Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 473, ``Help to Access Land for the Education of Scouts Act,'' which requires the conveyance of specified National Forest System land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America. This legislation is appropriate and necessary for the continuation of the very principles that Boy Scouts of America stands for.

Currently, the Indian Nations Council serves more than 28,000 youth and 5,500 adult volunteers throughout 18 counties in eastern Oklahoma. Over the past century, the Council has positively impacted hundreds of thousands of Scouts and their families. However, due to the increased growth of the scouting program in Eastern Oklahoma, attendance at Camp Tom Hale has surpassed the maximum number of available campsites and program capacity. In turn, the organization has been forced to turn away many scouts and their families. There is a critical need to serve more scouts. However, more land is needed to ensure the quality of camping and experience for the scouts. Boundaries need to be extended to help accommodate more scouts, and to maximize their camp experience.

Boy Scouts of America is a prominent values-based organization that has helped to mold young boys into model citizens, while simultaneously building character and promoting physical fitness. I do not feel that anyone, or the lack of sufficient land should deprive more of our youth from taking full advantage of all of the possibilities that Boy Scouts of America, specifically, the Indian Nations Council provides. I believe it is the responsibility of myself, as well as my colleagues, to ensure that we do everything in our ability to ensure that we pass H.R. 473 so that we can aid our young men in their development.

If passed, H.R. 473 will allow the Indian Nations Council to purchase an additional 140 acres of U.S. Forest Service land immediately adjacent to the existing Camp Tom Hale facility. To add to this, the Indian Nations Council can expect to have more scouts participate in their summer camps, without the burden of having to turn eager scouts away.

H.R. 473 can benefit the overall well being of the public by providing the Indian Nations Council of Boy Scouts of America with the adequate and necessary space needed to accommodate the growing number of scouts. It is essential that we pass H.R. 473 because organizations such as Boy Scouts of America are the driving force behind the leaders of tomorrow. By providing these young men, as well as their adult leaders with the proper space they need, we will simultaneously provide our youth with a place where they can live up to the morals and standards of the organization's mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 470 ``Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011,'' which Amends the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 to modify, commencing October 1, 2017, certain statutory schedules governing contracts for delivery to specified localities in Arizona, California, and Nevada of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam. The Hoover dam represents hope and prosperity that is possible if we, as legislators, do our job well. To many the Hoover Dam represents hope, and with this bill we can ensure good management of this facility into the future and hopefully create more jobs!

In the depths of the Great Depression, when like today a slow economy and high rate of unemployment caused great strife in the lives of American citizens, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed enormous leadership in launching the Hoover Dam project. Instead of abiding by the general wisdom of the era, that isolationism and fiscal austerity would insure the quickest economic recovery, FDR chose to use government resources to help those who were suffering the most. Through public works programs like this one, the President was able to put a massive amount of Americans back to work and construct some of this country's most impressive and meaningful structures. After construction began in 1931, it took only five years to complete, finishing two years ahead of schedule. The initiative and perseverance shown by the American workers, many of whom gave their lives to the dam, exemplifies the American spirit at its best. When people have a reason to believe in their government, they will respond accordingly in their own lives. Now it is our turn: we must ensure effective management of the dam's power production into the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 670, ``To convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands'' conveys to the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands submerged lands surrounding such Islands and extending three geographical miles outward from their coastlines.

The Act provides the American public, more specifically the occupants of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, with added ways to use and enjoy land surrounding their coastlines. It is in a spirit of encouraging the most beneficial use of natural resources that I support the idea of providing an expanded use of otherwise unused land to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. It is the responsibility of all Members of Congress to fulfill our moral obligation to promote harmony between Americans and their natural resources.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 670, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society. Their hard work and perseverance exemplify the work ethic we stand for as a nation, and I can think of no place better than the rotunda to honor their leadership and sacrifice in service to this country.

The rotunda of the United States Capitol offers the perfect venue to show the necessary respect to three men who risked their lives to change the course of history in the name of the United States of America. In the tension of the Cold War, when it seemed the existence of the free world had been brought into question, these three men stepped directly into harm's way in service to their country. A ceremony in the rotunda will evoke the honor and respect that we owe to these three brave men, and I offer my full support for the use of this space.

The Congressional Gold Medal is an award bestowed by Congress for outstanding deeds or acts of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the United States. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian award, and these men are deserving recipients.

