Stephen Lynch

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, during Floor consideration of H.R. 5326 on May 8, 2012, I mistakenly recorded my vote on rollcall 220 as ``yea'' on the question on agreeing to the amendment offered by Ms. Black of Tennessee. I intended to vote ``no'', on the Black amendment, which sought to prohibit the Attorney General of the United States from using any funds appropriated by H.R. 5326 for the purpose of originating or joining in any lawsuit which seeks to overturn, enjoin, or invalidate a series of specified statutes related to immigration. Again, I would like reiterate my strong opposition to the Black amendment and express my significant concern that its language of limitation would unduly abrogate the longstanding prosecutorial discretion of the Department of Justice as well as undermine and violate the basic principle of separation of powers embodied by our Constitution.

Mr. LYNCH

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

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5326, making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies bill. My amendment would increase by $4 million the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the Office of Justice Drug Courts Program. The $4 million added to the Drug Courts Program will be offset by decreasing the amount by $4 million in the funding for periodic censuses and related programs. To say that there is a drug addiction problem in the United States is an understatement. We're dealing with an epidemic that is in every city and town in this country and that reaches across every demographic. Addiction does not discriminate as it shatters lives, breaks up families, and costs hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In fact, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, estimates of the total overall costs related to substance abuse in the United States, including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 billion annually. Drug courts are specialized court dockets designed to handle cases involving drug and/or alcohol dependent offenders who are commonly charged with offenses such as the possession of a controlled substance or other nonviolent offenses determined to have been caused or influenced by their addictions. These cases are handled through a comprehensive program of supervision, drug testing, treatment services, and immediate sanctions and incentives that are designed to reduce the recidivism rates of these particular offenders. People who don't comply with the requirements of drug courts go to jail. They go to jail quickly and for various periods of time. It's a ``get tough'' policy. Particular offenders have their recidivism rates reduced by helping them overcome their substance abuse problems, which are the primary and predicate causes of their criminal activities. Drug courts coordinate the efforts of judiciary, prosecution, defense bar, probation, law enforcement, treatment, mental health, social services, and child protection services to break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction, and crime. If we can break that cycle, we will all benefit. Drug courts work. Drug courts save money. They reduce crime and they restore families. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the drug court approach reduces crime by as much as 45 percent more than other sentencing options. In fact, nationally, 75 percent of drug courts graduates remain arrest-free for at least 2 years after leaving the program, and reductions in crime by those offenders is long term. In addition to reducing crime, drug courts save money, and that is a theme that has become very popular around here lately. As reported by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, for every dollar nationwide invested in drug courts, taxpayers save as much as $27. This substantial savings comes from avoiding criminal costs, prison costs, reduced victimization, and health care utilization--all areas in which vast sums of money are spent. Most importantly, drug courts help restore and preserve families. According to statistics, family reunification rates for drug offenders are 50 percent higher for drug court participants. As people struggle through addiction, they lose a sense of themselves and become isolated from everyone they've known. Reuniting with their families can be the first step in returning to normalcy and to becoming again productive members of their communities. The underlying bill provides $41 million in drug court funding, which is $6 million over the FY 2012 level. For that, I would like to thank Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah. However, drug courts have been historically underfunded since 2001. So this $4 million increase would bring funding for the National Drug Court Program in line with its historical average of $45 million since 2001. I appreciate the good work of the census, and I believe that this modest offset can be accounted for in the coming years, but the work of the drug courts meets an immediate and critical need.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and to honor the sacrifice of the men who lost their lives in a tragic accident on May 11, 1944, sixty-eight years ago. This tragedy occurred just fourteen miles off the coast of Massachusetts. On that fateful day, the nine member crew of the USS YF 415 and twenty-one men from the Hingham, MA, Ammunition Depot were disposing of obsolete ammunition. The ship was loaded with one hundred fifty tons of ammunition and explosives. While they were performing their duties, the ammunition caught fire. The resulting fire and subsequent explosions lasted for nearly forty minutes. The ship went down and seventeen lives were lost. The USS Zircon, a weather observing ship, was fortunately nearby, and rescued fourteen men from the ocean. From that day until July 20, 2003, the ship lay, undiscovered, at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Amateur divers located the ship and reported it to the United States Navy. Once the United States Navy properly identified the ship, Navy divers were dispatched to investigate its remnants. Unfortunately, they were unable to find any trace of the missing men. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that today, we remember those men who lost their lives in the service of the United States of America sixty-eight years ago. Their courage and their devotion to their duty continue to inspire us today. It is appropriate that we as a nation express our condolences to their families who have suffered and endured their loss all these many years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the names of these brave men into the Record so that all Americans may recognize their service and their sacrifice: William J. Bradley, Adell Braxton, Joseph F. Burke, Raymond N. Carr, Truman S. Chittick, George M. Cook, James Cox, Jr., Freddie Edwards, Jr., F.E. Federle, James S. Griffin, Charles R. Harris, Raymond L. Henry, Julian Jackson, Yee M. Jin, Mike Peschunka, Vernon Smith, James B. Turner.