when in fact the Office of Management and Budget did that, as Mr. Kucinich just noted, their report estimated that between 1999 and 2009 the cost of the regulations was about $43 billion to $55 billion, but they were outweighed by economic benefits that were between $128 and $616 billion.

If you just look at the Clean Air Act, by some estimates that act accounted for $23 trillion in economic and health benefits. Thirty times higher than the cost to businesses. The Clean Air Act has created jobs--lots of jobs. In 2010, 1.7 million Americans were employed in environmental technology industries; 119,000 environmental tech companies produced $300 billion in revenues in 2010. And we're exporting these technologies. In 2008, the United States exported $43.8 billion in environmental technologies--more than any other country in the world.

So, Madam Speaker, let's be serious about this. We're talking about regulations. We're talking about the costs and the benefits and doing an analysis. And let's not waste 9\1/2\ hours talking about what we already have the authority to do.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Democratic Leader, U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Leader: I agree to take a leave of absence from

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)

with the understanding that I can be reappointed in the 113th

Congress.

Serving on the HPSCI has been a privilege, and I have

appreciated the opportunity it has afforded me to ensure that

appropriate oversight is conducted over our intelligence and

national security programs. Like you, I believe rigorous

congressional oversight is critical to the successful

implementation of such programs and helps reassure our

constituents that their hard-earned tax dollars are being

well-spent.

As you know, I am currently serving as a member of the

House Committees on Education and the Workforce and Oversight

and Government Reform. As such, and in light of the new

Republican Majority's decision to reduce the number of

members on standing committees in the House, I agree that it

is appropriate at this time to take a leave of absence from

the HPSCI with the understanding that I can be reappointed in

the next Congress.

I thank you for the courtesy you have extended to me, and I

look forward to continuing our work together on addressing

the important challenges confronting the American people.

Sincerely,

John F. Tierney,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply disappointing that, following last week's near universal calls for unity and cooperation and amidst all of the calls to lower the temperature of political discourse and to move to working together to solve America's pressing issues, the new Republican majority is moving full steam ahead with an attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The health care law may not be perfect--that prospect would always certainly be open to debate and suggestions on how it might be improved might also be open to debate--but instead of working together and building on the work that has been done and the progress that has been made, we find ourselves here today, debating and voting on a bill, which, while it may pass the House, most certainly will never become law--nor should it.

Some may call it political catharsis. Others may call it pure theater, plain and simple; but let's be clear: the positive impact the existing health care reform law is having on millions of residents and families in all of our districts is very real, and the law's important, commonsense consumer protections are very popular.

Specifically, this misguided legislation will spell the end of one meaningful consumer protection which I and others fought to get into the law. This protection, the medical loss ratio requirement, holds insurance companies accountable and ensures consumers are receiving the health services for which they are paying top dollar.

In 1993, many private companies routinely spent 95 cents of every dollar on health services. By 2008, in the absence of regulation otherwise, many had reduced their spending on health services to below 75 percent, some to even less than 60 percent of those premium dollars. That meant that companies could spend up to 43 cents of your premium dollar on executive salaries, advertising, lobbyists, bonuses, dividends, and other administrative costs instead of using it for what you had contracted for--health care.

To keep their excessive profits up, you may have been charged ever- higher premiums or may have been denied care through a number of anticonsumer gimmicks. You might have been denied coverage because you or your family member had a preexisting condition or because you had coverage capped annually or in a lifetime, stopping coverage when it was most needed, or, as a parent, you were refused coverage for your children under 26 even if they were still unemployed or were working someplace where coverage wasn't available.

All of these injustices are addressed in the bill. Its repeal would reverse that. I ask that this misguided bill fail, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in supporting this resolution. On behalf of the hundreds of thousands of residents and families I represent in Massachusetts, I respectfully offer my deepest sympathies and condolences to the families, friends and loved ones of those who were killed last Saturday in Tucson, Arizona. I want to express my support for those who were injured. Let's hope their recovery is swift.

Our focus right now must remain on honoring the lives that were lost and the lives that will never be the same as a result of this unspeakable attack. However, as we turn to each other, seek solace and mourn, we cannot lose sight of the fact that extraordinary heroism and selfless courage could be found amid the horror of that day. The worst of tragedies brought out the best of humanity, as it so often does. There were men and women of all ages, who, in some cases, were injured themselves, shielding children from harm, tending to the injured, and apprehending the gunman. All of them put their own lives at risk to help save others.

I'd also like to convey the heartache and concern of my constituents--and all Americans--for my colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As so many have noted, Gabby is a smart and honorable member of Congress, but even more so, she is a great person-- a warm, caring, thoughtful, and a hard-working public servant who strives and succeeds in making a real difference for the people and community she represents. Our hearts go out to Gabby's husband, Mark Kelly, her parents and family, and her dedicated staff in Washington and Arizona.

