Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, when it comes to protecting our homeland, it is incumbent on all of us--Democrats and Republicans--to put politics aside and work together. Yet, the exercise we are going through today risks not funding the Department of Homeland Security.

We know that elements of this bill blocking the President's immigration reforms will not become law. Republican Senators are already expressing their skepticism about this approach. And, the President would veto this bill if it passed Congress with these provisions. So as the clock ticks down on funding for our homeland security agencies, why are we wasting time on this debate?

Sadly, the answer is that the majority party is catering to its extreme wing--anti-immigrant, tea party Republicans who are obsessively focused on blocking the President.

Mr. Chair, let's be clear--the President acted when this House did not. Last Congress, the Senate passed legislation to fix our broken immigration laws. However, this body dawdled, delayed and ultimately did nothing. Finally, the President was forced to move forward alone. He took sensible steps--backed by legal precedent and well within his authority--that will resolve some of the worst flaws in our broken immigration system.

Now, House Republicans are saying that unless they can block the President and punish immigrants, they will jeopardize funding for the Secret Service, for the Coast Guard and the TSA. At a time when the world is reeling from horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, how can my colleagues play politics with funding for these agencies? This is cynical politics at its worst--and we must reject it.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2015 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted on rollcall No. 2 for the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentlelady from New York for yielding.

Today, I call on my colleagues to reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, a public-private partnership that is vital to continued economic development across the country.

Following the tragic events of 9/11, terrorism became uninsurable, the marketplace evaporated, and rates skyrocketed. Many businesses were impacted, causing job losses and hindering the recovery effort. To address the growing problem, Congress swiftly

passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, creating a Federal backstop and restoring coverage.

Today I can say without a doubt, our efforts were successful. I have witnessed firsthand how this program has substantially helped New York City recover and prosper over the past 12 years. The program has also tripled the number of small businesses nationwide that have terrorism protection. As a direct result of TRIA, over 60 percent of small firms carry some form of coverage.

Some stakeholders have already reported disruptions since TRIA lapsed last week, especially in high-risk cities such as New York. It should be noted that the lapse is not only affecting insurance coverage, but also the financing efforts of many job-creating construction projects.

Is this bill perfect? No, but it will restore certainty to the marketplace and prevent a rate spike that could force two-thirds of small businesses out of the market.

Mr. Speaker, acts of terrorism remain too risky to cover for the vast majority of carriers, especially for the small- and medium-sized firms that dominate the insurance industry. As a result, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, which has not cost taxpayers $1, continues to be a vital component of our economic growth and national security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Today I call on my colleagues to pass reauthorization of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program, a public-private partnership that is vital to continued economic development across the country.

Following the tragic events of 9/11, terrorism became uninsurable. Many insurers left the market, and rates skyrocketed. As a result, thousands of small businesses were impacted, causing job losses and hindering the recovery effort. To address the growing market gap, Congress passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, creating a Federal backstop and enticing insurers back.

I can say without a doubt, our efforts were successful. I have witnessed firsthand how this program has helped New York City recover and prosper over the past 12 years. TRIA has provided thousands of small businesses with the certainty needed to manage long-term costs, grow reliably, and create new jobs. In fact, the program has tripled the number of small businesses that have terrorism protection since 2002. Today, over 60 percent of firms now have coverage.

TRIA also ensures rates remain affordable. Under the program, terrorism coverage averages just 3 to 5 percent of a small business' annual insurance premium.

Is today's bill perfect? No, but it will restore certainty to the marketplace and prevent a rate spike that could force two-thirds of small businesses to stop carrying coverage.

Mr. Speaker, the Government Accountability Office has stated that terrorism remains an uninsurable risk. In light of such findings, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program continues to be a vital component of our economic growth and national security. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015 includes several small business sections, including Section 825 which was taken from my legislation H.R. 2452, The Women's Procurement Program Equalization Act of 2013. This bill was considered by the full Small Business Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member, and passed out by voice vote. This bill is an expansion of the Women's Procurement Program that was created as a result of legislation that I authored almost fifteen years ago and was passed by Congress in 2000. It increases the opportunities for legitimate women-owned small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace and increase their share of federally awarded dollars. The legislation creates a level playing field between the existing small business government contracting programs under the Small Business Act by allowing contracting officers to award contracts to these businesses through a sole source mechanism, similar to those that exist for the HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veterans programs. Additionally, the language of the legislation eliminates the ability for businesses to self-certify for the Women's Procurement Program, thereby reducing the potential for fraud and increasing the dollars that genuine small businesses receive. As the author of the provisions, I would like to provide some background to be taken into consideration as we move forward to implement the legislation.