The importance of this event is particularly relevant to the 18th district of Texas given the city of Houston's role in the Apollo legacy. Not long after President Kennedy set our nation on the course of putting a man on the moon, Houston became a key player in the realization of that goal. Before uttering his famous phrase, Neil Armstrong, communicated with Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center from the surface of the moon, stating ``Houston, the Eagle has landed.'' The historic lunar landing remains a cornerstone of the American legacy, and at a time when the very existence of NASA sits in question, it is especially important that we deliver a ceremony that will propel the memory of NASA pioneers into future generations.

Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr. were called to service by their country, in a time when two great nations challenged each other and boldly raced into space. In the bleak years of the Cold War, we conquered a new frontier, and in turn understood things about the universe we never thought possible. These men played an important role in American history that will benefit generations to come, and are well deserving of this honor.

It is in a spirit of deep appreciation that I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting S. Con. Res 29, authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society.

Mr. Speaker, all of us value constructive conversation and dialogue. In fact, I believe the Republican debates that have been occurring are valuable and insightful for the American people. I have no quarrel with the First Amendment and one's right to speak as one desires.

But I take issue with Mr. Herman Cain's very insulting and demeaning

comment on a whole body politic of people, African Americans, when asked the questions why they have made choices, political choices as they have made, and he chose to suggest that African Americans are brainwashed.

I take issue, Mr. Cain, with your very unfortunate choice of words, because if you look chronologically and historically at African Americans, they voted Republican; they voted Democrat. They were in love with the idea of President Lincoln, who, of course, is known to have freed the slaves, and voted for Republicans for a number of years.

Democrats and African Americans both vote their interests, their interest in saving Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, their interest and investment in this Nation and relief from the burdensome taxes by the Bush administration.

So, Mr. Cain, get your facts right. We're not brainwashed, and I am absolutely insulted by your ludicrous insinuation of African American intellect in choosing their political party.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years the Congressional Black Caucus, has earned the reputation as the conscience of the Congress by providing a voice for the voiceless and fighting for the forgotten. This summer, we worked diligently to live up to and maintain our reputation.

To address unemployment and the need for job creation solutions in underserved communities, the Congressional Black Caucus called upon private and public sector partners to immediately remedy the crisis by going into communities with legitimate, immediate employment opportunities for the underserved with the ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative--which included nationwide town halls and job fairs.

During the month of August, nearly half of the Congressional Black Caucus traveled the country and saw firsthand how unemployment continues to devastate our communities during the ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative.

Nearly 30,000 people from all walks of life attended CBC Jobs Initiative events in Cleveland, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles.

Given the substantial coverage of the events, our nation's citizens will have great difficulty saying they were unaware of the suffering of millions of unemployed Americans.

Like us, they too saw the lines wrapped around city blocks with hopeful citizens searching for a job opportunity to provide economic security for themselves and their families.

We all know that job fairs and town halls are not sufficient to address the jobs crisis; however, it is a small step in the right direction.

The unemployment numbers released in August demonstrate that there is a significant hemorrhage in the African American community that is not being addressed, which has resulted in extremely high job loss.

Overall unemployment remains stagnant at 9.1 percent while unemployment in the African American community has risen dramatically from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent.

Well into the 112th Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus continues to urge the Republican Leadership to address unemployment in any meaningful way.

We cannot afford to watch a segment of our community suffer from depression level unemployment, hoping that overall solutions will trickle down and fix the problem. It is clear that method will not work.

Therefore, the Members of the CBC unanimously co-sponsored and introduced the Congressional Black Caucus ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative Resolution (H. Res. 348) to urge the House of Representatives to immediately consider and pass critical jobs legislation.

Additionally, CBC members have introduced over fifty job creation bills since the beginning of the 112th Congress, launched a national jobs initiative, and provided nine job creation proposals targeting our nation's most vulnerable communities in this document.

We believe that through Creating, Protecting, and Rebuilding those who have suffered relentlessly from our country's great recession would be granted another chance at perusing the American dream.

We stand at a critical point in our nation's history. The time for bold action on jobs is now.

Every American has the right to be gainfully employed and CBC Members will not rest until there is equality in access to jobs and economic opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise today to support my amendment. I call my amendment ``Can We All Get Along?'' It is an amendment simply to ask that all of those who are impacted by this proposed legislation have an expanded time to be able to present their views.

It is a ``can we all get along?''-type amendment because it is important to note again that those of us who come from different States, whether it's Illinois or Texas, recognize that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act were formulated under a bipartisan Congress and were signed, as my colleague reminded us, by President Richard Nixon. Republicans and Democrats voted for the Clean Air Act and for the Environmental Protection Agency's jurisdiction.

It's important to note that there is not only a value in what the EPA does but that there are organizations, such as the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the American Public Health Association, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, which need their input and are concerned about this legislation.

