Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight, as I have the previous two nights, in order to prod this body to act to save lives before it is too late. It is simply unconscionable that 4,100 children die every day from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene. The mortality rate for children killed by waterborne diseases is six times as large as the number of children killed by HIV/AIDS and four times as many as killed by malaria.

Melanie Nakagawa of the National Resources Defense Council has called the international water and sanitation crisis ``the most poorly addressed environmental problem of our day.'' Indeed, nearly one billion people lack safe drinking water. According to the World Health Organization, two and a half billion people lack sufficient water sanitation facilities.

Many of us have seen the impacts of this ongoing tragedy first-hand-- from the United States, to Africa, to Haiti, where people are dying every day from cholera because of a lack of access to clean water and sanitation facilities.

The gap between access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation is widening between those living in poverty and the wealthy. The former South African president, Nelson Mandela, challenged global leaders to make access to clean water a basic human right and to put water and sanitation much higher up on the political, economic and social agendas. ``The absence of access to clean water'' he stated ``is most stark in the widespread impoverishment of the natural environment.''

The U.N. agreed with Mandela at the Earth Summit, noting that water is the greatest obstacle to sustainable development and the most visible symbol of the growing gap between the rich and the poor. As the Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, ``No issue has ever been more neglected than water and sanitation. And it is neglected because it is of concern mainly to the poor and powerless.''

Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, stated that ``access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a fundamental human need and therefore, a basic human right.''

We have legislation before Congress that will address these inequities and demonstrate our government's commitment to the fundamental human right of safe and clean water. H.R. 2030, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009, would give the U.S. government the tools to provide 100 million people with first-time access to clean water and sanitation.

The Senate, which has been repeatedly criticized for not addressing the hundreds of bills passed by this body during the 111th Congress, has already approved the companion to H.R. 2030. And the Senate passed that legislation on September 20, 2010 by unanimous consent.

Despite the occasional partisan differences here in Washington DC, this critical issue has support on both sides of the aisle. There are ten Republican cosponsors of the House bill and eight Republican cosponsors of the Senate bill.

Water for the World is also supported by a broad spectrum of advocates, including Water Advocates, the Natural Resources Defense Council, ONE, Mercy Corps, International Housing Coalition, CARE, and Population Services International, Millennium Water Alliance, Living Water International and Religious Water Working Group.

We are down to the wire and the time to act is now. If the 111th Congress expires without a vote on the House floor, millions of people will have to unnecessarily wait for clean water. And many lives will be unnecessarily lost. While many Americans take water for granted, one- sixth of the world's population, almost a billion people, do not have access to safe drinking water. The Water for the World Act is an important start to addressing this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation before it is too late.

Mr. Chair, I regret that I must rise in opposition to the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. Today's legislation is fiscally irresponsible and recklessly extends Bush era tax cuts for the rich, the millionaires and billionaires, and establishes an extremely low estate tax rate. However, I am supportive of efforts to extend unemployment benefits.

To add insult to injury, this bill includes not one, but two bailouts for the ultra wealthy. In addition to extending income tax cuts for the rich, this bill reduces the estate tax from 55 percent to 35 percent next year. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.

I was also dismayed an increase to the debt ceiling was not included in today's proposal. Congress will have to vote to increase the debt ceiling next year. Many in this body would like to hold the debt ceiling vote hostage and demand massive spending cuts and or make the Bush tax cuts permanent in exchange for their votes. We need to show the American people that tax cuts for the wealthy are not free and that they add huge amounts to the national debt.

Just a few weeks ago, this chamber voted separately to extend both middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits to those who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. While I agree that we need to protect the most vulnerable, the unemployed and working families who need every cent during this time of economic malaise, it is irresponsible to continue Bush era tax rates for wealthy Americans, which are neither justified nor needed, for the next two years. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that tax cuts for rich have helped the economy in any tangible way. The Act will steal hundreds of billions of dollars of needed revenue for America's fiscal future.

This compromise bill also includes a two percent employee-side payroll tax cut that I fear will weaken the Social Security trust fund. Today's proposal would deny over $120 billion each year to the Social Security fund and make it easier for conservatives to weaken Social Security's revenue streams in the future. I support giving working Americans extra cash in their pay check, but it should not be taken away from the Social Security trust fund.

Last week, I stated that this tax compromise was a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Democrats have always stood for the workers, the disenfranchised, and those who are denied the opportunity to compete for the blessings of the American Dream because of their race, creed, religion, or class. I fear that passage of this bill tonight will tarnish this proud legacy of our party and cause the 98 percent of Americans without estates or astronomical personal wealth to question which party will fight for them. If this bill passes, each and every member of this body should look themselves in the mirror and consider what we have lost in the name of compromise. I encourage my colleagues to reject this flawed bill.''

Madam Speaker, I submit the following summary of the bill, H.R. 2030.