The number and economic contributions of women-owned firms continue to grow. For example, the rate of growth in the number of women-owned enterprises over the past 16 years remains higher than the national average. Between 1997 and 2013, when the number of businesses in the U.S. increased by 41%, women-owned firms grew by 59%--about 1\1/2\ times the national average. Furthermore, over the past six years, since the depth of the U.S. recession, privately held majority women-owned firms have provided a net increase in employment.

Yet, during this time women-owned small businesses continue to face challenges in the Federal marketplace. In 1994, the Federal government established a five percent procurement goal for women-owned businesses. However, twenty years later that goal has never been achieved. In FY 2013 year, women-owned small businesses received $15.4 billion, or 4.33 percent of contracting dollars, missing their goal by 3 percent--a loss of over $2.6 billion. It has been estimated that if women-owned small businesses received their 5 percent of the market, more than 673,000 jobs could be created; thus, not only helping their business but also the national economy.

One of the primary obstacles facing women-owned businesses that wish to do business with the government was the failure to implement for 10 years the section 8(m) of the Small Business Act, the Women's Procurement Program. That obstacle was removed in 2011 when the final regulations for the Program were released and implemented. Through this program, women-owned small businesses are eligible for contracts through restricted competition in eighty-three industries that have historically had underutilization of women-owned businesses. Nonetheless, three years after its implementation we have seen little improvement in awards to these businesses as the mechanisms currently at the disposal of contracting officers are limited compared to other programs. While other program participants regularly receive in the billions of Federal contracting dollars, since its implementation this program has seen awards only in the millions. In FY2013, the government only awarded 1,249 contracts worth $101.1 million, approximately 0.120% of small business dollars and 0.021% of all contracting dollars, through the Women's Procurement Program's existing mechanisms. Thus, changes are necessary to increase the participation of this group of businesses and ensure that they receive their fair share of contracting dollars.

The regulations of the program currently allow for either self- certification or third-party certification. Because of the lack of involvement in the certification, there is a high likelihood of fraud In numerous reports, GAO has highlighted these issues of fraud in other self-certification programs like the service-disabled veteran-owned small business program That program has seen several millions of dollars awarded to companies who self-certified they met program criteria when they were filing misleading or false statements to contracting officers in order to qualify for the contracts. This has made contracting officers weary of award to businesses as they are required to review self-certifications and determine their validity, taking them away from the other contracts they oversee. Also, in the implementation of the self-certification of the Women's Procurement Program, SBA requested only 1 million dollars to fund the document repository, eligibility examinations, as well as processing protests. Yet, the agency has not subsequently requested additional funds to maintain and provide oversight for these items further increasing the potential for fraudulent actions.

The bill, therefore, requires that businesses be certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA), among other entities. This ensures that the entity charged with determining the size of a business, SBA, has full control of the certification process. This provision puts the program on par with other small business contracting programs such as the 8(a) Business Development Program and the HUBZone program that rely on SBA certification. By having their own certification departments, the agency has been able to stop many ineligible businesses from entering their programs due to the vast amount of resources and manpower it has compared to other certifying entities. With these tools, SBA has the ability to provide greater oversight and quality control over the certification process.

Additionally, the bill eliminates the self-certification mechanism in the program. Removing this provision allows contracting officers the ability to focus on awarding contracts and limits fraudulent businesses from entering the program. While some may argue that the program will not function as a result of this change, this is not the case as the law still allows for certification from third-party certifiers.

The provisions in this subsection will increase the mechanisms available to contracting officers for awarding contracts through this program and equalize the small business programs by providing the ability for award of sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. Currently, the Women's Procurement Program is the only small business contracting program under the Small Business Act that does not allow the award of sole source contracts. The provision would thus level the playing field between the small businesses groups and ensure equal participation when possible as well as more opportunities to award women-owned small business contracts than are currently available.

