Floor Statements

Some in Congress want to use the jobs crisis as an excuse to roll back clean air protections that have prevented 200,000 premature deaths.

Today we are debating the TRAIN Act. This is the Republicans' so- called jobs bill, conducting studies that will do nothing but add paper to landfills instead of creating jobs by upgrading toxic power plants so that they are no longer a threat to public health.

The studies have been done. Americans are still breathing mercury, arsenic, and chromium, and we have a means to clean it up. It's called the Clean Air Act, and it was passed in 1963.

No matter what anyone says, increased pollution is not a sustainable path to job creation. Instead, we should be saving lives, saving our environment, and investing in the clean tech jobs of the future.

The TRAIN Act is a train wreck for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, on September 12, 2011, I missed rollcall vote 699.

Had I been present for vote 699, on H.R. 2076, to clarify that the Department of Justice can provide investigatory assistance at the request of State and local authorities with respect to certain violent crimes, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, we are in a time of national economic crisis. There are 14 million Americans without a job. There are another 12 million who wish they could work but have given up looking altogether.

That's why last week President Obama presented Congress with an urgent proposal to create jobs and fix the economy. Republican economist Mark Zandi declared the President's plan would keep the U.S. from sliding back into the recession, add two points to the GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs. This plan is based on bipartisan proposals, and it won't add a dime to the deficit.

After 9 months of taking over the House, Republicans have not presented a single jobs bill. It's well past time for them to put politics aside and come together with Democrats to put the country back to work. With so many people suffering, we must act and we must act now.

Mr. Speaker, American families are profoundly worried. Many have lost their jobs. They've seen college tuition rise, and watched their nest egg shrink. Unemployment is stuck at 9.1 percent. You can feel the pain.

That is why a jobs bill is so critical. And yet, after 9 months of the Republicans taking over the House, they haven't passed a single jobs bill. Instead, they voted 10 times against job creation plans. They passed bills that gut millions of American jobs.

And Governor Perry even attacked one of the few programs still keeping Americans afloat, calling Social Security ``a Ponzi scheme,'' blaming seniors for defrauding younger generations.

Americans need more than empty promises. Tonight we will hear a proposal from the President. Let's work together to finally provide real solutions that will put people back to work and give them hope for the future.

What's not safe under the Boehner default plan?

Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not safe under the Boehner default plan. In just 7 months, it forces nearly $1.6 trillion in cuts from these programs. They will be unrecognizable.

Jobs are not safe under the Boehner default plan. It will force 2 million Americans to lose their jobs, putting greater strain on struggling families.

Our economy is not safe under the Boehner default plan. This short- term deal could lead to an automatic tax increase for every American with a mortgage, car loan, or credit card. It would leave a cloud of uncertainty. Businesses won't invest and our economy won't grow.

Nothing is safe under the Boehner default plan except tax breaks for Big Oil, companies that ship jobs overseas, and the rich.

We must reject this ideological approach and come together on a balanced solution that will ensure that every American will have a safe and secure future.

Mr. Speaker, for so many, education is the key to the American Dream. But for so many, a good education seems like it is beyond reach. That is why I am introducing the DIPLOMA Act, or Developing Innovative Partnerships and Learning Opportunities that Motivate Achievement.

This legislation will address obstacles to learning by giving out grants to schools, social service programs, and the local community to create comprehensive, community-based solutions that will ensure that our struggling students will succeed.

For awhile now, I have advocated for changing the tone of debate that surrounds school reform. Too often critics point fingers instead of offering solutions. That is why I am pushing for real change, dramatic change in our schools that harnesses the energy of parents, the community, and the school to turn around our failing schools that lift up all our students.

Now, there is no denying that this approach can be challenging and hard work, but research shows when communities, parents, and schools collaborate and work together, there is nothing we can't achieve. I know this because I have seen it firsthand in my district.

In East Los Angeles, Esteban E. Torres High School is a shining example of a community school. It's the first new school built in the neighborhood in 85 years, and its facilities and classrooms are simply magnificent. But to me, the most awe-inspiring part is the community- based approach at the heart of Esteban Torres. With the help of the Los Angeles Education Partnership and the Federal Full Service Community Schools Grant Program, Esteban Torres tapped into the resources of the surrounding community to overcome challenges facing their students regarding health care, limited English proficiency, and financial literacy.

