Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, I am extremely concerned about the impact of the Republicans' continuing resolution on the ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC, to police our capital markets, thereby preventing another financial crisis.

To be clear, the Republican continuing resolution, with its $100 billion in proposed cuts, is an assault on job creation, vulnerable populations and our communities. However, it is also an assault on our financial markets. If the Securities and Exchange Commission is level- funded or funded at 2008 levels, we risk defunding the main agency with oversight over the risky financial products that started the 2008 financial crisis. The SEC is supposed to be our Wall Street cop. It is supposed to make sure that the brokerage firms are obeying the law. It is supposed to protect the investors. It is supposed to make sure that those people who work every day having their money invested by institutional investments like the pension funds are not losing their investments in their 401(k)s.

Let's talk about what happened in 2008. In 2008, our financial markets collapsed. In 2008, it was clear that the SEC didn't have the tools or the resources it needed to monitor or police those markets. So, frankly, I don't understand why Republicans would want to underfund the SEC with the same amount of funding it received in the year that it lacked the resources to monitor financial markets that were spinning out of control.

From 2005 to 2007, during the buildup to the crisis that imploded in 2008, the SEC lost 10 percent of its staff. In addition, from 2005 to 2009, the SEC's investments in information technology declined by 50 percent. During this time period, trading volume doubled, the number of investment advisers has increased by 50 percent, and the funds they manage have increased 55 percent to $33 trillion.

Let's put these numbers into perspective. The SEC's 3,800 employees currently oversee 35,000 entities--including 11,450 investment advisers, 7,600 mutual funds, 5,000 broker dealers, and more than 10,000 public companies. Furthermore, these staff police companies that trade on average 8.5 billion shares in the listed equity markets alone every day.

The Dodd-Frank Act will prevent the next crisis by authorizing the SEC to regulate derivatives, provide oversight of investment advisers and broker dealers, and rein in credit rating agencies. In order to do this, the SEC needs additional funding. The Securities and Exchange Commission that is our Wall Street cop to protect us all needs additional funding. Unfortunately, House Republicans don't want the SEC to staff up or to even maintain their current staffing levels. Why? If funded at fiscal year 2008 levels, the SEC would have to lay off hundreds of staff and cut its IT budget down to $86 million, its lowest level of IT spending since 2003.

At this level, the SEC would not be able to implement the new systems it needs to protect the Nation's securities markets.

We have all said to the public in so many ways, and certainly through Dodd-Frank, that we are going to change the way the SEC has been working; we are going to make sure we have some protections for consumers and investors. Yet we know it can't be done without the resources, without the money. You can tell where your priorities are based on where you put your funding. This attack on the SEC is more disturbing because the agency's funding will be deficit-neutral. Beginning in fiscal year 2012, fees collected by the SEC will match its congressional appropriation. The critical role that the SEC plays in our Nation's financial markets is precisely why Wall Street, the very entity that the SEC regulates, is asking for Congress to fully fund this agency.

According to a February 7 article in The New York Times, 41 prominent securities lawyers and professionals have already written to Congress to ask for full funding for the agency. Why do we have to beg for funding for the SEC if we are truly about the business of protecting our consumers?

Mr. Speaker, the SEC needs a sufficient level of funding. If Wall Street's cop on the beat is unavailable, we risk another financial crisis and loss of more jobs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to another member of the Financial Services Committee, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), who also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage my colleague, Mr. Himes, in a colloquy for the balance of our time.

I appreciated the comments that you made just a few minutes ago, but you alluded to the length of time that we have organized the SEC and some protections and what happened, the kind of growth we had, but now things have changed somewhat and the oversight responsibility is a little bit more complicated and a little bit more difficult.

What did you mean by that?

I want to ask you, is it true that the average investor-- I'm not just talking about the big institutional investors, but the average investor understands the complication of this? Do they expect that we understand it and we're going to regulate it, we're going to watch out for them? What does the average investor know about the system?

We heard on several occasions here today the tremendous oversight responsibility given all of the capital markets that have to be monitored, that have to be regulated. What do we need to do to make the SEC stronger? We've gone through this meltdown. We've have gone through this crisis. The American people expect something to happen. What do they need in order to be good overseers, good cops?

