Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I would just like to raise an issue here with the amount of money in this bill that we are appropriating for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction account. I have heard several of my colleagues here speak earlier on individual projects in their districts that affect their constituencies, and I am totally in agreement with that on both sides of the aisle. But I do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large coastal storms. I happen to represent the port of Boston and the community south of Boston along the south shore; a beautiful area that has a great number of towns with great history there. While they were not affected to the degree that New York and New Jersey were during Hurricane Sandy--Superstorm Sandy--a lot of their infrastructure was damaged to the point of near collapse. So there is a great need for seawall reconstruction. They withstood that impact. They did the job that they were intended to do at the time that they were constructed. But I feel that this bill in its current form continues to undermine the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance and reconstruction of our infrastructure. I just want to call to mind the whole initiative here and what our priorities should be. We are, in many cases across the country, the beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary investments in infrastructure. They saw the need, and we today, and up to today, have enjoyed a competitive advantage against some of our international neighbors because our infrastructure is there. There is a definite increase in the number of these catastrophic storms. It seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now. There is definitely something going on with climate change and the intensity of these storms. It seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. I notice we are putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has already had on a lot of our coastal areas. We should be reinvesting in that infrastructure so that we are not faced with the total collapse that we saw in New York and New Jersey with Superstorm Sandy. I just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of Americans across the country, Democrats and Republicans, and making sure that we use a commonsense approach in this bill. I think that we are off course with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers, not just for my district--I'm not saying that just for the communities that I represent who do have considerable need because of recent storms--I'm talking about all across the country. I'm talking about Republican districts as well as Democratic districts. We have a wonderful organization here in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They do fantastic jobs. We get more than our money's worth. We put $1 into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we get $5 back or $7 back, depending on the project. I think it is just wise stewardship to make sure they have the resources necessary to perform the reconstruction in some cases and maintenance in other cases of the seawalls along the east and west coast to make sure that we are indeed prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming. I have an amendment later on at the appropriate time in this bill where I will be asking for additional money for the construction account of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chair, this en bloc includes my amendment to address a critical aspect of oversight for U.S funds being spent in Afghanistan. It requires an assessment of the Afghan National Security Forces' (ANSF) capability to operate and manage the facilities currently being built for the Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army. As we speak, the United States is undertaking a process whereby our servicemembers, as well as those of our allies, are redeploying. By the end of 2014, the Afghans will be fully responsible for their security. In the meantime, our efforts are now primarily focused on training the Afghans to take on their new role. However, we are not only providing training: we are also investing millions in constructing facilities to be used by the Afghan Army and Police forces. In order to ensure the best use of this funding, we need to make sure that the structures will be able to serve the Afghans long after we leave. Proper operations and maintenance is the key. Unfortunately, there is a serious deficit in this capability. In October 2012, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, published an audit in which it noted a significant lack of trained personnel with the skills to operate and maintain ANSF critical facilities. They include vital systems such as water supply, waste water treatment and power generation. The amendment will require the Department of Defense to assess, and report on, Afghan capability to address these needs and what is being done to prepare them to be able to do so. It is the best way to ensure that our investment will result in a national security force that will be able to meet Afghanistan's future security needs. I would like to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order and the Armed Services Committee for including it in this en bloc amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Let me just make one final point on this. What this bill will do now is to give the Cayman Islands or London or some other jurisdiction the ability to write derivatives rules that cover U.S. affiliates. Now, the problem with that very idea is that the Cayman Islands or any other jurisdiction has no interest in protecting the U.S. taxpayer. That's the truth. When the bailout for AIG came, it was $160 billion in U.S. currency, supported by the U.S. taxpayer, that bailed AIG out. So any of these foreign affiliates that go under in foreign jurisdictions, those foreign jurisdictions, whether it be the Cayman Islands or any other jurisdiction, have no interest, they have no dog in the fight to protect the American taxpayer. That's the problem with this bill. That's the bottom line. We should vote against it. This is a disgrace. But it does show the power of Wall Street, I'll say that.