So my concern as we move forward on the transparency and regulatory analysis of impact is how much time has been given for the public comment. My State, in fact, has been impacted for the lack thereof of public comment. I believe that there are civilians who are not businesses who should be protected and given the opportunity to have input.

For example, it's important to note that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which I don't think my colleagues can in any way dissuade me from believing, has been the basis of preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 11,000 cases of bronchitis, and 850,000 missed days.

The idea of putting a superlayer over the already existing regulatory

scheme, to me, sounds like we are adhering to the supercommittee concept, which many of us, by way of absolute necessity, voted on during the debt ceiling debate; but we realize that the responsibility of the purse strings is in the United States House of Representatives. Well, the law has given authority to the EPA and to the Clean Air Act as its authorizing aspect to be able to control and balance.

I believe we should create jobs; but the question becomes whether or not the TRAIN Act, in the format of adding another layer of review, actually does that--or does it create another level of bureaucracy that we neither want nor need? At a time when these regulations will both decrease health costs and can create thousands of jobs, why would my colleagues propose a bill that would only slow job growth?

It has been 260 days. I think we should, as I started out, get along, try to create jobs, recognize the value of the EPA, find a way to be able to resolve the present conflict on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule but not eliminate the authority and the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency.

What I would say to my colleagues is that the EPA has protected all of our constituents. Therefore, I think it's important to pass this amendment because it's about constituents. It's about constituents no matter what side of the aisle they're on. This is an amendment that moves the public comment from 90 days to 120 days. There may have been some who wanted to comment who cannot comment because they did not have the amount of time.

So I would ask my colleagues to support this ``can we all get along?'' amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me indicate to the gentleman first of all that I thank him for accepting the amendment, and I conclude my remarks by saying that my asking for a roll call vote is not in any way a reflection of my lack of acceptance, but I am just so gratified for this timeframe that I hope that the gentleman will encourage those to support the amendment.

Therefore, let me say to the gentleman--I finish on this note--there is some thought that we are putting in another regulatory scheme, but I think the important point from my perspective is that there was value when Richard Nixon signed the bill on how do we find a way to make this work so that we save lives and we create jobs.

I think my amendment provides the opportunity for that kind of input, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 2401, ``The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act,'' which extends the public comment period from 90 days to 120 days.

The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act establishes a committee to conduct studies and review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations based upon the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule (MATS) and the Cross State Air Pollution (CSAP) Rule promulgated. This committee is composed of Administration officials from different federal agencies and under H.R. 2401 will analyze the effect of the regulations on the economy, U.S. competitiveness in the global market, employment, and energy production and cost. In effect this is creating more regulations and more bureaucracy at time when Republicans are calling for all of us to tighten our belts. So now before us is a Super Committee for the Budget and again we are going to have a Super Committee for Clean Air. We already have an agency charged with protecting our air. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been up to the task for 40 years. According to the EPA, the pollution reductions required by the rule they have proposed will yield health benefits of $120 to $280 billion per year, which is 150 to 350 times the cost. I have always been a stalwart for a firm balance between the needs of the energy industry and our environment. But then there is just plain common sense. The TRAIN Act goes overboard. It is a extreme response that does not add value to ensuring Clean Air.

The argument proposed by some of my colleagues has been that this will cost jobs. Implementing regulations will create jobs. Old power plants and other utilities will have to hire workers in order to fulfill the requirements of the regulation. The EPA has determined that this will not be overly burdensome to the industry. We as a body must ensure that the regulations issued by the EPA will not destroy any industry but at the same token TRAIN is too extreme. It creates the very bureaucracy that we neither need nor want. At a time when these regulations will both decrease health costs and can create thousands of jobs, why would my colleagues propose a bill that will only slow job growth. It has been 260 days and the Republicans, who have been in the majority, have not presented a clear and consistent job growth package. Instead time and time again they have put forth measures to cut Medicare and social security at a time when so many of our constituents are dependent upon those resources to cover health costs and living expenses.

The TRAIN Act, which I could easily consider a bill like a steam train and it steams right through the power of the EPA to regulate clean air, requires that the committee publicly publish its initial findings and then provide the public with 90 days to comment. If this flawed bill is going to pass at least my amendment is an attempt to take into account the number of interested parties who may wish to give their input and extends the public comment period from 90 days to 120 days. I have offered this amendment to ensure that everyone who wishes to comment will have ample opportunity to do so.

My home state of Texas was not initially included in the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. When my state was added, there was no time provided for public input, a courtesy that was extended to the other 6 states included in the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. Stakeholders throughout Texas were afforded no opportunity to discuss the impact of including Texas at the last minute. Had there been opportunity for public comment, the EPA and stakeholders would have been able to work together towards a consensus.