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

Madam Speaker, I'm proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this afternoon to state our unequivocal stance against health care reform repeal.

The landmark health reform law takes a stand against the health care disparities that exist for low-income Americans, people of color, and people with pre-existing conditions.

Twenty percent of African-Americans were uninsured in the United States, and 32 percent of the Hispanic population was uninsured.

Though African-American women are 10 percent less likely to get breast cancer than white women, we are 34 percent more likely to die from it. And Hispanic women are twice as likely to die from cervical cancer as White women.

Both African-American and Mexican-American men are 30 percent more likely to die from heart disease than White Americans.

Hispanic men were one-and-a-half times as likely to die from diabetes as White Americans, and African-Americans were 2.2 times as likely to die from diabetes as compared to White Americans.

Finally, though they comprise 15 percent of the U.S. population, Hispanics make up 17 percent of new HIV infections. And more shockingly, though we make up only 12 percent of the U.S. population, African Americans are 45 percent of new HIV infections.

Many Americans are suffering from a lack of access to health care because health insurance is simply unaffordable. This problem has existed for far too long in the most prosperous nation in the world. Meaningful health care must be available for all Americans regardless of race, level of income, gender, or the existence of a pre-existing condition. That's why the health care reform law specifically addresses these disparities and other pre-existing conditions and makes it illegal to be denied health care insurance because of them.

So I implore my Republican colleagues to work with us to strengthen the law, make it better, and provide health care and jobs to millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, and the killing and wounding of members of her staff and community attending her ``Congress on your Corner'' event, was a national tragedy.

It is most appropriate that we speak out to share our sadness, sorrow and grief as well as our hopes for healing and recovery.

I am encouraged that Gabby continues to defy the odds and is showing signs of progress. She is truly a survivor, with a strong will to live. I know that she faces a long and difficult path to recover from her injuries, and I hope that our support--together with the prayers and well wishes offered by the people of Arizona and indeed all of America--will help her and her family now and in the weeks and months ahead.

Even as she copes with her own severe injuries, I am sure that Gabby is thinking of all the others who were killed and injured during the attack on her. Gabe Zimmerman, her director of community outreach, was killed. Two more members of her Congressional staff, Ron Barber and Pam Simon, were injured in the shooting. Congressional staff members help us, to help our constituents, but they often are not recognized or appreciated. Let us all remember that our staffers--and government workers generally--are committed to public service. They work hard, make many sacrifices, and they provide valuable, essential service.

We are thinking also of residents of the Tucson community who attended this event to meet and speak with their elected representative, never sensing that they would be in harm's way.

Christina Taylor Green, Dorothy Morris, John Roll, Phyllis Schneck, and Dorwan Stoddard were all killed in this senseless, brutal attack.

I join my colleagues in expressing condolences to their families, friends and loved ones.

In a matter of seconds, the gunman recklessly and viciously sprayed bullets in all directions. In addition to killing six people and wounding Congresswoman Giffords, he injured thirteen other people. We pray for their full and speedy recovery.

In a democracy, it is not only common but moreover essential that citizens and their representatives freely communicate and exchange ideas, even opposing opinions. Unfortunately, violent events like the shooting in Tucson have a chilling effect on our ability to engage in our civic duties without fear. We must not give in to fear. At the same time, we absolutely must all do whatever is necessary to restore safety and security. We must rededicate ourselves to ending violence and promoting peace, and we must take necessary, commonsense steps to reduce the potential for killings like this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who unexpectedly passed away this week. My husband, Ambassador Sidney Williams, and I are very saddened that friend is no longer with us.

We first had the opportunity to meet Ambassador Holbrooke during diplomatic training in 1993. Sidney and Richard had recently been appointed by President Bill Clinton to serve as the Ambassadors to the Bahamas and Germany, respectively. As is required of the spouse of an incoming Ambassador, I also went through training to understand certain diplomatic protocol and procedure.

