Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida.

Each year, millions of children fall victim to sexual predators. These young victims are left with permanent psychological, physical, and emotional scars.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE, targets and investigates child pornographers, child-sex tourists and facilitators, human smugglers and traffickers of minors, criminal aliens convicted of offenses against minors, and those deported for child exploitation offenses who have returned illegally.

The Child Exploitation Center is at the forefront of these investigations. Unfortunately, funding for ICE's Child Exploitation Center has decreased over the past 2 years from $16.7 million in 2011 to a proposed $14.7 million in 2013. This amendment bolsters funds for this center by a modest amount, bringing total funding to $20 million, restoring the budget cuts and providing a small additional amount to make additional headway on ending these heinous crimes.

I appreciate the gentlelady bringing this issue to our attention, and I support the adoption of this amendment. These dollars will be well spent safeguarding our children worldwide.

I appreciate the chairman accepting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question and the consideration of the Paycheck Fairness Act to correct a terrible injustice where women are systematically paid less than men for doing the same work.

On average, women receive 77 cents for every dollar paid to male workers. This disparity means a loss of nearly $11,000 a year, or the equivalent of 4 months of groceries, 5 months of child care, and over 6 months of rent and utilities.

The wage gap is even more pronounced for black and Latina women, who receive just 62 cents and 54 cents, respectively, for every dollar paid to white men. It is unbelievable that in the 21st century, wage discrimination against women remains so rampant in a Nation that values family and fairness so highly.

In good conscience, how can this House do nothing while our wives, daughters, mothers, and grandmothers are discriminated against in the workplace? Don't they deserve equal pay for equal work and the opportunity for a better life?

I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right thing and help pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to fulfill our Nation's promise of fairness, equality, and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall Vote No. 208 on the evening of May 7, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall Vote No. 208--Quayle (AZ) Amendment: ``no.''

I rise in strong opposition to this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). While I agree with my colleagues that we must reauthorize VAWA, I cannot support this version of the bill given the numerous ways it fails to protect women and families.

Despite the significant progress we have made as a nation addressing violence against women, nearly one-third of women in the U.S. still report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend in their lifetime. Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking lead to severe social, health, and economic consequences for our communities, with the estimated cost of violence exceeding 70 billion dollars each year.

Historically, each time VAWA has come up for reauthorization, Congress has added beneficial provisions to the bill and passed it with strong bipartisan support. In 2005, we included language referencing culturally and linguistically specific services to help eliminate barriers for many racial and ethnic minorities. My colleagues and I also successfully included a new health title in the last VAWA reauthorization that strengthened our health care system's capacity to prevent violence and develop effective interventions to abuse.

The version of VAWA before us today threatens to roll back those gains and limit protections for victims, ultimately endangering their safety in life-threatening ways. H.R. 4970 omits provisions in the Senate-passed bill that ensure equal treatment and access to services for LGBT survivors. It denies justice for tribal women abused by non- Indians, negating the reality that Native American women suffer domestic violence at epidemic proportions, but remain largely unprotected under current law. It also jeopardizes the personal security of victims who rely on public housing by forcing some to choose between swiftly moving away from an abuser and losing their housing subsidy.

Equally egregious, H.R. 4970 eradicates protections that have benefited immigrant women for nearly 20 years. The legislation creates barriers for immigrant crime victims seeking U-visas and silences those who fear deportation. H.R. 4970 overturns the current ability of immigrant victims of domestic violence to confidentially self-petition for permanent residency, thereby returning power to abusive U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident spouses who wield their status as a tool of dominance and control. Since VAWA's inception in 1994, nearly 75,000 self-petitions have been approved for immigrant victims who would have otherwise remained dependent on an abusive spouse to adjust their status. We cannot reverse course on this important self-petition provision and turn our backs on immigrant women and families.