The proposed regulations have different impacts on different stakeholders, and it is extremely important that everyone's point of view is considered. An open dialogue that encourages frank and productive communication can foster compromise.

As the Representative for Houston, the country's energy capital, I am committed to creating an environment in which the energy industry and regulating agencies can work together.

For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air.

Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.

When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.

The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. Providing a time for individuals to support or oppose any regulations is a meaningful first step. This bill is a step in the wrong direction.

The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. In terms of the Mercury and Air Toxics

Standard (MATS) Rule the new standard will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to the EPA this rule would prevent the following: 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits; 11,000 cases of bronchitis; and 850,000 missed work days.

The second rule that is targeted by this bill is the Cross State Air Pollution (CSAP) Rule. As a Representative from the State of Texas, I have a few reservations about the rules implementation in my home state; however, the rule can be more fairly implemented.

This rule will significantly cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions released into the atmosphere. The regulation impacts 27 states where power plant emissions cause poor air quality that affects neighboring states. It is important to know that the EPA designed this rule again by keeping the lives of our families, our children, our communities and the environment in mind. According to the EPA this rule when implemented will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthmas.

Sometimes we can get caught up in the numbers and forget the people behind each. If these rules are allowed to be implemented there are 51,000 more people who will be able to spend another day, week, month or year with their families. These are our friends and family members who with the implantation of these rules can enjoy another cup of coffee.

The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the very air that Americans, our constituents, breathe. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to repeal regulations that protect the 18th Congressional District's access to clean air.

The analysis required by this legislation is focused solely on the impact of EPA regulations on economic competitiveness, fuel prices, and employment without taking into consideration the public health benefits of the regulations. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities.

The Cross State Air Pollution Rule will significantly cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions released into the atmosphere. The regulation impacts 27 states where power plant emissions cause poor air quality that affects neighboring states.

My amendment will not affect the intent of the bill; it merely ensures that should this ill conceived measure pass that there is plenty of time given for our constituents who live in states affected by mercury and toxic pollution and cross state air pollution to weigh in on the public health aspects of these regulations.

I have offered this amendment not only to benefit those who live in states that would be affected by these regulations, but also to ensure that the industry being regulated has ample time to provide their input. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked tirelessly to foster better relationship between the energy industry and regulating agencies. With an open dialogue and productive communication, we can forge compromise that will protect the environment without harming economic growth, and the intent behind this amendment is to do just that.

As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, I can attest to the importance of a healthy energy industry. My district is the energy hub of Texas and is recognized worldwide for its energy industry, particularly for oil and natural gas, as well as biomedical research and aeronautics. Renewable energy sources--wind and solar--are also growing economic bases in Houston.

I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks associated with breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth.

Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.

The least that can be done is to extend the opportunity for the committee formed by this bill to hear the concerns of the public. I am sure this will certainly go a long way to encourage robust discussion on health, job creation and economic improvements without putting the environment or the American people at risk.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to strike a balance between the EPA and the energy industry, forge compromise that will protect the environment without harming economic growth by extending the public comment period from 90 to 120 days. My amendment does not change the intent of the bill, it creates the opportunity for communication and consensus.

September 21, 2011.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned public

health and medical organizations, we write to state our

strong opposition to any efforts under consideration by the

U.S. House of Representatives that hinder the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to protect health through

the implementation the Clean Air Act.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor's August 29, 2011 memo to House

Republicans specifically called for passage of bills

including H.R. 2401, which would indefinitely delay the EPA's

proposal to reduce mercury and other toxics from power plants

and would block implementation of the Cross-State Air

Pollution Rule, a finalized rule that is expected to prevent

the premature deaths of thousands of Americans each year and

to make it easier for states downwind of pollution sources to

achieve healthful air for their residents. The memo also

signals plans with H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2861, which would delay

EPA efforts to reduce mercury and other toxics from

industrial facilities and cement plants. Further, it signals

plans to thwart EPA's ability to propose a health standard

for particulate matter, calling for passage of HR 1633, a

bill that would block the completion of the review of the

health effects associated with deadly soot or particulate

matter and prevent EPA from even proposing a standard and

receiving public comment on that standard.

We urge you to oppose this plan and ask that you, instead,

support protecting public health. This Rep. Cantor-led effort

would impact EPA's ability to implement the Clean Air Act: a

law that protects public health and reduces health care costs

for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes,

including: cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, emergency

department visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths. A

rigorous, peer reviewed analysis, The Benefits and Costs of

the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, conducted by EPA, found

that the air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act

will save $2 trillion by 2020 and prevent at least 230,000

deaths annually.

