Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, again, BOLOs were issued, be on the lookout, if you will, for conservative groups. Conservative groups were systematically denied, for more than 2 years, their approvals. Conservative groups were asked inappropriate and personal questions, things like where do you pray, things like what are your political views, and please show us your donor list, even though that was inappropriate. The fact that the minority will allude to word searches to see how many of some application was out there is not about the inappropriate targeting and systematically withholding and mistreating of groups. That is what happened. That is what evidence is beginning to show Lois Lerner was at the heart of. We are here today about contempt for somebody pleading a number of cases of what was right or what they did or didn't do, followed by taking the Fifth, then followed by answering questions having once waived and, thus, essentially waiving her rights. Now, you can, after the fact, get 39 people to say one thing and somebody else can get 39 to say another. Today, we are trying to move contempt to the court system where an impartial judge can evaluate whether or not Lois Lerner should be ordered back to testify so the American people can know the truth about why she did what she did. What she did was target conservative groups. That is not in doubt. I don't want people using words like ``circus'' in order to confuse people. Conservatives were targeted; that is clear. Lois Lerner has things to answer. She only answers the part she wants to, including before the Justice Department but not before the U.S. Congress.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record for the resolution made in order under the rule.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I call up the report (H. Rept. 113-415) to accompany the resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 574) recommending that the House of Representatives find Lois G. Lerner, Former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. In the meantime, after invoking, she gave a no-strings-attached interview to the Justice Department. This was said to the press entirely voluntarily before a large gathering. Her position with respect to complying with a duly issued subpoena has become clear. She won't. Her testimony is a missing piece of an investigation into IRS targeting. We have now conducted 40 transcribed interviews and reviewed hundreds of thousands of documents. Mr. Speaker, the facts lead to Lois Lerner. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I would be happy to anytime the Chair tells me my time has expired.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I want to urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4192, and I want to close by reminding people that this is, in fact, the best vetted piece of legislation for Congress to pass in cooperation with the city in my tenure. Thirteen D.C. city councilmen signed on to a sense of council- introduced resolution in November that stated: The Height Act should not be amended at this time. All 13 now support this modest recommendation, and I understand the additional member also would. I am glad that the city council is seeing this modest reform as in their favor--their benefit to enhancing the beauty of those buildings, those few buildings that reach the maximum of the Height Act. In closing, I think it is important that we echo what Delegate Norton just said. The vast majority of homes and buildings in the District of Columbia are far lower than the Height Act. In fact, it is a relatively small part of what some people sometimes call K Street and some other corridors, where the infrastructure of the city has pressed to occupy more densely. My hope is, by maintaining the height, the total occupancy, these penthouses will enhance that property, in many cases, with cafeteria or public access areas while still continuing to induce people to make reasonable changes in outlying areas if, in fact, additional capacity is needed either for residents of this city or, in fact, the thriving businesses of this city. Madam Speaker, we seldom come to you with a 100-year-old bill that hasn't been dusted off. We come to you today with a 104-year-old bill, which has not been dusted off and not for a lack of a reason. The water towers of 1910 are gone. It is time for us to use this space to maintain a view that is unmarred by highrises, but is, in fact, enhanced by the architectural creation, invention, and ingenuity of the architects who work and strive to make the buildings of Washington, D.C., pleasant and functional. With that, I urge passage and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4192) to amend the Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the height of buildings in the District of Columbia'' to clarify the rules of the District of Columbia regarding human occupancy of penthouses above the top story of the building upon which the penthouse is placed, as amended.