Esteban Torres partnered with Bienvenidos for a full-service health service on campus that will help maintain the health and well-being of their students so they are ready and able to learn.

Pan American Bank partnered to help the high schoolers create a student-run financial center to teach the importance of a budget and proper money management, skills which will stick with these students for the rest of their lives.

Luis Rodriguez and Tia Chucha's Centro Cultural joined the effort to establish the first-ever bookstore in East Los Angeles, making it easier for students to expand their education outside their classroom.

And the effect of these programs is apparent on the smiles of the students' faces on their way to school, in the cafeteria and the classroom. This type of engagement and support is giving students in the community new opportunities and opening their world.

Across America, our students face problems like homelessness, lack of health care, and limited English proficiency. Research tells us that two-thirds of the achievement gap is due to factors outside of school, and even the best teachers have a hard time overcoming these obstacles.

A recent study from Chicago found that when we don't address students' social and economic disadvantages outside schools, the hard work done inside the school can be futile. That's why the DIPLOMA Act is so necessary. Local groups can coordinate, integrate, and facilitate services aimed at strengthening student achievement, such as dropout prevention, family engagement, tutoring, extending learning services, health care, and social support. The bill contains strong accountability measures, including independent evaluations to measure results and identify best practices.

These partnerships will make a difference in the lives of students in my district. When students are provided the right kind of support and opportunities to help them learn, nothing can stop them. The DIPLOMA Act ensures that America's next Nobel Prize laureate can come from any background or community because they had the support they needed to succeed.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise today in strong opposition to the 2012 Interior appropriations bill, the most anti-environment bill I've seen on the House floor since I was elected to Congress.

If this bill passes, our air will be more polluted, our water will be dirtier, and we will know that much of what we love will disappear. This bill rolls back the clock to a time when big companies could poison our streams and rivers with impunity, when power plants could freely contaminate the air we breathe, and when our national treasures were destroyed by corporations, all for a bigger profit.

First, the bill slashes funding to the EPA by $1.8 billion, stealing funding that keeps our drinking water and wastewater systems clean.

Then it guts the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This program has done more than any other to expand local parks, recreational green spaces, and public lands enjoyed by hundreds of millions of Americans. This bill cuts this program by 80 percent, to its lowest level in history, nearly eliminating efforts to ensure that our treasured places are protected for families to enjoy for generations to come.

Then it abolishes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Service, which is crucial to understanding how the changes in our national climate affect our farms, coastal communities, and businesses.

Finally, it proposes crippling cuts to the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, only making our Nation more dependent on importing oil and gas from foreign countries. But what's worst of all is that these cuts severely jeopardize the 12.5 million jobs that could be created as a result of American clean energy innovation and undermine growth in our Nation's clean tech industries.

Even though some are calling this a cost-cutting bill, it's really a bill to pad the pockets of big corporations and the worst polluters. Unbelievably, it gives away $55 million in subsidies to oil and gas companies and blocks the necessary increase in fees to inspect oil and gas stations from disasters like the BP gulf spill. That's not all.

The bill includes 39 different environmental policy bans that open up our natural resources to greedy polluters and keep our environmental agencies from doing their jobs to protect us from contamination. It allows more soot pollution in our air by blocking critical public health standards that ensure our air is very healthy for Americans to breathe.

It blocks the EPA from implementing greenhouse gas pollution

standards for new cars in 5 years, jeopardizing 7,000 new jobs and the estimated 2.4 million barrels of oil a day saved in just two decades. It prohibits my home State of California from moving ahead with its own clean air standard. It exempts oil companies from complying with Clean Air Act standards for offshore drilling--again, protecting the special interests of Big Oil.

It puts the drinking water of 117 million Americans at risk by blocking EPA from keeping our water clean--half of America's streams and some 20 million acres of wetlands. It allows the unregulated discharge of pesticides directly into our rivers and lakes.