Additionally, the public supports EPA's efforts to

implement and update the Clean Air Act. A recent bipartisan

survey, which was conducted for the American Lung Association

by the Republican firm Moore Information and Democratic

polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research indicate that

those pushing riders or otherwise interfering with EPA are

out of touch with voters. The survey shows that over seventy

percent of voters do not want Congress to stop the EPA from

setting stricter pollution limits and sixty-six percent of

voters would prefer that EPA set pollution standards, not

Congress.

We believe that in an ironic twist, the Majority Leader's

memo lays out an agenda that will expose the public to levels

of air pollution that can make them sick or kill them. This

agenda will certainly drive up health costs for all as people

continued to be exposed to life-threatening air pollution. We

ask you to support full implementation of the Clean Air Act

and oppose all efforts to weaken, delay or block progress

toward the continued implementation of this vital law.

Sincerely,

American Lung Association.

American Thoracic Society.

Physicians for Social Responsibility.

American Public Health Association.

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, we love you, Carrie Meek. And I am delighted to rise today to admit that Carrie Meek, Congresswoman Meek, was a mentor to me and someone who drew the admiration of Republicans and Democrats and did some unique and remarkable activities here in this Congress.

One, as a freshman, she pushed enough to become a member of the Appropriations Committee and led graciously during her tenure. And then she worked very closely with Republicans and Democrats to fight to ensure that cigarette packages had warnings about the impact--the negative impact--on groups like African Americans.

Carrie, do you remember the picture that we took with Rosa Parks and some of our colleagues, and how gracious you were? And do you remember the 25,000 people in Florida when they were trying to overturn affirmative action? And yes, you walked as long and as hard as anybody else.

So, Carrie, I think the jobs bill that the President has could be named after you, where it provides some 80 percent compensation to small businesses to hire people. That sounds like Carrie Meek. And I think we can resolve the CR and provide for those who have suffered disasters and do the right thing. That sounds like Carrie Meek. So I'm here to pay tribute to our friend, Carrie Meek, and to thank her for sending her son, Kendrick, who is a great

friend, and to let you know that we need to follow in the pathway of Carrie Meek that brings us all together to pass the jobs bill, a bill that could really be named after you Carrie, and as well to ensure that we protect those who have been harmed by disasters.

Thank you, Congresswoman Carrie Meek.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011,'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 at the expense of job creating efforts.

The bill before us today is almost identical to the bill that we voted against yesterday. Mr. Speaker the bill before us will hurt jobs. The central issue before our country is jobs and the creation of jobs to secure our economy. We need to focus on talking about jobs. Instead, we are now once again focused on a measure that was rejected yesterday. The amendment added to this bill is clearly a desperate attempt by my Republican colleagues to pass their own ideological Continuing Resolution. This amendment would keep the same offset for disaster relief which will result in a $1.5 billion cut to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM), which has been a proven job creator, it created 35,000 jobs in the private sector. The purpose of the program is to enable American businesses to build the cars of the future that could be sold to China, rather than the reverse. It is intended to give us a technological boast in the auto industry. As if this was not enough, the amendment adds an additional cut--a rescission of $100 million from the Recovery Act Renewable Energy Loan guarantee program, which is another cut to a program that creates jobs. A move to secure the votes of members concerned about the few party interests not the interests of Americans. This legislation causes the loss of American jobs!

The only broken record that I want to hear is the mantra of how to create jobs. Let us focus on putting the American people back to work, rather than bringing back measures that failed to garner support yesterday. I implore my colleagues to recall the reasons they rejected this measure in the first place and to do so again. Americans have always come to the aid of those in need, after a natural disaster.

Americans demonstrate a level of compassion that should not be damped by measures like the one before us today. Disaster relief funding is not a political football; it addresses the needs of Americans who find themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters. It is born out of our nation's desire to aid those who are in need.

Now . . . now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is not the time for a partisan position that will only cause more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason.

Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses.

This piece of legislation holds small businesses hostage in order to make a demand that has never been made by Republicans before. This demand changes their practice during previous administrations. In the past my

colleagues declared disaster funding as emergency spending and did not require offsetting emergency spending.

This bill would offset the $1 billion in FY11 disaster relief funding using a program that is a proven job-creator, a program for small businesses. The very small businesses that are currently in need of access to loans and other lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. The very small businesses that are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs.

