Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. That was right after NAFTA. That was another bad trade agreement.

Mr. LYNCH. The Korea-U.S. trade agreement.

Mr. LYNCH. Two years ago.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to Congress, I worked for a while as an ironworker at the Quincy shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts. I was a welder. Unfortunately, because of bad trade policy, that shipyard closed down, and thousands of workers were laid off. Later on, I also worked at the General Motors facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, and the company decided to close that plant down, while they opened three new ones in Mexico. I have seen what lousy trade policy can do. The fundamental problem with our trade policy is that it is negotiated in secret by multinational corporations who are basically hiring foreign labor at very low wages, move the jobs overseas, and then export the products back into the United States. If you look at some of the minimum wages for the countries that we are dealing with in this trade agreement for Malaysia and Vietnam, it is less than $1 an hour for the minimum wage in those countries, and they maintain those low wages so that they can attract business. It is a race to the bottom. I do want to say that, as part of my job with the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I have had a chance to go to South Korea and Japan to see how our trade agreements have been working out there. I was in South Korea for several days, and just on my own, with my staff, I looked for an American car for several days. We were in traffic a lot. South Korea is a booming industrial country, major highways. I saw hundreds of thousands of cars. I saw two--two--United States cars. One was the one I was driving in from the Embassy, and the second car was my security detail behind me. Those were the only two U.S. cars, only two U.S. cars. Our trade with Japan--I was in Japan as well. You need a detective to find a U.S. car in Japan. That is the plain and simple fact. They import $1 billion worth of U.S.-manufactured products in auto and the air industry; we import $25 billion.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, what I am trying to do in this amendment is to really address a wider problem in my congressional district. My district surrounds the Logan International Airport in Boston. What this amendment would do is remove $25 million from the FAA budget and transfer it to rail. The reason for that is because the FAA has steadfastly refused to do part of their job in my district. I have tried to get them to come to the town of Milton, Massachusetts, to address the overflights in that area. The new NextGen RNAV system concentrates flight after flight, thousands of flights a month, over the town of Milton, Massachusetts. I requested the FAA to come out and meet with my neighbors--the people that I represent--just like everybody else represents people in their districts, and the FAA has flatly refused. So since they have refused to do part of the job that we fund them for, I figured I would take $25 million out of their budget because they are not doing their job. All I am looking for is a meeting with the FAA in my district, and I've got to resort to this. It is shameful. I would say that their attitude towards my constituents--the people I work for--has been utter contempt and disrespectful. So here I am trying to cut their budget to get their attention. It is a sad statement of the way the FAA operates. But my real issue is getting the FAA to respond to my constituents, not about cutting their budgets. I know the chair and the ranking member have worked wonderfully, and I give you great credit for the work you have done. What I am wondering is, would the chair and the ranking member help me just get the FAA to respond by having a meeting in my district in the town of Milton? I would withdraw my amendment and leave the money that you have wisely appropriated where it is. I am just looking to get this agency, this bureaucracy, to respond to the people I represent. It is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman, and I want to thank the ranking member for the courtesy, not only to me, but to my constituents as well. I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta). He and I were of a similar mind in terms of this amendment, and I am delighted that the chairman has accepted the amendment. We understand the good that drug courts do in our society and in our system. It actually combines the resources of family, the courts, law enforcement, substance abuse agencies, our local and town governments, State governments, and, of course, the Federal Government as well. Drug addiction in the United States is an epidemic that affects every city and town across America, and it cuts across every demographic. It leaves in its wake shattered lives and families and costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that the total overall cost of substance abuse in the United States, including lost productivity and health and crime-related costs, exceeds $600 billion every year. The institute also reports that drug addiction treatment has been shown to reduce associated health and social costs by far more than the costs of treatment, itself. Drug courts can be the first step on the road back for those suffering with addiction. Drug addiction is a disease, and people under the influence often act out of character. Society is beginning to recognize that we need to deal with addiction and its outcome in a way that can have a positive effect on individuals and their families and communities. I believe drug courts offer this opportunity by providing a support system and a road map for moving forward. The drug courts are specialized dockets which handle cases involving drug- and/or alcohol-dependent offenders charged with nonviolent offenses determined to have been caused or influenced by their addiction. I have visited many of the prisons in my State, and I would say, in some cases, 80 to 90 percent of those inmates who are in there have dual addictions at the root of their problems. I do want to recall the support that we received in the past from the former chairman, Frank Wolf of Virginia, who is a good and decent man, and we miss him here. But I am glad to see that the current chairman is of a similar mind, and I want to thank him as well.