Floor Statements

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It's interesting that the gentleman calls it political welfare for elected officials. We should remember why this was created and when it was created. This was created after Watergate, and it was created as an understanding that we needed to move more and more to a situation where folks with a lot of money would not go around controlling our elections. The gentleman calls it political welfare for Presidential candidates, but, in fact, without this, it is totally in the hands of people making donations; whereas, here, it is the average American citizen who gets a chance to donate to this campaign.

We know that a lot of the amendments that will come up today are directed not necessarily at issues but, I believe, and many of us believe, are directed at who is the resident of the White House right now. We have an election coming up in 2012, and I think some would rather have an open-ended private contribution situation where a lot of very wealthy people in this country control the giving to elections. I really think that this is an amendment that sounds like a savings, but it isn't. It is part of many amendments we will see today to strike at this particular President and at the White House and at the expenses that have to do with the President of the United States.

So I would hope that folks understand first of all why this was created, why it's been important, why Presidential candidates accept this kind of funding, but, most importantly, why it allows the American taxpayer the ability--the ability--to decide if he or she wants to participate in having something to do with how the election gets funded.

No one is forced to do this. This is just an opportunity for the average American to participate. So I really hope that, in a bipartisan fashion, people turn this down and reject this amendment.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It shouldn't surprise me by now, but it's amazing how folks will continue to get up during the day, during the year, during the next 2 years in support of the big guys against the little guy. And so the FCC ruled, and ruled in a way that protects and keeps the Internet open for all of us, and we should remember that.

It issued an order providing for a version of net neutrality that allows the FCC to regulate how Internet service providers manage access to content, requires certain transparency from the providers about their policies, and requires reasonable management of traffic on their networks. Now, all of a sudden there is such a reaction to simply setting some rules.

While we all use the Internet, there are still many parts of this new service behavior that have not been looked at and where it allows some folks to just overrun other people. And if there was ever a decision made by the FCC that's in favor of the consumer, this is one of them. So, of course, we will try to scale it back.

But there are other issues here. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and, as such, I think it's the greatest committee and the most important committee in the history of man- and womankind. But I know that there are times that even we should not take up an issue that belongs to people who are much more qualified and have the time to sit down and look at it carefully. And when I say ``qualified,'' I know that scares a lot of people. We're all qualified, but there are some people who pay a lot of attention to this issue on a daily basis. And we have the folks from the Commerce and Energy Committee who have done a lot of work, and my first feeling here is that this should be left to the authorizing committees to continue to work on. In fact, they have been holding hearings and doing that kind of work.

One of the great virtues of the Internet: its openness. The ability of so many people to connect with so many other people without interference from companies providing the service. The FCC has been the guardian of that openness and needs authority to continue to do so.

The Internet has become more and more important in our lives, and we need to allow the FCC to play an appropriate role in making sure that it continues to remain accessible to everyone as a level playing field.

The FCC's ability to address other Internet policy concerns such as privacy and accommodation for people with disabilities is also at stake.

Now, for Members who are on the floor who may be new to Congress, let me just alert you to something. You are going to see amendments today and during this Congress telling the FCC not to get involved. Then you are going to see some issues come back that haven't been around for a few years about certain personalities on radio and TV, and you are going to see the same folks who are telling the FCC to stay out of it telling them to get into it and control what those folks say on radio and TV. And that's going to create a big debate once again. So we have to be careful what we wish for. Do we want less involvement? More involvement? We should be consistent.

Lastly, I really believe that this should be left to the authorizers to continue to work on, a ruling by the FCC to be respected at this point, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The so-called czars in the Obama administration are basically exercising a

traditional function of the White House staff, which is advising the President, coordinating policy on complex issues that cut across Cabinet departments and Federal agencies.

Let's take a look at one example. One target of criticism has been the climate change czar. But what Cabinet Secretary or other agency head would otherwise have to lead on climate change issues? The administrator of EPA? The Secretary of Energy? The Secretary of the Interior? The Secretary of State, because climate change is fundamentally an international issue?

The fact is that all of these officials, and many more, have a role, and that's why the President has designated a senior White House staff member to coordinate activity and policymaking on climate changes. They do not have legal authority to take action. Rather, that final decisionmaking authority can only be exercised by heads of agencies or other officials properly appointed and, in most cases, confirmed by the Senate. In modern times, there's nothing unusual about the White House and its staff playing a leading role in policymaking, especially on issues important to the President.

