Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this so-called ``Federal worker pay freeze.'' As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, we have witnessed a deliberate effort over the past 2 years of the Republican majority to undertake a series of legislative attacks on our middle-income Federal workers, and this bill is no different.

Despite the title of this legislation, this bill would extend the current statutory pay freeze for all Federal civilian employees--the vast majority of whom are middle class earners--through 2013.

In place of a balanced approach to deficit reduction based on a genuine commitment to shared sacrifice, this bill again seeks to target Federal employees who are already in their second year of a 2\1/2\-year pay freeze. Collectively, because of the pay freeze that's been in effect for the last couple of years, these same Federal workers have already contributed over $100 billion towards deficit reduction and continued unemployment benefits for other workers.

I'd like to note that I am not opposed to a pay freeze for Members of Congress. I think we should lead by example. In fact, I have voted for pay freezes for congressional pay on six different occasions.

Regrettably, however, this legislation continues the concerning trend throughout the 112th Congress of attempting to address deficit reduction on the backs of middle-income workers in the Federal Government again by attacking their take-home pay. These are the dedicated folks who work at our VA hospitals; they protect our borders; they care for, again, our wounded veterans; they run the research facilities in researching cures for deadly disease, and they provide services to the Defense Department and the State Department. So these are the people that are doing the hard work, and this is not a way to repay them. Again, they are already in the second year of a 2\1/2\-year pay freeze.

I agree that that pay freeze should apply to me and other Members of Congress; however, these hardworking fellow employees should not be asked to carry even more of this burden.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Michael (Mike) Leone upon his retirement after nineteen years as the Port Director of Boston at the Massachusetts Port Authority. As Director of the Port of Boston, Mike oversaw the operation and management of the public marine facilities in the Port of Boston, including Conley Container Terminal, Black Falcon Cruise Terminal, Boston Fish Pier, Boston Autoport, Foreign Trade Zones, and other supporting maritime infrastructure.

In addition, Mike lead the way in implementing business and marketing strategies that directly lead to the increase in the volume of cargo and passengers moving over all marine terminals, which generates an annual economic benefit of $2.5 billion dollars and accounts for over 34,000 jobs. While managing an organization of 120 employees and over 200 members of the International Longshoremen's Association, Mike also directed the operations, maintenance, and security at Massport's commercial properties including nearly 30 acres of public parks, numerous roads, hotels, office buildings, apartments, and marinas.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Leone has also played an important role in the development and operation of Massport properties in and around the South Boston waterfront as that area evolves into a waterfront destination. As Director, Mike was instrumental in turning Boston into a major hub for cruise ship traffic, in part by expanding and modernizing the Black Falcon terminal. In 1998 approximately 106,000 passengers came through the Black Falcon terminal; today, the number of passengers is on track to set a new record of roughly 350,000 this year.

During the course of his time at Massport, Mike was a leader of the American Association of Port Authority (AAPA). AAPA is the principal advocate of 160 public port authorities in the United States, Canada, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Mike first served as Chairman of the Board for the AAPA in 2003 and was elected again as Chairman of the Board in 2009, becoming the first person in the Association's 97 year history to serve for a second term.

Mr. Speaker, Mike Leone also proudly served in the United States Coast Guard, leading a team of attorneys that provided legal advice and counsel to all Coast Guard commands in New England, New York, and New Jersey. Ultimately, Mike was appointed as the deputy regional counsel for the Coast Guard's Great Lakes operations and also served as Chief Operating Officer for all Coast Guard activities in the Port of New York, Hudson River, and Lake Champlain.

Mr. Leone is a graduate of The National Law Center at George Washington University, where he received his Juris Doctor with Honors. He attended the United States Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Management with Honors.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents and a grateful maritime association, I ask all my distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of a true public servant who selflessly dedicated his life to the service of our country and equally important as a key figure in maritime security and operations.

