Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Disabled Military Child Protection Act. This important bill would enable military retirees, investing in a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), to transfer their benefit to a Special Needs Trust (SNT) to provide long-term care for a disabled child. Under the SBP, a military retiree can have a portion of his or her monthly retired pay withheld in order to provide, after his or her death, a monthly survivor benefit (55% of base amount of military retired pay at the time of the retiree's death) to a surviving spouse or other eligible recipient(s). However, by directing SBP annuity payments to an SNT, the retiree may ensure that a dependent, disabled child might continue to qualify for certain benefits, such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicaid, that are means tested. As you know Mr. Speaker, assets placed into an SNT are not generally counted as income or assets for the purposes of determining eligibility for these benefits. Current individual care costs for a disabled child could exceed $100,000 a year if he/she has assets greater than the Medicaid threshold. A SNT can be created by anyone, but there is no current mechanism for a military member to designate a Trust as the beneficiary of his/her SBP. This legislation would enable a SNT transfer similar to what is available to the general public today. This is an equity issue; currently, civilians can create a SNT for their permanently disabled children to ensure they receive care beyond their guardian's death, and are not subject to an income means-test. It is only fair to allow retired military personnel to prepare for the long-term care of their disabled children. As of March 2011, CBO estimates that the bill would increase mandatory outlays by $123 million over the 2012-2021 period. The mandatory cost is not directly attributed to DoD, but rather reflects the increased costs to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Medicaid, since affected dependent children who are currently ineligible for those benefits would become eligible. This legislation would impact approximately 1,065 military dependents who are currently incapacitated beneficiaries under SBP. This bill would help many Americans who have nobly served our country, like one of my constituents who has a son named Thomas. Thomas was diagnosed with severe autism by the age of 2 and is non-verbal, communicating primarily through hand leading to express he is hungry, wants to take a shower, or go for a car ride. He is unable to independently perform routine activities of daily living such as dressing or tending to his personal hygiene, much less make himself something to eat, ask for help, or let someone know he is in pain. Thomas requires supervision and assistance, around the clock, to ensure his safety needs are met. Other than his severe autism diagnosis, Thomas is healthy and expected to live a normal lifespan. Our constituent, a single parent, is nearly 38 years older than Thomas, and has been diagnosed with prostate cancer. The passage of this bill would allow him the flexibility to plan for Thomas' future care and well- being. In the name of decency and fairness, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and allow our military personnel some well-deserved peace of mind, knowing that their disabled children can be adequately provided for long after they are gone.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize the outstanding contributions of Terri Lynch in making Arlington and the Commonwealth of Virginia a better place to live in your twilight years. Terri Lynch, MPA, has been the director of the Arlington County Agency on Aging since 1982. She helped to establish a network of services and programs in the Arlington Aging & Disability Services Division, including many that became state and national models. She consistently provided assistance and expertise to the Arlington Commission on Aging and Commission on Long-Term Care Residences. In 2006, she provided primary staff support for the County-Board's Elder Readiness Task Force that assessed the status of Arlington's capacity to serve older adults. Ms. Lynch was president of the Virginia Association of Area Agencies on Aging from 2000 to 2002. She was a cofounding director and vice chair of the Consumer Consortium on Assisted Living from 1996 to 2003. She has served on the Policy Board for the Northern Virginia Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, the Advisory Committee for the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program, the Board for the Virginia Elder Rights Coalition, and the Virginia Legal Services Corporation Board. She is a founding member of Northern Virginia Womenade, a giving circle that aids nonprofit organizations. Ms. Lynch has been a long-standing driving force in the Northern Virginia Aging Network, comprised of the region's agencies on aging and commissions on aging, as well as aging service and advocacy groups. NVAN has produced a state legislative platform since 1983, which has resulted in advances in community-based aging services, accessibility, housing, mental health and long-term care. Ms. Lynch has been a leader in the field of aging at the local, state and national levels. She has received more than 20 distinguished honors, letters of appreciation and superior performance awards. She received the prestigious Winston Award from the Arlington County Bar Foundation in 2007 which recognizes members of the local community for longstanding public service, promotion of democratic ideals and the advancement of the rule of law. She received the Culpepper Garden Elder Services Award in 2009. Ms. Lynch has been recognized multiple times by elected officials, policy-makers, community advocates and colleagues. They acknowledge her creativity, strategic thinking, administrative and advocacy skills, energy, and sheer ability to make things happen for the benefit of older people. She is always innovative, ahead of the curve, and exercises leadership that counts for elders. Ms. Lynch is retiring on June 28, 2013, and I salute her long track record of success and the positive differences she has made. I look forward to her continuing work in the public interest.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented young musician in the 8th Congressional District, Samuel Matzner of Arlington County, Virginia. Samuel was selected on March 4th to participate in the first ever National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America. Sam plays the Viola at Wakefield High School, as well as for the Washington Metropolitan Youth Orchestra. Due to his extraordinary abilities, he will join a group of 120 of the finest young musicians in the country aged 16-19, representing a selection process that included all 50 states, who will act as musical ambassadors during their worldwide tour in July. Organized by the famed Carnegie Hall in New York City, the group will travel to New York for two weeks of rehearsals at Purchase College, State University of New York, and then embark on an international tour that includes Moscow, St. Petersburg, and London. The National Youth Orchestra of the United States of America is a unique and un-paralleled opportunity for young, high school-aged musicians in the United States to be recognized as the pinnacle of our musical training system. The success of Venezuela's El Sistema has generated increased international interest in the value of youth orchestras, and I am thrilled that Carnegie Hall has spearheaded this initiative to showcase our nation's talent and reinvigorate interest in youth musicianship at home and abroad. Mr. Speaker, we are proud of these cultural ambassadors, and their commitment to musical excellence. I look forward to hearing the orchestra play, and wish them the best of luck on their tour.