But let me touch on a subject now that some people may not want to touch on. Look, let's be honest. This is not about czars. This is about the person that lives in the White House. Today we're going to see amendments that say we should not have repairs on the White House structure. Tonight we're going to see an amendment that says--listen to this--that the President should not have, paid for by the taxpayers, a teleprompter. Can you believe this? This may be the 6 o'clock national news. There's an amendment up there about the teleprompter.

So I'm going to give some folks on the other side, with all due respect and love and affection, some advice. When you look at the White House, think of it as the monument it is. Think of it as the structure where the President of any party lives. Don't get hung up on the fact that he lives there. Notice I didn't mention the name because I don't want to upset you. Don't get upset at who uses the teleprompter. Don't get upset at whose plumbing needs repair in the White House for 50 years. Make believe it's the last President. Please repair the White House. Please allow him to have staff. Please allow him to be President. But don't get hung up on the fact that ``he'' is the President, because I know that upsets you. You can't accept the fact that ``he'' is the President. So don't let that bother you. Just concentrate on the issue.

Mr. Chair, I think we should concentrate on the fact that the White House structure itself is a building we should keep in good shape. It falls under my subcommittee's jurisdiction and Mrs. Emerson's chairmanship. We have a President who may at times use a teleprompter. Let him use it because if we get into that, then our staff may not be able to write notes for us in the future, because it's the same thing.

So, yeah, sometimes it may not be this President. It may be another. I wish I could mention his name right now, but I know it upsets the heck out of many people on that side. So don't go after him, just do what needs to be done.

This is a terrible amendment, and it should be defeated.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Let me first clarify something.

Madam Chair, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) came to me and told me where he wanted to take the cuts to pay for this. We were both unhappy about it, but we felt that it was so important to do this that we would take it from where we had to

and then deal with it later. But let's understand something.

There are some new Members here who are either watching in their offices or here on the floor who need to know something. I've been in public office 36 years--this is my 37th year--in the State Assembly in New York and in Congress. I've never seen, except for once, a commissioner or a Secretary or a director of an agency come before me as chairman of a committee, and when I ask them, Do you want, do you need more money, they said to me, No, we don't want, we don't need any money. You know who that was? You guessed it. The SEC a few years ago told us that they didn't want any more money, they didn't need any more money. Why? Because that was during that era when there was the word out throughout an administration not to enforce, not to regulate, not to practice oversight, let it go, the water will clean itself, the air will clean itself, Wall Street can monitor itself. That was the attitude.

Now, we're seeing another pattern, and I look at folks on the other side that--you know, we always say this but they know I mean it--who I have tremendous respect and admiration for, but we know, I'm not fooled what the game is. The game is we pass a health care bill some insurance companies don't like, so we're not going to fund it. We pass regulations on Wall Street that could go a long way to stopping the criminals from doing it again, we're not going to fund it. That's what this is all about. This is not about whether the SEC did a good job or will do a good job. It's simply about a law that now will make it very difficult to commit the crimes that were committed on Wall Street which tumbled down the whole economy, and now we're saying that we're not going to fund it.

So as we move forward this year, this weekend, the next 2 years, and we propose not funding certain things, every so often at least let's do it and kind of wink at each other, because we know the truth. This is not about cutting a budget. This is about not enforcing some rules.

And so we will open it up again and the same folks, because they're pretty smart, who pull all those crimes on this society will do it again, and my God, interestingly enough, the movement that brought you into the majority, those folks that I saw on TV at those town hall meetings did have one thing in common with the folks over here. They agreed that something had to be done to the folks on Wall Street; that they couldn't run amok and go crazy again. That was the one thing we agreed on. So it could be that this time you're running counter to your own base--not that I should advise you on that--but running counter to your own base because they want Wall Street police.

So the SEC needs to enforce this bill, and if you really want to undo Dodd-Frank, then try what you're doing with health care, which is to change the law, but not to fund it is simply to find a very funny way of accomplishing the same thing.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, the draconian cuts to EPA funding will negatively impact my congressional district which has one of the highest rates of asthma in the Nation. For many years, I have worked closely and been dependent on EPA's collaboration to address the impact that poor air quality has had on residents of my district. The funding limitation that stops the EPA from limiting greenhouse gases will negatively impact air quality not only in my congressional district but throughout the Nation. This would also cause the cancellation of numerous projects which would eliminate thousands of jobs.