I cannot thank him enough for everything he has done to protect our Nation's waterways and the millions of Americans who live, work, and visit them every day. This Congress and our Nation owe Mike a debt of gratitude for his commitment to maritime security and his leadership at the Massachusetts Port Authority.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Police Chief Paul Frazier of Braintree, Massachusetts, in recognition of his thirty-two years of dedicated public service to the families of the Town of Braintree and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Chief Frazier was born and raised in Braintree, Massachusetts, by his proud parents, Mary and Robert Frazier. He is one of ten children. He currently resides in Braintree, Massachusetts and is the proud parent of two wonderful daughters, Jenny and Katie.

Chief Frazier graduated from Braintree High School in 1973 and, following in his father's footsteps, he joined the United States Marine Corps earning the rank of Corporal. After serving our country, he attended Northeastern University and earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice.

Subsequent to his graduation from Northeastern University, he was hired by the Braintree Police Department on June 2e, 1980. Early in his career, he earned the American Legion's ``Medal of Honor'' for apprehending an armed felon during a shooting incident. He was later promoted to Sergeant on September lst, 1987, and Lieutenant on February 5th, 1990. As a Lieutenant, he led the Detective Division and worked with the South Shore Drug Task Force.

In 1993, he became the Chief of Police and was reappointed by Mayor Joseph Sullivan in 2010. As the Chief of Police for 19 years, he has implemented a number of improvements to the department that helped train and equip the police force. Most recently, he helped guide a $1 million renovation of the police station.

Chief Frazier has volunteered countless hours to various causes, notably the Alzheimer's Disease Memory Ride, where funds are raised to combat Alzheimer's Disease, and the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association Ralph LePore Jimmy Fund Golf Tournament. Fittingly, Chief Frazier was recognized for his leadership with the Ken Coleman Extra Mile Award, given to the outstanding volunteer to the Jimmy Fund Golf Tournament.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take to the floor of the House today to join with his family, friends and contemporaries to thank Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier for his dedicated public service to the families of the Town of Braintree, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and to the United States of America. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing Police Chief Paul Frazier's career of unselfish commitment to his community and country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Keating, for his leadership on this issue.

I rise this morning, along with several of my colleagues, Mr. Rahall and Mr. Keating, whom you just heard, and also Chairman Rogers, to talk about the very important issue of prescription drug abuse in America.

Prescription drugs are responsible for the fastest growing area of drug abuse in this country, ahead of cocaine, heroine, methamphetamines, and other drugs. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, prescription drugs cause most of the more than 26,000 fatal overdoses that we see each year. Despite this alarming number, there exists a lack of knowledge about this particular type of substance abuse that prevents many people from identifying it as the problem that it is, and that in turn makes it more difficult to achieve a real solution.

Prescription drug abuse is an epidemic in this country plain and simple, and it must be dealt with as such. While prescription drug medication can help people suffering from a range of chronic and temporary conditions, for many others, exposure to pain medication, whether prescribed or obtained through other means, can be the beginning of a long and tragic battle with addiction. As you heard from previous speakers, from Massachusetts to West Virginia to Kentucky and to California, many of my constituents also struggle with prescription drug addiction and its consequences. Those people are homemakers, they are professionals, they are students and laborers. Addiction does not discriminate.

Abuse of prescription medicine, especially opioid pain relievers, is a major problem nationally and in Massachusetts, where deaths, emergency room episodes, and admissions for treatment related to non- heroin opioids has skyrocketed in recent years. In fact, 99 percent of individuals entering treatment facilities who report heroin use started with a prescription medication like OxyContin.

OxyContin is a narcotic painkiller which has started too many people on this terrible journey to addiction. It is a drug that by design is inherently so powerfully addictive that it actually changes the brain over long periods of treatment, and it creates customers for life. It creates addicts. OxyContin is a drug that has caused so much grief to individuals, families, and communities, has caused so much pain and suffering, that earlier this year the nation of Canada removed it from the market. I commend them for that. I, in fact, filed a bill in May of 2005 to do exactly the same thing in the United States, but because of the powerful lobbying efforts of the drug companies, that legislation was not successful. That's a big part of the problem.