Mr. MORAN

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that would strike section 413 of this bill. First of all, I have great respect, even affection, for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, and their exemplary staff, Mr. Washington. But section 413 of this bill, Mr. Chairman, would prohibit funds to construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the U.S. for the purposes of housing Guantanamo detainees. According to a recent GAO report, there are prisons in the U.S. that could hold the Guantanamo detainees as safely and securely as the security conditions at the Guantanamo facility. The Department of Defense and the Department of Justice both operate detention facilities comparable to Guantanamo Bay and currently hold convicted terrorists and other felons connected to terrorism. The GAO report, however, noted that existing facilities would need to be slightly modified, and current inmates would need to be relocated perhaps. But this would prohibit that. I can't imagine that there are Members of this Chamber that believe that indefinitely detaining individuals at Guantanamo Bay for the rest of their lives, without access to a fair trial, comports with American standards of justice. Now, first of all, a few words about Gitmo itself. Eighty-six percent of the Guantanamo detainees were captured in exchange for a bounty. A majority of these young men never actually committed an act of violence against the United States or its allies. Five percent were perhaps members of al Qaeda. So let's assume that 5 percent were, because there seems to be some indication that they were; but 95 percent were not. From a national security standpoint, Gitmo has been too easily used as a rallying cry and a recruitment tool for our enemies. For that reason, its continued existence really is a direct threat to our national security. Language such as is in this bill has constrained the President's options for closing this detention facility. President Obama still retains the authority to significantly decrease the prison's population, though, should he choose to do so. He could waive the certification requirements if receiving countries take actions to substantially mitigate the risk that a detainee were to re-engage in terrorism. That would clear the release of at least 86 detainees, about half of the entire prison's population. Since Guantanamo was opened, the statistics indicate that about 13 percent may have become recidivists. But less than 5 percent of President Obama's transfers have. Military strategy often dictates that by releasing lower-threat detainees, you mitigate the risk of radicalizing more. We released many foot soldiers in Afghanistan who are far worse than the Guantanamo detainees. But what is most relevant to this bill's language is that 46 detainees have been designated for indefinite detention, either because they are too dangerous to release, or they can't be charged in a court due to evidentiary standards. The President did establish a Periodic Review Board, but the panel has never been formed. Frankly, the President should do that. But those detainees that cannot be transferred, I think, should be tried in courts here in the United States. The problem is, given the limitation that Congress has wrongly placed on such transfers, that can't be done today, notwithstanding the fact that our Federal courts have tried more than 1,000 terrorists. The United States already holds 373 individuals convicted of terrorism in 98 facilities across the country. There are six Department of Defense facilities where Guantanamo detainees could be held in the United States that are currently at a combined 48 percent capacity. In other words, less than half the capacity is being used. Believing that they will never leave Cuba, more than 100 are protesting their indefinite detention the only way that they can, with a hunger strike. Thirty-seven detainees are currently being tube-fed. It's a procedure that requires a lubricated plastic tube to be inserted down a detainee's nose and into their stomach while they're being restrained. They are then held in a chair for about 2 hours to force them to digest the liquid. The fact is that the President can't do what he needs to do as long as section 413 remains in this bill, and that's why my amendment would remove this restriction. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, section 413 prohibits any funds, no matter how small they might be, to renovate or expand any facility in the U.S. for the purposes of housing Guantanamo detainees. The fact is that the Department of Defense does have six facilities where Guantanamo Bay detainees could be held in the United States. Those facilities are currently operating at only 48 percent capacity. Mr. Chairman, if we were to look deeply into this issue of detention at Guantanamo Bay, we would conclude: number one, that this detention facility doesn't meet the standards of justice that our American jurisprudence system demands; number two, the vast majority of people at Guantanamo Bay should have been released. Even the Bush Administration recognized by their actions, that the vast majority of the 779 people that were put there should never have been detained, because they released most of them; number three, the best place for them to be detained and then tried is in the United States; and number four, the continuance of the Guantanamo Bay facility represents an immediate security threat to the United States because it is a rallying cry and a recruitment tool for our enemies. Right now, there are more than a hundred detainees that are protesting what appears to be an indefinite detention the only way they can--through hunger strikes. Thirty-seven of them are being tube-fed through their noses into their stomach. They're held for about 2 hours to make sure that this liquid stuff is digested. Guantanamo has become an immediate humanitarian crisis. It needs to be addressed urgently because the rest of the world can't understand why we don't do the right thing by those detainees who still are at Guantanamo Bay, whom we have cleared. In fact, the Bush administration cleared them for release because they had no evidence on them. President Obama has asked the Congress to lift restrictions on detainee transfers. He's asked DOD to identify a site in the United States for military commissions. They will appoint a senior envoy charged with transferring detainees to third countries and he's got to lift the restriction on transfers to Yemen. He's going to staff the periodic review board for those that cannot be transferred. I think he should use the certification and waiver provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to transfer detainees from Guantanamo beginning with the reported 86 detainees already cleared for transfer. But he can't do what he needs to do for our national security as long as the language of section 413 is in this bill. That's why my amendment would remove this restriction. What we're doing does not comport with America's system of justice or with fairness. And as I say, I believe it's a direct threat to our national security. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we remove this language by voting for my amendment. We have Department of Defense facilities, they're being underused in the United States, and that's the way that we could clear up a situation that we never should have created in the first place. At this point--well, can I reserve time in order to respond to Mr. Culberson?