The Water for the World Act sets a benchmark of providing 100 million of the world's poorest with first-time access to safe and sustainable drinking water and sanitation by 2015. To achieve this, the Act builds upon the success of the 2005 Water for the Poor Act by:

Establishing a Senior Advisor for Water within USAID to implement country-specific water strategies;

Creating a Special Coordinator for International Water within the State Department to coordinate the diplomatic policy of the U.S. with respect to global freshwater issues;

Establishing programs in countries of greatest need that invest in local capacity, education, and coordination with US efforts; and

Emphasizing cross-border and cross-discipline collaboration, as well as the utilization of low-cost technologies, such as hand washing stations and latrines.

The Water for the World Act, S. 624/H.R. 2030, is endorsed by a number of global health and environmental advocates, including Water Advocates, the Natural Resources Defense Council, ONE, Mercy Corps, International Housing Coalition, CARE, and Population Services International.

H.R. 2030 Co-sponsors: Democrats-87, Republicans-10.

Important Facts

The number of children who die every day from diarrheal diseases spread through poor sanitation and hygiene: 4,100.

Every day that Congress delays in addressing this problem, more children unnecessarily die. We have the moral obligation to get this legislation done.

The annual economic benefit to the African continent, including in saved time, increased productivity and reduced health costs if the Millennium Development Goals on water and sanitation are met by 2015: $22 billion.

The amount national governments in sub-Saharan Africa could save in annual public health expenditures if the Millennium Development Goals on water and sanitation are met by 2015: 12% (http://www.one.org/c/us/ pastcampaign/2789/).

According to the World Health Organization, over 10% of the world's disease are caused purely by unsanitary water supplies.

One billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and in the past ten years, everyone who has gained access to clean water in developing countries has lived in China or India, nations that are already rapidly improving their public water and sanitation systems.

2.4 Million deaths are caused annually by poor water conditions (4.2% of all deaths), meaning over 65,000 people die everyday that this bill is not signed.

In developing nations, only 5% of rural populations have access to plumbing and over 1 billion people still do not have access to a bathroom, spreading disease and infections.

Talking Points and Quotes

Sustainable progress is about much more than water, but never about less.

Water is medicine. Toilets are medicine. The best kind of medicine-- the kind that prevents African children from getting sick in the first place. We have known how to provide this medicine--safe water, sanitation, and handwashing, for centuries.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said: ``We will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.''

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: ``This is not my area, but there are 6 billion people on the planet and over 2 billion do not have adequate drinking water. How many hours--and you can't call it man hours because it's women's work--how many hours a year are spent in sub-Saharan Africa bringing water to the family? Answer: 16 billion hours--with a ``b''--and that is the lowest estimate. For some people that's 6-8 hours a day to get water for their family. You take a photo in sub- Saharan Africa of the elegant, stately African woman with the long colored dress and the water jug on her head--that jug weighs more than the luggage allowance at the airport. The temptation of the rule of law is to say well, you have the Magna Carta, you wait 600 years, then you have a revolution, then a civil war. What about Martin Luther King, Jr.'s `fierce urgency of now'! These people cannot and will not wait and they should not.''

The water crisis is a global phenomenon. Around the world today, nearly 1 billion people lack access to clean, safe water. More than 2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. Most of these people live on less than $2 a day.

In Haiti, there are no public sewage treatment or disposal systems. Even in the capital, Port-au-Prince, a city of 2 million people, the drainage canals are choked with garbage. It is no wonder that Haiti has the highest infant and child mortality rate in the Western Hemisphere. One-third of Haiti's children do not live to see the age of 5. The leading killer? Water-borne diseases like hepatitis, typhoid, and diarrhea.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, a lack of access to clean water enslaves poor women. Women and girls are forced to walk two or three hours, or more, in each direction, every day, to collect water that is often dirty and unsafe. The U.N. estimates that these women spend a total of 40 billion working hours each year collecting water. That is equivalent to all of the hours worked in France in a year.

Water is even central to the fate of the Middle East. In his book, Paul Simon quoted former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin as saying, ``If we solve every other problem in the Middle East but do not satisfactorily resolve the water problem, our region will explode. Peace will not be possible.''

Will the distinguished gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for his contribution tonight and associate myself with his excellent statement and remarks.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, I rise to point out that a very important consideration is about to take place in the next 3 days dealing with the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act. Its main sponsor is the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). It has 97 cosponsors. And I want to commend the bipartisan spirit in which this bill has been put forward, because we have no less than one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten Members of the House that belong to the minority that are cosponsors. And in the other body, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight Members of that distinguished body who are in the minority there, plus two Independent Senators that have joined us.

And why? Because we've been working on this question of water for the continent of Africa and the states and the millions of people there suffering there and in Haiti. And we have a very rare opportunity in these next several days. The other body has passed the measure, and I stand before the House tonight to urge that it be taken up here as soon as possible.