In the United States, we continue to put corporate profit ahead of personal loss. Reports of the abuse of OxyContin surfaced soon after its introduction in 1996, a year in which Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, made $1 billion on the drug. In 2007, Purdue Pharma pled guilty to criminal charges that they intentionally misled doctors, Federal regulators, and patients in regard to the addictive nature of their gold-mine drug in order to boost their profits. Despite its troubled history, OxyContin is still available. In 2011, it earned $2.8 billion in profits for the company.

In addressing the problem, we need to consider the range of contributing factors. We need to look at the composition of the drugs and the marketing of these addictive drugs and the regulatory approval process. There are two measures that I want to note here: one, there has been a significant effort to reformulate this drug so that it is less susceptible to abuse. I commend the drug-makers on that effort. The second issue is with BlueCross BlueShield, which has instituted a limiting factor. It requires a robust reevaluation of any patient who is being prescribed OxyContin over a period of time. I think that is one of the best decisions by an insurance company in this country in some time.

I commend my colleagues on the Congressional Prescription Drug Abuse Caucus for their legislative efforts, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this very important issue.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 452, the vote for H.R. 4155, the Veteran Skills to Job Act, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I would add that we have 31 Democrats that signed a letter to the Department of Justice and to the White House in the aftermath of Agent Terry's death to fully cooperate in this investigation. However, I rise in strong opposition to this contempt resolution.

While criticism of the Department of Justice for oversight of the so- called ``gunwalking'' operations--conducted during both the Bush administration and the current administration--may be warranted, a finding of contempt against the sitting Attorney General of the United States is most certainly not.

In determining whether this House should hold our highest-ranking national law enforcement officer in contempt of Congress, let us remember that up until last week the majority of our committee had been demanding the production of documents that our Attorney General is legally prohibited from disclosing and that has caused much of the delay here. In other words, Mr. Holder would have broken the law and likely compromised existing criminal prosecutions if he adhered to the majority's unreasonable request for materials that related to ongoing criminal investigations, Federal wiretap communications under judicial seal, and documents also subject to grand jury secrecy rules.

Let us also be mindful that we are considering the extent of cooperation, or noncooperation, of an Attorney General who has appeared before Congress on nine separate occasions, whose Justice Department has produced over 7,600 pages of documents to oversight investigators and who continues to offer significant accommodations in response to extraordinary and ever-changing requests for information.

Meanwhile, the majority continues to deny any and all Democratic requests to publicly question, under oath, law enforcement officials, including former Director of the ATF, Ken Melson, the head of the very Agency that ran the gunwalking operations such as Fast and Furious.

Accordingly, it's become quite clear that what began as a legitimate and compelling oversight committee investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has deteriorated into an unfortunate example of politics and partisanship at their worst.

In closing, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this contempt resolution.

I would like to refute the gentleman's last point, especially. I worked for 18 years as an ironworker. I've worked not only in the Massachusetts area, but New York, New Mexico, Louisiana. I worked in Indiana. I worked at a lot of the steel mills. I worked a lot of jobs where Davis-Bacon has been in effect.

What Davis-Bacon does--and the gentleman's amendment would provide-- that none of the funds made available to this bill will be available to administer the wage rate requirements of chapter 31 of title 40, which is the Davis-Bacon Act. What Davis-Bacon was meant to do is to prevent the wages in any area of the country and every area of the country from being depressed by bringing in low-wage workers. This was the practice back before the prevailing wage, before Davis-Bacon was in effect. You would have large construction projects, but you'd have unscrupulous contractors who would pay very low wages to their employees, and they would move into an area where the cost of living required those workers to get a decent wage.