I am also disappointed that, yet again, provisions to alleviate the economic factors that keep victims in abusive relationships have not been included. For the last 16 years, I have introduced legislation, the Security and Financial Empowerment Act (SAFE Act), to address this issue. The SAFE Act extends eligibility for unemployment benefits to victims forced to leave their jobs due to circumstances stemming from domestic violence, allows victims to take unpaid leave to make court appearances and seek necessary assistance, and it prohibits employers or insurance providers from basing hiring or coverage on an individual's history of abuse. These provisions ensure that domestic violence survivors have the financial security they need to escape an abusive situation. Failing to address these economic concerns is just another way this legislation fails to adequately protect survivors of domestic violence.

It's unfortunate that Republicans are playing politics with women's lives and pushing a bill that deviates so sharply from the kind of VAWA reauthorization that victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking truly need. Hundreds of organizations across the country have opposed HR. 4970 on the grounds that it harms our families and communities. Unconscionably, the GOP appears more concerned about advancing a political agenda than listening to the American people. This is grossly insensitive to the lived experiences of those who tragically find themselves in abusive situations and count on our support.

Victim safety is at the core of VAWA and always has been. I cannot in good conscience vote to pass this version of VAWA, as it erases 18 years of bipartisan efforts to respond to the needs of victims of domestic violence. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting this bill down so that we may consider an alternative VAWA reauthorization proposal that improves protections for all survivors, including immigrant women and other vulnerable populations.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 206 on the evening of May 7, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall vote No. 206--Scalise (LA) Amendment: ``no.''

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the Denham amendment. The building his amendment targets does not exist. That's right; the building he wants to prohibit federal agencies from occupying next year in fiscal year 2013 doesn't exist.

The Central District of California courthouse which is scheduled for construction in the near future is sorely needed to meet serious safety and security deficiencies at the current courthouse built in 1940. I am submitting for the record a memo from the U.S. Marshals Service which details these concerns. It tells of criminal defendants being escorted through hallways and in elevators with judges, jurors and the general public. It talks about the physical limitations of the aging building to meet the security challenges of the post 911 world. These issues, along with a shortage of space and concerns for the seismic stability of the building, have prompted the Judicial Conference to list the project as its number one priority since 2003.

The courthouse has been reviewed by OMB and GSA and approved in both Republican and Democratic administrations. For example, President George W. Bush requested funding for the courthouse in two of his annual budget requests to Congress and the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee authorized it with bipartisan support. Furthermore it is important to note that this not new money. The House Appropriations Committee provided funding for this Central District Courthouse several years ago. This project has enjoyed bipartisan support from the Los Angeles County congressional delegation.

For the Record, I am also submitting a letter signed by both of our U.S. Senators and 17 members of the California House delegation urging the General Services Administration to move forward on the project.

Construction of the Central District courthouse will address long standing safety and security issues in the current facility in addition to bringing much needed jobs to the Los Angeles area.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this pointless amendment.

U.S. Department of Justice,

United States Marshals Service,

Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2, 2011.

Memorandum To: Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge.

From: David M. Singer, United States Marshal.

Subject: Security Issues at 312 N. Spring Street.

You have asked me to describe the physical security

deficiencies of the 312 North Spring Street Courthouse. We

can provide you with photographs depicting many of these

deficiencies, if needed.

The United States Courthouse located at 312 North Spring

Street, Los Angeles CA, was built from 1937 to 1940. The age

of this building and design has presented various logistical

problems for The United States Marshals Service (USMS) in

regards to Prisoner Operations, Court Operations, and General

Courthouse Security.

Law Enforcement Gun Storage Lockers

In the Central District of California certain law

enforcement agencies are not authorized to remain armed after

passing the USMS security screening sites. Because of this

rule, there is a need for an area to secure the officers' and

agents' firearms. The only USMS space available out of public

view for the firearms locker, within close proximity to the

screening site, is also the entrance for attorneys to speak

with in-custody defendants. The officers and agents must

remove their firearms in plain view of visiting attorneys and

prisoners, showing where firearms are carried on their

person.