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Thomas L.P. O'Donnell, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Hingham, MA, and to commend him for over fifty years of dedicated service to his community. Tom is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He was elected First Marshall of his class and has served as an elected director of the Harvard Alumni Association as well as an Overseer of Harvard University. He currently is a retired partner at Ropes & Gray LLP in Boston, where he has practiced law since 1949. Tom and his wife Carol moved to Hingham in 1955, just three years after they were married. Tom served as a member and chairman of the Advisory Committee and of the Board of Appeals. Mr. O'Donnell was first elected Town Moderator in 1967, and he has been re-elected every year since then. Mr. O'Donnell served in the United States Navy during World War II, and was recalled during the Korean War, attaining the rank of Lieutenant. Tom has been active in educational, charitable, and civic affairs. He helped in the effort by the Trustees of Reservations to acquire World's End in 1967. This is perhaps the most visited place in Hingham. In 2001, both Tom and his wife, Carol, were recipients of the Alexis de Tocqueville award from the United Way of Massachusetts Bay. Mr. Speaker, Tom is known for his quick wit, his sense of humor, his loyalty to his friends, and his unquestioned integrity. He had the good fortune to marry Carol in 1952, and they were married for 58 years. They raised four children and have been blessed with nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Thomas L.P. O'Donnell's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to his community of Hingham and to the United States of America.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio for the opportunity to praise our departing House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, as he prepares to leave the House of Representatives after 27 years of distinguished service. I represent the Ninth District of Massachusetts, where, in my new district, I have 727,514 people, most of them named Sullivan. So this seems like an Irish wake here, but it is certainly not. As we all know, John has served in the Office of the House Parliamentarian for most of his distinguished career, and the last 8 years as House Parliamentarian. Serving as Parliamentarian in this body takes a fair amount of skill and an enormous amount of patience. It is, at times, challenging, and it is that skill and ability and patience that John provides us as Members that we rely on to also allow the House to function in an orderly manner. I think all the Members here today know that the advice we receive and guidance we receive from John Sullivan, as our Parliamentarian, is given in an analytical, unbiased, and nonpartisan manner. Following in the footsteps of his mentor, former House Parliamentarian Charlie Johnson, John has served as the Parliamentarian in both Democratic and Republican Houses. And I think it is a tribute to John's integrity and trustworthiness that he was appointed by three Speakers of the House: Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican; Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat; and now Speaker John Boehner, again a Republican. In a time period when we can just about agree on nothing between us, we agree on the great service of John Sullivan. And he has received the support and admiration from both sides of the aisle, and that is on display in the House tonight, as both Republican and Democratic Members pay tribute to a true man of the House. And while, as Members, we are allowed to publicly pay tribute to John, I know that John's fellow coworkers and former coworkers also wish him the best as he prepares for his next challenge. John has not let us know what his future professional plans will be, but we, as a body, know it will not be golf. We have seen John golf, and John Sullivan and the sport of golf are nongermane. But we all do know that he is enormously dedicated and devoted to his wife, Nancy, and their three kids, Michael, Margaret, and Matthew. And we wish him the best as he leaves his professional family and begins to enjoy his true family. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank John for his friendship and guidance to me during my time in Congress. John, you know that on many occasions, the passions of this House have threatened to overtake proper decorum. I think it's been your integrity and your ability to reason and your reputation for nonpartisanship that has pulled us back from the brink on many occasions. You have certainly raised the bar in terms of dedicated service to this institution. I thank you, and I wish you and your family Godspeed and good luck. God bless you. And thank you for your service to this House of Representatives.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Minnesota has a very good amendment here. Here is what we're talking about. This would strengthen title I by keeping in place the requirement that all public companies, including emerging growth companies, hold a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation and golden parachutes once every 3 years. One vote. They're having a meeting anyway. These are the companies that we know the least about. We support the underlying bill, but we think that requiring a nonbinding vote once every 3 years is good for the shareholders. The question is: Will this inhibit the operation of these emerging growth companies? No, it will not. I think the gentleman from Minnesota has a great amendment here. These are the companies we know the least about. They have the shortest track records. These shareholders and investors are taking a leap of faith, and this would allow them to have a vote on the CEO salaries and also on the golden parachutes, so I ask Members to support the amendment.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. This is another in a series of legislative attacks that have targeted our Federal workers throughout the 112th Congress. It will further erode employee morale and diminish the Federal Government's ability to attract the best and brightest to perform the important jobs that we need to perform. Our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in such critical areas as law enforcement, national defense, public health, and the delivery of services to America's veterans, elderly, and the disabled. They should not bear a disproportionate burden when it comes to addressing our Nation's budget problems. So I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any further efforts to balance the Nation's budget on the backs of our hardworking Federal employees by voting ``no'' on H.R. 3835.