However, it is important to note that this bill and H.R. 2452 both retain the so-called ``Rule of Two'' in which sole source mechanisms can only be used if there is not a reasonable expectation that two or more businesses in the small business group will compete for award. The rule exists in all set-aside programs and while there have been calls by some to eliminate it, nothing in the language of this bill or

the underlying bill should be taken to support that proposition. The Rule of Two plays a vital part in not only allowing more small businesses to participate in the Federal marketplace but also by providing the government the best value from its vendors. Furthermore, this has been the lynchpin in guarding against challenges of the constitutionality of these set-aside programs.

This subsection requires for detailed reporting on contracts awarded by sole source contracts to women-owned small businesses. This is to increase the transparency of the award of these contracts, provide better oversight, and determine why certain industries do not receive these contracts so as to better focus outreach efforts.

In the implementation of these provisions, it is vital that there is no delay by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Regulations for the sole source provision should be enacted immediately and must be completed within 90 days. Additional regulations associated with this section should be released when ready and not held for completion of the entirety of the section's regulations. It is imperative that small businesses are involved in developing the regulations through outreach meetings and that their input is taken into consideration during the drafting process. Additionally, SBA should present draft regulations to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives arid the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and have regularly briefings to update the Committees on the progress of implementation of this section. When the regulations are released, the SBA should conduct outreach with relevant stakeholders, such as contracting officers and Offices of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization, about how the new tools can be used to maximize women- owned small business participation at individual agencies.

Regarding certification provisions, it is of the upmost importance and the number one priority to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in small business contracting and ensure only qualified women-owned small businesses enter the Women's Procurement Program. These businesses have been put at a disadvantage in the Federal marketplace for many years, and their ability to compete and receive their fair share of contracting dollars should not be diminished due to awards to unscrupulous businesses looking to cheat the system. Therefore, we fully expect the SBA to implement a robust certification program and to request full funding for such in their annual budget submission in February. The original intent of the authorizing legislation passed in 2000 for the Women's Procurement Program was to have the SBA conducting the certification process. However, the agency did not follow through with this intent. By statute, the SBA is the only entity capable of making a size determination. While properly approved third-party certifiers will play an import role in determining eligibility for this program, the agency should not rely solely on such entities to make certification decisions as to a business's eligibility. Therefore, the intent of this legislation is to reiterate that the SBA must create its own certification process to ensure a properly functioning program.

In the interim, the SBA should work with the other certifying entities to manage the increased number of applicants as a result of the loss of self-certification. Furthermore, SBA should approve and ramp in additional third-party certifiers in order to prevent a backlog of applications. In expanding the pool of certifiers, SBA should utilize the same process it used in selecting previous third-party certifiers. SBA must also create safeguard mechanisms in this certification process to limit the opportunity of fraudulent businesses to enter the program. In particular, protections should be put into place to prevent businesses from shopping around for a third-party certifier that will verify the company after they have already been determined to be ineligible for the program. Yet, after a reasonable time has passed, businesses should be allowed to reapply for the program to demonstrate that they have made corrective action on their eligibility requirements. SBA should also conduct random quality control checks on third-party certifiers to ensure that their process adheres to certification guidelines and has precautions to limit fraud, waste, and abuse.

However, it is important to note that while we are requesting additional third-party certifiers and safeguards to handle the influx of applicants to the program, these measures do not release SBA from its obligation to create its own program. As previously stated, we fully expect that the SBA create its own certification program within the agency within the next year.

Inclusion of Section 825 of the NDAA will ensure maximum and equal participation by women-owned small business in the Federal marketplace by providing a contracting mechanism available to other small business contracting programs and reduce the ability of fraud to enter the program by providing proper certification oversight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Aixa Torres, a tireless advocate for New York's working families. Born in Santurce, Aixa moved with her parents and sisters to New York City in 1955. Attending public school, she graduated from Central Commercial High School as a certified Bookkeeper. She has lived for over 50 years in the Lower East Side (LES) with her siblings Silvia, Aurea and Arthur.

In 1971, Aixa married the late George Carmona, Jr. and had two children, George III and Liza Noemi. She still lives in the LES with her daughter and grandchildren Mia Noemi and Elijah Michael Daniel.

Aixa has committed her life to caring for her community. For more than three decades she assumed leadership roles on numerous committees and boards for various organizations in the city including parent associations and Action for Progress Adult Day Care center. For twenty- two years she has advocated for District 1 families.