I have fond memories of that time, and I remember Richard as an extremely bright, articulate, and worldly man. He had an imposing presence, a keen intellect and a sharp wit, which had clearly served him well in the decades he trotted the globe making peace, shaping policy, and advancing our interests abroad.

Shortly after we met, he was dispatched to serve as the key negotiator to the 1995 Dayton peace accords, which ended the Bosnian War. I remember thinking that they could not find someone with more expertise or wherewithal to undertake such a complex and important task.

Whether in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the Johnson administration or the Obama administration, a dais at the United Nations or the theater of war, Richard served our country and the international community with grace, with strength, and with distinction.

Our diplomatic community, indeed, our country, has lost a tried and true public servant. During this difficult time, I take some comfort in knowing that the world is a better place because of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and I hope anyone who knew him will do the same.

My husband and I extend our deepest sympathies, our thoughts and our prayers to his wife, his children, his family and his many friends and colleagues.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I'd first like to thank Barney Frank for all of the efforts he's put into helping homeowners and the leadership that he's provided on this committee, the Financial Services Committee.

I'd like to thank Marcy Kaptur. She has been a stalwart, not on the committee but working every day because she's in one of the hardest hit States, but so am I in California.

It is unthinkable that we could have used TARP funds for every major corporation, all of the banks, all of the too-big-to fail, and yet we would deny homeowners in the heart of his State some assistance. What are we saying? These are people who have followed the American Dream, and we have found that all kinds of exotic products were put on the market. Many of them were tricked into signing on the dotted line, and now we have whole communities that are being boarded up, that are in foreclosure, communities that are being driven into the ground because cities can't afford to keep them up.

We've done everything that we could do. We had the NSP. We have assistance to unemployed folks. We're trying to do everything with not a lot of help from the administration or from the regulatory agencies in general.

The HAMP program simply has not worked. We need to send a message and a real substantive message to the people and homeowners of America that we care about them. We don't want them put on the street. We don't want them losing their homes. The services or the too-big-to-fail banks, everybody has made out on the backs of the American public. What's wrong with using some of the TARP money for legal assistance?

People are trying very hard to fight these battles alone. They can't get in touch with the services. They're trying to figure out where the notes are, who really owns the mortgages. We have found that all kind of robo-signing is going on. This whole industry has failed us and we are allowing these homeowners to swim out there alone by themselves with no help.

Let's help the American people. This is the least that we can do as we close out this 111th Congress. We can not only send this message, but we could stand up and demand that they get the kind of help that will keep them and their families in their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

To the Members, I will only take about 7 or 8 minutes. I know that they are anxious to go home.

On Tuesday, I introduced a privileged resolution that calls for a bipartisan task force to investigate the disciplinary action taken against two professional staff members of the Ethics Committee. Since then, I have had a chance to speak with dozens of Members regarding concerns about the ethics process and the impact it has on this institution.

Regardless of region or political ideology, they all agreed that we must take every opportunity we can to improve the ethics process and, by extension, increase the faith of the American people in our ability to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct.

We now have such an opportunity.

There have been press reports of misconduct by the committee attorneys responsible for handling my case, which has been with the committee for almost 1\1/2\ years. Although we do not know the circumstances surrounding their conduct nor the disciplinary action taken against them, we can all agree, as Majority Leader Hoyer stated last week, that the developments are ``troubling.''

To be sure, this issue is of great concern to me. However, after talking to Members, I have confirmed that it is also of great concern to you--my colleagues and friends--because the issue of transparency and fairness in the ethics process is one that transcends any individual.

What is at stake is the integrity of this institution that we all cherish and of which we are privileged to be a part.

If information regarding this matter is not made public, we will continue to see press reports and commentators across the political spectrum publicly criticizing the ethics process. Allow me to read you some of the press quotes on this issue.

``You have ethics issues in the Ethics Committee. These two attorneys are left on the government payroll. We still don't even know why they dismissed them.'' This is from ``The Willis Report,'' Fox Business, 12/ 1/10.

``Can you imagine, in a court of law, if the prosecutor basically got completely taken off of the case, and suddenly the defense lawyer walked in, and there was somebody new? It's like bells and whistles would go off.'' This is from ``AC 360,'' which is Anderson Cooper, CNN, 12/1/10.