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise today in strong opposition to the bill before this House today, H.R. 1256, the Swaps Jurisdiction Certainty Act. It should be called the Wall Street Bailout Certainty Act because that's the actual effect this is going to have. It will do serious and irrevocable harm to our efforts to rein in the reckless behavior of Wall Street. In the words of our own Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, this bill will ``blow a hole'' in the hard-fought derivatives reforms we passed 3 years ago. Section 722 of the Dodd- Frank Act gives the CFTC authority to regulate overseas derivatives that have a direct and significant effect on the commerce of the United States. If my colleagues need an example, I harken to the ranking member's example of why this cross-border authority is so critically important, and that's the case of AIG, the insurance giant. AIG engaged in increasingly complex and risky derivatives bets on the subprime mortgage market out of its AIG Financial Products subsidiary in London. And because there was virtually no oversight of derivatives markets, AIG Financial Products was able to deal in the shadows. And when the housing bubble burst, no one, not its directors, not its counterparties, not even its regulators, knew just how deeply in trouble AIG was. So while we have adopted a number of regulations within Dodd-Frank, this bill will allow all of the companies that would be regulated to escape that regulation by doing these derivative deals through their foreign subsidiaries. And the four biggest derivative dealers in this country have over 3,000 foreign subsidiaries each. So this is an escape hatch for them. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases surface transportation security funding by about $15.6 million, bringing it to the enacted FY 2013 level of $124.3 million. This would be offset by a reduction in a similar amount to the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. Last April, the United States received a chilling reminder that it remains a target for attacks by terrorists and their sympathizers when two men detonated bombs in my home city at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Just 1 week later, authorities foiled a plot to attack a passenger train running between Canada and the U.S. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, we, as a Nation, undertook-- and rightly so--a massive effort to strengthen aviation security. We invested significant resources into making our skies safer. I strongly supported those efforts but would also caution that we cannot forget that other forms of transportation remain vulnerable to attack. Since fiscal year 2002, $69.3 billion in funding has been dedicated to aviation security. However, during that same period, surface transportation security has been funded at about $3.3 billion. Less than 5 percent of our transportation security funding has gone to our transit systems--our rails and buses. Now it is sometimes said that our military planners are guilty of fighting the last war. I believe that in the war on terror, my fear is that it may be the case here. Over the last number of years, we have seen buses and passenger rail systems targeted throughout Europe and Asia. I'll just mention a few. As I mentioned, in April of 2013, there was an al Qaeda-linked plot to attack a passenger train running between New York and Toronto. In July 2006, seven bomb blasts over 11 minutes took place in a suburban railway in Mumbai; 209 were killed and over 700 injured. In March 2004, coordinated bombings on the Madrid commuter rail system resulted in 191 killed and 1,800 injured. In February 2004, two suicide bombers attacked the Moscow metro stations; at least 40 were killed and over 100 injured. As well in Israel, France and Japan, they have suffered similar attacks on their bus and railway systems. Many people don't realize that U.S. passenger rail systems carry about five times as many people as do airlines. For a potential terrorist looking to cause as much damage and panic as possible, we cannot ignore the fact that our rails and buses are a target. This amendment is one step to better secure our surface transportation systems that move millions of Americans each and every day. I urge my colleagues to support both this amendment and the main bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Georgia and the gentlelady from New York who spoke previously on this, and I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from Iowa's amendment that would prevent Davis-Bacon from being enforced on projects under this act. It is a shame, I believe, that this funding bill--which provides needed facilities for our servicemembers and benefits to our veterans-- is being exploited to undermine hardworking Americans, but here we have it. Ironically, however, in contravention with some of the things that have been said here on the floor under this amendment, Davis-Bacon requires that workers of every color and every gender be paid based on their work, not on the color of their skin, not on their gender. That flies in the face of some of the accusations that have been put out for the original purpose of this. I do agree with the gentleman from Iowa that there were two Republicans who did originally sponsor this back in 1931, but I disagree that the danger, that the evil that it was trying to fight against back then, has gone away. As a matter of fact, it is just a race to the bottom that would ensue if we got rid of Davis-Bacon. Like the gentleman from Iowa, I have worked on Davis-Bacon jobs. I was an ironworker for 18 years--very proud to work with the men and women of the building trades--and I've worked on jobs where some of the workers were union and some of the workers were nonunion; but the important thing was that we were not exploited by trying to pit us against each other in a race to the bottom based on the wages that we earned. Since 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act has required Federal contractors to provide workers