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

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in 1910, the Height of Buildings Act was signed into Federal law. That bill, in fact, envisioned a prevention of New York- style skyscrapers from being erected here in the Nation's Capital. That bill is every bit as important today as it was in 1910. The District of Columbia has a unique visual requirement. We should not, cannot, and will not obstruct the Mall and the major parts of this historic city. It is important that we maintain the skyline and the access, and we do so in every single consideration in this city. The memorials and monuments and public safety must be considered. However, over the last two Congresses, the committee has been working on several small modifications that, really, time has said its time has come. After 100 years, the current legislation makes a small but meaningful change. Let me put it in words the American people can easily understand. One hundred years ago, they put a limit on the height of these buildings, and then they put 20 feet beyond that limit of occupancy for water towers, coal stacks for the chimneys, and, of course, the tops of elevators. Those water towers, elevator shafts, chimneys, they were certainly pretty hideous, but they were necessary. It is now 100 years later, and, in fact, the absence of other uses for these buildings often means that these tops of these buildings are not considered to be an aesthetically important part, and there is no funding and no source of revenue to make them better. Under this modification to the Height Act, we allow for what have been called penthouses but, in fact, are simply industrial rooftop air conditioners and the like to be covered, wrapped, if you will, by architecturally pleasing structures. These structures may be occupied. They may be offices, cafeterias, or, in the case of a residential apartment complex, it could be a top apartment. Under the legislation, they have to have a setback. The setback is roughly 1 foot per foot of height, or 20 feet of setback if they go to the full 20 feet. So these are not a monolithic increase and, in fact, a setback consistent with that 100-year-old law. Last Congress, the committee held numerous hearings on the Height Act and listened to countless witnesses. I subsequently wrote to the National Capital Planning Commission, often called the NCPC, and the mayor's office, asking them to jointly study modifications to the Height Act and recommend any changes they saw appropriate. For those who are unaware, NCPC is the regional planning commission that includes representatives of both the Federal interests and local interests. The Height Act study is impressive. Aside from the research work, a series of meetings were held featuring considerable input from experts and the general public alike. Afterward, the mayor's office and NCPC provided separate recommendations. The mayor's specific recommendation: increase the height limits in downtown. The mayor also recommended that the city and NCPC work together to be able to use the city comprehensive plan as a tool to adjust height limits outside the L'Enfant city region. This is not in today's proposal. Ultimately, only after considering these broader changes, NCPC's only recommendation from the overall plan submitted by the mayor is, in fact, the modest proposal before you today. Let's understand: the height of buildings in this city will not change by 1 foot under this act, but the beauty of the tops of buildings and the usability will. The revenue to the city can increase because of the value of these top floors, and, yet, we will cover up mechanical penthouses that, today, are simply elevator shafts, rooftop air conditioners, water towers and the like. So long as that ratio of setback and the other provisions of the 100- year-old act are maintained, the city will have the ability to approve structures. But let's understand: those structures will still go through a rigorous program before they can be approved, and they will continue to be consistent with the 1910 Height Act. NCPC itself recommended that human occupancy be allowed in such rooftop penthouses, so long as the setback ratio was maintained and that the penthouse does not exceed one story and that no more than 20 feet of height be maintained. Our bill does everything in the NCPC recommendation. So this bill simply gives the city a little more latitude in allowing human occupancy in penthouses where ugly mechanical penthouses already exist and are allowed. I would like to have gone a little further on this bill, and I am very candid. There are areas well outside the city, as most people interpret it, far up in Northeast, where there are railroad tracks and industrial buildings, and down in Southeast, an area that Eleanor Holmes Norton has worked tirelessly to improve, that could have been given additional options for higher buildings because they are outside of the area of concern for the Mall and monuments. The city is not prepared to take that authority yet, and Congress is not prepared to give authority that, in fact, its city council is not prepared to handle. That is the consensus that came from the city council in their own resolution, and we respect that if the city does not want an authority, we are not going to thrust an authority on them. So, with respect to the Height Act, let me close by saying there will always be somebody who doesn't want a law changed, who, in fact, wants the buildings shorter. There are people who want their private home to be able to see all the way to the Mall. I would love to own one of those homes, quite frankly. A few feet away from here I would like to be able to walk out onto the Speaker's deck, his balcony. I would like to be able to see the White House, but I can't because the Treasury building was built in front of it and others. This legislation will not cause any of those shortcomings that have occurred in the past; just the opposite. It will beautify the tops of buildings if the city approves those specific projects, while maintaining the absolute limit that has been on these buildings since 1910. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4194) to provide for the elimination or modification of Federal reporting requirements, as amended.