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Keating-Lynch- Moulton amendment to allow monies from the asset forfeiture fund to be available for expanded uses. I want to commend my colleagues from Massachusetts for their continued efforts on behalf of our fishing industry. Massachusetts has a long and proud fishing history. in fact, the ``sacred cod'', a nearly five foot long woodcarving of an atlantic codfish, has hung in the Massachusetts House of Representatives since 1794, representing the importance of the cod fishery to the commonwealth. We all know the state of the fishing industry today. Depleted stocks and the policies put in place to rebuild those stocks have exacted a heavy toll. And we have all heard the stories of fishing families struggling to make ends meet and keep their generations-long family businesses alive. Our amendment is a common sense amendment which, if adopted, will build on and improve the systems put in place to assess and rebuild stocks while also providing some financial relief to the men and women who continue to earn a living at sea. Our amendment, if adopted, will provide the funding necessary for fisheries councils to undertake certain reporting requirements of the underlying bill. Our amendment will also provide funding for independent research and stock assessments and for the development and implementation of gear that will reduce the impact on the marine environment and promote sustainable fishing for future generations. And, importantly, this amendment will also provide a funding stream to pay for at-sea and shore-side monitoring, a financial burden that fishermen simply cannot bear. We simply cannot allow the money in the NOAA's asset forfeiture fund to be wasted when fishermen stand to benefit from targeted scientific research and resources dedicated to the fishing industry. The health of the resource is the basic building block upon which all industry dependents rely. And it is critical that all parties; fishermen, fisheries councils, researchers and conservationists work cooperatively and also strike an appropriate balance towards sustainability. Our amendment provides the financial support to help all stakeholders further invest in and maximize the outcomes of their piece of the larger puzzle. I urge my colleagues to support the Keating-Lynch-Moulton Amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Detective Richard P. DeVoe, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the City of Boston, and to commend him for 45 years of dedicated service with the Boston Police Department. The son of Catherine and Walter DeVoe, Richie was born on April 10, 1950, in Dorchester, Massachusetts. He attended elementary school in Dorchester, and then went on to the Grover Cleveland Middle School. Richie then attended South Boston High School, graduating in 1970. Subsequently, he attended Curry College in Milton, MA, graduating Magna Cum Laude in 2002. Upon his graduation from South Boston High School, Richie went to work at the Boston Police Department. From 1970-1974, he was assigned to the cadet program, Badge #188. From there, he became a police dispatcher from 1974-1979. He served as a patrolman, Badge #2893, from 1979-1987, and then worked as a detective, Badge #550, from 1987-2015. Mr. Speaker, in addition to his assigned duties, Richie took on several important responsibilities within the Boston Police Department: he is a director of the Boston Police Relief Association, serving as president in 1993. On May 1, 2015, Richie was appointed Chairman of the Memorial Committee. Further, Richie has been part of the Boston Police Stress Unit since 1998, and he travelled to Ground Zero in New York City in September, 2001, in order to assist the New York City Police Department in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Richie also serves as a vice-president of the South Boston Citizens Association, and he is a member of the Tynan Community Board. He is also a member of the South Boston Historical Society and the Boston Police Emerald Society. Richie has had the good fortune to be married to Patricia for 39 years. They are the proud parents of three children: Richard, Jr., Suzanne, and Kristy. They are grandparents to Liam, Sophie, Lance, and Michael. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Richard P. DeVoe's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to the City of Boston.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee for including the Lynch-Boustany Amendment in this en bloc amendment. This amendment would add the text of the bill, H.R. 995, the ``Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act'' to the NDAA. Last year, this language was incorporated into the House-passed FY 15 NDAA. Unfortunately, it was not included in the final Defense Authorization Conference Report. Mr. Chair, this amendment calls for the national observation of two minutes of silence every Veterans Day in honor of all our veterans, past and present. It sets a time where all Americans can pause, come together, and reflect on the service of generations of brave American men and women in uniform. Our nation is facing difficult challenges and we have strong disagreements over how to address them. However despite such differences, support for, and gratitude to, our veterans is something that we can all agree on. This silent tribute lets us set aside our differences, and come together as one nation, to say to our veterans that we appreciate everything they have done and sacrificed to keep us safe. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Boustany, for cosponsoring this amendment with me, and for being an original cosponsor of H.R. 995. Mr. Chair, again I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee for their cooperation.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support and as a cosponsor of the Huizenga-Hahn Amendment to increase funding in the 2016 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations and Maintenance Account by $36,306,000. This modest increase, offset by reducing funding for the Department of Energy, Departmental Administration, by $36.7 million, will benefit Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund related projects. I have the good fortune to represent the city of Boston and its Port. Like many ports in this country, the port of Boston is vital to the local and regional economies, generating $2.4 billion in economic benefits annually and supporting 34,000 jobs. In fact, every one of our 50 states relies on seaports for imports and exports, totaling some $3.8 billion worth of goods moving through U.S. seaports each day, supporting more than 13 million jobs across the country. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was created in 1986 to ensure that we could maintain and expand our ports and harbors in order to facilitate commerce and drive our economy. For too long Congress has engaged in budgetary shell games, starving the fund and hampering our ability to undertake dredging projects critical to maintaining this vital infrastructure. The Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2013, which the House passed overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 412-4, moved to rectify this situation by setting incremental target expenditures from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that reaches 80% in 2020. Mr. Chair, our amendment is simply in line with the amount overwhelmingly supported by my colleagues, increasing from $1.178 billion to $1.25 billion the amount allocated from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, in order to support the critical needs of our nation's ports. The balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund at the beginning of fiscal 2016 will be approximately $8.9 billion. The money is there. With the re-opening of the Panama Canal slated for next year we need to re-double our efforts to make certain that U.S. ports are prepared for increased commercial opportunities and will remain competitive. All of our constituents benefit from the success of U.S. ports. It is time that we provide the resources to ensure that success. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with Armenians throughout the United States, Armenia, and the world in commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. This past week, members and friends of the Armenian community gathered to remember April 24, 1915, when the arrest and murder of 200 Armenian politicians, academics, and community leaders in Constantinople marked the beginning of an eight- year campaign of extermination against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire. Between 1915 and 1923, approximately 1.5 million Armenians were killed and over 500,000 more were exiled to the desert to die of thirst or starvation. The Armenian genocide was the first mass murder of the 20th century, a century that was sadly to be marked by many similar attempts at racial or ethnic extermination, from the Holocaust to the Rwandan genocide to Darfur, Sudan. As we solemnly remember the victims of this tragedy, let us also celebrate the extraordinary strength and spirit of the Armenian people, who have fought successfully to preserve their culture and identity for over a thousand years. They overcame the horrors of genocide, two world wars, and decades of Soviet dominance in order to establish modern Armenia. In addition, the vibrant Armenian diaspora continues to thrive and around the world. It is only by acknowledging and learning from the past that we can build a future free of racial, ethnic, and religious hate and violence. By remembering the Armenian genocide and speaking out against all such atrocities, we can live up to the promise made to all those who suffered of ``never again.''

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Edward T. ``Fitzy'' Fitzpatrick, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2222 of Boston, MA, and to commend him for over fifty years of dedicated service to the working men and women of this community. The son of Joseph and Ann Fitzpatrick of Mattapan, Edward was born in Boston and lived in Mattapan. Edward attended St. Margaret's School in Dorchester, MA and graduated from Hyde Park High School. During high school and after graduation, Ed began his career at New England Telephone. His career at New England Telephone was put on hold while he honorably and bravely served in Vietnam. Upon completion of his distinguished service to our country, Ed continued working for New England Telephone and began to gain the respect and admiration of his co-workers while fighting for their rights on the job. His leadership skills were evident and he was instrumental in the achievements of the IBTW and helped form the foundation for the move from the independent IBTW to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the charter of Local 2222. Local 2222 became well-known in the local labor movement and in political circles in Boston's working-class neighborhoods. Ed held many positions in Local 2222 for many years including shop steward, chief steward, vice president and business agent. He became president of the Local in 1991 and held that position for 24 years until his retirement in March of 2015. He is well-known for fiercely leading Local 2222 and 60,000 workers through a four month strike in 1989 that was one of the largest and most contentious union/management battles in decades. From the back of a pick-up truck with a loudspeaker, Ed motivated thousands to stand strong on the picket line and to battle for their rights and their families through one of the most successful strikes in U.S. history with his hallmark saying ``Hang Tough.'' The striking workers in 1989 successfully resisted management demands and won health care coverage for all telephone workers in Boston. Aside from being a fierce union leader, Ed is mostly known for his incredible dedication to those afflicted by drug and alcohol addiction. A legendary figure in Local 2222's ``Membership Assistance'' program, Ed's personal interventions and time has saved the lives, marriages, and phone company careers of countless workers caught in the grip of substance abuse. He has devoted his own personal time, day and night, to families and individuals struggling with addiction. He believes the most valuable thing you can give to another human being is your time and Fitzy makes the time for anyone in need. He not only works with the members of his union and their families but also spends three nights a week visiting and bringing the message of hope to the incarcerated in three local prisons. Mr. Speaker, Fitzy is known for his diligent service to others from all walks of life. Ed was a recipient of the Caring Hearts Award from The Gavin Foundation in South Boston. He was also recognized as the Volunteer of the Year for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Correction at the State House for his tireless years of service to incarcerated individuals. Ed has had the good fortune to be married to his wife, Joanne for 45 years; they are the proud parents of three children and ten grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Edward T. ``Fitzy'' Fitzpatrick's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to his country, his community and to the working men and women of the Greater Boston area.