Mr. MORAN. I suspected not. So at this point I will yield back, and I'm anxious to hear from the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this month we mark the fifth anniversary of a terrible abuse of human rights in Iran. Seven Baha'i leaders in Iran have been in prison for five years as of May 14, 2013. They are Mahvash Sabet, Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saeid Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Vahid Tizfahm. Tragically, there are many prisoners of conscience filling Iran's jails. Our Department of State's annual Human Rights Report documents case after case of violations of religious freedom. Indeed, in Iran, a climate of hostility surrounds all non-Shia religious communities. The Baha'i as well as Sunni Muslims, evangelical Christians, and Jews are victims of discrimination and persecution. For all the victims of this persecution, and in particular for the seven Baha'i whose grim milestone we mark this month, it is critical that we raise our voices to send a message that they are not forgotten. These seven leaders are all members of a national-level group--the ``Yaran-i-Iran'' or ``Friends in Iran''--which oversaw the welfare of Iran's Baha'i community. Their 20-year prison term is the longest sentence of any current prisoners of conscience in Iran. The seven were charged with espionage, propaganda against the Islamic republic, the establishment of an illegal administration, and corruption on earth. These are typical of the false charges and misinformation used to vilify Baha'is in Iran. The defendants rejected these charges completely and categorically. Their crime is being members of the Baha'i Faith, a religion which has been the focus of systematic, government-sponsored persecution in Iran since the 1979 revolution. The trial of the seven leaders was also the trial of an entire community of more than 300,000. For the last 30 years, more than 200 Baha'is have been killed, hundreds more imprisoned, and thousands deprived of jobs, education, and the freedom to worship. In an act of communal self-preservation, the Baha'is created an internal university called the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education to educate those denied entry to university. It was raided in 2011 and seven educators and administrators were sentenced to four or five years' imprisonment. In addition, some 600 Baha'is have suffered arbitrary arrests since 2004. The number of Baha'is arrested and/or imprisoned has increased dramatically in the past two years. In January 2011, 56 were in prison and 230 were awaiting trial, appeal, or sentencing; currently, there are 110 in prison and 436 awaiting the other procedures. Followers of the Baha'i Faith, founded in Iran in 1863, are regarded as infidels and have suffered persecution both before and after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Baha'i teachings emphasize the oneness of God, the unity of humankind, the underlying harmony of major religions, universal education, and the equality of women and men. I support House Resolution 109 condemning the Iranian government for its persecution of its Baha'i minority. I call on my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join in co-sponsoring this resolution and my Senate colleagues in co-sponsoring Senate Resolution 75.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. This is the seventh time I have introduced legislation that would grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock, the Monacan, and the Nansemond. I am joined by my Virginia colleagues, Reps. Bobby Scott, Robert Wittman and Gerry Connolly. Similar measures passed the House and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee during the 110th and 111th Sessions of Congress. Unfortunately, both measures were ultimately defeated when the objections of a few Senators were not overridden. The impasse in Congress and the demeaning and dysfunctional acknowledgement process at the Bureau of Indian Affairs only compound the grave injustices this legislation seeks to redress and compels me to continue this cause and reintroduce this legislation today. The injustices the Virginia tribes have experienced extend back in time for hundreds of years, back to the establishment of the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown. For the Members of these tribes are the descendants of the great Powhatan Confederacy who greeted the English and provided food and assistance that ensured the settlers' early survival. Six years ago, America celebrated the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown. But it was not a celebration for Native American descendants of Pocahontas, for they have yet to be recognized by our federal government. Unlike most Native American tribes that were officially recognized when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six Native American tribes made their peace with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and King Charles II. This treaty has been recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia every year for the past 334 years when the Governor accepts tribute from the tribes in a ceremony now celebrated at the Commonwealth Capitol. I had the honor of attending one of what I understand is the longest-celebrated treaty recognition ceremony in the United States. The forefathers of the tribal leaders who gather on Thanksgiving in Richmond were the first to welcome the English, and during the first few years of settlement, ensured their survival. Had the tribes not assisted those early settlers, they would not have survived. Time has not been kind to the tribes, however. As was the case for most Native American tribes, as the settlement prospered and grew, the tribes suffered. Those who resisted quickly became subdued, were pushed off their historic lands, and, up through much of the 20th Century, were denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia tribes survived, preserving their heritage and their identity. Their story of survival spans four centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions. The Virginia tribes' history, however, diverges from that of most Native Americans in two unique ways. The first explains why the Virginia tribes were never recognized by the federal government; the second explains why congressional