The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities are also facing severe cuts. What kind of society have we become if we cannot encourage and fund the arts and humanities? Are we focusing on jobs? We must remember that giving our young people the opportunity to experience the arts leads to a more qualified and educated workforce. The funding for the NEA and the NEH helps to provide an important investment in our local arts organizations.

Our national parks contribute to the standard of living that many Americans enjoy. Our national parks are one of our greatest treasures, available to all of us. We must continue to improve and protect this valuable resource. The cuts to the National Park Service will also negatively affect many historical and conservation projects. With cuts to the Drinking Water Fund, we will be eliminating communities' ability to provide clean and safe drinking water to their residents who we, as elected officials, are stewards of.

Now I know that we continue, over the last 24 and over the next 24 hours, to discuss these very serious cuts. All I would hope is that as we go forward and we deal with cuts that many of us agree have to be made, that we pay special attention to the future of our country. One thing is to simply say, cuts reduce the deficit. The other thing is to say, what are we going to do to parks, what are we going to do to drinking water, what are we going to do to the air we breathe, what are we going to do to all the good things we've done over the last 30, 40, 50 years to make our country even better? As we cut budgets, we must take that into consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The continuing resolution that we are voting on today is irresponsible and extreme. We all recognize that we should take reasonable steps to address our deficit. However, what we are voting on today makes cuts that will harm our students, our public safety, our health, and our environment.

When I served as chair of the Financial Services Subcommittee, I worked hard to make sure that we protected the consumer, the investor, and the taxpayer. The agencies funded by this subcommittee ensure that Americans can have confidence in the products that they use and the security of their investments. The CR that we are considering today, with its cuts to the IRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission, fails to provide sufficient resources to meet these challenges.

IRS funding will be cut by $600 million, and this will have an immediate impact on taxpayer services as we approach the busy tax season. The IRS will be forced to cut as many as 4,100 employees, mainly enforcement agents, and this will harm the ability of the IRS to find tax cheaters. It is important to remember that if we reduce the government's ability to collect taxes, this will actually increase our deficit, since enforcement resources have a $7-to-$1 return on investment.

The Securities and Exchange Commission will see a $41 million reduction from last year, which will prevent it from hiring the staff it needs to carry out the critical new Dodd-Frank financial oversight functions that it has been given. This will mean that hedge funds, credit rating agencies, and broker-dealers will continue to operate without regulation, adding to an increased risk of another fiscal meltdown.

As chair of this subcommittee, I also worked hard to make sure that capital and other assistance went to small businesses and low-income communities. A key part of this was making sure that the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund had the resources it needed to support financial institutions making investments in disadvantaged communities. Under the continuing resolution which we are voting on today, the CDFI Fund will get slashed from $246 million last year to just $50 million this year. This will mean that more than 19,000 jobs will non-materialize, more than 14,000 affordable housing units will not be built, and more than 3,100 small businesses will not be assisted.

I am particularly distressed that the majority party decided to meddle once again in the District of Columbia's local affairs. We should all be able to agree that D.C. should be left alone to decide how to spend its own locally derived funds. One local program that the majority has decided to ban is the syringe exchange program. The science on this is clear: Giving addicts clean needles does nothing to drive up drug use, but it does do wonders to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS. Even if you do not believe the science, you should not meddle in the District of Columbia.

Another impact of the funding resolution we are voting on today will be a weakening of the equitable and efficient administration of justice in the Federal courts. The $476 million cut to the Judiciary will force the federal courts to lay off more than 2,400 support staff and stop payments to the attorneys who represent indigent criminal defendants.

There are numerous other cuts across the range of Agencies that are included in the Financial Service and General Government section--some that would severely impact jobs and others that would negatively affect our election practices. For example, the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Building Fund will see a cut of $1.7 billion from FY2010, which will result in the elimination of nearly 16,000 private sector construction jobs

and as many as 40,000 janitorial and maintenance jobs. The Election Assistance Commission will see a huge budget drop from $93 million last year to $10 million this year, effectively ending its work to help states improve their election practices and equipment.