``I am confident some of the folks on the committee are more political than anything else.'' That is from someone who has been very critical of me, Melanie Sloan of CREW, quoted in Talking Points Memo, 12/1/10.

``Rarely has the ethics process looked worse.'' This is by Dana Milbank, Washington Post, 12/4/10.

Unfortunately, if a resolution like the one I noticed passed, its authority, like the authority of the investigation against me, would expire at the end of this Congress, which could come as early as next week. The investigation and report called for by the resolution would have to be completed immediately, which apparently is not feasible now given the calendar.

Many colleagues who share the concerns I have raised about the disciplinary action of the committee are also concerned that a task force established now would have insufficient time to finish its work.

I share that concern and have been working with my colleagues over the last few days to find an alternative that would allow for the exploration of this important topic without further undermining the process by not allowing for adequate time and resources. Because news about the committee's activities just came to light last week, the options seem to be limited.

We all know how a vote on a privileged resolution plays out. The leadership, for reasons which are both practical and political, would use a parliamentary procedure, either a motion to table or a motion to refer, to essentially kill the bill.

This maneuver is not unique to this resolution. It is, as history shows us, seemingly standard practice. Functionally, that would be the end of this particular resolution, and it could have the unintended consequence of suggesting falsely to the public that the House as a whole is not concerned with the integrity of the ethics process.

In fact, during those conversations with colleagues, Members have come alive, and the basic concepts of justice and fairness have permeated every conversation. They have suggested that this issue is one that should be explored willingly, not just by the force of a vote by the whole House, and that parliamentary procedure should not thwart transparency.

Let me note that, while they expressed concern with some of the events that have occurred as related to my case and the implications for the broader institution, Members also indicated they believe that our colleagues who lead the Ethics Committee--Zoe Lofgren and Jo Bonner--fundamentally share our commitment to justice and fairness despite the circumstances which have led us here today.

This is a view that I share as well.

Although the committee is built on secrecy and confidentiality, it should have the ability to be flexible and provide transparency in extraordinary circumstances. This is one such extraordinary circumstance when the House as a whole and the public need the committee to reveal information so we can have confidence in the process.

Those who know me know that I am aggressive by nature and philosophy. I believe that it is important that we be relentless about our constant search for truth and justice.

But here, upon the advice of my colleagues whom I trust and admire, I am not pushing for a vote on this resolution today. In doing so, however, I am requesting that the committee set the record straight, on its own accord, in a bipartisan manner, with a joint statement signed by the chair and ranking member, as provided by its rules, which both protects the confidentiality required by the committee and respects the public's and this body's right to know the circumstances of the events that led to the discipline of the two attorneys leading the case against me.

Today, I will again notice the House with my privileged resolution. I am hopeful it will not be necessary to take it up, because the Ethics Committee will, indeed, set the record straight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Authorizing and directing the Speaker to appoint a

bipartisan task force to investigate the circumstances and

cause of the decision to place professional staff of the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on indefinite

administrative leave, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States authorizes

the House of Representatives to ``determine the Rules of its

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and,

with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member'';

Whereas in 1968, in compliance with this authority and to

uphold its integrity and ensure that Members act in a manner

that reflects credit on the House of Representatives, the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established;

Whereas the ethics procedures in effect during the 111th

Congress were enacted in 1997 in a bipartisan manner by an

overwhelming vote of the House of Representatives upon the

bipartisan recommendation of the ten member Ethics Reform

Task Force, which conducted a thorough and lengthy review of

the entire ethics process;

Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

adopted rules for the 111th Congress;

Whereas rule 6(a) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``the staff is to be

assembled and retained as professional, nonpartisan staff';

Whereas rule 6(c) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``the staff as a whole

and each individual member of the staff shall perform all

official duties in a nonpartisan manner'';

Whereas rule 6(f) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``All staff members

shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of the majority of

the members of the Committee, Such a vote shall occur at the

first meeting of the membership of the Committee during each

Congress and as necessary during the Congress'';