action is needed today. First, by the time the federal government was established in 1789, the Virginia tribes were in no position to seek recognition. They had already lost control of their land, withdrawn into isolated communities and been stripped of most of their rights. Lacking even the rights granted by the English Kings, and our own Bill of Rights, federal recognition was nowhere within their reach. The second unique circumstance for the Virginia tribes is what they experienced with the destruction of their official records. From the destruction of local courthouses wrought by the Civil War to the 20th Century ``paper genocide'' perpetrated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, there are gaps in their records which could ultimately invalidate their petitions for recognition that have been filed with the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs. With great hypocrisy, Virginia's ruling elite pushed policies that culminated with the enactment of the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act directed Commonwealth officials, and zealots like Walter Plecker, to destroy Commonwealth and local courthouse records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' It targeted Native Americans with a vengeance, denying Native Americans in Virginia their identity. To call oneself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. In defiance of the law, members of Virginia's tribes traveled out of state to obtain marriage licenses or to serve their country in wartime. The law remained in effect until it was struck down in federal court in 1967. In that intervening period between 1924 and 1967, Commonwealth officials waged a war to destroy all public and many private records that affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Historians have affirmed that no other state compares to Virginia's efforts to eradicate its citizens' Indian identity. All of Virginia's state-recognized tribes have filed petitions with the Bureau of Acknowledgment seeking federal recognition. But it is a very heavy burden the Virginia tribes will have to overcome, and one fraught with complications that officials from the bureau have acknowledged may never be resolved in their lifetime. The acknowledgment process is already expensive, subject to unreasonable delays, and lacking in dignity. Virginia's paper genocide only further complicates these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents and aggravating the injustice already visited upon them. The Bureau of Acknowledgement officials have admitted that the Virginia petitions may not be resolved for generations. In appreciation of the fact that the issue of gambling and its economic and moral dimensions influence many Members' perspectives on tribal recognition issues, you should be aware that the bill has carried language every year prohibiting these tribes from gaming on their federal lands. This prohibition extends indefinitely, even if Virginia were to one day change course and allow gaming. The tribes find gambling offensive to their moral beliefs. They are seeking federal recognition because it is a matter of justice. In the name of decency, fairness and humanity, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and bring closure to the centuries of injustice Virginia's Native American tribes have experienced.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the horror unleashed by the regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria has caused tremendous suffering, displacement and death. Tragically, this conflict may endure for months to come. Assad has lost legitimacy with his own people and with the world, but he retains the military capacity to keep fighting. The fact that he retains chemical weapons and, as the Administration has averred, may have already used them on the battlefield, raises new concerns about the toll this conflict may yet take. Mr. Speaker, we all are aware of the delicate mix of religious and cultural diversity that exists in Syria. That harmony persisted even when sectarian conflict--fomented in part by Bashar al Assad and his father Hafez before him--overwhelmed Syria's neighbors in Lebanon and Iraq. But in Syria, a delicate ethnic and religious balance held. Now, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that Assad believes his best hope lies in shattering that harmony. He hopes that the atrocities committed by the shabiha, paramilitary gangs mostly drawn from Assad's own Alawite community, will implicate all of Syria's 2.3 million Alawites and bind their future to his. This horrific strategy was recently employed on May 2 in the small, coastal village of Bayda. Assad's soldiers, accompanied by elements of shabiha, entered the mainly Sunni town and slaughtered scores of men, women and children. By carrying out massacres like the one in Bayda, the regime hopes that Alawites, as well as other minorities seen as dependent on Assad's protection, will be inexorably tied to the regime. He hopes that his genocidal actions will lead to calls for revenge and, ultimately, to unbridled sectarian conflict. He will then claim to be the only power that can control the resulting chaos. This is the gamble of a desperate ruler, and we have to do what we can to frustrate his plan. In reality, those in Bashar al Assad's inner circle know he is steadily losing the support of Syria's people--including Alawites. We should encourage the opposition to accelerate that trend, and reach out to Syria's people with a vision of unity, peace and citizenship for all. That is why I am introducing a resolution today calling on the Syrian Opposition Coalition to publicly outline a detailed vision of inclusion for all of Syria's people, including a guarantee that all Syrians-- Alawites and others, will participate as equals in any new Syrian government. Such a statement, along with meaningful progress towards establishing institutions of transitional justice, will instill confidence among Syria's minorities, and help peel more Syrians away from the regime. This revolution started as a peaceful and inclusive movement calling for an end to the undemocratic and corrupt system of government controlled by Assad. That is why many Alawites are already participating in the opposition. They can see a better future for Syria. We should encourage the opposition to make concrete that pluralistic, democratic vision.