And what will happen now if we repeal Davis-Bacon, which is a very, very bad idea, not only for the gentleman's district but every State in the Union, is we will get one group of very low-paid workers, and they will be like locusts. They will go into areas, whether it be Houston, whether it be down in Texas or Louisiana or in the Northeast, we will have low-wage workers go in there and undercut the wages of the workers in those areas. This prevented that practice of undermining the wages of local workers.

The Davis-Bacon wage is established by a study in the gentleman's area. Specifically, they look at the wages for the construction trades. I was an ironworker. They look it at for plumbers, electricians--what is the area wage for that individual worker.

Now I'm sure we can find some workers over in Mexico that will come in and work for less money. That's supported by a lot of people in this body, unbelievably so. Davis-Bacon prevents that from happening. The contractor has to pay the wage for Houston, the wage for Tucson, the wage for New York, the wage for Boston. Those wages are different for each area because of the standard of living and the cost of living in those areas.

This protects workers, whether they're union workers or nonunion workers. And I've worked on Davis-Bacon jobs where there have been nonunion working across from me. I worked at the Shell Oil refinery down in Norco, Louisiana. Half the job was union, half the job was nonunion, because that was the deal. That's how they got enough workers to cover that job.

And I've worked 18 years. I strapped on the work boots every single day for 18 years. I've been a foreman. I've been a general foreman. I've worked on Davis-Bacon jobs. I've worked on many, many jobs. I've seen how this works, and I know the history here and why this law was put into place. This is a good law. It prevents piracy. It prevents undermining the workers in every State in this Union. If you strap on a pair of work boots, I don't care if you're union or nonunion, this is a good bill for you. This protects you.

They tried to repeal it after Katrina in the areas where Katrina affected Mississippi and Louisiana, and the President suspended it for a short while. You know what he had to do? He had to reinstate it because they couldn't get enough workers to come in because the wages were so low they could not get workers in there. So President George Bush repealed his own executive order suspending Davis-Bacon. And when they lifted that, the workers came in and worked. Workers from Louisiana, workers from Mississippi took those jobs.

This is another attack on the working people. This is just blue- collar jobs. If we don't support apprenticeship programs and decent wages and a set of skills in our workers, shame on us, shame on us, shame on us.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the King amendment.

The King amendment seeks to ensure that none of the funds made available through this bill may be made available to administer the wage-rate requirements of subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code, more commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act.

The Davis-Bacon Act, enacted in 1931, requires Federal contractors to pay workers the local ``prevailing wage'' on construction projects. Its goal was to outlaw wage exploitation, since public contracts go to the lowest bidder.

We've come a long way since 1931 in terms of workers' rights and workplace safety. But, I believe, if general contractors on Federal jobs have an opportunity to pay a lower wage to their workers and increase their own profit margin, they're going to do it. It doesn't make them bad people, they're businessmen concerned primarily about the bottom line.

In these difficult economic times, when so many workers are unemployed or barely hanging on, it sets a dangerous precedent to waive these important worker protections.

Through the underlying bill the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will build dams, shore up vulnerable coastlines and maintain our navigable waterways. And this range of efforts will create good jobs. It's hard work, but good work for a lot of men and women across the country.

But because more than 20 percent of our construction tradespeople are out of work, there will be opportunity for some of the less scrupulous contractors to exploit this workforce, so desperate to get back on the job.

And waiving Davis-Bacon removes critical worker protections, compromising the work quality on these projects.

American workers deserve the kind of fair wage rates that Davis-Bacon provides, a wage that will lift up their circumstances, provide hope, and get them and our economy back on track. To deprive our workforce of these protections, of these opportunities, is an egregious abrogation of our responsibility as elected leaders.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment.