Aixa was elected President of Alfred E. Smith Resident Association in 2010, representing over 4,300 tenants in twelve buildings. Now serving her second term as president, Aixa has stood out as a courageous, committed and caring fighter for Smith residents. She has worked to end neglect and abuse by city agencies, helped stop attempts to develop luxury apartments on open spaces, while caring for residents in the crisis of Hurricane Sandy.

During her tenure as president she and the association have received citations from the New York City Council and recognition from the New York State Assembly and Senate for her work on behalf of Smith residents. Aixa was honored by the New York City Council Women's Caucus at the Inagural #WOMENLEAD Celebration.

Mr. Speaker, this month, Aixa will be retiring from her post as a District 1 Family Advocate. While she is leaving her position with the New York City Department of Education, anyone who knows Aixa recognizes she will certainly remain an active and welcome voice in our community. Today, I would ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting someone who has been a champion for New York residents and a stalwart defender of our city's families--Aixa Torres.

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday will mark history as more New Yorkers than ever before come together to demonstrate their commitment to solving the climate change crisis. During the ``People's Climate March'', New Yorkers from all walks of life will march through Manhattan in support of a more sustainable future. I am proud to be joining this effort. UPROSE, a grassroots environmental justice organization in my district, is one of the lead organizers in New York City. UPROSE has a long record of working on environmental issues locally and globally through community empowerment and fostering future environmental leaders. I am proud to join with them in Sunday's march.

The backdrop for the New York event will be the United Nations Summit on Climate Change, where representatives from around the globe will convene to discuss this matter. Locally, this timely event will underscore the importance of working now to preserve our planet for future generations. However, this will be a global event with actions taking place throughout the world.

From London to Rio to Johannesburg to New Dehli, people everywhere will speak with one collective voice in calling for environmental justice, an economy that works for people and the planet, clean air and good jobs. I urge all my colleagues to join in these collective actions and show their support for protecting our planet.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Transfiguration Roman Catholic Parish of Williamsburg, Brooklyn as it celebrates its 140th anniversary. The church is commemorating this special year by hosting a series of events celebrating the parish and community's rich history.

A church of humble beginnings, Transfiguration originated to serve Irish Catholic immigrants. Its first Mass was celebrated in 1874 by Friar John Fagan in a carpenter's shop on Hooper Street. In 1875, Transfiguration R.C. Church was dedicated. As the congregation and diversity grew, so did the needs of the parishioners. In 1912, the Sisters of St. Joseph established a parochial school that educated thousands of students until 2006 when it closed its doors.

In the late 1900's there were 500 Puerto Ricans living in New York City, and by the 1930's the population increased to more than 45,000. Many of these families moved to Williamsburg and settled in the Southside/Los Sures community near the Transfiguration parish where they lived among Irish Catholics, Italians and Jews. Transfiguration embraced the Latino community and adopted changes to its ministry and services to meet the spiritual, social and educational needs of its new parishioners. In 1956, after his ordination, Monsignor Bryan J. Karvelis, a then young priest came to the parish and saw first-hand the conditions and social needs of the families it served.

Transfiguration, under the leadership of Monsignor Karvelis, worked to improve the lives and social and economic status of the poor and refugee community it served. It founded and helped create organizations like the Southside Mission, the Transfiguration Parish Federal Credit Union, Southside Immigration Services, Nuestros Ninos Daycare Center, a men's shelter and food pantry and Casa Betsaida, a hospice residence opened during the AIDS crisis for individuals infected with the virus. Monsignor Karvelis served

Transfiguration R.C. Church for close to half a century until he passed away in 2005. The street outside the church was named in his memory.

Today, under the leadership of Monsignor Anthony M. Hernandez, Transfiguration continues thriving. My fellow colleagues, please join me in celebrating the 140th Anniversary of Transfiguration Roman Catholic Parish, a parish that continues its rich history of faith and social progress.

Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record the story of two Honduran brothers who were tortured and murdered by gang members in San Pedro Sula, the murder capital of the world.

Mr. Speaker, how we treat our children speaks to the character of our Nation.

[From The New York Times, July 9, 2014]

Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

(By Frances Robles)

San Pedro Sula, Honduras--Anthony O. Castellanos

disappeared from his gang-ridden neighborhood on the eastern

edge of Honduras's most dangerous city, so his younger

brother, Kenneth, hopped on his green bicycle to search for

him, starting his hunt at a notorious gang hangout known as

the ``crazy house.''