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the Safe Climate Caucus is composed of 25 Members of the House who have made a commitment to talk every single legislative day on the House floor about the urgent need to address climate change. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, we reached record levels of carbon in the atmosphere. Since 1956, a U.S. observatory has been recording data on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; and over the last few decades, carbon dioxide levels have been higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years. So there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than since the dawn of civilization. This month, the amount of carbon is close to reaching 400 parts per million, a new record. And as a result, extreme weather events are going to be evermore frequent and more damaging. We must act before it's too late. Our window to address the threat of climate change is closing. It's time to stop the denials and to start acting proactively.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act. A more accurate name would be the Employer Flexibility Act, because the bill would give employers the flexibility to deny their workers overtime pay. H.R. 1406 would overturn a key provision of the landmark 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) that ensures workers who work beyond the 40 hour standard work week are to be paid overtime--a rate that is set higher than the normal rate in order to keep the number of hours workers are asked to work reasonable. H.R. 1406 would undo this important provision so that an employer could, in lieu of making overtime payments to an hourly worker, make the promise of some future time off. And this legislation goes one step further. The time off promised in lieu of overtime payment would be up to the discretion of the employer. The employer could deny requests for time off for up to a year before the legislation would require employers pay out the equivalent in wages. This is great for bosses, but it doesn't do much for working families. Let's call this effort what it is: it is an anti-worker bill. Its effect would be to harm our nation's hourly workers: housekeepers, fast food workers, store clerks and other vulnerable members of our community. These individuals need their overtime wages the most. This bill would also have a disproportionate impact on women, who have increasingly become the breadwinners in American families. A Center for American Progress study demonstrates that in more than two thirds of our families, women earn at least a quarter of the family income, and in many cases earn as much or more than their spouse. Among families with children in 2011, some 40 percent were headed by two working parents. Our federal policies must take this reality into account and meet our families half way by granting genuine flexibility while maintaining the important protections, like overtime pay, that help families thrive. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Republican Party leaders have sought to roll back worker protections. The past few years we have seen Republican Governors attempt to break up public sector unions and more recently, House Republicans repeatedly offered legislation to eviscerate the National Labor Relations Board. If House Republicans wanted to help working families have more flexibility, they could start by undoing earlier efforts to make life harder for American workers and join Democrats in calling for a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act so that women are paid the wages they deserve, or the Healthy Families Act so that families struggling with a child's illness or other crisis could get time off to deal with those challenges without jeopardizing their families' future. Another important improvement for working families Republicans have refused is to increase the minimum wage of $2.13 per hour for tipped workers--a wage that has not been increased in nearly twenty years. H.R. 1406 has no chance of becoming law. It will not be taken up in the Senate, and the White House has promised to veto it. Why are we wasting valuable time on it? I urge my colleagues to take action for U.S. workers now, and support family friendly policies that will help our workers, restore the economic vitality of our middle class, and strengthen the social and economic bonds that knit us together as a people.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I and 19 of my colleagues wrote to the Energy and Commerce Committee urging them to engage us in a debate on the House floor as to what our national policy should be in response to climate change. That request has been met with silence, but that's a more preferable response than the 53 votes that the House undertook during the last session to block the Obama administration from using its existing authority to address climate change. In fact, for the year 2012, when this House voted to overturn a scientific finding that, in fact, climate change was occurring, we experienced the warmest year on record. More than half of this Nation's counties were declared Federal disaster areas, due mostly to drought, but also to extreme weather events. We experienced the second worst year of extreme weather events. In fact, Hurricane Sandy cost the Federal Government more than $65 billion and took the lives of 147 Americans, and we experienced the third worst year for wildland fires; more than 9 million acres were burned. These severe temperatures and extreme weather events we are experiencing all fit the predictive pattern of global climate change. Our failure to take action dooms future generations to ever more powerful and destructive weather events, altered coastlines, more devastating droughts and wildland fires, and greater food scarcity. It's time to take action on climate change.