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

In my own experience before coming to Congress, I was actually an ironworker for about 18 years. I have actually run work on projects with PLAs. I've been a general foreman on a large, complex construction project such as the ones that are covered by this bill. These large projects are $25 million and over, so it's not somebody who's throwing up a house here or there. I also worked in Louisiana, and we had a PLA where half the job was union and half the job was nonunion. There are situations in which PLAs are extremely important and extremely helpful. This bill would prohibit that from happening.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is absolutely correct in his interpretation of the language of the bill. For instance, if the VA, which is right now considering building a spinal cord injury hospital in Brockton, Massachusetts, would like to put an agreement on that project that says they want 30 percent of the workers or 50 percent of the workers on this job to be United States veterans, they would not be able to put that language into effect because they would not be able to require a contractor to sign an agreement to hire veterans on a VA project. That's exactly what's wrong with the bill.

Mr. Grimm has a very good amendment. It is on point. He is absolutely right. I know this from my own work on PLA projects. This amendment seeks to strike a provision from the underlying bill which would prevent any Federal agency from requiring contractors to sign a project labor agreement.

Now, PLAs have been highly efficient in coordinating many, many contractors on these complex construction projects. Despite the arguments of some, PLAs are not a guarantee of union employment. Under a PLA agreement, construction contractors can hire people regardless of union or nonunion status. What it does do is requires that contractors abide by the law. There is also great scrutiny on these projects. They are required to properly classify their workers, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, on some jobs where there otherwise might be illegal immigrant workers on those projects. That doesn't happen on a PLA project because they've all got to be citizens.

We have a Helmets to Hardhats program that's run by the building trades. They actually make sure that especially our returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan get the first crack at those jobs--Helmets to Hardhats, from the military right into those apprenticeship programs-- so that we train our young men and women coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq a skilled trade. The PLAs are most commonly used on large, multiyear projects that are complex and that present considerable difficulty for contractors to bid those jobs.

The key here is that under current law Federal agencies--the VA at the spinal cord injury hospital or the DOD if they're building a defense complex--can use a PLA when appropriate. They can put an agreement together that makes sure, if you've got a plumber on the job, he's properly licensed, or if you've got an electrician on the job, he's properly licensed; and they abide by a drug-free workplace program. They can put in a lot of good things that make sure that that project comes in on budget and ahead of schedule. What this would do would be to prevent the VA or the DOD from requiring that on a job.

It's the worst contractors who are afraid of this agreement because they would be required to comply with the law. They would be required to have workers' comp. They would be required to meet with the OSHA and safety regulations. The construction industry--I worked in it for 18 years--is a very dangerous industry, and sometimes it costs more to run a safe job.

Look, PLAs are a good idea. We should continue, when appropriate, to allow these Federal agencies to use them on these construction projects. They're a good idea, and up to now they've been evenly administered. This bill would change that dynamic. It would basically ban the VA from requiring that veterans be used on those projects or ban the DOD from saying, Look, we want to have veterans on this project; 50 percent of the workers on this project we want to be veterans. It's entirely appropriate for the VA or the DOD to do that. They would be prohibited from doing that under the language in this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support some of the programs supported by this funding bill, it contains a number proposals that I believe are detrimental.

Firstly, H.R. 5854 includes language that will amount to an unwarranted extension of the pay freeze that's currently in effect for Federal employees. Specifically, sections 129, 231, and 232 would freeze the pay for Federal civilian employees across the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs through FY 2013 even though these employees, like all Federal employees governmentwide, have already sacrificed their fair share when it comes to reducing the Federal budget deficit. In this Congress alone, Federal employees have given up over $75 billion towards deficit reduction efforts and to offset the costs of unemployment benefits for millions of other workers.

Let us remember that our Federal employees are in the second year of a 2-year Federal pay freeze that will save the Federal Government $5 billion by the end of fiscal year 2012 and an estimated $60 billion over the next 10 years. For the average middle-income

Federal employee, this will amount to a loss of approximately $47,000 in income over a 20-year period that could go toward a child's education or a family's retirement security.

