Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Program was established in 2008 to help stabilize communities across American that has suffered from foreclosures and abandonment.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds give states and local governments the tools needed to purchase and redevelop foreclosed and abandoned homes.

Without this funding whole neighborhoods suffer sliding real estate values, increases in crime, and decreases in the overall morale of its citizens.

From the total Neighborhood Stabilization Program appropriations of $7 billion, HUD estimates that 100,000 properties in the hardest- hit areas will be impacted.

In my district, Dallas, Texas, a little over 7.9 million dollars was awarded through Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding.

At the beginning of the foreclosure crisis Dallas' housing market suffered from an average of 300 foreclosures a month.

The City of Dallas has identified 13 areas in the city that can benefit from this funding.

Without programs like the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, neighborhoods in my area would have nowhere else to turn.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program funds help to redevelop hard-hit communities, creates jobs, and grows local economies.

With nearly 14 million Americans out of a job, Americans need a Republican Congress that works to create jobs and strengthen the economy.

In the last 11 weeks, the House Republicans have passed reckless spending proposals estimated to destroy 700,000 jobs and stall our economic growth.

I encourage my colleague to stand by struggling neighborhoods and vote no on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, throughout March we celebrate the many achievements and accomplishments women have made in the United States and around the world.

Before the 1970s women's history was largely overlooked, but today we cannot ignore the significant contributions women have made in shaping our country and building for a brighter, more peaceful future.

The theme for the 2011 Women's History Month is ``Our History Is Our Strength.'' Women's History Month celebrates millions of women who helped make our world a better place. We must continue to promote and encourage our future generation of young women and girls to strive for the very best.

In the 111th Congress, the Democratic-led Congress focused on a number of key concerns of America's women, including: quality affordable health care; investments to create jobs and stimulate growth; investments in early childhood education; providing resources for our military families; and ensuring equal pay for all of America's working women.

Unfortunately, the Republican-led House has moved in the opposite direction. House Republicans have passed a spending bill that reduces or eliminates funding to key women services and wellness programs. Their spending plan is projected to destroy up to 700,000 jobs and reduce economic growth. Ending vital programs and offering reckless spending proposals will only move our country backwards.

Mr. Speaker, while cuts are necessary to address the nation's long- term fiscal problems, cutting too deeply before the economy is in full expansion will add unnecessary risk to our economy and to America's women and families.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to sit and not say anything about how we are damaging our future. We cannot consider the kind of cuts that are proposed to our future and think that this country will be prosperous. This plan eliminates the funding for math and science partnerships. We must make strategic investments in STEM education in order to maintain a competitive workforce.

This plan eliminates Even Start, Reading is Fundamental, and Striving Readers. It cuts more than $1 billion from Head Start. This represents a massive setback for youth who are most in need. This plan is especially damaging for our youngest children just beginning their academic careers. These children will fall behind before they even get started. The Reading is Fundamental program has provided books for young children whose families cannot afford them.

Mr. Speaker, we must not allow our country to continue to fall behind in competitiveness.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act.

This legislation would end the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Emergency Homeowners' Relief Program, a program designed to help unemployed homeowners keep their homes.

Buying a home is one of the biggest commitments and the most valuable investment of our adult life. If this program is eliminated unemployed homeowners will have nowhere else to turn when their home is threatened.

Our unemployment rate is now 8.9 percent. We must not forget those still struggling to pay their bills and trying to provide for their families.

Ending vital recovery programs and offering reckless spending proposals will only move our country backwards. While cuts are necessary to address the nation's long-term fiscal problems, cutting too deeply before the economy is in full expansion will add unnecessary risk to the housing recovery.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 830, the FHA Refinance Program Termination Act.

This legislation would end the FHA's short-term refinance program authorized under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

A program designed to help homeowners refinance their existing mortgage for lower interest rates.

With declining home values, borrowers are caught in mortgages that they can no longer afford.

This is because their rates have reset or because their interest-only payments have not allowed them to grow any equity in their homes.

They are making their payments--but just barely.

Mr. Chair, we should continue to help hard working Americans who are paying their bills on time every month stay in their homes.

Ending this vital recovery program with no alternative plan is just wrong.

The Republicans reckless spending proposals will move our country backwards not only domestically but globally.

Eliminating this program will cost us more in the long-term.

While I believe cuts are necessary to address the Nation's long-term fiscal problems, it must be done responsibly and with the American public's interest in mind.