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, our 315 million American citizens throw away nearly 496 billion pounds of trash each year, a staggering amount by any analysis. And a sizable contribution is from disposable items, including plastic and paper bags. That's why today, one day after Earth Day, I am introducing the ``Trash Reduction Act of 2013'' along with my colleagues Representatives Eleanor Holmes Norton, Earl Blumenauer and John Garamendi. The legislation is modeled after the District of Columbia's ``bag tax.'' Five cents would be levied on each disposable paper or plastic bag. Revenue from the tax would support the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Just how bad is the trash problem? According to the U.S. EPA, the average American throws away about 4.4 pounds of trash each day or 1,600 pounds per year. That's nearly 248 million tons of American garbage each year. To put that in perspective, it's enough trash to fill a football-field-sized hole over 93 miles deep. Or create a similar-sized stack of garbage that reaches low earth orbit. This amount of trash could cover the state of Texas two and a half times or fill enough trash trucks to form a line to the moon. We consume an estimated 12 million barrels of oil and copious amounts of natural gas annually to make plastic bags that are used once or twice, then tossed into the garbage. The U.S. International Trade Commission reported in 2009 that 102 billion plastic bags were used in the U.S. Much of the oil and natural gas used in those bags comes from foreign countries and it's all non-renewable. Once it's used for plastic bags and thrown away, that energy is gone forever. Disposable paper bags are no better. In 1999, 14 million trees were cut to produce the 10 billion paper grocery bags used by Americans that year alone. Paper and paperboard products made up 28.5 percent of the municipal waste discarded in 2010--more than any other type of refuse measured by tonnage. According to the Environmental Paper Network, the pulp and paper industry is the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases among manufacturing industries, contributing 9 percent of total manufacturing-related carbon dioxide emissions. Most of energy use comes from powering paper mills. There is no doubt that disposable retail plastic and paper bags are bad for the environment. Both paper and plastic bags consume valuable natural resources, generate profuse waste, and pollute the environment. They keep us dependent on nonrenewable resources like foreign oil and impose burdens that Americans bear in the form of higher garbage costs, visual blight, and the destruction of wildlife. Millions of animals are entangled in or ingest plastic waste. That same waste leaches toxins into the ground and our drinking water. While recycling efforts should be applauded, recycling rates are dismally low. Only between one and three percent of all plastic bags are recycled, with a slightly higher ten to 15 percent paper-bag- recycling rate. Plus, the recycling process uses energy, water, and generates additional greenhouse gasses. But we can do something about this gargantuan garbage nightmare. We can reduce the number of bags we use with market-based incentives. Requiring shoppers to internalize the costs of disposable bags has been shown to dramatically reduce their use and substantially increase reusable bag utilization. For example, after placing a fee on plastic bags, Ireland reportedly reduced consumption by 90 percent. China, after banning the use of ultra-thin plastic bags, is estimated to have eliminated 40 billion bags in the first year. Critics have called this a regressive tax that falls on poor communities. This is simply untrue. Wealthy Americans consume substantially more resources and disposable shopping bags than the poor. Additionally, Americans of all incomes can purchase or be given a reusable bag and avoid this fee altogether. Plus, this fee is good for business. Business will be able to recoup their investment of time and effort through a tax credit and profits from reusable bag sales. One need look no further than the District of Columbia to measure success. In 2009 the District imposed a five-cent tax on plastic bags that led to spectacular reductions in disposable bag use. The number of plastic bags dropped from the 2009 monthly average of 22.5 million to just 3 million per month by the end of 2010. River cleanup volunteers reported over a 60 percent decrease in the volume of plastic bags they collected during cleanup activities--and this was only three months after the fee took effect. D.C. businesses approve of the fee as well. 78 percent of businesses interviewed report either a positive or neutral impact on their business. People keep shopping and keep buying. 58 percent of D.C. business owners say the law has not affected their sales. And it's those dire predictions of falling sales that were used to scare business owners into opposing the fee. It's one of the many false predictions of bag-fee opponents like the American Chemistry Council. The public and many elected officials are not always in sync with what we need to do to improve this great country. High-pressure lobbying by powerful chemical interests sometimes stops us from doing what's right. While we can be proud of our environmental achievements and landmark laws, we need to do more to reduce our mountains of trash madness. Nothing is more fitting for this year's Earth Day celebration than helping reduce garbage. This small disposable bag charge helps people understand that paper and plastic bags are not without cost. They impact the environment, support foreign dictators, and make Everest's of trash. Our bill begins to shift America away from its current disposable culture back to a simpler time when Americans understood the value of reusing what they bought.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, about 12 years ago, 779 people were gathered initially and sent to the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. About 85 percent of them had never actually engaged in direct combat against the United States. A report was issued by an independent, authoritative commission yesterday that I want to bring attention to. It was headed by Asa Hutchinson, a former Republican colleague of ours, and 4 star General Jim Jones, who was head of the National Security Council in the Obama administration. It concluded that the United States engaged in the practice of torture at Guantanamo Bay. It concluded that the methods we used, like waterboarding, slamming prisoners into walls, chaining them in stress positions for hours, violated international legal obligations with ``no firm or persuasive evidence that they produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means.'' It also concluded that what we did had ``no justification'' and ``damaged the standing of our Nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary, and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.'' It concluded that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were directly involved in condoning such tactics and that their legal advisors engaged in ``acrobatic'' legal analysis to attempt to establish legal justification. There was no legal precedent. Guantanamo Bay should be closed--now.