This bill is a direct attack, a declaration of war, on our air, water, wildlife, and wildlands. It is clear that this bill isn't about cutting spending. It is about cutting years off our children's lives by increasing their exposure to contaminants in the air and water. The Republicans are putting polluters ahead of the health and safety of the American people, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would give additional responsibility to the Commissioner who is already in charge of oversight of the Bureau's activities pertaining to the protection of older consumers, minorities, youth, and veterans. It would require research on how language barriers can lead to unfair and abusive lending practices, and a report to the full Commission on ways to protect consumers from potentially unfair and deceptive practices.

Take the case of Ms. Huang, who went to a car dealership and negotiated a car sale with a salesperson in Chinese. But then when she went to sign the contract, it was totally in English, and she didn't understand it. When she got it translated later, she discovered that she bought a different car with an extremely high interest rate. She went back to the car dealership for redress, but they refused. She was so upset that all she could think of to do was go back to the dealership and wrap herself in a white sheet and hold a sign that said ``Cheaters'' and walk up and down in front of the dealership in protest. Well, that gained attention. It turned out that many other immigrants had been cheated in this manner as well, so I sponsored a bill in the California State Assembly to address these deceptive practices. But that is just one State and one small fix.

Now I know that the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Act does not include oversight of automobile loans, but Ms. Huang's story highlights how persons with language barriers can be victims of deceptive practices. We need someone on a national level looking out for people like Ms. Huang and staying on top of ways people are being duped because of language barriers. And that is just what my amendment will do.

I urge support of my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this does not create any overly burdensome responsibility. Instead, it supports the goal of the legislation. It protects those persons who might be the victims of such unfair and deceptive practices.

What this does is clarify that this specially designated Commissioner would take into account how language barriers might be impacted by such abusive practices, and it makes sure that that is done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

In less than 2 weeks, on August 2, we must raise the debt limit or the American Government will go into financial default. If we don't, it will be a disaster for the economy, and real American families will pay the price.

That's why for almost 95 years we have kept our promises and paid our bills. Congress has voted to avoid economic default nearly 100 times since 1917 because it was the right thing to do. The debt limit was raised 17 times under Ronald Reagan, four times under Bill Clinton and seven times under George W. Bush; but now Republicans are shying away from their duty, spreading misinformation about the serious threat we are facing, saying there will be no impact on the average American and that it will not hurt our economy.

But that's not true. Let me tell you why.

If we default on our bills, the interest on all our loans would skyrocket just as your interest rate would go up if you missed a credit card payment. This means disaster for all American families. The median 30-year home loan would increase by almost $20,000, or 10 percent. This would hurt an already struggling housing market, pushing home sale prices down and potentially leaving more borrowers underwater.

If we default on our bills, the stock market could plunge, and Americans in their fifties would lose almost $9,000 immediately from the typical 401(k). The S&P 500 could lose 6.3 percent in value in just 3 short months. These losses would affect millions of Americans, who would have fewer savings for their retirements, their supposed golden years.

If we default on our bills, prices for gas, electronics, clothes, and other imported goods could dramatically increase. A U.S. default would create economic chaos, forcing the value of our dollar to decrease, making many products we use every day more expensive at a time when our household dollars are already stretched thin.

We cannot let this happen, but Republican leaders in Washington are playing political games with our economic security. With 2 weeks left and the clock ticking, the time for playing childish political games should be over. Republicans should come back to the table and work with Democrats on a compromise that will avert economic catastrophe, and they should work on a compromise that doesn't hurt the most vulnerable amongst us.

Seniors earn an average of only $19,000 a year. Contrast that to millionaires, who, because of the Bush-era votes, are getting almost $140,000 in tax breaks from the government every year. There is no reason that our seniors and the neediest amongst us should struggle to pay their hospital and electric bills just so we can subsidize a millionaire's yacht.

Yet Republicans want to gut the programs that benefit seniors most-- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare--in exchange for their votes on the debt limit. They actually want to hold your senior years hostage just so they can make a political statement on the debt limit. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of seniors.

For those who believe that the potential for default is not real, let me quote a famous President who said 25 years ago: ``Congress consistently brings the government on the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veteran benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket; instability would incur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.'' That President was Ronald Reagan, making his plea to Congress.