So let me conclude by saying that the deficit cutting approach that we are voting on today will not only result in significant harm to America's consumers, investors, taxpayers, workers, businesses in disadvantaged communities, and the security of our elections, but it will also impact education, housing, transportation, health, the environment and all facets of our economic recovery. I would urge my colleagues to vote no.

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

You know, if you stay around here long enough, you see very interesting things happen.

As I look at my friend--and when I say ``my friend,'' I really mean that, Mr. Wolf, and I think of the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Rogers, I am reminded of the fact of two very interesting things. One, that it was Mr. Wolf and I, and Mr. Rogers and I, who made sure during some very difficult years a long time ago that the Legal Services Corporation would stay alive and grow and strengthen itself and support those who needed help in our community. As I said, if you stay around long enough, then you see the other side, which is the same folks accepting a cut that would devastate this agency.

The other irony is, as I said so many times years before when I was the ranking member on this committee and some folks would try to cut it, that this was President Nixon's baby. This was one of the highlights, I believe, of his career, that he felt that every American had the right to legal representation.

So in the times that we are in and with the desire of some folks to go after certain agencies, the Legal Services Corporation becomes a good target; but it indeed is a bad target to go after, because as we hear more and more talk about protecting, supporting, and keeping the Constitution alive, what better show than to allow folks legal representation?

When we say life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all that has certain meaning to me, and it has certain meanings to all of us; but at the center of that may be the ability to have representation and to have your day in court. There are folks that can't afford a lawyer, and the Legal Services Corporation has helped them.

Now, mind you, throughout the years folks like myself have accepted the fact that they have great limitations placed on them. There are a lot of things they can't do, but there are still a lot of good things that they can do.

So I would hope we could support this amendment; but more than that, I would hope that as we look, sadly, forward to this massive behavior of cuts across the board, that we realize that there are some basic needs and basic

protections that we need. This is one of them. And this is a sad day, indeed, when I see so many of us who worked to preserve the Legal Services Corporation now engaged in seeing, perhaps, its demise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The last thing I want to do is prolong this debate this evening. It is getting late. But I think what is happening with these budget cuts, under the disguise of budget cuts, is that we are discussing some very serious issues, and at times we use words or phrases that should not go unchallenged.

So, first of all, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his opposition to the amendment, because he has got a history of being supportive. And he is a fiscal conservative. He knows that he wants to go after waste and high expenses and programs that don't function well. But he also has always had a belief that the person who may not have the most resources in this society should be given a shot at being protected.

I want to join Mr. Schiff in that we have to continue to be careful. To say that this is a trial lawyers' bailout, when we in fact have had incredibly serious bailouts in the last couple of years, that is a bad statement to make.

I am old enough to remember President Nixon, and I don't remember that he went around creating left-wing causes or left-wing programs. Again, I

repeat, and it bears repeating, this was his creation. Because within that complex human being known as Richard Nixon, there were a couple of things that were very interesting to analyze, and one of them was his fundamental belief that everyone in this country needed the ability to be represented and represented properly.

Now, what is ironic is, the same folks who would destroy the Legal Services Corporation will not utter a word as we continue to protect people in this society gaining more power and more wealth and never needing a Legal Services lawyer for one of their issues, one of their cases.

So as we look at these cuts, as we look at this desire to bring down the deficit, as we do all these things that I think on a bipartisan basis we believe have to be done, we also have to pay attention to the fact that we can't destroy that which is fundamentally sound in our society. Cut here and there, I understand that. That train left the station a long time ago. Destroy it? Totally wrong.

Lastly, not to repeat myself, you can't on one hand claim that we need to protect more than ever the Constitution, and tell somebody with a home being foreclosed that can't afford a lawyer that they can't get any assistance. This is the wrong way to go, and I really hope this amendment is defeated and defeated soundly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, during the month of February our nation celebrates Dominican Heritage Month. I rise today to pay tribute to La Gran Parada Dominicana del Bronx, Inc., a valued institution in New York that promotes and celebrates Dominican life and culture.

The Bronx is home to one of the fastest growing Dominican populations in the country, and organizations like La Gran Parada Dominicana del Bronx help us to keep pace with this cultural enlargement. They articulate the Dominican experience here in the U.S., as well as the many ways in which Dominican Americans activate our national endeavor and strength.