It is well-known now that this shooting occurred while Congresswoman Giffords was conducting a ``Congress on Your Corner'' event, which gives her constituents an opportunity to meet directly with her and raise issues or ask questions of concern. All of us conduct events like this in some form as often as we can because it is such a fundamental aspect of our job. As Speaker Boehner said last week, ``this is the people's House.'' Moving forward, even in this time of grief and sadness, I believe it is important to keep it that way. Rather than inappropriately increasing the barriers between us and those who we represent, we must stay committed to engaging in precisely the kind of activities that Congresswoman Giffords and her staff undertook last Saturday. We must continue to travel around our communities and be in contact with those we represent. We must be more accessible, not less.

Madam Speaker, as we struggle to make sense of these horrific events, one thing remains perfectly clear to all of us in public life: this type of incident cannot be condoned--and our accessibility to our constituents cannot be curtailed--if our nation is to endure as a democratic republic.

Before I close, I again wanted to join my colleagues in remembering all the victims and rededicating ourselves to the enduring American values which Congresswoman Giffords and her staff embody: openness, accessibility, and a sincere commitment to serve those who we represent.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Nancy K. Kaufman. For the past 20 years, Ms. Kaufman has served as the Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, an umbrella group for 42 local and national Jewish organizations. She has been a charismatic leader for JCRC, for the Boston Jewish community and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I have had the privilege of knowing Nancy for many years, and have traveled to Israel with her. Those who know Nancy can attest to her energy, effectiveness and enthusiasm for building a better world.

Due to Nancy's efforts, JCRC's impact has been felt across the country. As a result of her vision, passion and determination, the organization has developed a national model for creating community cohesion and building bridges. As an advocate for those in need, a community organizer and one committed to maintaining strong ties between Israel and the United States, Nancy has led the Jewish community with distinction and passion, and has been an outspoken and effective advocate for issues of importance to the Jewish community at the state and federal level.

Before joining the JCRC, Nancy worked for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as Deputy Director of the Governor's Office of Human Resources, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services and Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Public Welfare. Starting in January 2011, Ms. Kaufman will join the National Council of Jewish Women as its new President.

Ms. Kaufman is the recipient of several distinguished awards, including the Littauer Award for Excellence from the Kennedy School of Government and the Award for Greatest Contribution to Social Policy and Social Change from the Massachusetts chapter of National Association of Social Workers. Ms. Kaufman was also awarded the Warren B. Kohn Award for Jewish Communal Service in 2001, and was noted among the ``Top 50'' American Jewish leaders in the Forward Newspaper in 2000.

As she concludes her tenure at the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, I wish to recognize Nancy Kaufman for her outstanding achievements as a citizen and advocate and wish her continued success in her new position.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Monsignor Paul V. Garrity. For the past eighteen years, Monsignor Garrity has served as the pastor of St. Mary's Church in Lynn, Massachusetts. During those years, his contributions,

not only to St. Mary's but to the city itself, have been numerous.

Monsignor Garrity grew up in Somerville, Massachusetts. He is a graduate of St. John's College. In 1973, he was ordained a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston. Prior to coming to St. Mary's, he served parishes in Billerica and Malden. He was also Director of the Catholic Center and was Campus Minister at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

In 1992, he was appointed pastor of St. Mary's in Lynn. Since then, he has transformed the parish into a vibrant, welcoming and diverse community. He has breathed new life into the St. Mary's community and engaged support from hundreds of volunteers.

During his tenure both a Haitian Community and a Congolese Community were established at St. Mary's parish. A strategic plan for St. Mary's High School was completed that led to a $10 million capital campaign and the opening of the William F. Connell Center--a new state of the art academic building, the refurbishment of the school campus and the doubling of enrollment.

Monsignor Garrity's vision led to the conversion of a large, old convent building on the St. Mary's campus into 32 units of much-needed low income elderly housing with a service plan that is modeled like an assisted living arrangement. He was an advocate for the conversion of property located at the closed St. Jean Baptiste parish into low income housing to provide affordable home ownership opportunities.

At the request of Cardinal Sean O'Malley, he is currently serving on three Archdiocesan task forces: the Improved Financial Relationship Committee (IFRC), the Clergy Fund Review Committee and the Elementary School Task Force. Monsignor Garrity is a regular panelist on the RUACH Program, an inter-faith dialogue program on local cable TV and is active in ecumenical and interfaith activities in the Greater Lynn community. His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, named Monsignor a Prelate of Honor with the title of Very Reverend Monsignor in 1998, and Monsignor Garrity was made a Knight of the Holy Sepulcher in 1999.

Through his work, Monsignor Garrity has made a difference in the lives of so many in Lynn, and he will leave behind him an indelible imprint on the community.

I join my friends in the greater Lynn community and the St. Mary's parish family in extending my best wishes to Monsignor Garrity as he embarks upon his next assignment hoping that he understands that he will always be welcome ``home'' to St. Mary's and Lynn whenever he ventures this way.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of working men and women of the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I rise today to commend Ron Gettelfinger for his extraordinary service and leadership during his recently completed tenure as president of the United Auto Workers of America.

Over the last 8 years, Ron Gettelfinger has helped steer his brothers and sisters in organized labor through one of the most difficult economic periods in history with great statesmanship and considerable care. And despite the unprecedented challenges the auto industry has faced, the UAW has emerged from the recent crisis well-positioned for the future thanks in no small measure to Ron's vision and leadership.