Judge's Underground Parking at the Main Street Entrance

Prisoners transported for court appearances at the

courthouse must be offloaded in the Judges' Main Street

parking garage, in plain view of judicial vehicles, license

plates, make-model-color of judicial vehicles, and at times

while Judges are walking to or from their vehicle.

To reach the USMS cellblock, the prisoner must walk up the

same ramp and pass the same doors as the Judiciary. It is not

uncommon to encounter Judges or court staff while prisoners

are approaching the cellblock area.

There is always the potential for prisoners to attempt

escape or be assisted by an outside threat because the Main

Street garage gate entrance opens directly onto the public

sidewalk and a heavily trafficked entry route to the

freeways.

Movement of Prisoners

The hallway that serves the USMS cellblock, as well as the

only prisoner elevator, is also the only way for Judges to

get to their vehicles.

The area to wait for the prisoner elevator is a highly

traveled common area for various agencies and contractors in

the building. The court's procurement office is located off

this hallway, and court staff, delivery personnel, and

contractors constitute daily traffic.

The prisoner elevator does not connect directly to any of

the courtrooms in the courthouse; instead, USMS staff must

escort the prisoner through the public hallway, passing

potential victims, prisoner family members, witnesses,

jurors, and other prisoners in protective custody.

While walking to courtrooms located at the other end of the

building, USMS staff must pass various entrance doors to

judicial chambers.

Only two courtrooms have usable adjacent prisoner holding

cells. As a result, in-custody defendants sitting in the

courtroom galley across from potential victims and prisoner

family.

The courtroom doors leading to judicial chambers cannot be

secured due to the age of the doors' hardware and design,

which cannot be altered due to the building's historic

status.

All prisoner movement is done through public hallways,

creating unnecessary hazards for USMS personnel, court

employees and the public.

The routes from courtrooms back to the USMS cellblock

require the use of the public corridors providing the

potential for inappropriate verbal contact with witnesses,

jurors, family members, etc.

The prisoner elevator is out of service at least once a

week due to the age of the elevator. Prisoners must be

escorted using the public elevators, walking through the main

lobby.

There is no secure circulation for judges. The elevator

utilized by judges opens to the same public lobbies used to

transport prisoners.

Of the 29 courtrooms in the building, only 12 are

accessible using a tunnel system which originates in the USMS

cellblock.

The tunnel access uses a combination of steep stairs and

narrow, winding hallways with restricted head room in various

areas. The hallways have numerous blind spots from camera

coverage, and an elevator that is usually not operational.

For this reason the tunnel system is not regularly used.

If the tunnel access is used, prisoners must still be

escorted through the rear secured judicial hallway that

connects courtrooms and judicial chambers.

Physical Security Issues

The screening stations located at the Main Street entrance,

the Spring Street entrance, and the Spring Street loading

dock were never designed to accommodate current upgraded

security and the large crowds who visit the courthouse on a

daily basis. Despite the additional concerns and potential

threats posed by high threat criminal court cases and

increased violence in society, we are not able to redesign

these security sites due to the historic nature of the

building, and the limited space available.

The ground floor windows around the courthouse are

continuously a target for vandalism due to the increasing

population of homeless people, as well as anti-government

protests occurring daily at surrounding local and state

government buildings. The windows' general make-up is

inconsistent around the building, with some windows being

bullet resistant, some with a protective mylar film, and some

with just solar tinting film. The historic status of the

building makes it difficult, if not impossible, to install

bullet resistant glass in all first floor windows. Three

ground floor windows have been broken by vandals in the past

year alone.

The courthouse lacks available handicap access on the Main

Street entrance, the most heavily used access. The courthouse

thus must have two entrances, Main Street and Spring Street,

which requires staffing by six court security officers (CSOs)

rather than just one entry where we can put less CSOs,

concentrating staffing more effectively at a single

controlled entry point.

High Threat Trials

The Spring Street Courthouse is an unsafe physical facility

for the transport of even one prisoner. Here are examples of

some of the high threat, multi-defendant trials held in

downtown Los Angeles. They provide a vivid picture of the

type of defendant, defendant families, witnesses, and victims

involved in federal criminal proceedings held

in the Spring Street and Roybal court facilities.