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3835, which would extend the current-year pay freeze for Federal workers for an additional year through 2013. This will be the third year of a pay freeze. Similar to most of my colleagues who have spoken here today, I do support a freeze for Congress. I have voted six times to freeze Congress' pay. While my good friend from Utah does point out that there are some high-end, high-salaried Federal employees, you have to remember that we have surgeons at the VA, very competent doctors at the VA that serve our veterans. We have scientists at NIH. We have very, very good attorneys at the SEC prosecuting very complex fraud cases. To attract those individuals, we do need to attract very competent and highly skilled individuals, and that's where those higher salaries are aggregated. But we should be reminded that the vast majority of our Federal employees are middle-income earners. Oddly enough, we could have addressed this if this bill had gone through committee, through regular order. This bill has come to the floor without going through committee. It has not been subject to amendment. We could have come up with a bill that said, okay, we are going to freeze the pay of high-income Federal employees. We didn't do that. So you've got people out there making $30,000, $40,000 a year, secretaries and other staff, that their pay has been frozen for. If this goes through, it will be 3 years. So we could have done a better job if this bill had gone through the regular order and gone through committee. I'm also concerned about the rationale behind this legislation. Similar to many of my colleagues today, while I support the freeze on congressional pay, we see a lot of legislation coming up in this Congress that attacks Federal employees, and I think this is one more example of that. I totally oppose it.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, on rollcall votes 927 and 928, had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on both votes.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I come before you as an ironworker for 18 years before coming to Congress. I actually practiced before the National Labor Relations Board, and I've actually represented a number of unions in election proceedings, and I wish I could point out every inaccuracy offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I only have 1 minute. Let me start off by saying that I've heard time and time again by my colleagues that the NLRB is an advocate for unionism; it's an advocate for Big Labor; it's nothing more than overreaching and trying to create unions. For those who believe that, I ask you to look at the American workforce. What percentage, since the NLRB is creating all of these unions and is overreaching, what percentage of the American workforce is working under a union agreement right now? The answer is 11 percent. So if those guys are in the tank, the NLRB is in the tank for creating unions, they're batting about 110. They're doing a lousy job. I've heard a lot about 31 days for an average election. That's where the union and the employer agree; it's 31 days. If the union and the company don't agree, it's over 100 days. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This is an attack on the middle class in America. We need to put people to work instead.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill, H.R. 3094, the so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act. Since the start of the 112th Congress, a certain faction guiding the Republican majority has undertaken what amounts to a full-scale attack on America's working families and America's working class and against the bedrock principles that have helped create America's middle class. This latest effort is more of the same. The so-called Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act is another piece of legislation that weakens the rights and protections that workers have fought long and hard to obtain. Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act gives employees the right to organize in ``an appropriate unit,'' giving them choice on how best to bargain with their employer. And that's all this is about. When an employee group organizes, all it requires is that they sit down across from their employees and bargain, talk to them about terms and conditions of employment and benefits. What this bill would do is establish a one-size-fits-all approach to organizing, forcing together employees who have very little in common and making it much more difficult to organize. That's gerrymandering, basically, to protect employer interests, plain and simple. But this bill doesn't stop at changing existing rules, however. This bill would overturn proposed rules that have not even been finalized by the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB has proposed practical rules modernizing and streamlining the union election process. The proposed rules are a genuine improvement over the existing procedures and are designed to encourage the use of technology, discourage unnecessary litigation, and save taxpayer dollars. Look, I was an ironworker for 18 years, a union ironworker. I am very proud of that fact. I was the union president. I also was involved in very many union organizing drives, not only for my own union but for the carpenters, stage hands, and wardrobe workers. And the National Labor Relations Act is actually set up to reduce the likelihood of unrest, of workforce disputes. It's really to help business and workers reduce that economic conflict. This bill will have the opposite effect. This bill will actually increase the likelihood of labor disputes. And we have seen in this country a great disparity between the haves and the have-nots. This is going to make matters worse. Instead of putting people to work, this is going to cause strife and reduce the efficiency and productivity of America's workers. This is shameful. All these union workers, this is the middle class in America. You are destroying the middle class in America. You are increasing that disparity between the haves and the have-nots. We've got to do better than this. The American people deserve it.