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. I just want to point out that this is indeed about Federal employees, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act. It is all about Federal employees. While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), I remain concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563 will be to significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated Federal workforce. It is important to note that Internal Revenue Code section 6103 provides that all citizens, for all citizens, Federal tax information-- including tax returns, annual wage and tax statements, and tax penalty notices--is strictly confidential and must remain in the trust of only the IRS. It must remain in the trust of only the IRS and the individual taxpayer. That is it. It is not open to general knowledge. Under this bill, though, tax information--which now includes health information because of the Affordable Care Act--is all going to be shared among every single Federal agency to take so-called adverse personnel actions against one of its employees where the agency finds that an individual has willfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or failed to file a return on time. Now, we have completely blown this out. If it is not about Federal employees, this is what we are going to do to every American taxpayer. We are basically deputizing the bosses of all these Federal employees to be able to delve into their personal tax information, their personal healthcare information that is now held by the IRS. We are blowing this completely out so that we are damaging all of these Federal employees' privacy rights, and we also present the possibility that, in the future, this will be done to every American citizen. This is not a good idea. I think that we have every opportunity to make sure the people pay their taxes. There is a greater compliance rate among Federal employees than there is among the general public. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1563, the Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2015. While I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Utah, Chairman Chaffetz, I remain concerned that the practical effect of H.R. 1563 will be to significantly diminish the privacy rights of our dedicated Federal workforce. Importantly, Internal Revenue code section 6103 provides that all federal tax information--including tax returns, annual wage and tax statements, and tax penalty notices--is strictly confidential and must remain in the trust of only the Internal Revenue Service and the individual taxpayer. Current law therefore prohibits any federal agency--other than the I.R.S.--from delving into personal tax information to determine an individual's tax compliance status. In stark contrast, H.R. 1563 would authorize the head of not only the I.R.S. but every federal agency to take so-called ``adverse personnel actions'' against one of its employees where the agency finds that an individual has wilfully fallen behind on his or her taxes or failed to file a return on time. In order to defend yourself against such an adverse personnel action under H.R. 1563, you must demonstrate that your failure to pay your taxes or file a return on time stemmed from a ``reasonable cause.'' In other words, this bill deputizes agency administrators, managers, and foremen as bonafide tax investigators--authorizing them to examine and determine the tax compliance status of agency employees. In addition, H.R. 1563 essentially requires all federal workers to affirmatively defend their failure to pay taxes or file a return on time by requiring them to provide agency management with specific and satisfactory reasons for their non-compliance. If you're behind on your taxes because you went through a health care crisis and want to keep your federal job, you're going to have to share the details of your medical emergency with your employing agency under this bill. If you're behind on your taxes because you're going through a divorce but still want to keep working at your federal agency, you're going to have to disclose the facts surrounding your divorce to your federal manager. Now, I understand that this bill may seek to address those rare instances where federal bad actors intentionally try to cheat on their taxes. In practice, however, H.R. 1563 will broadly diminish the tax privacy rights of all federal employees. That's in spite of the 97% tax compliance rate for federal workers reported to our committee by the I.R.S. for 2014. It's also in spite of the existing federal payment levy program that already allows the I.R.S. to levy federal salaries and wages in order to recover delinquent tax debts in a cost-effective manner. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that the solution to achieving 100% tax compliance across the federal workforce is to waive the individual privacy rights of dedicated federal workers across the board. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this legislation.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act, H.R. 2. I commend Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and ranking member Frank Pallone as well as Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan and ranking member Sander Levin for their hard work in putting this bill together. The sustainable growth rate (SGR) was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 but has proven to be far less than sustainable. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, since 2003 Congress passed 17 laws overriding the SGR-mandated reductions in the Medicare physician fee schedule. This bill may not be perfect but it seems to strike enough compromises that many of us are willing to support a good bill rather than hold out for a perfect one. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes a two year extension of the Health Center Fund, which will provide an additional $3.6 billion per year to the nation's community health centers. Created under the Affordable Care Act to expand the health centers program and increase access to care, the fund is set to expire after 2015. Should it expire, health centers would be facing a 70% cut in funding which would force devastating reductions and closures at many of the more than 9,000 health centers nationwide. We simply cannot allow that to happen. Community health centers are critical to the health care equation, meeting the needs of approximately 23 million people every year. They provide access to primary and preventative health services that keep patients from seeking or eventually needing more costly care. And that benefits all of us. The 1,300 federally funded health centers are located in every corner of our country and are distributed evenly between urban and rural areas. I am fortunate in my own district to have 7 community health centers treating more than one hundred thousand patients every year. In fact, as we recognize the 50th anniversary of our health centers, I am proud to acknowledge that the first community health center in the United States, Geiger Gibson, is located in my district. Health centers serve all our constituents, Democrat and Republican, young and old, black, white or brown. they are vital to all our communities, and that is why this program has strong bipartisan support. Whether you supported the Affordable Care Act or not, I think we all can agree that access to affordable health care helps to keep health costs down. Our community health centers provide that access. They are doing a terrific job for people across the nation. That is why I strongly support our health centers and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Charles ``Chuckie'' Wheeler, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the Boston Police Department and his hometown of South Boston, MA, and to commend him for over twenty-nine years of dedicated service to his community through his time at the department. The son of Gerard and Anna Wheeler, Chuckie was born on October 1, 1955 in South Boston and lived on Carmody Court in the Old Colony Housing Projects for most of his growing years. He lived and raised his family all over Southie, from M Street to Preble Street, before moving to Braintree, MA where he currently resides. Mr. Speaker, Chuckie Wheeler attended South Boston High School where he was a multi-sport all-star athlete and where he met his future wife, Charlene McGinn in the storybook football player meets cheerleader fashion. After graduation, he attended Saint Anselm College and Northeastern University as well as played for the South Boston Chippewas Football Club. Throughout his career, Chuckie always worked to support his community. Chuck was employed by the Boston Housing Authority and the Boston Public Schools Police Department, prior to joining the Boston Police Department in 1986 where he remained until his retirement this year. During his time with the Boston Police Department, Chuckie provided distinguished service at both the community level as well as at the Department's Headquarters. Chuckie patrolled the streets of South Boston through District C-6 for the early part of his career, always providing guidance and mentorship to the neighborhood youth. In the latter half of his career, Chuck became one of the cornerstones and first members of a newly-created Crime Scene Response Unit, where he remained until his retirement. During his time with the Crime Scene Unit, Chuckie held fast to his mentorship genes and was an integral part of bringing the Unit to the nationally-recognized success it is today. Chuckie's dedication to the Department and the Crime Scene Response Unit was only outshined by his commitment to his family and community, where Chuckie could regularly be found coaching the South Boston and Braintree youth in football, t-ball, baseball and softball. Mr. Speaker, Chuckie Wheeler is known for his generous spirit and kind heart. He has had the good fortune to be married to Charlene for thirty-five years. Chuckie and Charlene are proud parents of three children and three grandchildren with a fourth on the way! Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Charles ``Chuckie'' Wheeler's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to the Boston Police Department and his community.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Charlene Wheeler, in recognition of her outstanding contributions to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and to commend her for 32 years of dedicated service to the MBTA and the South Boston community where Charlene was raised. The daughter of Robert and Mary McGinn, natives of South Boston, MA, Charlene was born on May 5th, 1955 in South Boston and lived all over the neighborhood, from D Street to Middle Street to Dorchester St. until she moved to Braintree, MA with her family in 1991. Charlene attended the John Boyle O'Reilly School, Cardinal Cushing and South Boston High School, graduating in 1973. Prior to joining the MBTA, Charlene worked a number of jobs in her South Boston community including as a counselor with Jobs for Youth. Additionally, Charlene volunteered her time by teaching Catholic education at St. Brigid's School where her children attended. In her time with the MBTA, Charlene held a number of positions, starting as Track Walker and progressing to her final position as Train Starter for the Red Line. At times, Charlene was one of the first females to hold positions of authority at the ``T'' and always did so with the mindset of professionalism and equality. She took pride in each position she held at the MBTA and made endless contributions to the Authority. Mr. Speaker, Charlene is known for her caring heart, outgoing personality, and her dedication to family, friends and her work. Charlene has had the good fortune to be married to her high school sweetheart, Chuckie Wheeler for 35 years. They are the proud parents of three children and three grandchildren, with a fourth on the way. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Charlene Wheeler's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank her for 32 years of remarkable service to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the communities of South Boston and Braintree in which she lived and worked.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and congratulate the administration, coaches, and players of the Abington, MA high school football team. On December 6, 2014, the Green Wave won the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association Division V Superbowl, defeating the Northbridge High School Rams, 36-6, earning them the title, State Champions. Abington High School has a long tradition of excellence in high school football. The Green Wave has earned the state-best overall three year record of 35-3 from 2012-2014. Since the year 2000, they have won nine South Shore League Championships (2001, 02, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 12, 13), three Superbowl Championships (2002, 2005, 2012), one South Sectional Championship (2013), and one State Championship (2014). Mr. Speaker, the young men on this football team conducted themselves in such a way as to bring honor, pride, and recognition to the Town of Abington. They represent what is truly best about high school student- athletes. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to join with the families, friends, and residents of Abington, MA, to congratulate the high school football team on their remarkable achievement. Administration: Superintendent Peter Schafer, Principal Teresa Sullivan, Athletic Director Peter Serino, Head Coach Jim Kelliher, Assistant Coaches Ed Reilly, Jim Daly, Scott Pifer, Mike Bruning, Brian McSharry, Tim Wells. Freshmen Coaches: Jay Brown, Tim O'Brien, Keith Faxon, Kalonji Kabongo, Mbela Kabongo. Water Boys: Eddie Reilly, Michael Reilly, Jack Reilly, Chris Lussier, Drew Donovan. Players: Owen Leary, Bryan Dwyer, Javin Vincellette, Aidan Cawley, Evan Fanara, Nate Riordan, James Landers, Jake Tosone, Josh Riordan, John Kearns, Dave Lyons, Brendan Glavin, Christian Bermudez, Owen Kearney, Ryan Landers, Shawn Donovan, Donnell Leon, Josh McCabe, Will Curtin, Josh Martin, Ray Emery, Dexter Chevallier, Sam Malafronte, Cole McMahon, Ryan Paris, Cole Jansen, Luca Cerasani, Josh Rix, Shane Sullivan, Joe Hankins, Matt Dalton, Danny Malone, George Cellini, Brian O'Donovan, Alex Freeman, Colbey MacLeod, Jared Aprile, Rob Toomey, Chris Chevalier, Dennis Cummins. Further, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to note the accomplishments of Abington High School senior, golfer Etienne Bourgoin. He fired a 74 under difficult conditions to win the Division Three State Golfing Championship in October, 2014. He was also honored by the Boston Globe as the Division Three Golfer of the Year for 2014. In addition, he was the co-medalist at the sectional tournament and at the South Shore League Championship. He was the number one golfer for four straight years at Abington High School. Etienne is the first individual state champion in Abington High School history. Please join me in congratulating Etienne Bourgoin on his historic victory.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, almost 14 years after the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the American public does not yet have all of the information available regarding the circumstances surrounding those attacks on our country, particularly 28 pages of the bipartisan Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001, which remain classified. Since 2013, my colleagues, Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina, Congressman Massie of Kentucky, and I have been working together to craft and to garner support for H. Res. 14, which calls on the President to release the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry. I sincerely appreciate Congressman Jones' and Congressman Massie's willingness to collaborate on this concerted effort on this issue. Over the past few weeks, calls to declassify the 28 pages have been in the spotlight due to recent allegations by convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill American citizens and who will rightly spend the rest of his life in prison. Whatever the motivations for Mr. Moussaoui's recent accusation of complicity by foreign agents in the 9/11 attacks, his testimony does bring to light important questions. Most notably is the fact that, as a nation, we have not yet fully accounted for the sources of funding and logistical support that enabled al Qaeda to undertake those terrorist attacks. We owe it to the families who lost loved ones on that tragic day to provide a complete accounting of the events and circumstances leading up to the tragedy of 9/11, and it is a grave injustice that 28 pages of the bipartisan, bicameral congressional inquiry remain classified 14 years after September 11. This was not a mere redaction of a few specific words or phrases but the wholesale excising and removal of a full section, 28 pages in length. It may have been a matter of national security to classify these pages back in 2002, but it is now a matter of public interest and good governance to release them in 2015. I am in firm agreement with former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who oversaw the inquiry, with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina, with Mr. Massie, and with Members of both parties, who, like myself, have read the 28 pages and believe the disclosure will not jeopardize sources or methods used in gathering this information. I firmly believe that declassifying the findings is appropriate for a number of reasons. As Thomas Jefferson said: An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic, and self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. In other words, there can be no accountability without transparency. We must advocate for the need to make these pages public in order to shine a brighter light on the information contained therein and utilize it in framing our foreign policy going forward. In addition, I have met with the spouses, children, siblings, parents of the 9/11 victims as well as with representatives from the 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism. They have provided powerful testimony and heartrending submissions regarding how important it is to seek the truth and to bring all those to account who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Today, at a time when the world continues to face challenges from expanding terrorist organizations such as ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Boko Haram, and al Shabaab, as well as al Qaeda and its affiliates, we must be mindful of the urgent need to bring their financiers and supporters to justice as well. At an even more basic level, our commitment to one another as citizens in a society that values freedom and justice demands that we hold accountable those who aided and abetted the savage attacks on our homeland and murdered thousands of innocent Americans. When that fundamental duty to protect American citizens has been breached, it is not enough to say that we will ``never forget.'' The military and civilian personnel at the Pentagon, the first responders and office workers in the New York office towers, the passengers and crew of those hijacked planes, and all those families whose hearts still ache, we owe it to them. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not only take the time to review those 28 pages but also consider supporting House Resolution 14, as these families and the American people deserve to have their questions answered.