1. U.S. v. Orozco et al. The indictment names 53 defendants

who are all members or associates of the 38th Street gang,

and charges them with RICO, VICAR, drug trafficking/

possession, firearms trafficking/possession, and conspiracy

to tamper with witnesses.

2. U.S. v. Santiago Rios, et al. The indictment charges 51

defendants who are all members and associates of the Azusa 13

criminal street gang or validated members and associates of

the Mexican Mafia. The charges are RICO conspiracy, civil

rights violations, weapons and narcotics offenses.

3. U.S. v. Darbinyan. The case involved 70 defendants who

were members or associates of the Armenian Power Criminal

Enterprise. Approximately 15 of the defendants would be

categorized as very dangerous based on their criminal

histories and/or criminal conduct during the investigation.

4. U.S. V. Ron Hirsch. This is the synagogue bomber case.

The defendant is charged with attempting to blow up a

synagogue with a large pipe bomb. This case received

considerable national media coverage.

5. U.S. V. Oscar Juarez, et al. The indictment charges 5

defendants, two of whom are Clanton 14 gang members, with

Hobbs Act Robbery, 924(c), and Conspiracy to Distribute

Cocaine charges.

6. U.S. V. Edwin Mauricio Palacios. A 1326 case involving

an MS 13 gang member whose criminal convictions included a

1995 conviction for second degree robbery, 2008 conviction

for terrorist threats, and two arrests for participating in a

prison riot.

7. U.S. v. Raul Mercado Mercado. This is a 1326 case

involving a Sangra gang member with a prior 1996 conviction

for voluntary manslaughter and robbery.

8. Operation Silent Night. There were approximately 30

defendants arrested. Extra manpower was needed at all times

for movement due to the high security risks. The defendants

are charged with numerous homicides, including the murder of

a Burbank Police Officer. They are also charged with

narcotics trafficking, extortion, and racketeering. This is a

capital offense case.

9. Twenty defendants in another case are all gang members

of the East Side Wilmas, and were charged with murder, as

well as conspiracy. They are also charged with distribution

of illegal narcotics.

Terrorism Case

10. U.S. v. Mihalik. The indictment returned August 30,

2011 charges one defendant with making a false statement in a

terrorism matter.

Multi-Defendant Courtroom in Roybal

The availability of this courtroom assists the USMS and

judges in the Spring Street courthouse who need to be

conducting high threat, multi-defendant trials as it was

built out specifically for such proceedings. Use of the

courtroom requires the USMS to provide security

transportation from Spring Street, where the judge has

parking, to Roybal, two blocks away from chambers.

On a regular basis, however, there are far too many

criminal proceedings for the 21 district judges to hold their

criminal calendars all in this one courtroom. In 2011, for

example, 1,685 defendants had proceedings in downtown Los

Angeles, or 48 criminal cases per judge. Virtually all judges

hold criminal calendar on Mondays making use of the Roybal

multi-defendant courtroom unavailable to more than one judge

at a time. Roybal judges also use the courtroom.

Mr. Speaker, I was out of town due to a death in my family and was not present for rollcall votes numbered 13-20 on Wednesday, February 1, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted in this manner:

Rollcall Vote #13--Jackson Lee (TX) Amendment (#2): ``yes;''

Rollcall Vote #14--Jackson Lee (TX) Amendment (#1): ``yes;''

Rollcall Vote #15--Deutch (FL) Amendment (#4): ``yes;''

Rollcall Vote #16--Deutch (FL) Amendment (#5): ``yes;''

Rollcall Vote #17--Democratic Motion to Recommit: ``yes;''

Rollcall Vote #18--Final Passage of H.R. 1173: ``no;''