Whereas, on November 19, 2010 two members of the

professional staff of the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct were placed on indefinite administrative leave;

Whereas, on November 19, 2010 the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct canceled and has not rescheduled the

adjudicatory hearing for a Member of Congress, previously

scheduled for November 29, 2010;

Whereas all of these actions have subjected the Committee

to public ridicule and weakened the ability of the Committee

to properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which

has brought discredit to the House; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the Speaker shall appoint a bipartisan task force with

equal representation of the majority and minority parties to

investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to

place professional staff of the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct on indefinite administrative leave and to

make recommendations to restore public confidence in the

ethics process, including disciplinary measures for both

staff and Members where needed; and

(2) the task force report its findings and recommendations

to the House of Representatives during the second session of

this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1751. The DREAM Act is bipartisan targeted legislation that gives students who are already here and have grown up in the United States a chance to contribute to our country's well-being by serving in the Armed Forces or pursuing a higher education.

This bill is good for our economy, our security and our Nation. If you take a look some of the bill's key provisions, you will see that this was well thought through. This is no throwaway. This is no giveaway. These students have to earn the right to this DREAM Act.

I would simply ask my colleagues to consider, having been brought to this country as a child, it is something that

we can do to make sure that we integrate them into our society and they contribute to it in a substantial way.

I would ask for an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Authorizing and directing the Speaker to appoint a

bipartisan task force to investigate the circumstances and

cause of the decision to place professional staff of the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct on indefinite

administrative leave, and for other purposes.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States authorizes

the House of Representatives to ``determine the Rules of its

Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and,

with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member'';

Whereas in 1968, in compliance with this authority and to

uphold its integrity and ensure that Members act in a manner

that reflects credit on the House of Representatives, the

Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was established;

Whereas the ethics procedures in effect during the 111th

Congress were enacted in 1997 in a bipartisan manner by an

overwhelming vote of the House of Representatives upon the

bipartisan recommendation of the ten member Ethics Reform

Task Force, which conducted a thorough and lengthy review of

the entire ethics process;

Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

adopted rules for the 111th Congress;

Whereas rule 6(a) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``the staff is to be

assembled and retained as professional, nonpartisan staff'';

Whereas rule 6(c) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``the staff as a whole

and each individual member of the staff shall perform all

official duties in a nonpartisan manner'';

Whereas rule 6(f) of the Rules of the Committee on

Standards of Official Conduct states ``All staff members

shall be appointed by an affirmative vote of the majority of

the members of the Committee. Such a vote shall occur at the

first meeting of the membership of the Committee during each

Congress and as necessary during the Congress'';

Whereas, on November 19, 2010 two members of the

professional staff of the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct were placed on indefinite administrative leave;

Whereas, on November 19, 2010 the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct canceled and has not rescheduled the

adjudicatory hearing for a Member of Congress, previously

scheduled for November 29, 2010;

Whereas all of these actions have subjected the Committee

to public ridicule and weakened the ability of the Committee

to properly conduct its investigative duties, all of which

has brought discredit to the House; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That--

(1) the Speaker shall appoint a bipartisan task force with

equal representation of the majority and minority parties to

investigate the circumstances and cause of the decision to

place professional staff of the Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct on indefinite administrative leave and to

make recommendations to restore public confidence in the

ethics process, including disciplinary measures for both

staff and Members where needed; and

(2) the task force report its findings and recommendations

to the House of Representatives during the second session of

this Congress.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of H.R. 4783.

Today, we have the opportunity to right the wrongs perpetrated on both black farmers and Native Americans in this country. The history of shameful and, yes, rampant discrimination against black farmers and the shameful mismanagement of Native Americans' oil, gas and water rights are being addressed here today. We vote today to settle the Pigford II Black Farmers case against the USDA and the Cobell case on mishandled Native American oil and gas claims against Interior and several tribal water rights claims.

The Black Farmers case against the USDA goes back decades. I was a member of the Judiciary Committee and the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus from 1996 to 1998 when we worked with the Clinton administration, and we were able to waive the statute of limitations so we could get Pigford I up before us. Yet thousands of black farmers lost their farms; many are dead, and many of them did not get their paperwork filed.