The future successes of their businesses are being held hostage in order to demand offsets of funds that have not required such an offset in the past. These funds would aid victims of natural disasters. To propose such a measure at a time when our economy is so fragile and when so many are struggling to survive is unfathomable.

At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is a job killing measure. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. Before us is legislation that places a halt on this growth. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the first time in our nation's history have added to this piece of legislation a requirement that disaster aid be offset. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs the $6.9 billion in funding which has been approved in the Senate last week without requiring offset. My colleagues have cut this funding in half. They have offset this funding by decreasing the funds allotted by ending the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. These cuts cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. Under the previous administration Republicans supported disaster relief without requiring an offset, on eight separate occasions but today they want to require cuts that will result in job loss.

As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of cleanup and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

We must fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The devastating hurricanes in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. Our response to those events have demonstrated a need for significant improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators that forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility.

We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been--emergency funding.

Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our Nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions.

On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the Nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi River region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than 100 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan.

This legislation is a job killer, it is an affront to growing small businesses and will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. We should not prevent the growth of small business in order to address the unrealistic demands related to disaster relief funding.

Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small businesses' loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses.

The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.

A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.

We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is also important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development.

American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and

gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

Facts: Small businesses are important because they:

(1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms,

(2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees,

(3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll,

(4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years,

(5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP),

(6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers),

(7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises,

(8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007,

(9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Republicans appear to be a mission to cut programs that help families and will buttress small businesses. At a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now is not the time to force those Americans to wait on a partisan battle, to pick a fight that has not been fought in eight previous authorizations of funds for disaster relief. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach is important to ensuring that small business receive the support they need.

I stand here once again asking my colleagues to remember that just yesterday we opposed this bill. I implore you to do this once more. I support small business and job creation. I will not support small business growth being held hostage to the unrealistic demands made by my Republican colleagues. American families need measures that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 28, the concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, in recognition of their dedicated service during World War II. This resolution awards well deserved recognition and the honor of the Congressional Gold Medal to the brave soldiers who dedicated their lives to service during World War II.

Emancipation Hall, located in the Capitol Visitor Center is a fitting location for recognizing these courageous patriots; in Emancipation Hall there stands a replica of the Statue of Freedom, the statue that sits atop the Capitol dome. The Statue of Freedom is described by Thomas Crawford, its creator, as an allegorical figure of freedom, ``triumphant in both war and peace.'' Triumphant in both war and peace. I can think of no place more appropriate to honor the brave men of the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service. They chose to enter into military service, made a commitment to this country and to each other, fought for freedom, and were triumphant in war and peace.

The Congressional Gold Medal is an award bestowed by Congress for outstanding deeds or acts of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the United States. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian award. The men and women of the Armed Forces, past and present, devote their lives to the security, prosperity and national interest of the United States. It is a great honor and privilege to be able to recognize the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, for their dedicated service during World War II.

In 1944, the 100th battalion and the 442nd battalion merged to fight against Germany and defend freedom and democracy in Europe. Among the members of these battalions were many Hawaiians and Japanese Americans. Mr. Speaker, these are exemplary examples of bravery and the extraordinary measure of these men, who rose to meet a challenge and answered a call to defend the Nation. Their courage showed the world, and shows us today, that as a nation, our capacity to overcome may well be limitless.

The men of the Armed Forces in World War II fought to defend the very ideals on which our Nation was founded. The 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the MilitaryIntelligence Service risked their lives to defend that which Americans cherish, liberty, democracy, and the basic freedoms of the Constitution. They gave this Nation more than their support, they gave it their strength, and some gave their lives, in what Abraham Lincoln called ``the last full measure of devotion.''

Mr. Speaker, the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service deserve this honor, as they deserve our respect, our admiration, and our enduring gratitude. Their legacy of selfless patriotism lives on today, and serves as an example for all Americans. I am proud to support S. Con. Res. 28, a concurrent resolution authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to award the Congressional Gold Medal,

collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team, and the Military Intelligence Service, United States Army, in recognition of their dedicated service during World War II. I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this very worthy resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2943, ``The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Extension Act,'' which extends the authorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) state block grant program for three months, through December 31, 2011. Under current law, the program's authorization is set to expire on October 1, 2011, at the end of FY 2011. H.R. 2943 authorizes ``such sums as may be necessary'' to carry out the program at the same level as FY 2011 or $16.48 billion according to CRS and extends funding for the basic block grant, healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood competitive grants, mandatory child care grants, and certain other funds.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am keenly aware that the youngest among us often suffers the most when programs, like TANF, are underfunded. We must take a proactive role in protecting children from lives of abject poverty.