Mr. ISSA. Madam 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. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4194, the Government Reports Elimination Act of 2014. The Government Reports Elimination Act is part of the committee's efforts to reduce waste and duplication in the Federal Government. It eliminates 69 unnecessary agency reports to Congress and eliminates or streamlines 10 required GAO, Government Accountability Office, mandates. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 4194 will save several million dollars. That doesn't sound like a lot in the Federal budget, but think of the key people who have to prepare those reports. The people that are most knowledgeable of what is going on are often the people taken away for these reports. These reports were vetted by sending out a questionnaire to every chairman and every ranking member in the House, asking them do they still need these reports. After going through multiple rounds, we determined that these were the reports that no Member of Congress or no committee any longer needed. This is a modest reform. I would have liked to have done a few more. In fact, I would like to make sure that, in every Congress, every 2 years, a similar bill be brought, asking are those reports still needed and eliminating the ones that are not. I am assured that if we do so, as we create 69 new reports every year, we can eliminate 69 old reports, saving millions of dollars, but more importantly, freeing up the most valuable people often in the executive branch that must participate in the preparation of these. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 directs agencies and the OMB to work together to identify duplicative and outdated reports to Congress. In January of 2013, the Office of Management and Budget posted that list on their Web site, www.performance.gov, and these reports come from that list. Madam Speaker, I think enough has been said. The American people want us not to waste their money. Congress is determined that we should eliminate unnecessary reports. The Office of Management and Budget has produced a list. We have culled through that list, worked with all the chairmen, and today give you this list of savings. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4194, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, in closing, this last weekend, the Associated Press talked about the waning days of this Congress and expected to have a do-nothing Congress. That is easy to say, but in this case, today, we are showing, on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, with our friends in the Senate, that there are major pieces of legislation that will save countless billions of dollars and provide better information to the American people and to the watchdogs who want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in our government. So this is not a controversial bill because it has taken years of hard work to get it right. But, in fact, this is a major piece of legislation. I want to close by thanking Senator Carper, Senator Coburn, Senator Portman, and Senator Warner, the author of the bill today, in addition to Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, and of course, my ranking member, Congressman Cummings. This has been bipartisan. It is one of the many pieces of bipartisan legislation that take a long time, they hold a lot of hearings, but at the end of the day, the American people can trust that the American people's work does get done, in spite of some of the things we are unable to do. This is a major piece of legislation. I want to thank, lastly, leadership for bringing this to the floor today in a timely fashion so that we can get it to the President's desk for signing next week. Madam Speaker, I urge support and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 994) to expand the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 to increase accountability and transparency in Federal spending, and for other purposes.

Mr. ISSA. Madam 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. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of S. 994, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act, or DATA Act. As chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have looked to tackle major problems pervasive in the Federal Government. Over the past 4 years, our committee, the majority and the minority, has taken up and moved several bills designed to reform the Federal Government. Majority Leader Cantor has worked with leaders on both sides of the aisle to take most of those reforms and advance them through the full House, often on a unanimous basis. All Members of the House can be proud of the work we have done to improve the Federal Government. Without a doubt, the most important transparency reform we have pushed over the last 4 years has been the DATA Act. The DATA Act is but a first shot of a technological revolution that will transform the way we govern. Just 3 weeks ago, the GAO's Comptroller General Gene Dodaro came before our committee and testified that the status of the Federal data programs is abysmal. Agencies have no standardized performance metrics for their programs. Agencies cannot tell us how many programs they have. But most importantly, agencies do not and usually cannot tell us how much taxpayer money has been spent on any given program. The spending information that is provided is often incomplete, out- of-date, and very often inaccurate. The American people deserve to know if their taxpayer dollars are being wasted or whether they are being spent wisely. Even the meager amount of performance information collected today is useless if it cannot determine how much resources any given program truly consumes. This information disadvantages not only Congress, but in fact the President's administration. Presidential administrations one after another consist of but a few thousand officials to oversee a workforce of nearly 2 million people and trillions of dollars. Regardless of political party affiliation, each Congress and every President is frustrated by this large, permanent, unaccountable class of bureaucrats. Some scholars have even deemed the permanent bureaucracy as the ``fourth branch'' of the Federal Government. In order to better oversee the Federal Government, Congress, and even the President and his appointees, must better leverage the technology available today. The DATA Act will allow us to do just that. I introduced the first version of the DATA Act in 2011. Its inspiration came from a relatively small expense in the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus spending bill, a bill that I overall did not approve of but which did have this important accountability standard. The stimulus temporarily established an entity called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. The Board was chaired by a respected inspector general, Earl Devaney. Under Chairman Devaney's leadership, the Board established direct reporting requirements for stimulus projects and standardized Federal agency reporting. This allowed inspector generals and other law enforcement agencies to more effectively prosecute fraud