This bill provides $1.15 billion to settle the Black Farmers case and $3.4 billion to settle the Cobell claims.

Mr. Speaker and Members, institutional racism and discrimination must be aggressively fought and eliminated.

I am so proud of John Boyd and all of the Members of this Congress who have worked so hard, Mr. Rahall and the rest of them, to do what needs to be done. I am pleased and honored to serve as a Member of Congress where we are dealing with justice and fairness and equality today.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the life and work of Jule Sugarman, who passed away earlier this month at the age of 83. I extend my thoughts and prayers to his wife, his children, and his family and friends during this very difficult time.

Some of my colleagues and those listening in the gallery or on television may not recognize the name Jule Sugarman, but they have no doubt heard of or been impacted by the Head Start Program, which he founded and helped design and implement as part of President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty.

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1927, Mr. Sugarman came to Washington to attend American University, and later served in the Army for two years.

He amassed a record of achievement and dedication to public service, the American people, and to children and families specifically: serving as New York City's human resources administrator; Washington State's Department of Social and Health Services; executive director of the Special Olympics International; and deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Jimmy Carter, just to name a few of his accomplishments.

But I would like to thank Mr. Sugarman explicitly and affectionately for his work on getting the Head Start program up and running. I can unequivocally say that Head Start changed my life and turned it in a new direction.

I vividly remember working as a service representative for the Pacific Telephone Company in Los Angeles in the mid 1960s, and getting excited over a newspaper advertisement I saw for the new Head Start program. They were seeking staff for this initiative, which would be run by Sargent Shriver out of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Being a mother of young children, and seeking a career path where I could help people and make a difference--despite not having official teaching credentials--I eagerly applied to be an assistant teacher.

To my surprise and delight, I was hired as a Head Start assistant teacher. In Los Angeles County the Head Start Program worked closely with community nonprofit groups like the International Federation for Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, so I worked with great people who were truly committed to putting children on a solid path to an education, combating poverty, and making our communities a safer, better place to live.

Head Start encouraged me to finish my education; taught me the importance and value of community organizing; made me acutely aware of the many issues facing our young children; and inspired me to get involved in politics to make a difference in the lives of others, particularly the least of these.

Now I am well aware that in 45 years many things have changed--some good, some bad--for our nation's children and schools. But I am convinced that Head Start's original mission to ``promote school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services to enroll children and families,'' is as relevant as ever. I look forward to supporting it in each and every way that I can.

Thank you, Mr. Sugarman. Thank you for your wisdom, your foresight, your progressive philosophy, and your dedication to putting all children on an equal playing field.

I, and millions of other Americans, continue to be inspired by your compassion, your humanity, and your life's work, all of which made our country greater.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Highland Elementary School in Inglewood, California, located in my district. Highland was recently named a Blue Ribbon School by the Department of Education, a coveted award recognizing high-performing and improving schools across our country. This year, Highland shares this distinction with 304 other schools among the thousands of schools in the United States.

Highland and its teachers, administrators, staff, students, parents and community members have really been on a roll. In addition to the Blue Ribbon award, the school was also named a California Distinguished School, and Highland is a two-time Title One Academic Achievement School and California Business School of Excellence.

I am very appreciative of the efforts by this Congress and this Administration to focus on education and the future of our young students. We must remain committed to improving schools and providing opportunity for all Americans to learn.

In my district, like many communities in urban America, test scores are below average, buildings are in disrepair, and graduation rates are too low.

I was so encouraged to hear about Highland's honor because one of the two ways to qualify for the Blue Ribbon award is by having schools with at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds improve student performance to high levels.

Improving test scores early on is crucial to getting kids on the right path to a solid education and key to securing critical resources that will help our schools turn around.

I want to particularly honor Highland principal Susan Ippongi and Inglewood Unified School District superintendent Gary McHenry for their leadership and their dedication to schoolchildren in Inglewood.

I am looking forward to meeting them in November when representatives from the Blue Ribbon schools come to Washington to be formally recognized for their achievements.