I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, I voted against the H.R. 4, the ``Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act of 2011'' commonly known as ``the 1099 provision''. I would like to submit a statement for the Record to clarify my position on this issue.

Forms 1099 have been used by the IRS for decades to better track income. The rules would have required businesses to file Form 1099 with the IRS to report payments made to corporations for goods and certain services to help the IRS collect taxes that are legally owed, and in turn, keep taxes lower for all taxpayers.

Although I support the measure in principle, I do believe this type of reporting keeps track of what businesses owe the federal government in taxes and close any loopholes for any misreporting. In fact, during the 111th Congress, a repeal bill was approved by the Democratic House that would close tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas and protected people from any tax increases with incomes below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $88,000 for a family of four) from having to pay back the IRS their tax credit if they saw a change in income.

The Republican 1099 repeal removes this protection. So, if a family earning $88,000 a year gets a $250 Christmas bonus, and because of it, are bumped up to 401 percent of the federal poverty level, this family would be required to refund to the IRS the entire tax credit of $4,640--out of their own pockets.

As a Senior Member of Congress who proudly represents a vibrant small business sector, I know firsthand the value of small businesses in north Texas. I remain committed to improving tax administration and enhancing voluntary tax compliance without making the middle class pay.

I look forward to working collaboratively with the small business community to improve the ability of small businesses to meet their tax obligations.

Mr. Speaker I rise today to honor Black History Month.

In February of each year, we recognize the many contributions of African Americans throughout this Nation. It brings to life a rich and vibrant history that was all too often left untold.

Although African Americans were an integral part of the founding of this Nation, it was not until the 20th century that they gained any respectable recognition in our history books. Prior to Carter G. Woodson's passionate efforts to write African Americans into the history of the United States, books largely ignored the African American population except in the context of slavery. That is why it is so important that the full history of African Americans continues to be taught and preserved in order that future generations from all reaches of America will understand our rich heritage.

African Americans have made significant contributions throughout history, and it is clear that we continue to build that rich legacy today. As our nation moves forward, we must never forget the great pioneers of scientific innovation, writing, music, philosophy, and politics. Honoring these contributions through Black History Month has allowed us to expand educational opportunities, enhance economic stability, workforce advancement and training, and community involvement.

Today, we find ourselves facing economic uncertainty. However, we must not lose sight of our current accomplishments and continued progress. The current budget proposal led by Republicans seeks to cut spending without any regard to our economy or the needs of the American people. The proposed budget diminishes our investments in education, job creation, and future innovation. I believe that we can and must do better to serve all Americans. We must fight against immoral and unwise cuts to our budget in order to preserve the heritage of African Americans as well as the United States as a whole.

Black History Month has not only set a precedent by honoring the achievements of African Americans, but it has also paved the way for other nationwide celebrations honoring the contributions of other important races and cultures. Now, we must look to our youth to carry on our history and to create their own legacy.

Long before the election of more than a hundred African Americans to the U.S. Congress, African Americans made a large contribution to our Nation's Capitol by building the Capitol itself as slaves.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk briefly about the amendment number 260, offered by my friend from Ohio, Mr. Latta.

This amendment would cut $10 million from the construction budget of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

NIST's buildings were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and are no longer adequate for the research needed to support U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness, particularly in emerging technology areas like nanotechnology and biotechnology.

Independent analysis of NIST's maintenance needs recommends an annual investment target of $70 to $80 million to address critical deferred maintenance and bring the NIST facilities to fair condition.

The CR already slashes NIST's construction budget to $58 million. This is an $89 million reduction (60%) below the FY 2010 enacted level and significantly below what NIST requires.

Further cuts to the construction budget as proposed by the Latta amendment will erode basic repair and maintenance capability and hamstring NIST's ability to deal with emergencies like water or gas line breaks, storm damage, and power outages.

Improving and maintaining its laboratory facilities is critical for NIST to continue to engage in cutting edge research, delivering high quality science and research to foster innovation and technological advancement for the benefit of U.S. industry.

For these reasons, I must oppose this amendment and urge its defeat.

Mr. Chair, I would like to talk briefly about the amendment offered by my friend from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell.

The Pascrell amendment would restore funding to the fire grant programs which was cut by the Republicans in the CR. I wholeheartedly support the notion of restoring this funding. However, I must oppose this amendment because it restores the fire grant funding by cutting an equal amount from the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate.