Mr. Speaker, Dominican Heritage Month commemorates the anniversary of Dominican independence. It represents, as well, a moment when we pause to consider the growing influence Dominican Americans are having in this country.

Most Dominicans in the U.S. migrated here after 1960; the first generations put down strong roots in the Northeastern states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and also Florida. Migration increased steadily in the 1970s and more so during the 1980s. Today the Dominican American community is primarily an immigrant community, with all the struggles and triumphs that accompany this experience. It is also a relatively new immigrant community, which means, among other things, that we--as a nation--have the joy of being able to witness history unfold before us, as newness gives way to establishment, and first steps lead to progress and ultimately to Dominican power. Already, we idolize Dominican Americans in our national culture and sport, and see an ever-growing number in public offices throughout the land, serving their constituents with honor.

La Gran Parada Dominicana del Bronx, Inc., was founded in May 1989 by Felipe Febles and Rosa Ayala. Its founders, friends, and allies had the foresight to recognize the value the Bronx would hold for Dominican Americans in years to come. They believed the Bronx would one day serve as a launch pad for Dominican aspirations across the U.S., and that the borough deserved an institutional partner worthy of the people who reside here. This belief has proven correct and in La Gran Parada Dominicana del Bronx, Dominicans from the Bronx have support to match their considerable talents.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bridge-building organization, one that understands honoring cultural achievement in America is at its best a shared experience. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in paying tribute to Dominican Heritage Month 2011, and to an organization helping to bring it to life in New York City, La Gran Parada Dominicana del Bronx.

I thank you for the time, and I congratulate you for continuing to be the Representative that you are for the District of Columbia.

Let me, in the short time that I have, be very brief and to the point. This may be one of the least-known issues in the United States, the whole issue of how Congress treats the District of Columbia. It is understood that there are constitutional provisions, but constitutional provisions for Congress to oversee the District of Columbia do not mean that you should mistreat the District of Columbia.

And I think it's important to note something that happened when I became chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the District of Columbia, and that is that I took it very personal. For you see, like so many New Yorkers, I was not born in New York. I was born in Puerto Rico and I was raised in New York, and I represent the Bronx in Congress. Puerto Rico, as everyone should know, is a territory of the United States; some would say a colony of the United States. So the one

thing I didn't want to do was be chairman of this committee and treat Washington, D.C., the way the Federal Government sometimes has treated my birthplace.

Where I found myself, as so many other folks, was with the United States as this country you love and then Puerto Rico as your loving birthplace, knowing they are attached, but somehow Puerto Rico doesn't get treated equally. So I said publicly, to the amazement of some and to the laughter of others, that I was going to be the first Member of Congress to ever relinquish power. I didn't want more power. I wanted to give up power. I wanted less and less to do with the District of Columbia. Let them govern themselves.

And so the first thing we did is we found out that we were not allowing the District of Columbia to have a sensible approach to the HIV/AIDS issue epidemic by not allowing a syringe exchange program. Now, it's important to note what we're talking about here. You have moneys that are raised locally by Washington, D.C., and then you have Federal dollars. And what happened was that Congress, for years, was saying that you can't use Federal dollars for certain programs, and you can't use local dollars either for certain programs. Now, this is the part that gets a little political, and I am going to try to be as fair and as balanced as possible, to quote somebody else.

I believe that some Members of Congress who did not wish to discuss these issues back home or could not fight these issues back home used the District of Columbia as the experiment by which they could say, ``Abortion, I'm against abortion.''

``Where?''

``In the District of Columbia.''

``Needle exchange.''

``Oh, I don't accept that.''

``Where?''

``In the District of Columbia.''

``Same-sex marriage?''

``Oh, I'm totally against that.''

``Where?''

``In the District of Columbia.''

And they couldn't go back home and accomplish these things in their districts, but they imposed it on the District of Columbia.

My role, I felt--and I did accomplish it, but unfortunately that may change soon--was that little by little I got bipartisan support from both parties to remove, under your leadership--and I'm being honest about that because you pushed, and you pushed and you pushed under your leadership--to remove these riders, to let them decide what to do with the HIV crisis, to let Washington, D.C.-elected council members and Mayor decide what to do with so many issues. That's all we did. We still kept the constitutional provisions. I don't go around rewriting the Constitution.