Our Federal employees have already done more than their part to achieve government cost savings, and in recognition of their dedication President Obama recently proposed a modest pay raise of 0.5 percent--a half a percent--in 2013 for Federal workers. This bill, however, rejects the President's funding request for 0.5 percent for civilian employees at DOD and the VA and freezes their salaries for a third consecutive year, even though a 0.5 percent raise will still not adequately protect Federal pay from being eroded by an inflation rate that is currently over 3 percent. So they're still going to get a pay cut, but it would have been a 2\1/2\ percent pay cut instead of 3 percent. And we can't live with that.

Mr. Chairman, this is yet another in a series of legislative attacks that have targeted middle class workers in this Congress. It will further erode employee morale and diminish the Federal Government's ability to attract the best and brightest to carry out its work.

I don't know if you read Politico today. They did a survey of job satisfaction among Federal employees in the VA. The docs are doing great work. The nurses are doing fantastic work. The therapists over there are. We all say we're really protective about our veterans. Well, these are the people that take care of our veterans every single day. They clean the bedpans. They do their therapy. They do their surgery. They watch out for them. And we were going to give them a 0.5 percent raise this year. Instead, what this bill does is cuts their pay. It cuts out that 0.5 percent that they would have gotten.

These are the people that are taking care of our veterans. God bless them. A lot of them are veterans themselves. And these are DOD employees. We all say we're pro-military. These are people that are supporting our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan on a daily basis in a direct way. We were going to give them a 0.5 percent raise. But no, we're going to cut their pay in order to have them help us balance the budget some more. They're already in a 2-year pay freeze.

Our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in many critical areas, especially in the work they do every day to support our military and our veterans. They should not continue to bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to addressing our Nation's budget problems.

I also want to express my strong opposition to section 517, which, again, prohibits the use of project labor agreements, as we said before.

There's a lot of disappointments in this bill. I cannot believe that we're going after VA workers in this bill and against Defense Department workers in this bill. I think they do a lot for this country. They do a lot for the most vulnerable, especially at the VA. They do heroic work there. I have three VA hospitals in my district. I'm blessed with the Brockton Hospital. They're doing tremendous work there with a lot of our World War II veterans, who, for the first time in their lives, have to rely on the VA.

And these are the people that are doing that job, Mr. Chairman. They're doing a tremendous job. They're already working at less wages than they could get at a private hospital. But because they love our veterans and believe in it, they stay there at the VA out of the goodness of their heart. And now we've got them in a 2-year pay freeze. The President was trying to give them a 0.5 percent increase in cost of living, and they're being denied even that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to the Bartlett-Flake amendment. This amendment would indeed seek to prohibit Agencies from using a PLA. It is not as the gentleman from Arizona has just stated.

Let me clear something up. Large-scale construction projects--look, I was an ironworker for 18 years. I've run work. I was an ironworker foreman, an ironworker general foreman. PLAs are a great advantage to have in a complex construction project.

This amendment and the PLA provision that's already in the President's executive order applies to projects that are $25 million and over. All of those projects below $25 million don't get affected by the PLA executive order. What the PLA does require, as Mr. Courtney has pointed out, is it does require compliance with statutory compliance with workers' comp law, statutory compliance with anti-discrimination law, with proper classification of workers, and with health and safety laws on some very dangerous job sites.

It is a good idea to reject the Bartlett-Flake amendment and allow the PLAs to be used when appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, during Floor consideration of H.R. 5326 on May 8, 2012, I mistakenly recorded my vote on rollcall 220 as ``yea'' on the question on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Black of Tennessee.

I intended to vote ``no'', on the Black amendment, which sought to prohibit the Attorney General of the United States from using any funds appropriated by H.R. 5326 for the purpose of originating or joining in any lawsuit which seeks to overturn, enjoin, or invalidate a series of specified statutes related to immigration. Again, I would like reiterate my strong opposition to the Black amendment and express my significant concern that its language of limitation would unduly abrogate the longstanding prosecutorial discretion of the Department of Justice as well as undermine and violate the basic principle of separation of powers embodied by our Constitution.

Madam Chair, I believe I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies bill.