The proposed $510 million cut to the Science & Technology Directorate is on top of an $85 million cut already proposed in the CR. If this amendment is adopted, the budget for the Science and Technology Directorate will fall to $410 million from $1.005 billion in FY 2010. This would be a 59 percent cut from FY 2010 levels. The magnitude of this cut would cripple the DHS Science and Technology Directorate. Some of the specific effects of this cut include:

Elimination of all border security and maritime security research and development which includes cargo security research and development;

Termination of all first responder research and development;

Termination of all cyber security research and development;

Termination of all non-aviation explosives research and development;

Elimination of all human factors research and development including all biometric identification work;

Elimination of all infrastructure and geophysical research and development including first responder monitoring and tracking work;

Significant cuts to chemical and biological research and development;

Significant cuts to radiological and nuclear research and development;

Elimination of all university programs including the Minority Serving Institution program.

While the Republican cuts to the fire grants program in the CR are devastating, I cannot support solving one problem by creating an equally devastating one. And make no mistake, these cuts to the S&T Directorate will cripple our nation's ability to respond to future threats. As terrorists evolve and adapt, we must do so as well, and the S&T Directorate is at the forefront of this effort.

For these reasons, I must reluctantly oppose the Pascrell amendment, and urge a ``no'' vote on its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I rise to reluctantly speak against the amendment offered by my friend from New York, Mr. Weiner.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York would cut $298 million from NASA and increase the COPS program by a corresponding amount. While I wholeheartedly support the COPS program, and would like to work with the gentleman to find ways to restore the COPS funding, which was so irresponsibly slashed in the Republican CR, taking this money from NASA would do serious damage to NASA's ability to carry out its programs.

Specifically, the amendment would cut NASA's Cross Agency Support (CAS) account, which funds operations and maintenance of NASA's 9 Centers, component facilities and headquarters, including agency-wide management functions, and safety and reliability activities to assure safety and mission success.

This account also funds the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STIR) programs at NASA. Cuts proposed by the Weiner amendment would cut the SBIR/STTR program and reduce the number of grants awarded to small businesses. A reduction of $298M in CAS would represent 10% reduction to the CAS account--equivalent to shutting two of NASA's smaller Centers, for example, Dryden Flight Research Center, Stennis Space Center, or Ames Research Center.

The resulting budget after a $298M reduction would not be sufficient to provide the minimum Center support required to safely implement NASA's mission. As these reductions would occur so late in the operating year, they would result in thousands of layoffs to on-site contractors, with 50 percent of the contractor workforce at risk. This equates to over 4,500 layoffs across all of NASA Centers.

As I said before, I am an ardent supporter of the COPS program. I am appalled that the Republican Majority has chosen to address deficit reduction by making our communities less safe by cutting the number of police officers on the street. However, I simply cannot support righting that wrong by creating another. At a time when our nation's economic competitiveness is being seriously challenged by our foreign competitors, it would be irresponsible to make further cuts to one of our nation's great innovative research and development agencies.

For these reasons, I must oppose this amendment and urge its defeat.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize the estimated 1,000 civilians who on February 26, 1992 were indiscriminately scalped, tortured, and killed in the town of Khojaly, an Azerbaijani-populated town in Nagorno-Karabakh. Many of us know that post-Soviet conflicts in Eastern Europe and Central Asia led to brutal ethnic cleansing, but few have heard of the people of Khojaly, who were massacred by Armenian militants. The ethnic cleansing was successful, and the town no longer exists. Although the tragedy received widespread media coverage, since then it has largely been forgotten. I hope that now and every year after this atrocity, we can pray for the victims.

Azerbaijan's Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities come together against ethnic cleansing at this time of the year, commemorating the lives of the Khojaly victims and calling on the international community to condemn the bloodshed. Their pleas do not fall on deaf ears.

There are still victims of the conflict in the region of Nagorno- Karabakh. Hundreds of thousands of people are displaced, and ethnic cleansing has continued even after 1992.

I have met victims of the Rwandan genocide, who are still healing to this day. I went to Bosnia shortly after the war and saw the effect of ethnic cleansing there. I know what a detrimental effect this can have to a region, in this case even wiping a small town off the map. I recognize that even now, atrocities are occurring in Kashmir and Darfur, and innocent civilians are paying the price while we in the international community have more to do.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that Azerbaijan and Armenia can come to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and I hope that the civilians suffering right now will soon see an end to ethnic cleansing. The memories of the women, men, and children of Khojaly should propel us to condemn such practices.