Rollcall Vote #19--H.R. 3835: ``no;'' and

Rollcall Vote #20--H.R. 3567: ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I was out of town due to a death in my family and was not present for rollcall votes numbered 21-30 on Thursday, February 2, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted in this manner: rollcall vote No. 21--Previous Question on H. Res. 534: ``no,'' rollcall vote No. 22--On Agreeing to H. Res. 534: ``no,'' rollcall vote No. 23--Motion to Instruct Conferees--Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 24--Peters (MI) Amendment: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 25--Connolly (VA) Amendment: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 26--Fudge (OH) Amendment: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 27--Jackson Lee (TX) Amendment: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 28--Cicilline (RI) Amendment: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 29--Motion to Recommit H.R. 3582: ``yes,'' rollcall vote No. 30--Final Passage of H.R. 3582: ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Achievement Through Technology and Innovation Act of 2011 (ATTAIN).

Given the challenges facing job seekers in our current economy, technology skills are now more critical than ever. As a nation, we need to prioritize technology literacy, and it should begin with our educational system.

Whether students are preparing for college or planning to go straight into the workforce, we must provide them with the high tech skills employers and the economy demand. Obtaining these critical skills is of particular concern to low income and minority students who are falling further behind their higher income peers in terms of 21st century college and workplace skills.

Not only has technology literacy become a critical life skill, but studies show technology also has a tremendous impact on student learning. In this era of ever shrinking school budgets, overcrowded schools and overextended teachers, technology provides an opportunity to improve academic outcomes for our students.

I had the opportunity to see this first hand at the LA School for Global Studies in my district. This school seamlessly integrates technology in the classroom and I was amazed to see students that were previously low performers academically and at risk of dropping out of school, engaged and eager to learn. My visit underscored the promise that initiatives like the ATTAIN Act hold for closing the student achievement gap.

The ATTAIN Act amends the current ``Enhancing Education Through Technology'' program in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to better target federal education technology resources to raise student achievement, ensure high quality teaching and improve our education system while ensuring our students are college and career ready and prepared to compete in the digital economy.

The bill authorizes up to $1 billion in annual funding to train teachers, purchase education technology hardware and software, and to support student technological literacy.

Under the bill's provisions, if Congress appropriates more than $300 million annually for ATTAIN, 60% would be used to purchase new technology and train teachers on how to effectively use these new tools.

The remaining 40 percent of ATTAIN funds would be distributed through competitive grants that encourage schools to undertake comprehensive, technology based reform initiatives that have been proven to increase student achievement.

However, should Congress appropriate $300 million or less for this program annually, the Secretary of Education would allocate the entirety of the funding to conduct a competition and award grants to those states with the most promising initiatives to improve K-12 education through the use of technology. This provision is intended to ensure that there is adequate funding to impact student outcomes during lean fiscal years.

It is my hope that through this competition states and districts across the country will be compelled to evaluate their technology use and work to integrate it effectively throughout all classrooms, and especially those that are currently underserved by education technology.

Mr. Speaker, we know that when teachers are properly trained and schools are properly equipped with technology, students are engaged, eager to learn, and ultimately better prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I believe that the ATTAIN Act is integral to our continued efforts to deliver all students the world class education they expect, need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize an event of critical importance to all current and future childbearing families in this country.

For 3 days in October, a national summit of maternity care stakeholders met in Warrenton, Virginia, to discuss the status of home birth within the greater context of maternity care in the United States. That meeting marked the first time a multidisciplinary group of maternity care providers, consumers, and industry leaders came together to determine what the U.S. maternity care system could do to make home birth the safest and most positive experience possible for moms and babies.

Given the significant controversy over the appropriateness of home birth within the groups represented at the summit, the fact that this conversation took place at all is historic. The goal of the meeting was not to debate the rightness or wrongness of home birth, but rather to discuss the support, care, consultation, collaboration, and referrals necessary to protect moms and babies in all birth settings.

According to CDC's most recent figures, in 2008, approximately 28,500 home births took place in the United States. While this number represents less than 1 percent of all births in our country, the last available statistics tell us that between 2004 and 2008, the number of women giving birth at home increased by 22 percent.