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding. The only thing I have agreed with so far in tonight's debate from the other side is that America's credibility is on the line. I really do believe that. We've had 2,697 trade unionists killed over the past two decades in Colombia, and 94 percent of these murders go unprosecuted. I was an ironworker at the General Motors plant when we signed NAFTA. Mexico, of course, was 4 percent of the U.S. economy, and not long after that they closed the plant that I was working at and moved it over the border to Mexico. Colombia is 3 percent of the U.S. economy, not even 3 percent. This is all about shifting American jobs down to Colombia. That's what this is all about. Give me a break. The reason we have 9 percent unemployment in this country is that we keep shipping jobs overseas. When you find yourself in a ditch, it's time to stop digging, okay? This is a bad deal. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Reverend Eugene L. Neville, in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the State of Massachusetts and the religious community, and to commend him for over 30 years of his dedicated service. Reverend Neville was born in Roxbury, MA and was educated in the Boston public school system, graduating from Roxbury Memorial High School in 1960. He later attended Barrington College in Rhode Island, where he graduated with a B.A. in Bible and Theology in 1969. He continued his theological education at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Hamilton, MA in 1972, graduating with honors. Reverend Neville also participated in post theological studies at Andover Newton Theological School, Boston University School of Theology, and Harvard Divinity School. It was at the historic Peoples Baptist Church, under the pastorate of the late Reverend Dr. Richard M. Owens, where Reverend Neville was first called to prepare for his Christian Ministry. Subsequently, he served under the mentorship of Reverend Dr. Michael E. Hayes, Pastor of the Twelfth Baptist Church in Boston, MA, where Reverend Neville was formally ordained as a Baptist Minister. In 1975, he assumed his first pastorate at Messiah Baptist Church in Brockton, MA, where he served for 6 years. In 1981, Reverend Neville founded and became the pastor of Mount Moriah Baptist Church; under his leadership, Mount Moriah has established over 30 ministries and has become one of the most influential churches in the City of Brockton. Reverend Neville has also been dedicated to helping the greater community. He served for 4 years at The Hymn Foundation in Boston as the first Project Director for the Black Church Capacity Building Program. This program connected Black churches with local philanthropic foundations, and provided grants up to $8000 for their social outreach ministries. Reverend Neville has been instrumental in establishing several non-profit organizations within the church for the benefit of the greater community, such as the Amara Community Center, which has provided over 2500 children, youth, and adults with computer training and their own personal computer. Additional projects include the Higher Education Resource Center, which has assisted hundreds of first generation youth to achieve acceptance to, and remain in, college, and the Emergency Food Ministry, which is comprised of a large food pantry serving hundreds of families twice a month as well as a soup kitchen ministry serving numerous homeless individuals every Tuesday afternoon. Reverend Neville is a man of God with a vision to help individuals, families, churches, and community organizations address and overcome the challenges of this generation. Reverend Neville is married to Ruth and they have 2 adult daughters and 5 grandchildren; he and his wife presently reside in Foxboro, MA. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of the Reverend Eugene L. Neville to thank him for his remarkable service and dedication to the religious community in the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Walter J. Hannon in recognition of his outstanding contributions to his hometown of Quincy, MA, and to commend him for almost fifty years of dedicated service to his community. The son of Helen and Walter Hannon, Walter was born on September 4, 1931, in the Hough's Neck section of Quincy, where he lived until 1945. Walter attended Quincy public schools and he graduated from North Quincy High School in 1949. While he has left Hough's Neck, Walter continues to reside in the City of Quincy. Subsequent to his graduation, Walter went to work in the family tire business, the Hannon Tire Company. In November of 1953, Walter assumed control of the Hannon Tire Company and expanded the business, running its day to day operations until 1972. Concurrently, Walter served as Ward 5 City Councilor from 1964-1971, and as a State Representative from 1967-1973. He was elected Mayor of Quincy in 1972, serving in that capacity until 1975. After serving as Mayor, Walter went to work for the South Shore Chamber of Commerce in 1976 as the Director of Small Business Development. In 1978, he was appointed Director of Planning and Development for the City of Quincy. On April 2, 1979, he was named Director