As we gather for the holiday season, we are giving thanks for family and friends, but what may be unconsidered and unmentioned is appreciation for access to the water and adequate sanitation, something that's taken for granted in our great country.

And so I rise to remind us that there are 884 million people across the planet who went without access to clean water this year, and 2.5 billion men, women, and many, many children who went without adequate sanitation. Without access to these basic building blocks, many of the people of undeveloped nations will likely have been left without the ability to work because of health problems that hamper productivity and discourage economic investment.

The countries of the world, including our great Nation, have come together to say that we can do better. And so a set of shared goals, entitled the Millennium Development Goals, have set specific targets relating to increasing access to water and sanitation by 2015. With these goals, we and the international community have pledged to halve, by 2015, to cut in half, the proportion of people who are unable to reach or afford or come into possession of safe drinking water. Think of it. And many of these are children. That's the worst part of it all.

And as this Congress draws to a close, we have a sensitive opportunity to make good on that promise. Important legislation, entitled the Water for the World Act, H.R. 2035, has already passed in the other body. We need it here. And, if enacted, this bill could help 50 million people over the next 6 years.

Please join me in helping move this legislation across the finish line and provide millions of our fellow world citizens with the gift of water.

In Historic Vote, UN Declares Water a Fundamental Human Right

Juan Gonzalez: The United Nations General Assembly has

declared for the first time that access to clean water and

sanitation is a fundamental human right. In an historic vote

Wednesday, 122 countries supported the resolution, and over

forty countries abstained from voting, including the United

States, Canada and several European and other industrialized

countries. There were no votes against the resolution.

Nearly one billion people lack clean drinking water, and

over two-and-a-half billion do not have basic sanitation.

Bolivia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations,

Pablo Solon, introduced the resolution at the General

Assembly Wednesday.

Pablo Solon: [translated] At the global level,

approximately one out of every eight people do not have

drinking water. In just one day, more than 200 million hours

of the time used by women is spent collecting and

transporting water for their homes. The lack of sanitation is

even worse, because it affects 2.6 billion people, which

represents 40 percent of the global population. According to

the report of the World Health Organization and of UNICEF of

2009, which is titled ``Diarrhoea: Why Children Are [Still]

Dying and What We Can Do,'' every day 24,000 children die in

developing countries due to causes that can be prevented,

such as diarrhea, which is caused by contaminated water. This

means that a child dies every three-and-a- half seconds. One,

two, three. As they say in my village, the time is now.

Amy Goodman: Bolivia's ambassador to the United Nations,

Pablo Solon, urging support for the resolution Bolivia

introduced recognizing access to clean water and sanitation

as a fundamental human right.

For more on this historic vote, we're joined now here in

New York by longtime water justice advocate Maude Barlow.

She's the chair of the Council of Canadians, co-founder of

the Blue Planet Project and board chair of Food and Water

Watch. Last year she served as senior adviser on water to the

President of the United Nations General Assembly.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

Maude Barlow: So glad to be here.

Amy Goodman: Talk about the significance of this. If you

asked people in this country, they would have no idea this

has passed.

Maude Barlow: I know, I know, which is why you matter, I

just have to say. This is very, very distressing to know

something this important happened and it's been blanketed.

There's no media here; it's just like it didn't happen. It's

had media in other places.

There's no human--there has been on human right to water.

It wasn't included in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.

And then, more recently, when people have realized that it

needed to happen, there were very powerful forces against

it--powerful countries, powerful corporate interests and so

on. But Ambassador Solon and a number of developing countries

decided that they were going to move this, countries from the

Global South, that they were going to move this through, and

they just tabled it a month ago, and yesterday, at the vote

at the United Nations, they won. Not one country had the guts

to stand against them, even though lots of them wanted to do

it.

And basically, for the first time, the United Nations

General Assembly debated the right to water and sanitation--

it's very important both were included--and acknowledged and

recognized the right of every human being on earth to water

and sanitation. And this matters because--as you know,

because we've talked so many times--we are running--a planet

running out of water. Brand new World Bank study says that

the demand is going to exceed supply by 40 percent in twenty

years. It's just a phenomenal statement. And the human

suffering behind that is just unbelievable. And what this did

as basically say that the United Nations has decided it's not

going to let huge populations leave them behind as this

crisis unfolds, that the new priority is to be given to these

populations without water and sanitation.

Juan Gonzalez: And the countries that abstained, could you

talk about--did any of them talk about why they were not

voting ``yes,'' or did they just remain quiet?

Maude Barlow: Oh, it was the usual gang. It was the United

States and Canada, the European--not the European Union--the

United Kingdom some of the European countries voted to

abstain; some were wonderful--Australia, New Zealand. So it

was all of the Anglophone, neoliberal, you know, bought into

this whole agenda that everything is to be commodified,

countries who are able to continue to supply clean water to

their citizens, which makes it doubly appalling that they

would deny the right to water to the billions of people who

are suffering right now.