I represent the 18th Congressional district in Houston, Texas. In my district, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. Programs like TANF are vital to these families. At a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years.

Across our nation the poverty rate has climbed to 14.3 percent in 2009, the highest level since 1994 and is likely to continue to climb. At this time children are again bearing the brunt, more than one in five children lived in families with incomes under the official poverty level which was $22,050 for a family of four in 2009. Similarly more than one in five children lived in households that did not always have the resources to purchase food.

In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. Further, The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent history. This has resulted in nearly one in three Texas children living with a parent who does not have a full-time,

year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable.

When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly than others.

Public benefits such as TANF help families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will hurt child and family wellbeing and damage the Texas economy by taking money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as grocery stores and medical providers.

Although TANF is not perfect, I believe that is an essential part of the safety net for very low-income families with children. These benefits do not provide families with the ability to live a lavish life style, they do provide a life line to families at a critical time in their lives, such as periods of unemployment or disability, or when a newborn joins a family. The goal of TANF is to be a temporary safety net and to help families in need to regain their balance, when a hard time causes them to lose their balance.

TANF provides access to paths out of poverty through services such as job training or counseling for mental health issues. State also uses the block grants for a wide range of work supports, including child care and transportation. For these reasons I support H.R. 2943.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2883, ``The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act,'' which reauthorize Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, including the Promoting Safe and Stable Families and Child Welfare Services programs, while also reinstating the authority of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to authorize States to implement innovative demonstration programs through Title IV-E waivers.

As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have been a stalwart supporter of protecting the health and welfare of children and families. Today there are more than 463,000 children and youth that are in out-of-home care. Every day, more than a half million U.S. children are in the foster care system with over 120,000 waiting to be adopted. With no permanent legal guardians, they are our Nation's children, and we have a responsibility to ensure a bright future for those who are handed a rough start in life. Foster children like all children deserve a safe environment to grow and nourish in. This piece of legislation is a step in the right direction in addressing the needs of our Nation's children when they need our help the most. There are many silent heroes who have opened their homes and taken on the role of foster parents, social workers, mentors, caregivers and volunteers to the children in this Nation. These young kids need to know someone is looking out for them and supporting legislation like the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act provides these silent heroes with additional resources and requirements to meet the needs of children in care.

There are an estimated 12 million foster care alumni in the U.S. representing all walks of life. Each and every one of the 12 million alumni has a story of their struggles, challenges and success. The Foster care system is supposed to ensure that children are cared for by members of our communities on a full-time or temporary basis when their parents are unable to provide adequate care. Often the natural parents cannot provide for a child's care for a variety of reasons such as due to incarceration, physical or mental illness, behavioral difficulties, or problems within the family environment. These issues may include child abuse, alcoholism, extreme poverty, or crime. These children often become wards of the State and we have the responsibility to protect their interests and to ensure they are provided with the care they need.

If even a single child continues to be abused or neglected while under state supervision then that is one child too many. This legislation, although not ideal, is a valid attempt to address the needs of families in crisis. In 2001, an estimated 903,000 U.S. children were found to be victims of abuse or neglect. This number is above the estimated 879,000 child maltreatment victims in 2000 but below the annual estimated highs of more than 1 million child maltreatment victims recorded through the mid-1990s. For the year 2001, States reported 59 percent of these victims experienced neglect, compared to 63 percent in 2000 and 58 percent in 1999. The percentage of physical abuse and sexual abuse victims has declined over the past 5 years but held constant between 2000 and 2001. These children need our protection. There are over 500,000 children in foster care and with this economic downturn I hope this number does not keep on rising. But hope is not enough, we need to continue to fund programs to help these children and their families.

The size of the foster care caseload rises or falls depending upon both the number of entries to foster care--children who are removed from their homes in a given year--and the number of exits in that same year--children reunited with their families, adopted, emancipated, or placed in another permanent setting. The number of entries to foster care has outpaced the number of exits for two decades.

Accountability is key, children who received ``services from Child Protective Services died as a result of abuse 16 times more often than children in the general population 16.3 percent of all fatalities were children who had received services or were 'known to the system'. These children were already in a high risk category however, we must do our best to transform these numbers and ensure their safety. Currently at least 716 thousand children received ``services'' (28 States reporting) or 1 percent of the general population. If CPS intervention had no effect, 1 percent of this group would have suffered a fatality; if CPS intervention had made an improvement, the percentage would be less than 1 percent. However, it is 16.3 times that amount. (18 States reporting)

At this time children are again bearing the brunt of families in crisis. When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. This will lead to an increase of families needing child welfare services. For these reasons I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that we would come to the floor of the House at this time and celebrate a continuing resolution in the backdrop of Tropical Storm Lee and Hurricane Irene, the enormity of the tragedy in Vermont.