Today, the American people are calling again on this body to do what's right.

I know that, if we can move past all the political posturing, we can reach a bipartisan agreement that protects Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, that reduces the debt, and that saves our economy from the disaster of default. We must do it now.

Mr. Speaker, last week the Nation heard disheartening news: Unemployment is up to 9.2 percent.

But the American people don't need reports to tell them what they already know, that job growth should be Congress' top priority.

But the Republicans still aren't getting the message. It's been 27 weeks since they took control, and they have done nothing to create jobs. In fact, they haven't put a single jobs bill to a vote. Instead, they are threatening the loss of countless more American jobs by bringing the debt ceiling talks to the brink of economic catastrophe. They are holding America's economy and the American people hostage to their agenda of tax cuts for the rich and loopholes that help mega- corporations.

We need House leaders looking out for the American people and creating jobs, not cutting them. We need strong House leaders who will protect the American people, not corporate interests.

Thank you, Congressman Tonko. Thank you for putting this hour together for us to talk about what is at stake with regard to Medicare.

The economic recession is hurting our seniors. The programs they rely on to get by, like Nursicare and Meals on Wheels, are being slashed at the local, State and Federal level. Though prices have risen, they haven't seen a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks. Yet the Republicans have been in control of the House for over 6 months and have done nothing to help our struggling seniors. Instead, they have been waging a war on programs that keep them afloat.

First, they pushed through a budget for next year that ends Medicare. It would deny seniors and those of us who are getting older what was a 50-year health care guarantee, one that we have been paying throughout our lives.

Today, under Medicare you are guaranteed coverage the day you turn 65 and for the rest of your life. You can get free preventive care. You can get a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescriptions if you are in the doughnut hole. But now the Republicans are trying to take all that away. The GOP wants to replace Medicare with a voucher system where seniors, once they turn 67, go out into the private market to buy their own health insurance. That puts seniors at the mercy of insurance companies instead of in control of their own care.

We've seen that private insurers will line their pockets rather than provide quality and secure health care. Insurance companies could limit benefits, raise copays, and change which doctors are in their network, none of which occur under Medicare today.

The proposal, rather than tackling skyrocketing health care costs, simply shifts these costs onto the backs of seniors in Medicare. And because the amount of the Medicare voucher won't be tied to rising health care costs, seniors will be forced to shoulder the burden as health care costs increase. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in just 10 short years, out-of-pocket health care expenses for a typical 65-year-old will double under the Republican budget. And in 2030, a new retiree will be paying over $20,000 out of pocket for medical expenses. Rather than fixing our fiscal problems, it just makes seniors pay the bill.

Proponents voted to end Medicare for our seniors because they say we can't afford it. But they're openly pushing for even more budget- busting millionaire tax giveaways. In the same budget that ends Medicare as we know it and makes seniors pay double the health care costs, Big Oil gets tax subsidies, millionaires get tax breaks, and corporations have to pay less taxes. And now we're hearing that Republicans want to make massive cuts in Medicare as payment for their votes on the debt ceiling. Some have proposed requiring Medicare beneficiaries to pay even more for their Medicare benefits, either through higher copays or through higher premiums.

The solution is fixing the real problem of increasing health care costs for all Americans, not shifting cost burdens on our seniors. That's not going to work for the 40 million seniors enrolled in the program who have Medicare for their health and economic security.

But that's not all. Next week, Republicans are going to push through a constitutional amendment to the floor that will force the deepest cuts in Medicare yet. This so-called ``balanced budget amendment'' is just pulling the rug from under the seniors in the name of cutting spending. This amendment is designed to make it easier to reduce the deficit by slashing Medicare benefits rather than by closing tax loopholes for private jets. The way the bill is written, we'd have to privatize Medicare completely and raise its eligibility age to 67.

By forcing Congress to keep spending at unheard of levels, we would inevitably shift the real economic burdens onto the backs of our Nation's most vulnerable, the elderly. It would make it virtually impossible to repeal special tax breaks for the wealthy or Big Oil and gas producers. But it would allow Congress to destroy Medicare with a simple voice vote.