of Development by Marina Industries to direct the master planning of Marina Bay in Squantum. Governor William Weld recognized Walter's ability and appointed him to the Massachusetts Port Authority as Director of Maritime Development. In 1996, Walter went to work for the Marina Bay Company to oversee the Granite Links project, a spectacular reclamation of a quarry into a first class golf course and restaurant. He presently holds the position of Director of Civic Affairs for the Granite Links Golf Club. As many in the Quincy community will attest, Walter is known for his quick sense of humor, his loyalty to his friends, and his devotion to his family. He has had the good fortune to be married to Patricia for fifty-eight years and they are the proud parents of five children and ten grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with Walter J. Hannon's family, friends, and contemporaries to thank him for his remarkable service to his community of Quincy.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out and clarify a few points that have been made here this morning. Regarding the Boeing case, this is a clear overreach into the decision of the National Labor Relations Board. The National Labor Relations Act, section 7, establishes the basic right for employees in this country to self-organize, to join, to form, and to assist labor organizations. The Boeing workers have been organized with and by the Machinists Union since the 1970s. There has been a long and good relationship there. The union and the employees at Boeing were trying to exercise their basic section 7 rights. However, the management of Boeing, which is a good company, but clearly in this case the management of Boeing committed an unfair labor practice by threatening the employees that if they exercised their rights under section 7, they would move the work out of Washington, out of Puget Sound, and relocate it down to South Carolina, which they did. The National Labor Relations Board followed the law. This is not a close case. This is the only decision that the board could possibly come up with under the law. We are a nation of laws. You may not like the result, but like it or not, workers in this country have a basic right to join unions. I know that that's not a popular idea lately. However, in this case, I completely support the board's actions. I think they followed the law. I rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this bill.

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to those statements. It is a simple case; I agree with that part. And Boeing is a good company, a good American company. But in this case, if you read the facts of the case, their management made multiple threats to the employees that, if they chose to exercise their rights as employees under the law, that they would move the work away from Puget Sound and locate it in South Carolina. And that's exactly what they did. That's exactly what they did. You can manage a company, but you cannot use your management rights to trample on the rights of those basic employees.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jane J. Schwager, in recognition of her outstanding contributions to the state of Massachusetts in the area of substance abuse and recovery, and to commend her for over fifteen years of dedicated service to her community. Jane was born in Clifton Heights, PA to Ron and Peg Lanoie. As both of her parents dedicated much of their lives to the service of their country, with Ron serving in the United States Coast Guard, USCG, for 30 years and Peg working for the Civil Service for over 25 years, Jane grew up knowing service to one's community was important. Jane has 2 children, Michael and Magdalene Tiapula, and is married to Jim Schwager. Jim and Jane currently reside in Worcester where they are raising their 3 year old granddaughter, Alysia. In 1994, Jane began her work for the Early Intervention Program for children with disabilities. Eventually, Jane worked for the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, SMOC, and she continued her advocacy in the substance abuse field by participating in various treatment programs including the Meadows Program, the New Beginnings Program at Bethany Hill, and the Marlboro/Hudson Sober Housing. Using her own resources, Jane purchased a building in Worcester in 1999 and opened the J&J Sober House, a 10 bedroom house for men in recovery, which she continues to run to this day. The following year she was named as the program director at the Serenity House in Hopkinton, MA. Subsequently, in 2003, Jane became an adjunct faculty member and practicum supervisor for the Alcoholism/Chemical Dependency Treatment Program for UMASS Boston after obtaining her Licensed Alcohol and Drug Counselor (LADC) 1 certification. Jane's approach to recovery from addiction is rooted in her commitment to helping people obtain another chance in life. Jane employs a balanced approach of compassion and ``raw reality'' that acknowledges each participant's strengths while recognizes the struggles and trauma that often pervades participants' histories. It should also be noted that she is currently overseeing the SMOC Rhodes to Recover Program in Millbury, MA. Her deep commitment to each and every one of the thousands of participants that have come through the doors of her program is constantly displayed through her compassionate actions. It is a tribute to Jane's commitment that she continues to empower recovering addicts to achieve their goals, dreams, and ultimately repair their broken lives. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take the floor of the House today to join with the family, friends, and contemporaries of Jane J. Schwager to thank her for her remarkable service to her state of Massachusetts, and to thousands of substance abuse victims.