They used procedural language about this and that. There's

another process in Geneva with the Human Rights Council,

which we support, and they used the excuse that we have to

wait for that. But that's a long-term process, and it could

or could not end in something very specific. So they just cut

through it. A bunch of brave countries from the Global South

said, ``We can't wait. We need this now.'' And it's not a

surprise that it came from Bolivia, because, remember,

Bolivia is suffering double whammy with a, you know, dearth

of water, dearth of clean water, but also melting glaciers

from climate change.

Amy Goodman: Well, let's go back to Bolivia. I want to go

back to Bolivia's UN representative, Ambassador Pablo Solon,

at a

speech he gave in Toronto, the event that you organized,

Maude, last month, shortly before the G20 meetings. He

outlined the need to support a UN declaration on the human

right to water, referencing the long struggle for water

rights in Bolivia, which successfully fought against

Bechtel's water privatization efforts ten years ago.

Pablo Solon: In those days, I was a water warrior. Now I'm

a water warrior ambassador. We have to have water declared as

a human right in the UN. It is not possible to see that we

have declared in the UN food, the right to food, the right to

health, the right to education, the right to shelter, the

right to development, but not the right to water. And we all

know that without water, we can't live. So nobody can argue

that it's not a basic and fundamental and universal human

right. But even though, until now, it's not recognized as a

human right. So, we have presented, two weeks ago, a draft

resolution so that this coming month, in July, we expect to

have a vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

And we want to see which countries are going to vote against

that resolution. We want to go to vote to see which

governments are going to say to the humanity that water is

not a human right.

Amy Goodman: That was Bolivia's ambassador to the United

Nations, Pablo Solon, speaking in Toronto. Which nations are

not going to say that water is a human right? Well, you said

the United States didn't vote for this. Canada didn't, though

they didn't vote against. What is their rationale?

Maude Barlow: Well, it depends on the country. The United

Kingdom says they ``don't want to pay for the toilets in

Africa.'' That's a direct quote from somebody who wouldn't be

quoted, from a senior diplomat in the government of Great

Britain, that was in--quoted in a Canadian paper.

Canada hides behind the false statement that we might have

to share our water, sell our water to the United States,

which is nonsense. We're in way more danger from NAFTA, which

declares water to be a commodity.

The United States, as you know, has not been supporting

rights regimes for decades now, so this is just a

continuation. And I have to tell you, listening to the

statement from the United States yesterday at the United

Nations, I wouldn't have thought there was any difference

between George Bush and Barack Obama's administrations. It

was haughty language. They scolded Bolivia. Bolivia came

under a lot of heat, a lot of insults yesterday from these

countries.

New Zealand and Australia are both going private. Australia

has privatized its water totally, and basically it's now for

sale. And there's a big American investment firm that's

actually buying up water rights. It was supposed to be,

originally, just to get the farmers of the big farm

conglomerates to share, to trade, but now it's all gone

private and international, so they're hardly going to support

something that says that water, you know, is a human right,

when they've commodified it and said it's a market commodity.

So, really, what you're seeing is a split between those

countries that see water as a public trust, although that

wasn't in the language of the legislation, but that see water

as a public trust and a human right and that should belong to

all, as opposed to those who are going to move to a market

model. And I think that's the truth behind what happened.

And it's very important for you to know that they did not

allow the inclusion of the words ``access to,'' and that was

one of the demands. I think some of those countries would

have said yes to something that said ``access to.'' And it's

very important. It's not semantic, because if you say you

have access to it, then all the country--all the government

has to do is provide you access. Then they can charge you, or

they can have a private company come in and deliver it and

charge you. And if you can't afford it, they provided you

access, it's not their fault if you can't pay it. So it's

very important that Bolivia and the other sponsoring

countries held on to the language of the human right to

drinking water and sanitation. They wouldn't drop sanitation.

They wouldn't add the words ``access to.'' And those were the

sticking points.

Juan Gonzalez: And in practical terms, what will be the

impact of this resolution on those efforts to continue to

commodify or privatize water supplies in countries around the

world, especially in the third world?

Maude Barlow: It's a fight we're in. You know, I'm not

going to say that suddenly everything is going to be fine

tomorrow or today, today being the day after the vote, that

anybody woke up in a different situation today, anybody had

more water today than they did yesterday, or more access to

sanitation.

What it is is a moral statement, a guiding principle, of

the countries of the world--and basically the UN is the

closest thing we have to a global parliament--that they have

taken a step in a direction of saying that water is a human

right and a public trust and that no one should be dying for

lack of water, and they shouldn't have to watch their

children die a horrible death for lack of water because they

cannot pay. And that was a statement that has taken us years

and years to get the UN--they hadn't even debated the water

issue. They hadn't even debated it in the past. They've done

all this work on climate and absolutely no work on water. So

it was a huge step forward to establishing some principles

that we need if we are to avoid the crisis that I honestly

see coming, that I think is going to be worse than anybody

can imagine, in terms of the suffering.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Senate amendments to H.R. 4994, the Medicare and Medicaid Extenders Act.