Well, I think that our Federal debt and budget is more than just about dollars and cents. The way we spend our money is a statement of our values and priorities. Republicans want us to believe that cutting benefits to seniors is the only way we can solve our debt crisis, but I say there are other ways. The debt must be addressed, but it should be done in a way that's fair to all. Today the average senior lives on $19,000 a year, just $19,000. We should not balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's seniors. We must protect and strengthen Medicare, not gut it. These talks are about priorities. And my priority is keeping seniors in their own homes, communities, and off the streets.

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

I am opposed to the underlying bill because it does not do enough to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.

Earlier this month, the President made an important announcement. He plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan in the next 6 months and another 20,000 by next summer. This is a step in the right direction, and I commend the President for following through with the drawdown plan.

But the American people are crying for a significant and sizable drawdown, and we are still too far from that. Even after these troops come home, which won't be for another year and a half, we will still be exactly where we were in 2009. Seventy thousand American soldiers will still be serving in Afghanistan, and I can't help but wonder why.

The ongoing financial and human costs of this war are now indefensible. We spend $2 billion a week on the war effort in Afghanistan. And what's worse is that our own money is working against us.

Last year, I was outraged to learn that taxpayers are spending $2.16 billion on private contractors in Afghanistan. These contractors use part of the money to pay off local warlords, which then ends up in the Taliban's hand. So, in effect, we are funding both sides of the same war.

This corruption and waste of hard-earned American dollars is the direct result of unreliable counsel and a lack of perspective, and it's costing us a whopping $100 billion a year. That's five times more than we spend on Pell grants every year, financial aid to put American kids through college. That's double what we spend on Medicaid that keeps all Americans healthy regardless of income. And $100 billion would completely pay for the Homeland Security Department, Commerce Department, Department of Science and the entire judicial branch combined. When money is tight and Congress is trying to slash Medicare and Social Security to keep this Nation afloat, it is irresponsible to keep writing blank checks for this war.

But, sadly, that's not the largest toll of this war. Since 9/11, we've lost over 1,600 American lives. Over 11,000 troops have been wounded, and an untold number of Afghan civilians have lost their lives after a decade of war.

And it is not getting any better. In fact, last year was the most deadly year on record for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan but scattered around the world. It did not take 100,000 troops to find Osama bin Laden, and it does not take a military occupation of Afghanistan to protect us from terrorist threats. By failing to significantly draw down the number of troops in Afghanistan, we continue to focus efforts away from the terrorists and needlessly put American soldiers in the line of fire.

But this story is about more than just numbers and figures; it is about real people who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. On Sunday, April 3, of this year, a 21-year-old young marine named Harry Lew died while serving the country in Afghanistan. He was the son of Sandy and Allen Lew, the brother of Carmen Lew, and he was my nephew.

Harry died while serving on watch duty in Helmand Province. His unit's goal was to provide security to locals and to promote development in the region. But 3 short months before he was set to return home, he was gone.

Ending this war will save American lives. Ending it will let us focus on fighting terrorism around the globe. Ending the war will save money at a time when we need it the most. It is time to end the war in Afghanistan, bring our troops home, and begin seriously addressing our real security needs.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise today to announce the introduction of legislation that will finally provide protection to immigrant workers from exploitation, the Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation Act, the POWER Act.

Too often, unscrupulous employers threaten or retaliate against workers who complain about illegal working conditions. Today, employers can use a worker's immigration status and threaten them so that they will fear reporting them to the authorities. The abuse of these vulnerable workers undermines working conditions and wages for all U.S. workers.

The POWER Act protects these workers. Under current law, the U visa provides temporary status for immigrants who are victims of crimes, including domestic violence and rape. The POWER Act ensures that this visa protection is also provided to these workers who risk everything by reporting to authorities the employers who break the law by committing serious labor violations.

Today, such workers are silent out of fear, but silence can mean the difference between life and death. Take the case of Mr. Asuncion Valdivia, a farmworker who came from Mexico seeking a better life. One day, during the hot summer months, he picked grapes for 10 hours straight in 105 degree temperatures. Then he fell over, unconscious and ill. Instead of calling an ambulance, Giumarra Vineyards told his son to drive Mr. Valdivia home. On his way home, the father started foaming at the mouth and died of a heat stroke. A son had to witness his father die, a preventible death, at the age of 53.