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the Washington Balalaika Society. The Washington Balalaika Society is a Russian folk orchestra founded in 1988. They are a group of musicians dedicated to studying and performing the rich musical heritage of Russia, Ukraine and Eastern Europe on traditional instruments and in national costume. Today, it is one of the largest and most active of the Russian folk orchestras outside of Russia and performs often in the Northern Virginia--Greater Washington area. The orchestra is celebrating both its 25th year, and also the 10th anniversary of its conductor, Svetlana Nikonova and her family, emigrating from St. Petersburg, Russia to the United States. In 2006, Ms. Nikonova was granted permanent residency in the United States as an ``artist of extraordinary ability.'' Her family performs with the orchestra, her husband on the bayan (Russian accordion), her daughter on the flute and percussion and her son, studying music composition at James Madison University, composes music for the orchestra. The Society's initial membership of eight has grown to more than 55 musicians and it is now the largest of its kind in America, with musicians from in their teens to those in their 90s. It includes several orchestra musician ensembles that present educational and cultural outreach programs in schools, parks, retirement communities and for charitable events in the United States and Russia. The Russian folk orchestra was founded in St. Petersburg, Russia in the late 1800's by Vasily Andreyev when he realized that the balalaika's unique and inimitable sound needed to receive greater recognition, moving this initial peasant class instrument to the concert stage. The orchestra is organized in instrumental sections similar to a symphony orchestra and under the direction of a conductor. Its principal instruments are the triangular-shaped balalaikas and oval-shaped domras and the ``shimmering'' sound is produced by the rapid plucking of the strings of the balalaikas, the domras, a gusli (table-harp) and supplemented with accordions, woodwinds and percussion. It is mystical and enchanting musical sound is patterned after the traditional Russian folk orchestras. Moscow Channel 1 Television, the largest television station in Russia, filmed the orchestra's rehearsal at Rock Spring Church and concert at Kenmore Auditorium, both in my district, and a video-clip was shown on Russian television. It showed Moscow viewers a large and well-developed Russian folk orchestra in America. ``Alive at Twenty-Five, a Silver Anniversary Celebration,'' concerts will be presented on May 18 arid 19, featuring Alexander Tsygankov, Russia's premier domra soloist, and Andrei Saveliev, America's balalaika virtuoso. We're proud the Virginia concert will be held in my district at Yorktown High School, in Arlington. The Washington Balalaika Society's goal is to expand awareness and appreciation of this musical art form by performing in a broad range of audiences in a variety of venues. It has performed at the Kennedy Center Concert Hall with the Paul Hill Chorale and The Chorale Arts Society, Carnegie Hall in New York, the Embassy of the Russian Federation, and the Smithsonian Institution. It has been the guest of the Andreyev Musical Foundation at concerts in New Jersey. Russian Soprano Olga Orlovskaya, great grand-daughter of the famous Russian basso, Feodor Chaliapan, is often a featured soloist. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recognize the Balalaika Society, both for their cultural mission spreading news of this art form and the wonderful music they perform in Virginia and around the world.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from Baltimore. The basic problem with this bill is that it claims to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The fact is that Federal employees have a delinquency rate that is less than half of what it is for the average American taxpayer. The fact is that there already exist programs to garnish wages and annuity income for delinquent filers. The fact is that agencies can already take disciplinary action against employees who have tax debt, including that of termination. So why are we doing this--to punish people because they chose public service? This bill would have virtually no effect on revenue because there are so few civil servants who are delinquent and, invariably, there is some understandable reason, just as there has been for a number of our colleagues over the years. So it's not about bringing down the debt. This is about threatening Federal workers, singling them out by suggesting that there is some kind of endemic problem when there isn't. You've already docked the Federal workforce with up to 14 unpaid furlough days. You've cut more than $100 billion from their pensions and pay. You've just sequestered $600 million from the IRS. Federal employees work for our constituents, and they work for us. Their jobs are to carry out the laws that we make. The majority of this House apparently ran for office on the claim that the Federal Government isn't working, and now that they've been elected they're trying to prove it--by threatening and accusing and, thus, demoralizing the dedicated public servants who have fought our wars, built our roads and bridges, enforced our laws, invented the technology that powers our economy, and researched the treatments that heal and save our loved ones. And all this Congress can do is to threaten them with bills like this. This is not a fair bill, and thus I urge a ``no'' vote on it.

Mr. MORAN. The problem with this bill is that it singles out Federal employees by threatening and accusing them, suggesting that there is an endemic problem within the Federal Government, and there isn't.