They were found within days of each other, both dead.

Anthony, 13, and a friend had been shot in the head; Kenneth,

7, had been tortured and beaten with sticks and rocks. They

were among seven children murdered in the La Pradera

neighborhood of San Pedro Sula in April alone, part of a

surge in gang violence that is claiming younger and younger

victims.

The killings are a major factor driving the recent wave of

migration of Central American children to the United States,

which has sent an unprecedented number of unaccompanied

minors across the Texas border. Many children and parents say

the rush of new migrants stems from a belief that United

States immigration policy offers preferential treatment to

minors, but in addition, studies of Border Patrol statistics

show a strong correlation between cities like San Pedro Sula

with high homicide rates and swarms of youngsters taking off

for the United States.

``The first thing we can think of is to send our children

to the United States,'' said a mother of two in La Pradera,

who declined to give her name because she feared gang

reprisals. ``That's the idea, to leave.''

Honduran children are increasingly on the front lines of

gang violence. In June, 32 children were murdered in

Honduras, bringing the number of youths under 18 killed since

January of last year to 409, according to data compiled by

Covenant House, a youth shelter in Tegucigalpa, the capital.

With two major youth gangs and more organized crime

syndicates operating with impunity in Central America,

analysts say immigration authorities will have a difficult

time keeping children at home unless the root causes of

violence are addressed.

In 2012, the number of murder victims ages 10 to 14 had

doubled to 81 from 40 in 2008, according to the Violence

Observatory at the National Autonomous University of

Honduras. Last year, 1,013 people under 23 were murdered in a

nation of eight million.

Although homicides dropped sharply in 2012 after a gang

truce in neighboring El Salvador, so far this year murders of

children 17 and under are up 77 percent from the same time

period a year ago, the police said.

Nowhere is the flow of departures more acute than in San

Pedro Sula, a city in northwestern Honduras that has the

world's highest homicide rate, according to United Nations

figures.

Between January and May of this year, more than 2,200

children from the city arrived in the United States,

according to Department of Homeland Security statistics, far

more than from any other city in Central America.

More than half of the top 50 Central American cities from

which children are leaving for the United States are in

Honduras. Virtually none of the children have come from

Nicaragua, a bordering country that has staggering poverty,

but not a pervasive gang culture or a record-breaking murder

rate. ``Everyone has left,'' Alan Castellanos, 27, the uncle

of Anthony and Kenneth, said in an interview in late May.

``How is it that an entire country is being brought to its

knees?''

He said the gangs operated with total impunity. ``They

killed all those kids and nobody did anything about it,'' Mr.

Castellanos said. ``When prosecutors wanted to discuss the

case, they asked us to meet at their office, because they

were afraid to come here. If they were afraid, imagine us.''

The factors pushing children to migrate vary, according to

an analysis of their home cities by the Department of

Homeland Security.

The Guatemalan children who arrive in the United States are

more often from rural areas, suggesting their motives are

largely economic. The minors from El Salvador and Honduras

tend to come from extremely violent regions ``where they

probably perceive the risk of traveling alone to the U.S.

preferable to remaining at home,'' the analysis said.

``Basically, the places these people are coming from are

the places with the highest homicide rates,'' said Manuel

Orozco, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, a

Washington-based research group. ``The parents see gang

membership around the corner. Once your child is forced to

join, the chances of being killed or going to prison is

pretty high. Why wait until that happens?''

A confluence of factors, including discounted rates charged

by smugglers for families, helped ignite the boom, he said.

Children are killed for refusing to join gangs, over

vendettas against their parents, or because they are caught

up in gang disputes. Many activists here suggest they are

also murdered by police officers willing to clean up the

streets by any means possible.

In the case of the Castellanos family, the police said the

older boy was a lookout for the gang and had decided to quit.

The order to kill him, the police said, came from prison.

Several arrests have been made. Hector A. Medina, 47, who

the police said lived at an abandoned house controlled by the

18th Street gang, where Kenneth was killed, was charged in

the boys' deaths. ``It's a serious social problem: any

children born in this neighborhood are going to get involved

in a gang,'' said Elvin Flores, a police inspector in charge

of La Pradera. ``Our idea is to lower crime every day. We

need a state policy to involve kids from when they are little

to go to school.''