My amendment would increase by $4 million the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the Office of Justice Drug Courts Program. The $4 million added to the Drug Courts Program will be offset by decreasing the amount by $4 million in the funding for periodic censuses and related programs.

To say that there is a drug addiction problem in the United States is an understatement. We're dealing with an epidemic that is in every city and town in this country and that reaches across every demographic. Addiction does not discriminate as it shatters lives, breaks up families, and costs hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In fact, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, estimates of the total overall costs related to substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually.

Drug courts are specialized court dockets designed to handle cases involving drug and/or alcohol dependent offenders who are commonly charged with offenses such as the possession of a controlled substance or other nonviolent offenses determined to have been caused or influenced by their addictions. These cases are handled through a comprehensive program of supervision, drug testing, treatment services, and immediate sanctions and incentives that are designed to reduce the recidivism rates of these particular offenders. People who don't comply with the requirements of drug courts go to jail. They go to jail quickly and for various periods of time. It's a ``get tough'' policy. Particular offenders have their recidivism rates reduced by helping them overcome their substance abuse problems, which are the primary and predicate causes of their criminal activities.

Drug courts coordinate the efforts of judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, treatment, mental health, social services, and child protection services to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime. If we can break that cycle, we will all benefit.

Drug courts work. Drug courts save money. They reduce crime and they restore families. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the drug court approach reduces crime by as much as 45 percent more than other sentencing options. In fact, nationally, 75 percent of drug courts graduates remain arrest-free for at least 2 years after leaving the program, and reductions in crime by those offenders is long term.

In addition to reducing crime, drug courts save money, and that is a theme that has become very popular around here lately. As reported by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, for every dollar nationwide invested in drug courts, taxpayers save as much as $27. This substantial savings comes from avoiding criminal costs, prison costs, reduced victimization, and health care utilization--all areas in which vast sums of money are spent.

Most importantly, drug courts help restore and preserve families. According to statistics, family reunification rates for drug offenders are 50 percent higher for drug court participants. As people struggle through addiction, they lose a sense of themselves and become isolated from everyone they've known. Reuniting with their families can be the first step in returning to normalcy and to becoming again productive members of their communities.

The underlying bill provides $41 million in drug court funding, which is $6 million over the FY 2012 level. For that, I would like to thank Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah.

However, drug courts have been historically underfunded since 2001. So this $4 million increase would bring funding for the National Drug Court Program in line with its historical average of $45 million since 2001. I appreciate the good work of the census, and I believe that this modest offset can be accounted for in the coming years, but the work of the drug courts meets an immediate and critical need.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and to honor the sacrifice of the men who lost their lives in a tragic accident on May 11, 1944, sixty-eight years ago. This tragedy occurred just fourteen miles off the coast of Massachusetts.

On that fateful day, the nine member crew of the USS YF 415 and twenty-one men from the Hingham, MA, Ammunition Depot were disposing of obsolete ammunition. The ship was loaded with one hundred fifty tons of ammunition and explosives. While they were performing their duties, the ammunition caught fire. The resulting fire and subsequent explosions lasted for nearly forty minutes. The ship went down and seventeen lives were lost. The USS Zircon, a weather observing ship, was fortunately nearby, and rescued fourteen men from the ocean.

From that day until July 20, 2003, the ship lay, undiscovered, at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Amateur divers located the ship and reported it to the United States Navy. Once the United States Navy properly identified the ship, Navy divers were dispatched to investigate its remnants. Unfortunately, they were unable to find any trace of the missing men.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that today, we remember those men who lost their lives in the service of the United States of America sixty-eight years ago. Their courage and their devotion to their duty continue to inspire us today. It is appropriate that we as a nation express our condolences to their families who have suffered and endured their loss all these many years.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the names of these brave men into the Record so that all Americans may recognize their service and their sacrifice: William J. Bradley, Adell Braxton, Joseph F. Burke, Raymond N. Carr, Truman S. Chittick, George M. Cook, James Cox, Jr., Freddie Edwards, Jr., F.E. Federle, James S. Griffin, Charles R. Harris, Raymond L. Henry, Julian Jackson, Yee M. Jin, Mike Peschunka, Vernon Smith, James B. Turner.