After hearing about this tragedy, I had to act. For 15 years, the farmworker advocates had petitioned Cal OSHA for minimal health protections for the workers who perished and died working in heat, but they were always ignored. So I carried a bill in the California legislature that required that farmworkers and all outdoor workers have basic protections from the heat: water, shade, and rest periods. It passed and became the first law of its kind in the Nation.

A decade after that law, I am in Congress. And while some farms obey the heat protections, others are flagrantly violating it. The POWER Act will stop these violations. It would have let someone like Asuncion go to the authorities without fear of retaliation. It would have let him continue to work while he cooperated with Cal OSHA to take Giumarra to court and would have ensured that Giumarra treated all their workers fairly from then on. And I hope that because of the POWER Act, a son will never have to watch a father die in this way again.

The POWER Act will bring abused workers out of the shadows. It will give employees the courage to stand up to the world's biggest and strongest companies. The POWER Act will fundamentally change the very structure of workers' rights in this country. It supports every honest, hardworking employees across the country, protecting them. It's time that exploited workers were able to come out of the shadows, leave cruel conditions, and find jobs where they are treated with the dignity and respect that every employee in America deserves. It's time for the POWER Act.

I rise today in strong opposition to the Secure Communities program. I am for the stated goals of the Secured Communities program. Anyone who is undocumented in this country and who has been convicted of a serious violent offense should be removed from this country, period. But I can't support the program because of the significant evidence that Secure Communities is failing to achieve its goal.

When you look at the numbers, nearly half of the undocumented individuals from my home county of Los Angeles who have been taken into custody through this program have not committed or been convicted of a serious violent offense, and that is a problem.

Take the story of Isaura Garcia, a 20-year-old who suffered three turbulent years of abuse and beatings at the hands of her boyfriend. In February, she finally found the courage to call 911 for help. Earlier that day, her boy friend, Ricardo, had thrown Isaura and their 1-year- old daughter out of their apartment. When she came back to the house to get her things, Ricardo showed up and it began again. He started throwing things at her, and when she tried to protect herself and her child she accidentally scratched his neck.

After the 911 call, the police showed up and put her boyfriend in cuffs, but after they saw the scratches, they took them off of him and put them on Isaura. Shocked at what was happening, she fainted. At the hospital, doctors found bruises covering her body from the weeks and years of abuse. Despite being identified by a doctor as a victim of domestic violence, she had been arrested as the abuser.

After the arrest, Isaura landed in the L.A. County jail, which was participating in the Secure Communities program. Because of this program, she was fingerprinted and found to be here in an undocumented way. It was too late. Before she knew it, she was sent to an immigration detention center in Santa Ana.

It is stories like Isaura's that are causing the DHS inspector general to investigate the Secure Communities program. Washington State, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C., refused to join Secure Communities. New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts are suspending their participation in this program, and California is discussing this as well.

But that is only a first step. The concerns about Secure Communities must be properly and permanently addressed. This is first and foremost about public safety. The people on the front lines of this program, our police officers, have expressed serious concerns about its implementation. LAPD Chief Beck has noted that the program is causing a breach of trust between the LAPD and our immigrant communities, hindering our officers' duties to protect and serve all of our residents. And the numerous reports of domestic violence victims being detained through this program are simply unacceptable. If a program is causing a victim of violence to fear reaching out for help, then that program is causing more harm than good.

Secure Communities has undermined our police departments' mission of protecting the public, it has weakened protections against racial profiling, and it will have a chilling effect on immigrants' willingness to report crimes or provide useful information to the police.

We must take a long, hard look at the negative effects of Secure Communities. We must allow States to opt out of the program. We must protect the safety and welfare of all our residents and truly ensure that we will have safer, more secure communities.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 420, the DeLauro amendment to increase funding for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by $1 million, had I been present I would have voted ``aye.'' This amendment would have improved food safety and protect the American people from E. coli bacterial outbreaks.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Long was allowed to speak out of order.)

honoring missouri tornado victims