But gangs, which rob, sell drugs locally, kidnap people and

extort money from businesses, often recruit new members at

schools.

In some cities, blocks are empty because gangs demanding

extortion payments have forced out homeowners. Many people

have had to move within the country in a displacement pattern

that experts liken to the one seen in Colombia's civil war.

The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Refugees said that from 2008 to 2013, the number of asylum

claims filed in Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and

Belize increased sevenfold.

Most were from people of Guatemala, El Salvador and

Honduras, the three nations with large numbers of migrants

now arriving at the United States border.

Refugee advocacy organizations have urged the State

Department to treat the children arriving at the United

States border as refugees, and proposed a processing system

where asylum claims could be reviewed in Central America and

those accepted could move safely to the United States or

countries willing to accept them, as was done in countries

such as Haiti and Iraq. They have not yet received a

response, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

said.

President Obama urged Congress on Wednesday night to pass a

$3.7 billion budget supplement that would, among other

things, beef up border security, hasten deportations and help

Central American nations address security problems. ``The

best thing we can do is make sure the children can live in

their own countries, safely,'' he said.

During a recent late-night visit to the San Pedro Sula

morgue, more than 60 bodies, all victims of violence, were

seen piled in a heap, each wrapped in a brown plastic bag.

While picking bullets out of a 15-year-old boy shot 15 times,

technicians discussed how they regularly received corpses of

children under 10, and sometimes as young as 2.

Last week, in nearby Santa Barbara, an 11-year-old had his

throat slit by other children, because he did not pay a 50-

cent extortion fee.

``At first we saw a lot of kids who were being killed

because when the gang came for their parents, they happened

to be in the car or at the location with them,'' said Dr.

Darwin Armas Cruz, a medical examiner who works the overnight

shift. ``Now we see kids killing kids. They kill with guns,

knives and even grenades.''

Dr. Armas said his family was thinking of migrating, too.

Correction: July 11, 2014

Because of an editing error, an article on Thursday about

the murderous gang violence in Honduras that is a factor in

the recent wave of migration of Central American children to

the United States misstated the amount of money that

President Obama has requested from Congress to address the

problem. It is $3.7 billion, not more than $4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, with 3 legislative days left before Congress leaves for a 5-week vacation, Democrats are working to advance the priorities of the American people: creating jobs, jump-starting the middle class, and working to reform our broken immigration system. The majority, however, seems only interested in advancing a lawsuit against the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, very wrong. Suing the President--for what, for doing his job? This is the first time in the history of our Nation that one branch of government is bringing a lawsuit against another branch of government. What an incredible way to uphold the separation of power among branches of government.

Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to tackle big problems and do real work on their behalf. This lawsuit is only further proof that House Republicans have lost touch with the American people.

Not only is this lawsuit a waste of time, but it is a serious waste of taxpayers' money. Just as House Republicans spent $2.3 million defending discrimination during the DOMA case, and the $3 million they are spending on the Select Committee on Benghazi, they are now poised to waste yet more money on a political stunt that is deeply unpopular with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, we have critical work to do. I strongly urge my colleagues to do what is right. We should stay here in Washington to deal with issues like immigration reform, veterans' health care, and the economy. Let's not waste precious time and money on political stunts like suing the President. We owe it to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1726, which will pay tribute to the many patriotic Puerto Ricans who have served in the 65th Regiment throughout our Nation's conflicts. I am very proud today to serve in this body and of the fact that we are having this vote in a bipartisan manner. It is not every day that we have the pleasure of bringing bipartisan legislation to the floor.

I want to recognize Mr. Pierluisi, the Commissioner from Puerto Rico, as well as Frank Medina and the countless individuals and organizations throughout our Nation and Puerto Rico, for trying to get this recognition to the floor and to the Senate.

Puerto Ricans have a rich heritage of serving in the military. From the American Revolution, when Puerto Ricans volunteered to fight the British, to current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Puerto Ricans have fought and bled to defend the United States. The 65th Regiment, in particular, has time and again exemplified the courage of Puerto Rican soldiers. During World War II, these soldiers were initially deployed to protect the Panama Canal before later shipping to Europe. There, members of the unit would earn scores of medals, including Purple Hearts, the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars and Bronze Stars.