Mr. Chair, I've come to the floor today to talk about a crisis our country is facing. I'm not here to talk about the deficit, which is also a problem, but one which pales in importance to the crisis of America's declining economic competitiveness.

I say that the deficit problem pales in comparison to our declining competitiveness because without a robust and innovative economy, it will be next to impossible to ever truly reduce our national deficit.

For some time, important leaders in our business and academic community have warned us about this crisis.

In 2005, a National Academies panel chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine released the report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''

This report warned that without a focused effort by the Federal Government, the future of American competitiveness was bleak.

It recommended increased efforts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, also referred to as STEM education, and increased federal investment in research and development.

It's not a mystery why that distinguished group made those recommendations: it has long been clear that technological innovation creates jobs, and that Federal investments in R&D have had a major positive impact on innovation in this country.

Our economic rivals understand all too well that America's great economic success has been a direct result of our innovation. And these competitors have begun to pour their resources into research and development and into STEM education.

Those investments are bearing fruit:

In 2004 China overtook the United States to become the world's leading exporter of information and communications technology goods.

China, Japan, India, and South Korea all graduate more engineers each year than the United States.

U.S. student scores in STEM achievement continue to decline in worldwide comparisons.

So what do we do about it? Once the problem was identified, the Democratically-controlled Congress immediately focused on coming up with solutions.

Over the past four years, we passed bills like the America COMPETES Act, which put NSF, NIST, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science on a doubling path.

We've been changing the way America's children are taught science and math by putting in classrooms teachers who actually have a background and training in those fields, and we've been working to increase opportunities for minorities to contribute their talents to our scientific and technological initiatives.

And we've been investing in clean energy technology development so that America can one day be an energy exporter instead of an energy importer.

Unfortunately, all that work, and all that progress in keeping America competitive is about to be undone. My Republican colleagues have proposed a budget for the rest of 2011 which will severely wound our country's research and development capabilities, and stifle our innovation engine.

Let me cite just a few of the consequences that would flow from enactment of this ill-considered CR:

At the Department of Energy:

Cuts to the Department of Energy will slow down the progress the country has made in demonstrating and deploying carbon capture and sequestration technologies, solar energy and cost-saving energy efficiency technologies.

The cuts in the CR will force a number of world-class labs, which undertake research on cutting edge energy technologies to solve economic and environmental problems, to shut down.

Thousands of scientific and technical staff at the national labs, universities and companies will be laid off, or worse, go to our competitors for support.

This could lead to the United States being even more dependent on other countries for clean energy technologies.

STEM education programs will be cut or eliminated at a time when China is graduating six engineers for every one of ours. We need to capitalize on the interests of our students who are ready and willing to solve our country's energy and environment problems.

At the EPA:

A reduction on the order of $3 billion to EPA's science programs will negatively impact our ability to find new and innovative solutions to 21st century environmental and public health challenges.

The proposed water research reductions will impact EPA's ability to ensure the Nation's water infrastructure is capable of the sustained delivery of safe water as well as the safe and sustainable removal and treatment of waste water.

At NOAA:

NOAA's weather satellite programs are already in trouble during this difficult economic time.

Without proper additional funding of our satellite programs, we will be faced with less accurate and timely weather predictions. We are not just talking about taking our country back to 2008. We are talking about rewinding the clock two decades. We could soon be relying

on 20 year ago weather forecasting capabilities.

I think we are all very well aware that over 70 percent of airplane flight delays are caused by weather. If FAA doesn't have the weather information it needs to safely and efficiently control the nation's air traffic, we face both increased delays and risks to the flying public.

We are potentially putting our lives, property, and critical infrastructure in danger. Without accurate and timely information, we would no longer see the 2-3 day advance warnings of extreme weather events on which we depend.

This will also make it extremely difficult to conduct safe and strategic evacuations of American people during extreme weather events, which have been faced by many regions of our country in recent years.

I could go on and on and cite some of the adverse consequences to each of our agencies and to vital governmental activities that will occur if this CR is adopted, but I think Members now have an idea of what is at stake.

And make no mistake, this is job-killing CR.

What makes this bill so dangerous is that it won't just kill jobs today. It won't just kill jobs this year. These cuts to our research and development funding will kill jobs for years to come.

As President Obama noted in his State of the Union address, if an airplane is overloaded, you don't lighten the load by cutting off the engines.