One of the most important priorities of Congress, regardless of our current economic downturn, is the financial well-being of our nation's hospitals, and the ability of patients to have access to medically necessary care when they need it.

Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 accomplishes both goals by blocking a scheduled 25 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors and extending current Medicare payment rates through December 31, 2011. Passage of the bill today by the House will send this legislation to the President's desk for his signature.

In order to have world class hospitals in the United States, we must have the needed funding to ensure that our nation's hospitals can provide the highest quality care possible. Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 will help strengthen our hospitals, especially those located in our inner cities and rural areas. These hospitals are experiencing serious funding shortages, and are at risk of losing much needed doctors and medical staff.

This bill is fully paid for, and according to CBO, the bill would reduce the deficit by $2.8 billion over the next 10 years. This legislation also helps to protect access to doctors for Medicare beneficiaries and military families, given that payment rates for doctors in TRICARE, the health care program for active-duty servicemembers, National Guard and Reserve members, military retirees, and their families are tied to Medicare rates. Passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 4994 is a good example of how Members of Congress working together in a spirit of bipartisan unity can improve the health and well being of all Americans.

I do want to raise some concerns with the way this bill is going to be paid for, which is to decrease the affordability credits for Americans that are needed to defray the costs of purchasing private insurance under the soon to be established health exchanges in 2014. I believe that this is tantamount ``to robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' This Congress should not get into the habit of viewing future benefits for low-income Americans as a source of funding for today's legislative initiatives. There are other more fair minded and progressive offsets which could have been utilized for this payment fix--such as taxing Wall Street or our nation's billionaires.

If we are going to make sure that Medicare doctors and hospitals are reimbursed at an appropriate rate over the next several years, we are going to have to be more serious and pragmatic about how to implement efficiencies in the Medicare program.

Medicare is a highly successful and efficient program, but it can't keep feeding the ``corporate medical monster'' forever. The time has come for the Federal Government to rein in the costs of for-profit hospital care by taking a more serious look at how we can reduce the costs of prescription drugs and medical technology--two of the most costly expenditures for hospitals and doctors.

Furthermore, we must pass H.R. 676, ``The U.S. National Health Care Act,'' so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of a universal single payer system, which has successfully worked in every major industrialized country to contain the rising costs of health care and provide quality health care for all. If we created this system, then we would be able to pay our nation's physicians at optimal levels and provide America's hospitals and clinics with a more financially stable, predictable, and efficient health care payment system for years to come.

In the meantime, today's physician payment bill will allow today's Medicare beneficiaries to enjoy the care they have earned. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of ``The Seniors Protection Act.'' As we enter the second consecutive year without a cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security retirees and other beneficiaries, this legislation would have helped to provide 54 million Social Security recipients with a one-time payment of $250 to help them make ends meet during this tough time. America has a moral and civic duty to always support our Nation's seniors, veterans, and the disabled, they may live a productive and secure life.

The Seniors Protection Act is an investment in the economic stability of our seniors, veterans, people with idisabilities, and all who depend on Social Security to make ends meet. The bill also offers support to the millions of seniors who are struggling trying to pay their bills, mortgages, and other daily expenses.

The Seniors Protection Act is critical to our seniors, and is fiscally responsible. Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans oppose the bill, something that is truly regrettable and a moral outrage.

While Democrats maintain a strong record protecting, upholding, and strengthening Social Security, Republicans continue to advocate risky schemes to privatize it and cut benefits. America's seniors deserve better.

I commend all of my colleagues who support this bill, and I thank Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Earl Pomeroy for his outstanding leadership on this issue. Democrats will always stand with our Nation's seniors, because it is the humane, just, and right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5012, the ``Weekends Without Hunger Act.'' This important legislation will amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to ensure that low income children who rely on school meal programs during the week have access to meals on weekends and long school holidays. By filling these gap periods, this bill will ensure that children return to school healthy and equipped with the necessary levels of nutrition to learn on Monday mornings.

Last week, the House successfully passed a reauthorization of the child nutrition programs which improves nutrition and access to school meals. However, that legislation does not provide meals for our children when they are out of school. Far too many children suffer from food shortages and lack of nutritional meals at home during weekends and school holidays. Food insecurity is steadily rising. Although food banks and community providers successfully operate weekend meal programs for low income children, their funding is insufficient to sustain an increase in demand. I believe that our country will eventually recover from these tough economic times. Until then, we are obligated to provide for our children. Therefore, it is necessary that we supply funding to local existing efforts that provide these nutritional weekend or school break meals and expand these programs in more communities. We must make every effort to ensure that that no child goes hungry when they are out of school. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2011 Full Year Funding Resolution. While this legislation is far from perfect, and I have deep reservations with certain funding cuts, the bill addresses serious issues and moves America forward. I am particularly happy that this funding resolution also includes the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which passed the Senate last week.