and prevent improper payments. Furthermore, this information was made available to the public online in an easy-to-download, easy-to-manipulate format so that journalists, academics, and government watchdogs could more easily analyze stimulus spending. I met with Vice President Joe Biden in November of 2010, prior to even becoming the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Despite possible disagreements on some aspects of the stimulus, we found ourselves very much in support of the Recovery Board's successes and knew that it could be replicated across the entire Federal Government. I want to thank Vice President Biden for his continued public and private support for the kinds of reforms embedded in this legislation today, and particularly for continuing to be a champion of the Recovery Board's work and the transparency it brought. In order to do what we agreed to back in 2010, the Federal Government would need standardized data and reporting by all Federal agencies and improved recipient reporting. That is the only way that you could accomplish this, and legislative action was needed. After months of working with leading experts in the field of standardized reporting, I introduced in July of 2011 the first version of the DATA Act, H.R. 2146. Later that year, I joined with Ranking Member Elijah Cummings to refine the legislation and mark it up through our committee. I want to thank Representatives on both sides of the aisle here today for the bipartisan nature in which we worked on this kind of transparency work. It is technical. It is sometimes hard. Of course, it is a pushback from bureaucrats, but it is what Congress is supposed to do: make the institutional changes that make government more accountable. In April 2012 we brought it to the floor on a bipartisan basis and passed the first version of the DATA Act unanimously. While a companion version, S. 3600, was introduced by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio that year, the Senate did not act on either it or the House-passed bill. Last year we reintroduced the DATA Act as H.R. 2061 and approved it unanimously out of our committee. We made significant changes to streamline the bill, but we maintained the focus on its core elements. Simultaneously, Senator Warner and Senator Portman introduced a new Senate companion, S. 994, the bill before us today. The House acted quickly again and approved H.R. 2061 by a vote of 388-1. Knowing that the legislative calendar was short, House and Senate sponsors worked with Senator Carper and Senator Coburn in a preconference process that ensured the bill would be taken up by the full Senate and which anticipates our passage here today. We also were able to bring to the table those reformers in the administration--both political appointees and career civil servants--to offer technical improvements to the bill, and they are incorporated in this legislation. While the bill does not contain all reforms the House advanced in its two previous votes on the DATA Act, the bill before us today does contain the core elements of the two prior versions of the bill and maintains the most important step: common data standards and recipient reporting. The DATA Act is more than just better tools to fight waste and fraud. It requires agencies to report their financial information in standard formats program by program. The DATA Act also gives policymakers in Congress and in the executive branch better information to make better decisions. More importantly, we give the American people better information to evaluate our performance. In addition to the strong data standards and requirements for agencies to produce program-by-program information, the House-Senate agreement contains two key provisions from previous versions of the DATA Act. First, the bill authorizes the Treasury Department to establish a cutting-edge data analysis center modeled specifically after the successful Recovery Operations Center, also known as the ROC. This is the center I spoke earlier about that was established by now-retired but still-distinguished friend of government Earl Devaney as part of the Recovery Board's stimulus transparency efforts. This new center will build on the innovative technology and ideas of the ROC and expand their use throughout the Federal Government. The DATA Act specifically provides for the transfer of that technology still in place at the ROC. This new Treasury Department data analysis center will be a vital tool for law enforcement agencies and the IGs in their criminal and other investigations. The new center will also serve agencies who strive to prevent improper payments. Second, the DATA Act agreement before you today establishes a pilot program to develop consolidated reporting for recipients of Federal funds. And I want to emphasize that, Madam Speaker. Federal recipients, people who get taxpayer money, will now have a transparent and consolidated way to send the information as to how they are spending it so you and the public will know. Hundreds of billions of Federal taxpayer dollars are spent every year by State, local, tribal governments, universities, and private institutions. These institutions end up inevitably wasting millions of taxpayer dollars complying with duplicative and complicated reporting requirements. At the end of a 2-year pilot program where some recipients will report to a single entity in a standardized manner, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will issue guidance to all Federal agencies on how to streamline and consolidate reporting requirements. Just like with stimulus funds, the same data standards that apply to Federal agency reporting will apply to recipient reporting. The DATA Act will give the American people the ability to track how we spend their tax dollars. Instead of sifting through PDFs--a form of visual, nondata-based standard--posted online that only let's you see a picture of the spending--and many different formats--you now will in fact have all Federal spending information available for bulk download in a single, machine-readable format. That is a big mouthful, Madam Speaker, but what it really means is that both individuals and entities, large and small, will be able to create tools where, on your iPhone or Android, you will be able to ask a question and get back an answer as successfully as the programs that have previously been made available. The DATA Act will give lawmakers and public watchdogs powerful tools to identify and root out fraud, waste, and excess spending in the government. It will put at the American people's fingertips today the kind of information that only long and arduous research could unveil. More importantly, by simply opening up this information, we will enable journalists, academics, and even private sector businesses to use the data to create products that will deliver real value to the American people. This is just one example: The National Weather Service some years ago did just what we are proposing by opening up their data, making it freely available to the public some years ago. Today it supports a multibillion-dollar weather analysis industry, and every American with a smartphone