That's exactly what this Republican budget plan does: it cuts the engine off of our economy.

Unfortunately, our children and our grandchildren will be the ones who ultimately pay the price for these efforts when they inherit an America that is no longer the world leader in innovation.

I urge my colleagues to reject the cuts being proposed in the Republican CR. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to congratulate one of my constituents who will be honored for his extraordinary volunteerism leadership in the community. Mr. Raul Magdaleno will be presented with the MillerCoors 2010 Lider of the Year Award at the Latino Cultural Center in Dallas, Texas on Thursday, February 24, 2011.

Raul Magdaleno was the one among 12 Hispanic leaders chosen for outstanding contributions to his community through volunteerism at Parents Step Ahead/Padres un Paso Adelante. Mr. Magdaleno was selected through an online public voting campaign hosted from September 15 through October 29, 2010. In compliment to his award, Parents Step Ahead will receive a $25,000 grant for a community leadership project in collaboration with MillerCoors. The focus of Parents Step Ahead is to encourage parents to participate in their children's education.

Although this is a prestigious award, this is not the first honor bestowed upon this exceptional Dallasite. Mr. Magdaleno is a 2004 recipient of the United States Congressional Gold Medal for his more than 29,000 hours of community service. He has clearly demonstrated his dedication to the Hispanic community and leadership ability to serve those in need. At present, Mr. Magdaleno oversees the office of Diversity and Community Outreach for Southern Methodist University's Meadows School of the Arts.

Mr. Speaker, I salute Raul Magdaleno for his remarkable commitment as a servant leader. He is one that our youth across the nation can aspire towards to make this country a better place to live. In his own words, ``Perseverance and determination triumphs over any disadvantage life may bring you.''

Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the Carter-Ross Amendment (#165) to H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution. This amendment would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing and enforcing long-overdue safeguards that will protect our children from toxic air pollution generated by cement kilns.

Cement kilns are the third-largest source of mercury pollution in America. Mercury is a dangerous chemical that impairs a child's ability to learn, write, walk, talk and read. Mercury especially is a concern for women of childbearing age, unborn babies and young children because studies have found that high levels of exposure damage the developing nervous system. Cement kilns also pump lead, arsenic and dioxins into the air, which can cause cancer, birth defects and other catastrophic health impacts.

Last year, EPA finalized standards that will limit this toxic pollution from cement plants. These standards will prevent 2,500 premature deaths, 1,000 emergency room visits, 1,500 heart attacks and 17,000 cases of aggravated asthma every year. We'll achieve these health benefits while improving the economy because reduced pollution will allow people to do their jobs and go to work on 130,000 days they would have otherwise missed. We'll reduce health care costs by up to $18 billion every year. The benefits of reducing this dangerous pollution are between seven and nineteen times greater than the costs.

In fact, despite hyperbolic claims of economic collapse, EPA estimates that as many as 1,300 net new jobs could be created as a result of these new protections. That is because cement plants will employ American workers in building, installing, operating and maintaining the equipment that will keep these dangerous toxins out of our children's fragile bodies.

The Carter amendment would overturn affordable, commonsense protections that provide tremendous benefits at a reasonable cost. As a nurse, mother and grandmother, I urge my colleagues oppose this amendment and protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, I've come to the House this evening to talk about the deficit, but it's not our budgetary deficit, which is also a concern to many of us, but, rather, the deficit of vision that I see reflected in the CR that we will be voting on later this week. By that, I mean we have a CR before us this week that will do grave damage to our economic competitiveness while having a negligible impact on the Nation's budgetary situation.

It is clear that without a robust, innovative economy, it will be next to impossible to ever truly reduce our national budgetary deficit. Yet this CR cuts some of the very investments that are needed to address the crisis in competitiveness in our country that we are confronting now.

For some time, important leaders in our business and academic community have warned us about this crisis. In 2005, the National Academies panel, chaired by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, released a report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' This report warned that without a focused effort by the Federal Government, the future of American competitiveness was bleak. It recommended increased efforts in science, technology, engineering, and math, and we have failed to see this vision.

The reason for these investments is simple: technological innovation leads to jobs. Several studies have estimated that over 50 percent of America's economic growth since World War II is a direct result of technological innovation. Some studies have suggested that this percentage is much higher still.

This technological innovation coincided with an increased Federal investment in research, development and STEM education.

I urge my colleagues to reject the cuts being proposed in the Republican CR.