In the Korean war, the 65th made an even greater mark on history, participating in some of the most significant and bloodiest battles of that conflict. In 1950, the American ground situation in Korea deteriorated, prompting the 65th to be sent to Korea as reinforcements. While sailing for Asia, members of the unit adopted their informal name--the ``Borinqueneers.'' Derived from the Taino word for Puerto Rico, meaning ``land of the brave lord,'' this title exemplified these soldiers' fighting spirit.

General MacArthur wrote of the unit's achievement in Korea:

They are writing a brilliant record of achievement in

battle, and I am proud indeed to have them in this command. I

wish that we might have many more like them.

I am proud to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of those brave Puerto Rican troops who served in Korea was my late uncle, Luis Manuel Serrano Medina.

Since their participation in the Korean war, the 65th has continued to be an integral part of our Armed Forces, serving in the global war against terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In San Juan and New York City, the legacy of these brave warriors has been honored with streets in their names. It is only fitting that Congress now recognize these soldiers' contributions with one of the highest civilian awards. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I ask the Senate to do the same.

I thank the ranking member for yielding, for fighting, and for being a real fiscal leader for small businesses in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this budget. Far from being a path to prosperity, it is actually a path to the poorhouse. Sadly, just as it falls short in so many other ways, the Ryan budget clearly fails small businesses.

Under this budget, resources that help small companies launch, grow, and hire will be cut by nearly $11 billion. A wide range of resources will be gutted--from contracts, to access to capital, to international trade assistance, to job training.

This budget is not the right budget to help those businesses that are the backbone of the American economy at a time when this economy is still struggling.

Studies have shown that many of these small business programs generate more than $3 in Federal revenue for every dollar spent. What type of economic policy says that you cut programs that generate income for the Treasury?

We just held a press conference today with so many small business people who have benefited from these types of programs. They are businesses that opened up in 2006. Today, we had a lady who provides IT services to the DOD and to many Federal agencies. Her business has grown from six people to 130 employees. These are the types of programs that we need in place in order to grow our economy.

Republicans like to say that they are the champions of small businesses. They oppose the ACA, claiming it will harm small firms. They oppose Dodd-Frank, saying that it will hinder the ability of small businesses to get lending from traditional financial services; and yet they cut the very lending programs that provide, through the Federal Government, access to capital for small businesses.

When we look at this budget, we know that the rhetoric does not match the reality. Rather than paying lip service to small businesses, we must invest in the programs that help them grow and create jobs. That is what we need, job creation in our country. We must do better.

Vote ``no'' on this budget.

Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 2014 I was unavoidably detained for roll call votes 120-124. Had I been present, this is how I would have voted: on rollcall vote 120: Conyers of Michigan Amendment, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote 121: Nadler of New York Amendment, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote 122: Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote 123: Democratic Motion to Recommit, I would have voted ``yes''; on rollcall vote 124: Final Passage of H.R. 4138, Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law Act of 2014, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation.

Sixteen months ago, Hurricane Sandy battered New York City. Even today, efforts to rebuild continue. However, because of unforeseen consequences in previous flood insurance laws, many of the businesses, families, and homeowners affected by this storm may be hit again, this time by a flood of rising insurance premiums.

Because of how the law is structured, over 26,000 New York City homeowners and businesses will see their annual flood insurance premiums increase at least 25 percent. In some cases, people who previously paid $430 annually could see their rates rise to $5,000 or even $10,000--an unsustainable amount.

Today's bill will address these unintended consequences of last year's reforms. By eliminating the property transfer trigger, buyers and sellers will now have peace of mind.

Mr. Speaker, we all want to ensure the National Flood Insurance Program is solvent, but we must do it in a way that does not harm those who have already suffered enough.

Mr. Speaker, because of the House Republican leadership's inaction, 3 days after Christmas, 127,000 New Yorkers were cut off from their jobless benefits. Every week in 2014, another 5,100 working families in New York lose unemployment compensation. These families are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table.

This inaction not only harms dislocated workers who stop receiving a check in the mail, but it also slows economic growth. When families have to further cut spending, there is a ripple effect. As families spend less on necessities like food and clothing, local businesses take a hit. Indeed, it has been estimated that failing to pass an unemployment insurance extension will cost our economy 310,000 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, this could end today. Let's do what is right for working families and for the American economy. Let's reinstate unemployment insurance, and let's do so now.