Offered By: Mr. Lynch

Amendment No. 4: Page 7, line 11, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

Page 43, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Thomas L.P. O'Donnell, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Hingham, MA, and to commend him for over fifty years of dedicated service to his community.

Tom is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was elected First Marshall of his class and has served as an elected director of the Harvard Alumni Association as well as an Overseer of Harvard University. He currently is a retired partner at Ropes & Gray LLP in Boston, where he has practiced law since 1949.

Tom and his wife Carol moved to Hingham in 1955, just three years after they were married. Tom served as a member and chairman of the Advisory Committee and of the Board of Appeals. Mr. O'Donnell was first elected Town Moderator in 1967, and he has been re-elected every year since then. Mr. O'Donnell served in the United States Navy during World War II, and was recalled during the Korean War, attaining the rank of Lieutenant.

Tom has been active in educational, charitable, and civic affairs. He helped in the effort by the Trustees of Reservations to acquire World's End in 1967. This is perhaps the most visited place in Hingham. In 2001, both Tom and his wife, Carol, were recipients of the Alexis de Tocqueville award from the United Way of Massachusetts Bay.

Mr. Speaker, Tom is known for his quick wit, his sense of humor, his loyalty to his friends, and his unquestioned integrity. He had the good fortune to marry Carol in 1952, and they were married for 58 years. They raised four children and have been blessed with nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Thomas L.P. O'Donnell's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to his community of Hingham and to the United States of America.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio for the opportunity to praise our departing House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, as he prepares to leave the House of Representatives after 27 years of distinguished service.

I represent the Ninth District of Massachusetts, where, in my new district, I have 727,514 people, most of them named Sullivan. So this seems like an Irish wake here, but it is certainly not.

As we all know, John has served in the Office of the House Parliamentarian for most of his distinguished career, and the last 8 years as House Parliamentarian. Serving as Parliamentarian in this body takes a fair amount of skill and an enormous amount of patience. It is, at times, challenging, and it is that skill and ability and patience that John provides us as Members that we rely on to also allow the House to function in an orderly manner. I think all the Members here today know that the advice we receive and guidance we receive from John Sullivan, as our Parliamentarian, is given in an analytical, unbiased, and nonpartisan manner.

Following in the footsteps of his mentor, former House Parliamentarian Charlie Johnson, John has served as the Parliamentarian in both Democratic and Republican Houses. And I think it is a tribute to John's integrity and trustworthiness that he was appointed by three Speakers of the House: Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican; Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat; and now Speaker John Boehner, again a Republican.

In a time period when we can just about agree on nothing between us, we agree on the great service of John Sullivan. And he has received the support and admiration from both sides of the aisle, and that is on display in the House tonight, as both Republican and Democratic Members pay tribute to a true man of the House. And while, as Members, we are allowed to publicly pay tribute to John, I know that John's fellow coworkers and former coworkers also wish him the best as he prepares for his next challenge.

John has not let us know what his future professional plans will be, but we, as a body, know it will not be golf. We have seen John golf, and John Sullivan and the sport of golf are nongermane. But we all do know that he is enormously dedicated and devoted to his wife, Nancy, and their three kids, Michael, Margaret, and Matthew. And we wish him the best as he leaves his professional family and begins to enjoy his true family.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank John for his friendship and guidance to me during my time in Congress.

John, you know that on many occasions, the passions of this House have threatened to overtake proper decorum. I think it's been your integrity and your ability to reason and your reputation for nonpartisanship that has pulled us back from the brink on many occasions. You have certainly raised the bar in terms of dedicated service to this institution.

I thank you, and I wish you and your family Godspeed and good luck. God bless you. And thank you for your service to this House of Representatives.