I am very proud of Highland's ability to excel over adversity, and particularly proud of the young boys and girls who are studying hard for a bright future. They are giving Highland Elementary School, our community, our city and our country a good name.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Hawthorne Math and Science Academy, HMSA, in Hawthorne, CA. HMSA, a dependent charter high school of the Hawthorne School District located in my congressional district, was recently honored with a Blue Ribbon Award by the U.S. Department of Education, a coveted award recognizing high-performing and improving schools across our country. This year, HMSA shares this distinction with 304 other schools among the thousands of schools in the United States.

I am very proud of the students, faculty, staff, parents, and community members of HMSA. In addition to receiving this prestigious award--the first school within the Hawthorne School District to do so-- HMSA was also named a California Distinguished School and was listed-- again--as one of the nation's top 100 high schools by U.S. News & World Report.

I want to especially honor Principal Esau Beruman, who is only in his first year as principal of HMSA. I suspect we will continue to see great things from HMSA under his leadership, and I look forward to meeting him and one of HMSA's teachers when they come to Washington, DC in November to be officially honored by the Department of Education.

HMSA has made great strides to create a rigorous and comprehensive academic regimen that prepares its students for college and helps them become well-rounded young adults. It boasts an impressive 97 percent graduation rate.

As its own mission statement reads, ``HMSA is committed to creating a challenging, rigorous, standards-based curriculum for all students, regardless of gender, ethnicity, primary language, or special needs status, within a safe and cooperative learning community.'' I believe the school is not only living up to that standard, but superseding it.

The students of HMSA should be particularly proud of their strong work. They are giving their school, our community, our state, and our country a good name through their dedication, their drive, and their excellence.

Congratulations to HMSA on this latest, but surely not the last, accolade.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3814) to extend the National Flood Insurance Program until September 30, 2011.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of S. 3814, the National Flood Insurance Program Reextension Act of 2010, which would extend the National Flood Insurance Program through September 30, 2011.

The flood insurance program provides valuable protection for approximately 5.5 million homeowners. Unfortunately,

the lack of a long-term authorization has placed this program at risk. The program has lapsed three times now since the beginning of this year, for 2 days in March, for 18 days in April, and again from June 1 to July 1. These lapses meant that FEMA was not able to write new policies, renew expiring policies, or increase coverage limits.

This also means that each day, 1,400 home buyers who wanted to purchase homes located in flood plains are unable to close on those homes. Given the current crisis in the housing market, this instability in the flood insurance program is hampering that market's recovery and must be addressed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to join with Latinos and Latinas in California's 35th Congressional District and all across the United States in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month, which starts today. This month is a great opportunity to learn about and to recognize the history of Hispanics in our state and our country, their significant accomplishments and their important ongoing contributions.

The Hispanic community in America, which now numbers almost 50 million people, is diverse. The largest group is Mexican-Americans, many of whom tomorrow will be celebrating 200 years of Mexico's independence from Spain and later this year will commemorate the centennial of the Mexican Revolution, when the people of Mexico rose up against an oppressive dictatorship to establish a democratic government that promoted equality and human rights.

Despite the diversity among Hispanics, members of the community share common values with one another and with all other Americans: faith, family, and love of country. The Hispanic dream--the hope of a better, more prosperous future--is the American Dream.

Economically, culturally, and politically, Latinos are a vital part of our district, our state and our nation. American life has been enriched by Hispanic contributions in business, education, government, and the arts for more than 200 years.

As we celebrate the progress, success and achievements of the Hispanic community, we must also recognize the considerable challenges the community faces. Many Hispanic families and businesses have not fared well economically over the last several years as the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration led to the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Hispanics, like African Americans and other minorities, have been particularly impacted by the economic downturn, with higher rates of unemployment and predatory subprime mortgages.

Over the last year and a half, the Democratic-led Congress has been working hard to improve the lives and meet the needs of America's Hispanic families--from the economy, to small businesses, to making college more affordable, to health care, to veterans. We must do all we can to better ensure that all Latinos, like all Americans, have a meaningful opportunity to improve their lives and pursue the American Dream. I will continue to be a strong advocate for Hispanics and all of my constituents.