Now what I think will happen--and we begin to see--is a desire to once again use Washington, D.C. as the experiment or the place where you do these things that you can't do back home.

So I would say to my colleagues, if you're strong--and I respect you on the issue of school vouchers. If you are strong on the issue of not letting women make choices in their lives, if you're strong on the issues of what rights or lack of rights gays should have, if you're strong on all of these issues, fight them at the national level, fight them back home. Don't single out the District of Columbia as this experimental ground by which you can say that you accomplished these things when, in fact, you did not.

The last one we had is the one that the public would really understand. The last one, which got lost in this budget that we just did, is the one that simply said that they could approve their own local budget without having Congress say ``yes'' or ``no.''

Now, picture throughout this country--there are people watching us right now throughout this country who have local school board budgets, who have local fire department budgets, who have local town and city and county budgets. They get their dollars from Federal funds, from local funds, from State funds, but they don't come at the end of the budget process and say, Members of Congress from all over the world, can you please approve my budget? No. And I don't think they should be treated that way.

So I hope that the changes we made remain in place. But above all, I hope that we respect the citizens, the American citizens who live in the District of Columbia, the residents who live here.

And lastly, we were elected to be Members of Congress. But I was not elected to be the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and I was not elected to be a member of the Washington, D.C. City Council. They have their own government. They can govern themselves well. They have their own finances. Let's give them the respect they deserve. And I hope as time goes on, these victories that we had, not for us--it's not going to get me reelected in my district--but for the people in Washington, D.C., that they stay in place.

And again, to my colleagues, if you want to make these points, make them back home, make them on the national level. Don't pick on the residents of D.C. to make your point.

Madam Speaker, it is with heartfelt sadness that today I remember those who lost their lives in this tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011. I remember those who reacted with bravery in trying to stop the gunman. I remember those who were wounded and even now are fighting to recover from their wounds. I remember all of the family members who are struggling with great losses. Finally, I remember with hope for her speedy recovery, Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

This is a sad time for our Nation, a time when we reflect on how all too often violence strikes and randomly takes some of our best and brightest. All of the lives that were lost were special to those who loved them--to their spouses and their children and their grandchildren. Judge John Roll was a public official serving our country with distinction and dedication. Christina Taylor Green was a young child with an interest in learning more about how government works. I hope that in the future our children will be able to meet with their representatives without endangering their lives.

As a Member of Congress who has worked with Representative Giffords, I am especially touched by this senseless tragedy. Representative Giffords is a very friendly, hard working colleague. She is someone who is easy to get along with and always willing to chat and lend a helping hand. She was doing what is expected of all of us who represent our constituents--we meet with our constituents and we listen to their concerns and we try to help them. That is what we were elected to do-- and so it is especially hard to see that one of our own was injured while doing--what we all do--our job.

Please let me conclude by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with all of those who died or were injured and with the families who loved them. My prayers are with Representative Giffords as she recovers and my hope is that soon she will be back with us here in the House of Representatives where she belongs.

Madam Speaker, it is with heartfelt sadness that today I remember those who lost their lives in this bravery in trying to stop the gunman. I remember those who were wounded and even now are fighting to recover from their wounds. I remember all of the family members who are struggling with great losses. Finally, I remember with hope for her speedy recovery, Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

This is a sad time for our Nation, a time when we reflect on how all too often violence strikes and randomly takes some of our best and brightest. All of the lives that were lost were special to those who loved them--to their spouses and their children and their grandchildren. Judge John Roll was a public official serving our country with distinction and dedication. Christina Taylor Green was a young child with an interest in learning more about how government works. I hope that in the future our children will be able to meet with their representatives without endangering their lives.

As a Member of Congress who has worked with Representative Giffords, I am especially touched by this senseless tragedy. Representative Giffords is a very friendly, hard working colleague. She is someone who is easy to get along with and always willing to chat and lend a helping hand. She was doing what is expected of all of us who represent our constituents--we meet with our constituents and we listen to their concerns and we try to help them. That is what we were elected to do-- and so it is especially hard to see that one of our own was injured while doing--what we all do--our job.