Ron's tenure at the UAW was marked by a string of victories for American workers and their families. An outspoken advocate to make health care accessible and affordable for all Americans, Ron played a critical role in helping to see health care reform enacted into law. He fought for children's health insurance and fair pay legislation, labor protections in fair trade agreements, and championed retaining manufacturing jobs here in the United States through investments in advanced technology vehicles. And through the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression and the loss of thousands of jobs to companies overseas, Ron Gettelfinger always worked to ensure that UAW workers and their families were treated fairly.

Though he rose to the very top of the UAW leadership, Ron Gettelfinger never forgot where he came from. He was most proud simply to be known as a chassis line repairman. A member of UAW since 1964, it was the needs and perspectives of the workers at Ford's Louisville Assembly plant with whom he worked side-by-side for so many years that always shaped his priorities and concerns.

With profound appreciation for Ron Gettelfinger's consensus-building among business and labor leaders that has helped to preserve a vibrant American auto industry for millions of American workers and their families, I join my colleagues in thanking Ron for his service and wishing him and his family well in the years ahead.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, there are instances when, after we have done all the research and completed all other options and exhausted them, a legislative remedy may still be required in order to help our constituents in our district offices with a particular problem. Those occasions give us the opportunity to evidence how Congress can work on their behalf, how Congress can help solve problems, and how Congress could have a direct and positive effect on people's lives. This is one of those times, and I appreciate the fact that the Rules Committee has made this amendment in order.

This amendment seeks to assist those people who, while they were in the process of pursuing their dream of homeownership, were unfairly impacted by a statutory change to HUD's upfront mortgage insurance premium refund policy. Now, under HUD's Upfront Mortgage Insurance Premium Refund policy, borrowers paid an upfront mortgage insurance of 1\1/2\ percent of their FHA loan amount, and if they prepaid their loans, the borrowers could be due refunds on that prepaid insurance amount.

However, in 2005, with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress included language directing that the mortgages after the time of that date of enactment, which was December 8, 2004, that would no longer be true. Borrowers would no longer be eligible for refunds of their prepaid insurance.

So now there are about 15,000 people in this country who tried to do the right thing and play by the rules. They are constituents of all of ours who closed on their mortgage before that December 8, 2004, date in order to be able to get their refund. But, regrettably, they were prevented from receiving their refund because HUD didn't endorse their loan until after December 8, 2004. Now the constituents tell us they were never adequately informed by the lender of those potential provisions, and the lenders tell us they didn't do it because they weren't told by HUD until after the effective date, in fact, not until January of 2005.

I know of one particular family in my district from Gloucester, Massachusetts, who were harmed by that new provision in the law. They did everything right. They played by the rules. They closed their loan in November of 2004 without notice of the change of law, but they have been prevented from receiving their refund of some $4,200 because HUD didn't do their mortgage until after December 10 of 2004. Certainly, that's an unintended consequence of the provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005.

This amendment makes a meaningful first step toward helping certain eligible homeowners and borrowers, many of whom are low-income families, as I say, who played by the rules. I say this is a first step because we later have to go to Appropriations to get money to fulfill this policy. But this clearly is the right policy. It is the fair thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and we have to discuss and argue about the money to appropriate in order to make whole these people at a later date.

But I suggest that if we all want to do the right thing by policy, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, 15,593, according to the Department.

I thank you for raising that point that this is a two- step process. This part of the process, in fact, talks about whether we will have a policy that will enable us at some appropriate time to appropriate the money.

We are not appropriating the money now, and I think that's a debate for another day and another time if we decide whether we want to be fair to these people or put it off for some other time, but the total for that 15,593 people, according to the Department, would be $10,372,661.61, more or less.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that $10 million is $10 million, and that's a lot of money to each one of us individually and, of course, we should be concerned. It's not proportionately a lot in our $1.7 trillion budget.

But I think the real number to look at here is what does it mean to these individuals who are harmed by government policy on no doing of their own. So if it's $4,200 to a family in my district or $4,200 to a family in the gentlewoman's district, that's what's driving our economy right now.

For people to have every expectation of getting the return of that money and to play by the rules only to have the bureaucracy undercut them, I think that's the issue of fairness that we are dealing with here.

Now, we will have an issue later on about whether or not we think now is the appropriate time to put $10 million on the floor to help people out, and that will be a day for them. But I think we should deal with the policy now and authorize that to be done at some date either this year or next year, or whenever we can make the argument in Congress that it's time to be fair.

I think we can all say in this amount, given the huge meaning this is to individuals, now is the time to be fair; 15,000 people wronged by government bureaucracy in amounts that are every bit as significant to them individually, the $4,200, as $10 million may be to all of us in the aggregate. It's an impact on their lives. It's whether or not their families are going to be able to make it through this crisis, whether or not they are going to be able to meet the everyday needs of food, health care, education, clothing and those things that are important to their family.

Again, in closing, I just reiterate, this is the authorization process. Let's set the policy of fairness. We can debate the other later. And let's keep in mind these people played by the rules, did what was right, and deserve to know, at least as a policy matter, Congress will stand with them.

I yield back the balance of my time.