The 2011 Full Year Funding Resolution will help hard-working families during these tough economic times. For example, the Child Nutrition and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will provide over 32 million children health meals and food assistance to over 43 million people. The legislation will also provide necessary funds to cover all current children in the Head Start program and offer child care assistance to low-income working families.

College students will be eligible to apply for the maximum Pell Grant award for $5,550. Lastly, unemployment offices will be provided additional funds to manage increased workloads.

The Resolution will keep America safe by funding key federal programs. First, it offers appropriate funding for the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office to ensure mortgage fraud investigation and prosecutions can continue. In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of the Treasury, and other key federal agencies are given robust funding to combat financial fraud and gambling on Wall Street that led to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Finally, the bill will give Internal Revenue Service resources to investigate offshore tax evasion.

As I mentioned, today's legislation also includes S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. The House passed a similar bill last year. This bill will help prevent outbreaks and food-borne illnesses by increasing third party testing, expands FDA access to food facilities, and requires food importers to certify their safety standards. For the first time ever, this Resolution allows the FDA to initiate a mandatory recall of food product if a company fails to do so. Lastly, the bill increases FDA inspectors to inspect food facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I have deep concerns over parts of today's legislation. Two projects in the City of Detroit which were passed into law are now being rescinded. One project provides funds to the City of Detroit airport and the other funds the city's riverfront. Both projects are necessary for the future of the city. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will amend or delete this section. Additionally, $1.5 billion is cut from existing appropriations for high speed rail. I believe this is counterproductive and will hamper America's ability to reduce its carbon footprint. Lastly, I am opposed to the federal worker pay freeze which will cause pain to hard-working Americans who make significantly less than private sector employees and steadfastly serve our Nation.

The 2011 Full Year Funding Resolution will also, for the first time, ban the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for the entire fiscal year. This ban differs from current law because it does not allow an exception to transport prisoners for prosecution. This restriction was inserted late yesterday night without any hearings or chance for modification. Moreover, today's resolution completely undermines the Department of Justice's ability to try Guantanamo detainees in Article III federal courts.

In conclusion, because this bill promotes the common good of our Nation more than it hinders it, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1756, I call up the bill (H.R. 5281) to amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify and improve certain provisions relating to the removal of litigation against Federal officers or agencies to Federal courts, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I have heard so much misinformation about the DREAM Act that I hardly know where to begin. First of all, this is not a new bill. It has existed for a decade. It is a bipartisan bill to address the plight of children who were brought to the United States as undocumented immigrants and grew up here.

And this bill has been introduced in every Congress, starting on May 21, 2001, there was a hearing. The Senate, the other body, heard a hearing on the bill, August 1, it was started out. In 2003, April 19, the bill was reintroduced by our colleague from California (Mr. Berman). On July 31, it was again reintroduced into the Senate. On April 6, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle introduced the bill. November 18, 2005, a Senator from Illinois introduced the bill. I've got two pages of bills. We have had five hearings.

So for anybody to say there hasn't been due process on this bill, I hope they feel gently corrected by the research that my staff has done to make it clear that there has been an extensive legislative history on this bill.

Now, the second thing that I've heard so much about is that the DREAM Act is not very popular. And again, we rushed to our research and we found that the bill is very popular. Most Americans support the DREAM Act. Poll after poll, the majority of Americans approve of the DREAM Act, and there will be more information coming from this.

Now, the next thing that we ought to really settle down and accept as fact is that the DREAM Act will not take jobs from Americans. The reason that is pretty clear is that all the major unions in America support and endorse the DREAM Act, and they're doing it because it's not taking jobs away from their members--AFL, SEIU, UNITE HERE, UAW, NEA, AFT, and others.

So now that we have some of this cleared up, the next thing I would like to point out is that there are requirements. These are not illegals. These are undocumented kids. They didn't commit a criminal act. They thought they were born here to begin with. Their parents brought them here.

Look, the conditions are so, so voluminous. First of all, the only people eligible are children brought here to the United States, and they have to be less than 29 years old to even qualify. They must have lived in the United States at least for 5 years. They must have graduated from an American high school or be admitted to an institution of higher education, and they must submit biometric information and complete security and law enforcement background checks.

So this is a very rigorous bill. And the last piece of doggerel that I should get rid of is the fact that you can go into the United States military real quickly and be processed as a citizen. Not true. As a matter of fact, you cannot join the military if you are an undocumented person. Yes, that's right.