Without compromising quality of care, women want and expect to have choices for childbirth, including birth setting. Women and families are ill-served when maternity care professionals allow conflict between disciplines to supersede collaboration. The safety of birth in all settings must be the utmost priority.

The delegates who met in Virginia were charged with finding common ground to move the issue of safe home birth beyond professional differences and toward consensus building. The result of their effort was a consensus document released on November 1 of this year. This important document sets out nine essential statements of agreement about the ideal system to promote the safest and most positive birth outcomes across all birth settings.

While I will be submitting the entire document into the Record, I want to highlight the following key points agreed upon by all of the delegates at the summit:

First, all childbearing women in all maternity care settings should receive respectful, women-centered care, including opportunities for shared decisionmaking to help each woman make the choices that are right for her;

Second, physiological birth is valuable for women, babies, families, and society, and appropriate intervention should be based on the best available evidence to achieve optimal outcomes for mothers and babies;

Third, collaboration within an integrated maternity care system is essential for optimal outcomes, and when necessary, all women and families planning a birth center or home birth have a right to a respectful, safe, and seamless consultation, referral, transport, and transfer of care;

Fourth, all health professionals who provide maternity care in all settings should have a license that is based on national certification that includes defined competencies and standards for education and practice; and

Fifth, in order to foster effective communication and collaboration across all maternity disciplines, all students and practitioners involved in maternity and newborn care must learn about each other's disciplines and maternity care in all settings.

Additionally, the consensus document calls for medical liability system

reform, a compulsory process with collection of patient data in all birth settings, the elimination of disparities of care, and increased consumer participation.

The Home Birth Consensus Summit document is an important first step in protecting and supporting all childbearing families across all birth settings, but the discussion must not stop there. I encourage all professional organizations representing providers of maternity care and newborn care and all childbirth advocacy groups to affirm the consensus statement and commit to working together toward its realization. Mothers and babies in this country deserve nothing less.

Home Birth Consensus Summit

October 20-22, 2011

Common Ground Statements

The following statements reflect the areas of consensus

that were achieved by the individuals who participated in the

Home Birth Consensus Summit at Airlie Center in Warrenton,

Virginia, from October 20-22, 2011. These statements do not

represent the position of any organization or institution

affiliated with those individuals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Security and Financial Empowerment Act, better known as the SAFE Act.

Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are widespread problems that affect Americans from every background, ethnicity, and race. The prevalence of this violence is highlighted by the fact that nearly one in four women are beaten or sexually assaulted by a partner during adulthood and advocates are reporting an increase in the severity of these violent incidents.

These crimes have serious societal costs and gave physical and psychological impacts on their victims. Credible research has found that many women are trapped in abusive relationships due to their economic circumstances. As a result, victims often face the terrifying choice of living with abuse or leaving without the ability to support themselves and their children.

Under the SAFE Act, victims can take limited leave from work for safety planning and necessary court appearances without fear of losing their job. The SAFE Act also provides job protection when reasonable workplace safety modifications are requested.

The recent tragedy in Seal Beach, California--where a salon employee's ex-husband

allegedly opened fire and killed 8 people--vividly illustrates how disputes at home can lead to violence in the workplace. To help employers address this issue, the bill reauthorizes the National Workplace Resource Center grant program. These grants will be made available to qualified organizations to establish and operate resource centers that assist employers on how to protect all their employees as well as those who are victims of domestic and sexual abuse.

The SAFE Act also protects victims of domestic abuse by prohibiting employers from making hiring decisions and insurance companies from refusing coverage based on an individual's history of abuse.

Finally, the SAFE Act makes it possible for a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking eligible for unemployment insurance if it is necessary for an employee to leave a job to escape the abuse.

The SAFE Act is a critical step towards helping victims of domestic violence and sexual assault to become survivors by giving them the financial security they need to seek help and end their dependence on abusive partners and ultimately break the cycle of violence in their lives.