Please let me conclude by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with all of those who died or were injured and with the families who loved them. My prayers are with Representative Giffords as she recovers and my hope is that soon she will be back with us here in the House of Representatives where she belongs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest players in the history of baseball, Roberto Alomar. This week, Alomar was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame, a recognition for the many years he played the sport at its very highest level.

To many, being a 12-time All-Star, a 10-time Gold Glove recipient and a four-time Silver Slugger and batting over .300 nine times would suffice, but for Roberto Alomar, these were simply milestones along his route to the Hall of Fame. Induction into the Hall of Fame is a time- honored tradition in America reserved only for the game changers. It is not merely that these men played the sport with superior skill, it is that they so often transformed the game and our conception of what is possible. Roberto Alomar revolutionized the position of second baseman. He combined offensive power and consistency with a range and fielding ability few had ever seen and fewer still have been able to emulate.

Roberto is part of a Puerto Rican baseball dynasty that deserves recognition, too. His father and brother, Sandy Alomar and Sandy Alomar Jr. had distinguished careers in Major

League Baseball. They must realize that their guidance and support helped guide Roberto to his great career and that they, too, deserve recognition as he is inducted into baseball's most elite and hallowed club.

I am sure that the joy of winning the World Series twice was quite indescribable for Roberto, but the thrill of being inducted into the Hall of Fame must be just as sweet. It is a fitting end to a great career. Along with the rest of the baseball world and millions of Puerto Ricans on the island and in the 50 states, I applaud Roberto Alomar and look forward to seeing his plaque placed among baseball's other legends.

Mr. Speaker, induction into the Hall of Fame is more than the highest honor a player can receive--it is how fans and lovers of organized baseball are able to say `thank you' to their heroes. Thank you, Roberto, for so many wonderful memories. Thank you for pushing the sport to new heights. Thank you for giving millions of people so many reasons to smile and celebrate and feel joy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues now join me in saying thank you to Roberto Alomar, a player whose character and quality we may never see again.

Section 5: ``Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.''

Section 6: ``This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission.''

Mr. Speaker, we call it a dream, but it's a reality. It's young people who are here, who want to continue to be part of the American Dream. It's people, as Mr. Engel said, who know no other country. This is the country they know. This is the country they love. This is the country they're in. This is the country they want to help grow.

We talk so much about the future of our country. The future of our country is in our youth, our youth who want this dream to become a reality.

Vote for the DREAM Act. It is the proper American behavior at this time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow, and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2010, for morning-hour debate.

I thank the gentleman for the time.

I congratulate the leadership of the House and the members of the New York delegation for bringing the 9/11 bill to the floor. I especially want to thank Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Nadler and Mr. King, who in a bipartisan fashion have put together this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue. This bill simply says that we recognize the health needs of the people who volunteered on that day, who volunteered to go for a long period of time and who were told by the Federal Government that the air and the conditions in that area were safe. These folks are now suffering from very difficult and complex illnesses that very few doctors and hospitals understand. Only certain specialized care facilities can manage their health problems.

As I said before, the bill has a bipartisan approach, and that's something we don't always see around here, but we see it on this bill because of the importance and of the need to do something and to do it now.

It has been a long time since 9/11. Yet we have spent a lot of money, as we perhaps should have, on the war on terrorism--that is correct-- but there is another war. It is a war to bring good health care to those who volunteered and to those who were contracted to do this work.

So, today, I join the New York delegation, and I join all Members of Congress in a bipartisan fashion to say that this bill was long overdue and that we should approve this bill today without any stumbling blocks. We should just simply come together as Members of Congress, come together as two parties, come together as Americans to say thank you and to say the least we can do is to provide this health care for you in a very thankful way.

I thank the gentleman for the time, and I thank Mr. Smith for his kind words and his support of the bill and his suggestions to change the bill.

Any Member of Congress, any American for that matter, who has ever been to one of these ceremonies knows that there is no greater joy seen anywhere than when folks dress up and come with their American flags to become American citizens. It is really a wonderful event. I have had the opportunity to attend a few and have seen the joy and the pride. Usually, one person is becoming a citizen, but he or she will bring 25 members of the family, whether they are citizens or not, because it is that kind of an occasion.

It is also an occasion where they, for the first time, really get to see government up close in that the people that are invited there are from the community, but they are government officials and so on. So up to now--if this bill becomes law--the only people allowed to administer the oath, as has been said, are judges or members of the administration. This bill would allow Members of Congress and Senators to administer that oath.