So now that we've got some of the misunderstanding out of the way, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Shelley Berkley of Nevada for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, who has worked for years on this legislation, a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to explain how the biometric business works to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee.

See, that is fingerprints and eye scans, and the FBI uses it, and they are pretty foolproof.

The people that you are talking about that go back and come forward, these kids, Steve, grew up in America. That is where they started. They haven't been anywhere else. You come here as a kid and you can't qualify. So there are records. They went to school, they did something, they lived somewhere. So there are records, and you don't have to go back to wherever their parents may have come from to do it.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. FATTAH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), chair of the Subcommittee on Courts of the House Judiciary Committee, and also a former magistrate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to a Judiciary Committee member, Dr. Judy Chu of California.

I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would remind my dear friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) there is no preference in this bill. They are treated equally. There is not one preference that you can dream of--

Unfortunately, I am not able to.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentlelady from California, Lucille Roybal-Allard.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Sam Farr.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Carolyn Maloney of New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Jose Serrano.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from the Ways and Means Committee, the Honorable Charles Rangel.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. Velazquez asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Donna Edwards.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 45 seconds to the civil rights hero of the Congress, John Lewis.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to the one and only majority leader of the House, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez. He has worked on this issue, not just on the DREAM Act but on the whole question of immigration, with great skill and knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Grace Napolitano, for a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Gregory Meeks.

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York, Yvette Clarke.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. HONDA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Barbara Lee of Oakland, California.

Mr. Speaker, Howard Berman is not only the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee; he is the second ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I yield him the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the child nutrition bill, S. 3307, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. The reauthorization of this bill will significantly improve child nutrition programs by addressing hunger and obesity in children. It will provide healthier meal options, eliminate junk-food and sugary beverages from a la carte lines and vending machines from all schools, increase student eligibility to access school meals and

enhance school wellness policies to improve opportunities for nutrition education and physical activity.

At a time when unemployment rates continue to climb it is essential that we provide for the nutritional needs of our children. As a result of these tough economic times many families are stricken with poverty and are currently facing severe food shortages. Furthermore, obesity is increasing at an alarming rate due to poor dieting. Nearly one third of children are either overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. Obesity is even a greater problem amongst African-American children. Currently, thirty-six percent of African-American youth are either overweight or obese compared with less than thirty percent of white youth. This is a result of the fact that African American children are more likely to lack access to healthy fruits and vegetables at lunch time. For example, in a school with a majority of all Black students, forty-seven percent of Black middle school students receive fruits and vegetables compared to sixty-three percent of students in predominately white schools. Childhood hunger and obesity is unacceptable within our country. Moreover, these disparities must be addressed. Our children deserve better and, thus, the time to strengthen our child nutrition programs is now.

It is disappointing that my Republican colleagues would attempt to kill this bill and leave children to the pain of hunger and lack of nutritional meal. But, we cannot afford to delay the passage of S. 3307. This bill is our best chance at combating obesity and hunger and addressing disparities in child nutrition. Although it is paid in part by ending a temporary increase to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, I am confident that President Obama and his administration will work to restore these benefits before the SNAP cuts take place. I urge that my colleagues vote ``No'' on the Motion to Recommit and ``Yes'' on S. 3307.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. The middle class in America is struggling to make ends meet as they face a weak economy and bleak job market. Unless Congress acts sometime during the next month, Americans will see their income tax rates return to Clinton-era levels next year. Today's legislation would ensure that 98 percent of Americans will not see a tax increase next year.

President Obama and Democrats have advocated to extend tax cuts on income below $250,000 (which will benefit Americans of all income levels) while allowing the tax cuts on income above $250,000 to expire. Specifically, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act will permanently extend relief for the 10 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent rate brackets. Ninety-eight percent of Americans will benefit from this proposal while allowing the richest 2 percent, the millionaires and billionaires, to pay their fair share in taxes.

The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 also provides working families with permanent extensions of popular tax cuts. The bill will extend the $1,000 child tax which is set to expire on December 31st. It will also help families by providing permanent extension of the adoption tax credit, the employee tax credit for employee child care, and the increased dependent care tax credit. Lastly, the Act will permanently extend the capital gains and dividend tax at a 15 percent rate for middle-class taxpayers.

Furthermore, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010 will provide Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, relief for the middle class. The Congress created the AMT in 1969 to ensure that the wealthy did not abuse loopholes in the tax code and thus avoid paying any taxes at all. However, because the AMT was not adjusted for inflation, it now will affect a large percentage of the middle class. Today's bill will provide a two year extension of AMT relief for joint filers who make up to $72,450 and for individuals who make up to $47,450 in 2010 and 2011.