the local ``prevailing local wage.'' What happens is that's not the union wage, and in many cases, as the gentleman from Georgia has pointed out, it's the nonunion wage, but it is determined by a survey of the Department of Labor of the wages in that area. The danger that it's meant to deal with is that, in some areas of the country where there's no work and folks are dealing with the recession or depression-like conditions in the construction industry, unscrupulous contractors can go down there where workers don't have any shot of going to work and they can take them at very low wages and transport them to another area of the country that has work and then depress the wage base in that area. That's what Davis-Bacon is meant to deal with, and that's still the situation that we have today and the danger that we guard against. On these federally funded construction projects, Davis-Bacon protects these workers by preventing wage exploitation while still ensuring that the value for the taxpayer dollar and work quality are not compromised. This amount would bar funding to administer these wage requirements. Without Davis-Bacon protection, unscrupulous contractors will be free to exploit those tradesmen and -women who, despite a slight recovery in their jobs numbers, still today face high levels of unemployment. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak for a moment about my time as an ironworker and about my involvement with the men and women of the building trades. These people are incredibly hardworking, they are immensely skilled, and they work in a dangerous industry. They truly care about the craftsmanship, and they are dedicated to getting the job done and doing it right, and working side by side with them was a true honor for me. Generations of trades workers, by the sweat of their brows and the toil of their hands, built our great Nation. They deserve our respect, as does the work that they do. Protecting Davis-Bacon does just that. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will not create jobs, it will not house our military, and it certainly will not result in better care and services for our veterans. All it will do is take away critical wage protections and open our workers to exploitation in a race to the bottom. I urge my colleagues to stand behind our American workers and to stand behind our veterans and oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Dr. Peter A. Kurzberg in recognition of his outstanding contribution to public education and his twenty-two years of leadership in the Braintree, MA School District. Peter was born and raised in Springfield, MA. The son of Holocaust survivors, he was the first generation of his family born in the United States. He graduated from Classical High School in 1965. Subsequently, he earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Early Childhood Education and Child Development from Goddard College. Peter began his teaching career as a special needs teacher in East Hartford, CT, where he also served as Vice-President of the East Hartford Education Association. He continued his education while teaching and received his Master of Science degree in Special Education from Central Connecticut State College. After five years of teaching, Peter attended the University of Iowa where he earned his Education Specialist degree (Ed.S) in Special Education and his Doctorate (Ph.D) in Educational Administration. While attending graduate school in Iowa, Peter worked as a special education consultant and secured his administrative position as Coordinator of Special Education for the Grant Wood Area Education Agency assigned to Iowa City. Mister Speaker, Peter returned to Massachusetts in 1981 as the Director of Special Needs and later the Director of Instructional Programs for the Freetown-Lakeville Public Schools where he served for five years. Subsequently, he was hired as Assistant Superintendent for the Barnstable Public Schools and served in that capacity until 1991 when he assumed the position of Superintendent of the Braintree Public Schools. He has served with distinction for twenty-two years. During his career, Peter has served as president of both the Old Colony and South Shore Superintendents Roundtable. He is a current member of the Executive Committee of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, and he has served as Chairman of the Board for the South Shore Educational Collaborative. He is a past President of the Braintree Rotary Club and is currently the President of Temple B'Nai Shalom in Braintree. Mr. Speaker, Peter has had the good fortune to be married to Karen for thirty years, and they are the proud parents of two sons, Marc and Daniel. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Dr. Peter A. Kurzberg's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for forty-two years of dedicated service to public education, and especially express our gratitude for twenty-two years of inspired leadership of the Braintree Public Schools.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Sacred Heart School in recognition of its one hundred years of educating the children of Weymouth and Braintree, Massachusetts. Sacred Heart School was founded in 1913 by the Sisters of Saint Joseph at the request of Father John B. Holland. The school had a humble beginning with thirty-three first graders who were taught in the dining room of the convent under the direction of Sister Margaret Mary. Today, Sacred Heart School serves over 260 students. Though it is now staffed by an all-lay faculty, the qualities of the Sisters of Saint Joseph live on through the commitment and dedication of the teachers. Mister Speaker, the Sacred Heart School is committed to developing the whole child, in mind, body, and spirit, by integrating a strong academic program with a distinctly Catholic education; as a result, Sacred Heart students consistently score above the average on standardized tests. Community service is also an important component of a Sacred Heart education and the commitment to that service helps students develop a strong sense of civic engagement and lifelong sensitivities to improving the welfare of others. A strong bond between the parish and school has long been a trademark of Sacred Heart. When a fire destroyed Sacred Heart Church in December of 2005, the school and parish communities came together to support one another during the difficult rebuilding process. Another important trademark of Sacred Heart School is the level of parental involvement. Through the school's Home and School Volunteer Program, parents contribute nearly seven thousand hours of direct service to the school each year, which allows the school to offer a variety of academic and social programs for students. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the Sacred Heart School community in celebrating one hundred years of Catholic education.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, today, February 28, 2013, marks the sixth annual International Rare Disease Day, a day to raise awareness of the nearly 7,000 rare diseases affecting 30 million Americans, or about one in ten people. Here in the United States, any disease affecting 200,000 people or fewer is considered rare. Rare Disease Day is also an opportunity to celebrate the life-saving advances in science and research that continue to transform the diagnosis, treatment, and standard of care for many orphan diseases, thanks in no small part to the advocacy efforts of the medical community, patients and their families, and rare disease organizations. In my congressional district, I have met with a number of constituents and their families whose lives have been impacted by rare diseases, cystic fibrosis among them. Cystic fibrosis is a genetic disease affecting approximately 30,000 children and adults in the United States and is characterized by a reduction in the flow of salt and water across cell membranes, which leads to the buildup of thick, sticky mucus in the lungs. In 1955, with limited therapies available, children with cystic fibrosis were not expected to live long enough to attend elementary school. Today, due to significant improvements in medical treatment and care, people with the disease are living longer, healthier lives. The median predicted age of survival now stands at 38 years. Today, I have never been more hopeful of the promise science holds for all patients affected by rare diseases; however, there remains much work to be done. On this sixth annual International Rare Disease Day, I join with patients and their families in urging my colleagues to think about what more Congress can do to help bring hope to those suffering from rare diseases.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to get away from the abstract here about studies that talk about who's making what. I've got three VA facilities in my district: the Brockton VA Hospital, the Jamaica Plain Veterans Hospital and the West Roxbury Veterans Hospital. I spend a lot of time at the VA. Earlier this week, I had a chance to go through and talk to a lot of my VA folks: the nurses, the docs, the therapists, the nursing assistants, and the orderlies. Right now, we are trying to deal with the traumatic brain injury and PTSD issue at the VA, which is increasingly pernicious. We've got a lot of folks who are doing a lot of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan coming home, four, five, six tours of duty, and they've got problems. So we're relying on our folks at the VA to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home, and they're hurting. Well, I just want to talk about one young woman who is a nursing assistant down in Brockton at the VA. She's a GS-3. That's who we're talking about. We're going to freeze her pay for the 3rd year in a row. And she is trying her hardest to take care of our veterans. She's a GS- 3 under the system. She makes $27,322 a year. That's what that young woman makes. She's a nursing assistant. She's working in a psychiatric ward trying to take care of our sons and daughters who are coming home who need help, and we're freezing her pay by this bill. I'm talking about real people doing real work for brave Americans. This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace that we're doing this. I thought that maybe after the President's election and the new Congress coming in we'd get by this stuff. It is just disheartening to see this thing go on. This is the 3rd year in a row that this young lady's pay is going to be frozen. Not only that, but we don't have enough folks coming into the VA system because we're keeping the wages down. We can't compete with the private hospitals that are paying a lot more money. The docs at the private hospitals in my district, and I've got a bunch of them, the nurses and the therapists, they're all making a lot more money than the folks at the VA. And we're driving down the wages of these people and not taking care of them. I don't want to point out the stuff about the pay for Congress. We ought to have our pay frozen. I have voted six times to freeze Congress' pay since I've been here in Congress, and we should do that. We shouldn't do it for a few months, like this bill does. We should freeze it right through the end of the Congress, because we should lead by example. I really believe that. We should freeze congressional pay. I have a bill here that will do that right through the end of the Congress. I know it doesn't make some of my colleagues happy and their spouses happy, but I think it's something we ought to do. So let's get away from this stuff, beating up Federal employees. Let's try to do the right thing. It's an honorable thing, public service. We ought to take care of our folks at the VA. Don't freeze their pay. I ask my friends across the aisle to please join with me in voting against this measure.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. 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.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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. LYNCH

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

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

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. 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.