I want to thank the many dedicated advocates and organizations who work tirelessly every day to empower victims of physical and sexual abuse. They face daunting challenges as the demand for their services continues to increase even as their funding sources at the local, state, and federal levels are being slashed. Their input, expertise, and support have been invaluable in crafting the SAFE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me and Congressman Ted Poe in co-sponsoring and helping to pass the SAFE Act. For far too many people, the safety nets in this bill are literally the difference between life and death. The time to act is now.

Mr. Speaker, as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, I rise to honor our breast cancer warriors who are bravely battling this deadly disease.

According to the American Cancer Society, approximately 2.6 million women and men are living with breast cancer in this country. It is estimated that this year alone there will be 290,000 new cases of breast cancer, and almost 40,000 patients will lose their battle with this disease.

Until 5 years ago I would hear these statistics, sympathize with personal stories of suffering from this tragic disease, and reaffirm my commitment to support finding a cure. But I never fully understood what it meant to have a family diagnosed with breast cancer until the day my sister, Lillian, called to tell me she had breast cancer. At that moment, I fully understood the personal sense of helplessness, anguish, and disbelief that had been described to me so many times before. Now I, too, found myself hoping and praying that I would wake up from the nightmare that was my sister's reality.

Like so many other breast cancer warriors, Lillian bravely confronted her cancer, determined to overcome her devastating illness and the intensely physical and deeply emotional challenge it presented. As my sister moves towards her fifth year free of cancer, there is much to be hopeful for.

From 1998 to 2007, breast cancer incidence rates in the U.S. decreased by about 2 percent a year, due in part, it is thought, to the reduced use of hormone replacement therapy. Since about 1990, death rates from best cancer have also been declining, with larger decreases in women younger than 50.

While breast cancer is still the second leading cause of death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer, the chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman's death has been reduced to 1 in 36. These dramatic improvements in life expectancy are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment.

These improvements also stand as a testament to the investments Congress has made in prevention, screening, and researching new treatments for the disease. But they must not be the final frontier in our efforts to make breast cancer a disease of the past.

I was recently and personally reminded of this fact because once again, breast cancer has attacked someone who is close to my heart. Earlier this summer, Monica, my longtime district office manager, was diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. She faced this unbelievable challenge with characteristic grace and strength.

With family, friends, and colleagues, she has been upfront and upbeat about her illness. And always a stylish dresser, she has donned a number of very fashionable head scarves.

After first undergoing several months of chemotherapy, last Friday Monica had successful surgery and is home recovering. I want her to know we are praying for her continued strength and speedy recovery.

Like so many other breast cancer warriors, Monica's extraordinary courage as she fights against her disease is an example of the power of the human spirit to survive, and it gives renewed fervor to my personal commitment to fight this disease.

As long as women in our country face a 1 in 8 chance of developing breast cancer, we must continue to invest in improved and earlier detection of the disease, better treatments, and educational outreach.

For Lillian, for Monica, and for my colleague who is here, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and for all our mothers, sisters, daughters, and friends, let us never abandon our fight to find a cure and finally eradicate breast cancer in our country and ultimately in the world.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The bill before us nullifies EPA's rules to require industrial boilers and incinerators to reduce their emissions of toxic mercury and other toxic pollutants. The bill removes legal deadlines for pollution controls to be installed, fundamentally weakening the Clean Air Act and allowing years or decades of continued toxic air pollution.

Mr. Chairman, mercury is a potent neurotoxin. According to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, human exposure to organic mercury can result in long-lasting health effects, especially if it occurs during fetal development. In addition, scientists have linked mercury poisoning to nervous system, kidney and liver damage, and impaired childhood development. Nervous system disorders can include impaired vision, speech, hearing, and coordination. In other words, babies born to women exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from a range of developmental and neurological problems, including delays in speaking and difficulties in learning. Children suffering from the chronic effects of mercury exposure may never reach their full potential. This clearly has a profound impact on the affected children and their families, and it also has a long-term societal impact.