Today's debate is larger than the future of tax policy. This moment offers this body a critical opportunity to draw a line in the sand and make a definitive and powerful statement about their commitment to working class and middle class families. It is an opportunity to show average Americans who are fed up with their government that we hear them, believe in them, and will fight for them. It is an opportunity to show that government has the ability to improve people's lives in a tangible way and that the rich and well connected don't always win. It is time for Congress to stand up for the middle class and extend tax relief. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1338) a bill to require the accreditation of English language training programs, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker and Members, S. 1338 requires that visas for foreign students seeking to attend English schools in the United States only be granted when the student attends a school accredited by an agency recognized by the Secretary of Education. What we found, in short, is that some of these language schools are undermining the laudable mission of this visa program. And it has been determined that many of them are not even attending schools.

So thanks to the diligence of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Barney Frank, we have introduced the bill. The Senate has passed the same bill. Now it is over here for our final approval. But before I reserve the balance of my time, I would thank Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am going to yield back, but can I ask my friends on the other side, if you have got another subject matter you want to introduce on a bill, can you wait until we pass the bill and then make your speech about whatever you want?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 5283) to provide for adjustment of status for certain Haitian orphans paroled into the United States after the earthquake of January 12, 2010.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, this bill, entitled the Help HAITI Act of 2010, was introduced by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry). It is incredibly important that we finish the job we undertook when we rescued just over 1,200 Haitian orphans immediately following the earthquake that devastated Haiti on January 12 earlier this year.

All in all, 1.5 million people were directly affected in terms of human and economic impact. It was one of the worst natural disasters ever recorded in the Western Hemisphere.

In response to this disaster, the Department of Homeland Security instituted a policy for the immediate evacuation of Haitian orphans who had been adopted or were in the process of being adopted as citizens.

Now, in the United States with their adoptive or prospective adoptive American parents, these children need one more bit of assistance. Had the earthquake not hit and disrupted the adoption process in Haiti, each of these children would have entered the country as United States citizens under current immigration law.

But because of the emergency procedures used to evacuate these children, they must now wait years before they can get permanent residency and years more before they can qualify for citizenship. Some are even running the risk of aging out even before they can get their residency, which would make them ineligible for legal status in the country.

So what the measure before us does is treat these children as if they had come to the United States under the normal adoption procedures that would have applied had the earthquake not occurred and required hastening their move.

It is with that in mind that I am pleased to thank the bipartisan efforts of the Judiciary Committee, starting with the ranking member, Lamar Smith; the immigration subcommittee chair, Zoe Lofgren; and, of course, Judge Poe, who is leading the measure on the other side.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to commend Judge Ted Poe as a gentleman and a scholar, and we are proud of his service on the Judiciary Committee.

I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Madam Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Brooklyn, New York, Yvette Clarke, for as much time as she may consume. And I note that she has the second largest number of Haitians and Haitian Americans in her congressional district.

I yield back as well.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1421) to amend section 42 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the importation and shipment of certain species of carp.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker and Members of the House, S. 1421 prohibits importation and interstate shipment of certain species of carp and amends section 42 of title 18 of the code to add the bighead variety of the species commonly known as Asian carp to the list of injurious species that are prohibited from being shipped in or imported into the United States.

Asian carp are a significant threat to the Great Lakes because they are large, extremely prolific, and consume vast amounts of food. They can grow to more than 6 feet in length and weigh in excess of 100 pounds, quickly dominating the waters they inhabit and eating as much as 40 percent of their body weight daily.

Researchers caution that these fish could pose a significant risk to the Great Lakes ecosystem by damaging habitats and disrupting the food chain that supports native fish. In the 1970s, two species of Asian carp, the bighead and silver, were imported by catfish farmers to remove algae and suspended matter from their ponds. During large floods in the early 1990s, many of the catfish ponds overflowed their banks, and the Asian carp were released into local waterways in the Mississippi River basin.

In an effort to prevent the carp from getting to the Great Lakes, a barrier was constructed in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal which connects the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes. Unfortunately, the Asian carp are steadily making their way northward up the Mississippi, and Asian carp DNA has been discovered beyond the barrier.

If these carp reach Lake Michigan, they are likely to spread throughout the Great Lakes, where they would threaten the environment and the economy. The Great Lakes are some of the most unique bodies of water on the planet, and they would threaten not only the commercial but recreational fishing on the lakes, both of which are major contributors to the economies of Great Lakes States.

The Asian Carp Prevention and Control Act lists the bighead variety of the species called Asian carp as injurious to wildlife under the Lacey Act. And by including them in the Lacey Act, this bill will prohibit importation or interstate transportation of live Asian carp without a permit.

It is our hope that this will help deter further intentional or accidental introduction of the species into our waterways.

It should be noted that this legislation does not interfere with existing State regulations of Asian carp. In addition, permits to transport or purchase live Asian carp can still be issued for scientific, medical, or educational purposes.

I commend my colleagues, the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, and Senator George Voinovich, co-chairs of the Great Lakes Task Force, for introducing this legislation, and hope it will be favorably considered in this body.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.