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I just want to say, as Republicans are rallying to the ramparts to save the millionaires from suffering from any loss of a tax loophole, I take a full measure of pride at where the Democrats in this House are standing on this issue. I urge my colleagues to stand with seniors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. LYNCH. I rise today in opposition to the Budget Control Act because I honestly believe that this Nation is better than this bill reflects. Just so we're clear on the differences here between our positions, this amendment seeks to place the overwhelming burden of this crisis on the backs of senior citizens, and it forces seniors especially to make enormous sacrifices while, at the same time, it allows the richest Americans and oil companies and hedge fund operators to escape any responsibility or sacrifice. This is not how we should be treating America's Greatest Generation, who survived the Great Depression, who fought in World War II, and who made the sacrifices in their time when their country called upon them. This is not the way to treat the frail elderly or any senior, who, at the end of their working lives, are now on a fixed income. The way we deal with this crisis will say a lot about America. I think Hubert Humphrey said it best when he said that the true test of any society is how we treat those citizens in the dawn of life, our children; those in the twilight of life, our elderly; and those in the shadow of life, our poor and disabled.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his advocacy on behalf of the American consumer. The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with the sole purpose of ensuring that financial markets work for, and not against, American families. It established a single director empowered with a singular mandate which is simply to protect the consumer. This bill, H.R. 1315, seeks to weaken the CFPB on the day it opens its doors for the first time in two important ways. First, it would make it more difficult for the Consumer Protection Bureau to act by replacing the director with a five-member commission. As has been shown, a single director with executive authority and who is directly responsible to the American consumer is better suited to act quickly to address problems in the consumer financial markets, and he or she will be directly accountable to Congress for the bureau's actions. On the other hand, a five-member commission creates another bureaucracy that would be both less effective and less accountable to consumers. A five-member commission would also, in this case, cost taxpayers an additional $71 million. To offset the cost of these commissioners and their staffs, we're being asked to use the money from a Federal Housing Administration program created to help responsible Americans who have continued to make mortgage payments refinance their underwater homes. According to Mark Flemming, the chief economist for the property research company CoreLogic, underwater mortgages are a primary factor holding back the housing market and the economy as a whole. So instead of working to solve this problem and boost our economy, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that our money is better spent unnecessarily expanding the bureaucracy at the CFPB. H.R. 1315 would also make it much easier for the same regulators who in many cases were captured by the industry that they oversee and who fell down on the job in the lead-up to the financial crisis, to now overrule the CFPB. These regulators proved that they were not capable of ensuring the soundness of the financial system while simultaneously protecting American consumers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. LYNCH

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, it is with an immense sense of hope that I rise today to congratulate the people of South Sudan on the eve of their independence. South Sudan has overcome incredible devastation brought on by decades of violence and famine that killed and displaced millions. After years of brutal fighting, the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed a peace agreement in January 2005 that finally ended the civil war. And in January of this year the people of the south, by an overwhelming margin of 98.8 per cent to 1.17 per cent, peacefully voted for independence. The joy on the voters' faces as they cast their ballots, their hopes for the future, and their unshakeable resolve to determine their own fate was nothing short of inspirational. South Sudan will face many challenges. There are still major issues to be addressed such as its frayed relations with Khartoum, the dispute over Abyei and the lack of agreement on borders, citizenship rights and other matters. In addition, there is the extremely worrisome violence that has grown in recent weeks in the northern border state of Southern Kordofan which has forced tens of thousands to flee. These tests will be difficult but I have no doubt that the people of South Sudan will continue to demonstrate the courage and strength of spirit that has brought them this far to take on these challenges. As they do so, the people of the United States will continue to support and stand by them as they build their new country. However, tomorrow will be a day for celebrating a new nation that was able to overcome adversity and rise out of the ashes of genocide and civil war. On behalf of the people of the Ninth District of Massachusetts, I wish to extend my deepest congratulations to the people of South Sudan.