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 50. With all due respect to my friend from Utah--and I do respect him; I know he didn't write this bill--there is a common practice here in Congress that you name the bill in a way that describes the opposite of what it will actually do. This is supposed to be an accountability bill, but this bill ought to be named the ``Government Gridlock Act'' because that is what it will introduce. While I certainly respect everyone's opinion and position against Big Government--I certainly understand that. You can be against intrusive government. I understand that. But you can't be against a functioning government, and that is what this bill accomplishes. This bill, as the gentleman did point out, does allow individual taxpayers to sue. Mrs. Gilhooly and Mr. Gilhooly can sue, but so can Exxon and so can JPMorgan Chase attack regulations under this bill. This bill makes the financial ability to sustain a legal challenge as the litmus test on how much justice you get under this bill. Even though Congress has the ability to pass laws and to direct regulators to come up with regulations, large, well-financed banks and industries like the oil industry will be able to undo the direction of Congress by proffering legal challenges with enormous resources to stop those laws from coming into effect. A good example is the financial services industry, where we under Dodd-Frank have directed that there be 300 separate rules developed to deal with the problems created by the crisis in 2008. That crisis cost $20 trillion to the American economy. Yet, under this law, in order to prevent big banks from taking those reckless gambles, we would have to force the regulators to show that the reduction in cost to the American taxpayer justified the regulation against Wall Street. It misses the point. We are trying to bifurcate the risks created by Wall Street from the taxpayers' requirement to bail them out. This bill ignores that reality. I think we should all oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her great work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, the so-called Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. I served on the Financial Services Committee during the 2008 financial crisis, and I had an opportunity to witness the harmful impact that lack of regulation had on hardworking families around our Nation at a total cost of more than $22 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. My constituents--and many of yours-- lost their homes, their jobs, and their retirement savings during that period. Many pension funds today continue to suffer and are on the brink of collapse because of the reckless policies that were observed during that time by many of our major banks. While I voted against the bailout of the Wall Street banks who were rewarded with bonuses as a result of the bailout, I did have the honor of helping to assist in reforming our financial system through the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. I regret the bill under consideration today rolls back many of those reforms that my colleagues and I fought so hard to adopt. I would note that after being defeated last week under a suspension process that offered no opportunity for amendments, this bill now has inexplicably been brought to the House floor under a closed rule that again does not include any of the 14 amendments that were filed with the Rules Committee. At a minimum, a bill that does so much harm to our financial system necessitates the normal committee process and additional time for debate. H.R. 37 contains 11 separate bills, a few of them which I support, others I strongly oppose. Portions of H.R. 37 have entirely new provisions that the members of the committee and of this Congress have not had the opportunity to thoroughly analyze. By the way, if you desire a good review of this legislation, in this past Sunday's New York Times there is an article written by Gretchen Morgenson that I think is extremely well-written and goes into great detail beyond the time that I am allocated here tonight. Title II of this bill would allow banks with commercial business to trade derivatives privately rather than on clearinghouses. This would increase risk and reduce transparency for these transactions. My amendment, which was not accepted, would have improved the provisions by prohibiting systematically important financial institutions, whose collapse would pose a serious risk to our financial system, from claiming the exemption under this title. Title VIII of this bill includes new language that has not been considered by the Financial Services Committee under regular order. If passed, title VIII would give banks an additional 2 years to comply with the provisions of the Volcker rule that mandates that banks divest collateralized loan obligations--packages of risky debt.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentlewoman. This 2-year extension is in addition to the extension we already provided by the regulation last year. That further delay adds unnecessary risk to our financial system. And that is why I sponsored another amendment to remove this additional 2-year delay, so banks will be required to comply with this provision of the Volcker rule no later than July 21, 2017. Again, title XI of this bill modifies the SEC rule 701 by allowing private companies to compensate their employees up to $10 million in company securities without having to provide those employees with certain basic financial disclosures about the company stock. I strongly support employees receiving equity benefits from their firms in which they work, but those benefits should be tangible and real. We all remember Enron and WorldCom where employees were pressured to buy stock as part of their compensation, and at the end of the day, that stock was completely worthless. Why can't we enable employees to receive some equity in the company in which they work and ensure that those workers get accurate financial disclosure as part of that deal? This is why I offered three amendments to reform title XI in order to make certain workers get accurate information about the equities shares that they are receiving from the companies they work for. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee chose to deny all the amendments to this bill. In closing, this harmful bill uses the veneer of job creation to provide special treatment for well-connected corporations and financial institutions while doing very little for the workers that it professes to help. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and, again, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. [From NYTimes.com, Jan. 10, 2015] Kicking Dodd-Frank in the Teeth (By Gretchen Morgenson) The 114th Congress has been at work for less than a week, but a goal for many of its members is already evident: a further rollback of regulations put in place to keep markets and Main Street safe from reckless Wall Street practices. The attack began with a bill that narrowly failed in a fast-track vote on Wednesday in the House of Representatives. It is scheduled to come up again in the House this week. The bill, introduced by Representative Michael Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the House Financial Services Committee, has three troublesome elements. First, it would let large banks hold on to certain risky securities until 2019, two years longer than currently allowed. It would also prevent the Securities and Exchange Commission from regulating private equity firms that conduct some securities transactions. And, finally, the bill would make derivatives trading less transparent, allowing unseen risks to build up in the system. Of course, you wouldn't know any of this from the name of the bill: the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act. Or from the mild claim that the bill was intended only ``to make technical corrections'' to the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010. Here's the game plan for lawmakers eager to relax the nation's already accommodating financial regulations: First, seize on complex and esoteric financial activities that few understand. Then, make supposedly minor tweaks to their governing regulations that actually wind up gutting them. ``We're going to see repeated attempts to go in with seemingly technical changes that intimidate regulators and keep them from putting teeth in regulations,'' predicted Marcus Stanley, policy director at Americans for Financial Reform, a nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition of more than 200 consumer and civic groups across the country. ``If we return to the precrisis business as usual, where it's routine for people to accommodate Wall Street on these technical changes, they're just going to unravel the postcrisis regulation piece by piece. Then, we'll be right back where we started.'' The bill was put forward on the second day of the new Congress, in an expedited process, which didn't allow for debate among members. This process is supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial bills and requires support from a two- thirds majority to prevail. It fell just short of achieving that level, with a vote of 276 to 146, overwhelmingly backed by Republicans and opposed by most Democrats. A central element of the bill chipped away at part of the Volcker Rule, the regulation intended to reduce speculative trading activities among federally insured banks. The bill would give the institutions holding collateralized loan obligations--bundles of debt--two additional years to sell those stakes. The sales were required under the Volcker Rule, which bars banks from ownership in or relationships with hedge funds or private equity firms, many of which issue and oversee these instruments. Like the mortgage pools that wreaked such havoc with United States banks in the most recent crisis, C.L.O.s can pose high risks for banks. The creation of such securities has been torrid recently; $124.1 billion was issued last year, compared with $82.61 billion in 2013, according to S&P Capital IQ. Among the banks with the largest C.L.O. exposures are JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo; according to SNL Financial, a research firm, JPMorgan Chase held $30 billion and Wells Fargo $22.5 billion in the third quarter of 2014, the most recent figures available. The next-largest stake--$4.7 billion--was held by the State Street Corporation. Given the size of these positions, it's not surprising the institutions want more time to jettison them. But the new legislation represents Wall Street's second reprieve on these instruments. After banks objected to the sale of their holdings last spring, the Federal Reserve gave them two years beyond the initial 2015 deadline to get rid of them. Now they want another two years. Although the top three banks had unrealized gains in their C.L.O. holdings in the third quarter, SNL said some banks were facing losses. And that was before the collapse in the price of oil, which has undoubtedly pummeled some of these securities. A second deregulatory aspect in the Fitzpatrick bill relates to the lucrative private equity industry, which remains loosely regulated. The bill would exempt some private equity firms from registering as brokerage firms with the S.E.C. Under securities law, such registration is required of firms that receive fees for investment banking activities, like providing merger advice or selling debt securities. Private equity firms are typically registered only as investment advisers, so submitting to broker-dealer regulation would result in more frequent examinations and more rules. These firms don't like that. But their investors could benefit from closer regulatory scrutiny of costly conflicts of interest in these operations. For example, a private equity firm providing merger advice to a company its investors own in a fund portfolio--not an arm's-length transaction--could easily charge more for those services than an unaffiliated firm would. Finally, the bill's changes in derivatives would reduce transparency and increase risks in this arena by allowing Wall Street firms with commercial businesses like oil and gas or other commodities operations--to trade derivatives privately and not on clearinghouses. Trading on clearinghouses generates accurate price data that help both banks and regulators value these instruments. Because these clearinghouses perform risk management, problematic positions are easier to spot. If this change goes through, it will be the second recent victory on derivatives for big banks. Last month, Congress reversed a part of the Dodd-Frank law barring derivatives from being traded in federally insured units of banks. Taxpayers may be on the hook for bailouts, therefore, if losses occur in the banks' derivatives books. The Dodd-Frank law, as written back in 2010, was by no means a comprehensive fix for a risky banking system. And it is more vulnerable to attack, in part, because of its complexity and design. Dodd-Frank delegated so much rule- making to regulators that it essentially invited the institutions they oversee to fight them every inch of the way. And when Congress backs the industry in these battles, it's no contest. Still, it is remarkable to watch the same financial institutions that almost wrecked our nation's economy work to heighten risks in the system. ``The truth about Dodd-Frank is it's pretty moderate and pretty compromised already,'' Mr. Stanley of Americans for Financial Reform said. ``Any further compromise and it tends to collapse into nothingness.'' Which is exactly what Wall Street seems to be hoping for.