or a computer can find out what the weather is and what it is forecasted to be at any location in America. That wouldn't be possible without that open data standard. I am very proud that it was a start, but there is more to do. The DATA Act will have the same ability to create jobs, which is why this bill is so important. It is endorsed by dozens of private sector technology companies. New York University Business School Professor Joel Gurin wrote in a recent book that ``the value of government open data is that it's a long-term, permanent resource that innovators can use for decades, developing new ideas and new companies as technology makes them possible.'' That is a mouthful, but it says what we need to say, which is that this is going to create new industries that are able to leverage the information that today is not available to the American people and not available to the innovators in Silicon Valley and around America. I ask that my colleagues join with me today in sending this bill to the President for his signature, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, today, April 1st, marks the 30th anniversary of the effective date of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR replaced the Armed Services Procurement Regulation and the Federal Procurement Regulations. The principles of the FAR system have remained constant, providing a consistent government-wide approach to the rules and processes of contracting with the U.S. Government. The FAR has helped facilitate our ability to tap into the vast resources of the private sector in those instances when the work of the government can best be performed by outside entities. The United States Federal government is one of the world's largest consumers of goods and services, with total procurement spending of approximately a half trillion dollars each year. We need to ensure that the government acquires goods and services in an efficient and streamlined fashion, while getting the best value for the American taxpayer. Many have criticized the fashion in which the government acquires goods and services, particularly information technology, as cumbersome and inefficient. The FAR has evolved to provide broad flexibility to the government, while balancing the need to conduct business with integrity, fairness, and openness. Under the FAR, small businesses have grown into a critical business partner for the Federal government. The FAR is the Federal regulation that most reflects a collaborative process. Unlike other Federal regulations, the FAR is not signed by one agency, but by three agencies--the General Services Administration, the Department of Defense, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration--under the overall direction of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (in the Office of Management and Budget). They are supported by seventeen other civilian agencies and the small agency council. Together they continuously improve Federal acquisition, incorporating best practices from private industry while protecting taxpayer dollars from waste and abuse. The FAR has its own authority for rulemaking which streamlines the process but provides the opportunity for participation in the rulemaking process by both government users and the public. There have been notable collaborative rulemakings in the past, such as the implementation of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, and I support the continued use of the FAR rulemaking process to provide robust exchanges between government and the public. From the shortest FAR clause which reads ``United States law will apply to resolve any claim of breach of this contract'' to the longest one, the Government Property clause, which is over 5000 words long, the FAR is a flexible instrument designed to do the job. More than 30 percent of the government's discretionary budget is dedicated to procurement--the grunt work of the government. It may not be glamorous, but it is what makes the government work. We acknowledge and support the FAR on its anniversary, but remain committed to streamlining and improving its operation and ensuring that acquisition professionals across the government have the tools, training, and support they need to properly use this critical tool. While the FAR is by no means a perfect document, most countries in the world, whether developed or developing, study the FAR and borrow from it for their procurement system. More importantly, the hard working men and women of the acquisition workforce play a vital role in the policy that is developed for the FAR, and in making that policy work on a daily basis they strive to ensure that the taxpayers, in the end, get best value. On behalf of those taxpayers, I direct my thanks to the acquisition workforce community for all you do to make our federal acquisition system work. Our system, while not perfect, is better than any alternative out there and something for you to be proud of--you make it work.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Metropolitan Philip Saliba. His Eminence Metropolitan Philip was the Archbishop of New York and Metropolitan of all North America since 1966. Born in Lebanon, Metropolitan Philip led the American Antiochian Orthodox church through the latter half of the twentieth century and ushered the church into the new millennium before passing away this past March. Throughout his life, he continually ministered to the faithful and was a prominent voice for peace and compassion in the Middle East. Where others doubted he projected hope and met each challenge with determination and courage. Metropolitan Philip's deep faith led him to always serve and place others before himself, whether it was the President of the United States or a member of the church. His legacy of stewardship includes helping the Arab Christian community adapt to life in America while still retaining and sharing their deep, rich roots with their new communities. His leadership also allowed the church to expand and saw the number of parishes quadruple. In an age of declining church attendance his spirit nurtured growth. Metropolitan Philip will be remembered foremost as a man of God as well as a uniter, theologian, author, humanitarian and a warm friend. Over the years Metropolitan Philip has been very good to me along with countless others. I am deeply saddened by his death and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family and all of those who have been blessed to have him as part of their lives. Both the church and the country have lost an individual who possessed a deep and enduring faith, who passionately advocated for those in need and stood up for what he believed in. Mr. Speaker, I close with the sentiment that the greatest way to honor Metropolitan Philip's legacy would be to emulate the manner in which he lived his life, which stands as a testament to a calling devoted to others.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2391) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 5323 Highway N in Cottleville, Missouri as the ``Lance Corporal Phillip Vinnedge Post Office''.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of the bill.