Mr. MORAN. I am more than happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah if I have the time.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, throughout the United States, in red and blue States alike, we have speed limits for travel on public roads. These laws are good public policy because they prohibit behavior that can endanger the lives of others. But imagine if we blocked our police from using speed detection devices so they could never prove that you were speeding or if we only allowed the use of those devices on certain roads. Such a policy would make speed limits mere suggestions with no consequences for those who would violate the law. It sounds ridiculous, but this is exactly the strategy we currently use to prohibit the purchase of firearms by criminals and those with serious mental illness. Federal law bans the purchase of guns by dangerous people, but massive loopholes in our background check system permit at least 40 percent of purchases to evade the law without detection by law enforcement. The NRA and its supporters often claim that we need to enforce the laws on the books. Agreed. Universal background checks are designed to do just that--to provide an actual enforcement mechanism. That's what the Congress should require because 90 percent of the American public wants us to do at least that.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, as a proud Irish American, I was pleased this past Sunday to celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Celebrating our heritage today has become an American tradition that extends beyond those Americans of Irish heritage. But that wasn't always the case. For many years, Irish Americans faced discrimination and struggled to gain acceptance and economic stability in the great melting pot that is America. The story of Irish Americans and all Americans needs to be told. We are a nation of immigrants. But there is no place today where one can go to learn the full story of who we are as a nation and the stories of the many, vibrant ethnicities that make up the fabric of the American experience. The story about the making of the American People--of all of the people--is missing and it needs to be told in the heart of our nation's capital. That's why I am introducing a bipartisan resolution that calls for a Presidential Commission to study the establishment of the National Museum of the American People. I am joined in effort by my colleagues John Duncan, Carolyn Maloney, Charlie Rangel, Frank Wolf, Gerald Connolly, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Bobby Scott, David Cicilline, Tim Walz, Tim Bishop, Tom Cole and Jim Gerlach. A commission is the first critical step in the path toward the creation of a national museum that will highlight the diversity and richness of the cultures from which our ancestors came and will foster a sense of belonging to the nation by the waves of people who made us the leading economic, military, scientific, and cultural force in the world. The Museum's central theme takes its inspiration from our original national motto: ``E Pluribus Unum''--From Many We Are One. The Museum will be America's only national institution devoted exclusively to telling the full story of how the world's pioneers interwove their diverse races, religions, and ethnicities into the strongest societal fabric ever known to modern mankind. Both Canada and Mexico have major national museums in their capitals telling the story of their peoples and they are the most visited museums in those nations. People from every ethnic and minority group will come to see their own story and learn how they joined together with ``the others'' in pursuit of a more noble national purpose. Foreign visitors will come to learn how natives of their countries helped create our nation. I fully understand the current fiscal realities of the day. This proposal will involve no authorization of federal funds and will not require the need for any taxpayer money. It does, however, already enjoy broad support having been endorsed by more than 150 organizations representing virtually every major ethnic and nationality group in the nation. For the different groups who became Americans, the Museum will tell who, where, when, why and how transformed our nation. Today's technology makes all of this possible. The Museum of the American People will be like walking though a dramatic documentary delving into these grand movements of peoples. It will follow in the tradition of some of today's most successful story- telling museums such as the Holocaust Memorial Museum. The goal will be to tell our peoples' compelling story with force and clarity. In telling everyone's story, the National Museum of the American People would recognize the important differences that set us apart while celebrating the common purpose that has brought us together--E Pluribus Unum. I encouraged my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, today I join Representative Ander Crenshaw in introducing the ``International Conservation Corps Act of 2013'' (ICCA), legislation that will mobilize our large and growing community of retired conservation experts, in a voluntary capacity, to support the efforts of developing countries to sustainably manage their natural resources. There is a significant deficit in the capability of most developing countries to successfully manage their natural resources, which is fundamental to sustainable development, poverty alleviation, conflict avoidance, good governance, and regional security. Countries with a great wealth of natural resources are often cursed with devastating poverty, corruption and civil war arising from disputes over control and distribution of these resources. The International Conservation Corps Act will harness the vast experience of the United States in natural resource management and direct it to developing countries to help them operate and develop more sustainable programs. Modeled after the Peace Corps, the ICCA program would offer retired land managers, geologists, biologists, and park rangers the opportunity to volunteer their services to the foreign country. The ICCA would cover the expenses necessary to deploy volunteers in other countries such as airfare, food, and lodging. The program will utilize volunteers who have long practical experience and are respected in their fields, and who are enthusiastic about opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills to assist other countries. Under this proposal, the State Department would screen foreign government requests for assistance. Cleared requests would be forwarded to the Interior Department which would craft a prospectus that awards competitive grants to the nonprofit that assemble the best volunteer teams and most meritorious applications. Federal administrative costs would be minimal, ensuring tax payer funds are spent almost exclusively on ``boots on the ground.'' This modest proposal offers a highly effective way to stretch our limited foreign aid dollars to advance our national security interests, promote better environmental stewardship, avoid conflicts, encourage sustainable development and alleviate poverty. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Let's take advantage of this unique opportunity presented by a highly qualified corps of U.S. professionals to help developing countries establish good governance.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the compelling issue of climate change that the House majority continues to refuse to address. There are a number of us who plan on speaking every day on the House floor on the need for Congress to take action on climate change. We are making this commitment because this Chamber is filled with such a large collection of climate deniers. It is here in Congress, though, where a long-term strategy to address this issue will have to be crafted if we are to avoid the worst-case scenario and the catastrophic consequences of climate change. Today, there should be complete consensus on the science of climate change: that the higher concentrations of greenhouse gases over the past 50 years are due to human activity; that the rapid increase in global temperature could not have been caused by natural factors alone; and that the severe temperatures and extreme weather events we have experienced in recent years, including the devastation brought by Hurricane Sandy, all fit into the predictive pattern of global climate change. Failure to take action dooms future generations to more powerful and destructive weather events, alters our coastlines, and subjects our nation to more droughts and food scarcity. Mr. Speaker, an overwhelming majority of the public accepts these scientific findings and understands a status quo energy policy heavily dependent on the burning of fossil fuels must change. It is not only unsustainable but injurious to our nation's future. In the coming weeks we will be highlighting the consequences of continued inaction and ways we can move forward with solutions.