In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act on a bipartisan basis to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from a range of industrial sources, including boilers and incinerators. Boilers and incinerators are one of the largest sources of airborne mercury pollution in the United States. For far too long, they have been allowed to pollute without installing modern technology to reduce their

emissions. This is of particular concern for women who are pregnant, may become pregnant, or who are nursing. Mercury exposure in the womb can adversely affect the developing brain and nervous system. This can lead to problems with a child's cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor skills.

As of 2008, 50 States, one U.S. territory, and three tribes have issued advisories for mercury. Earlier this year, EPA finalized standards to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from boilers and incinerators. These rules were more than a decade late. EPA is in the process of reconsidering those rules and plans to finalize the revised rules by next April. Once finalized, EPA's rules for boilers and incinerators will cut mercury pollution from these sources.

The Republican leadership wants to nullify these rules. They have also passed legislation to nullify rules to clean up mercury pollution from cement plants, and they have passed legislation to nullify rules to clean up mercury pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants, the largest U.S. source of mercury pollution to the air. This is unacceptable for public health. People living near these polluting facilities have waited far too long for them to clean up their pollution. They shouldn't have to wait any longer.

This amendment is straightforward. It states that the bill does not stop EPA from taking action to clean up toxic air pollution from an industrial boiler or incinerator if that facility is emitting mercury or other toxic pollutants that are damaging babies' developing brains.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, September is the month in which we celebrate the many contributions Latinos have made and continue to make to our great country.

Hispanic Americans are our teachers, religious leaders, doctors, lawyers, health care providers, astronauts, scientists, small business owners, and entrepreneurs. They are local and national officials providing leadership in the face of unprecedented challenges both at home and abroad.

But perhaps our greatest pride comes from our impressive record of service to this country. When grave threats imperil America's freedom, Latinos answer the call. This is highlighted by the fact that Latino servicemen and -women have earned more medals and commendations per combatant than any other ethnic group.

As we celebrate the contributions Latinos have made to our country, let us not forget our future. The stories of our Nation's Latino trailblazers serve as an inspiration to young Latinos; but like all American children, they must have the opportunity to develop their talents and reach their full potential to keep our country great.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure all of America's children are prepared to lead. Only then can America realize its promise in the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress marks the 10 year anniversary of the September 11th attacks, I rise to mourn the loss of the thousands of innocents who perished and to honor the selflessness of those who sacrificed so much to protect us, both on that day and in the decade since.

In recent months, much of our national conversation has fixated on what's wrong with America: spiraling debt, soaring unemployment, a poisoned political climate, and perhaps most troublingly, the undeniable sense that we are an increasingly divided people.

Indeed, our country is beset by a crisis of confidence, with faith in our institutions, our leaders and ourselves seemingly at all-time lows.

Coming at this moment of doubt and insecurity, it is my hope that the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks can offer the American people a potent reminder of the defining qualities we revealed in that moment of extreme tragedy: our willingness to sacrifice, our unwillingness to submit or surrender and ultimately our solidarity in the face of great pain and staggering loss.

Ten years ago in New York, as the towers were falling and thousands were fleeing, firefighters and police officers disregarded the dangers and rushed to save the victims.

In the skies above Pennsylvania, a courageous group of passengers fought back against the hijackers and ultimately brought down their own plane, dying so that others might live.

And across America, thousands of young men and women who watched the events of that day unfold on their TV screens decided to enlist, placing themselves in harm's way to keep our country safe.

9/11 was a moment when the American people were tested as never before and yet emerged unbeaten and unbowed. Through our grief, we were united in asserting that the American way of life would go on.

I believe our country's heroes on that day offer up a powerful example to our country's leaders ten years later.

Let us continue to cultivate the spirit of service that motivated the firefighters who responded and the soldiers who enlisted.

Let us use this opportunity to rediscover the togetherness that marked our response to the horrors we witnessed, finding the inspiration to set politics aside and begin solving the problems that matter.

Finally, let us honor the memories of all those who died on that day by working to ensure that America remains a country worthy of their sacrifice.