Now, while the bill does not speak directly to this issue, I will tell you how this idea came about. A member of my community came to me and said, Guess what? I'm going to become a citizen, and I want you to swear me in. I want you to administer the oath.

And I was touched. I said, My God, that you would want me to help you become an American, something that I and so many of us have by birth, since birth, it's a great honor for me.

Then it dawned on me. I said, I should check with staff to see if I'm allowed to do this. And I found out that I'm not allowed to do it.

Now, it won't be that it would take care of that situation of one individual asking for it, but as has been said here, we will not--and this is the change Mr. Smith was so good at including. We will be invited to ceremonies, as we are now. The ceremonies will be set up by Homeland Security. We will not pick the date, the place, or who is going to get sworn in. But when we're invited now, the possibility is open for the administration officials to say, Why don't you join us in administering the oath, or, Why don't you administer the oath.

And I will tell you again that I don't know that there is a greater honor for someone to become a citizen and a greater honor for us on some occasions to be able to administer the oath. So the changes that are made, because there will be some questions about it, I think are strong changes. They comply with rules that say that none of these ceremonies should ever be politicized. But I really think that as people are being sworn in, to have present a Senator, a Member of Congress, and every so often to have them administer the oath only strengthens the bond between these new Americans and their government, a fuller understanding. After all, we are a question on the immigration test. A lot of people don't know that one of the questions on the

immigration test is: Who is your Congressman? Do you know who your Congressman is? Some don't pass that question; others do pass.

It is a great honor. There is not much more to say. It is a simple thought that should have been taken care of a long time ago, and I'm looking forward to the day when I'm invited to a ceremony and I can administer the oath to someone.

So I thank all the Members, and I hope that this bill can pass and become law.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman brings up an interesting point that we have discussed at other times on this floor.

I must say that I neglected to mention that the bill also includes Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to be able to administer the oath of office. So, interestingly enough, in the territories, new Americans will become citizens on that day with the participation of the Resident Commissioner or the Delegates.

So, again, thank you. And all this is an extension of the celebration of, as you have said, Mr. Smith, probably the greatest honor this country gives anyone, which is to become an American citizen. Thank you so much.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of the most special places for culture and cuisine not only in the Bronx, but all of New York, the Ferragosto Festival on Belmont Avenue. This is a celebration that grows in size and fame with each successive year. People now travel from across the nation to sample the delicious tastes and wonderful atmosphere on display in the Bronx's own Little Italy.

Ferragosto is powered by small businesses, many family-owned, and has built a reputation for generosity to its patrons and authenticity to its cultural source. The Festival is made possible with the support of many people and institutions, perhaps none more so however than the Belmont Business Improvement District, which deserves special recognition for its efforts.

One of the landmark attractions of the Festival, and indeed a cultural touchstone for the entire city, is the Arthur Avenue Retail Market, known popularly as simply ``The Market.'' Owned by the City of New York and located in the Belmont Community of the Bronx, The Market has a history and symbolism that is distinctly New York. Back in the 1940s, through the efforts of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, pushcart venders, who were largely immigrants, were taken off the streets and relocated into buildings and shelters throughout the five boroughs. The Arthur Avenue Retail Market in the Bronx was one such creation, with purveyors of Italian food, craft and specialty items. It retains today the cooperative vendor model and ``old world feel'' from so many years ago, endearing it to all who visit.

Importantly, The Market is currently undergoing important renovations that will ensure its stairways, halls and storage spaces will stand up to merchant demands in the new century. The goal of the project is to comprehensively renovate and modernize The Market, while maintaining the atmosphere which has made it so well-known and well-loved.

Madam Speaker, one of our most distinguishing qualities as a nation is the passion with which we celebrate our cultural diversity. At the most basic level, festivals like Ferragosto and institutions like the Arthur Avenue Retail Market are expressions of pride and honor. They are part of an exchange of

history and ideas and values that link past and future generations together. I will always be a participant and supporter of such festivals and such markets, as I view them as a reminder that no matter where we come from as New Yorkers, we are all here now, together. I ask that my colleagues join me paying tribute to Ferragosto 2010, in Belmont's Little Italy of the Bronx.