I know that my colleagues from that area are in pain and still suffering from the devastation. I noticed upstate New York, Prattsville in particular, a city that is full of pain with individuals who are at loss of why their town is no longer.

But in that instance, as my colleagues know, my Republicans friends know, although we have had some moments that we have not been proud of, such as in the gulf region when we were not prepared for Hurricane Katrina, we have still risen to the occasion thereafter and said to the American people that if you are in a disaster, this Nation will come to your aid.

Unfortunately, this CR does not in any way befit the American way, for here we have a fix that is really a broken fix.

Rather than declaring disasters what they are, emergencies, and providing the dollars that we need, we are, in essence, if I might use the old-fashioned term, nickel and diming our responsibilities. It is patently unfair to put the American people in the crosshairs of our politics about having an offset for emergency funding.

Do you want to tell that, if we look back at 2005 to the thousand- plus that died in Hurricane Katrina, you have to have an offset? Let's think about whether we're going to send you any money.

Now, I know that there is a need for this legislation to pass, but once we concede the idea that the American people will be put in the pickle of an offset, that means that disaster knocks at your door, not at your invitation, and the Federal Government, which is, in fact, the umbrella on a rainy day, it will not be there. I will not be able to tolerate that.

What we should be doing is passing a CR that declares emergency funding what it is--to be there for the American people. And this next thing we should be doing is passing the President's jobs bill, for that is how we will ensure that we are doing the job that the American people want.

This CR is a bunch of smoke and mirrors, and I will not tell the American people that they are second-class citizens. If I can find the dime to pay for your misery, I will look for the dime. That is not the American way.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011,'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 at the expense of job creating efforts.

Now . . . Now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is not the time for a partisan position that will only cause more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason.

Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses.

This piece of legislation holds small businesses hostage in order to make a demand that has never been made by Republicans before. This demand changes their practice during previous administrations. In the past my colleagues declared disaster funding as emergency spending and did not require offsetting emergency spending.

This bill would offset the $1 billion in FY11 disaster relief funding using a program that is a proven job-creator, a program for small businesses. The very small businesses that are currently in need of access to loans and other

lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. The very small businesses that are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs.

The future success of their businesses are being held hostage in order to demand offsets of funds that have not requires such an offset in the past. These funds would aid victims of natural disasters. To propose such a measure at a time when our economy is so fragile and when so many are struggling to survive is unfathomable. I support the bipartisan Senate language.

At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is a job killing measure. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. Before us is legislation that places a halt on this growth. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the first time in our nation's history has added to this piece of legislation a requirement that disaster aid be offset. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs the $6.9 billion in funding which has been approved in the Senate last week without requiring offset. These cuts cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. Under the previous administration Republicans supported disaster relief without requiring an offset, on eight separate occasions but today they want to require cuts that will result in job loss.

As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of clean up and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

The devastating hurricanes that struck Texas in past years because the response to those events demonstrated the need for significant improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility.

We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been--emergency funding.

Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions.

On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi river region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than 100 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan.

This legislation is a job killer, it is an affront to growing small businesses and will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. We should not prevent the growth of small business in order to address the unrealistic demands related to disaster relief funding.

Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small businesses loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses.

The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.

One strength that small businesses are known for is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.

We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is also important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development.

American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing.

We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to women-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

Facts: Small business are important because they:

(1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms,

(2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees,

(3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll,

(4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years,

(5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP),

(6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers),

(7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises,

(8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007,

(9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Republicans appear to be on a mission to cut programs that help families and will buttress small businesses at a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now is not the time to force those Americans to wait on a partisan battle, to pick a fight that has not been fought in eight previous authorizations of funds for disaster relief. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach to measures that will aid small business and to restore our economy.

I support small business and job creation. I will not support small business growth being held hostage to the unrealistic demands made by my Republican Colleagues. American families need legislation that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2189, ``the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2011,'' would require Federal law enforcement agencies and States that receive certain Federal funds to report to the Department of Justice (DOJ) any deaths of persons arrested or detained by law enforcement personnel under their jurisdiction. H.R. 2189 directs DOJ to prepare a report, within two years of enactment, on the information provided by Federal agencies and States and on ways to reduce the number of such deaths.

As a Senior Member on the Judiciary Committee, I am always concerned about the care of all persons detained by Federal, State, and local authorities. Whenever a death occurs in local jails, State prisons, or during the process of arrests by local and State law enforcement, we must ensure that there are systems in place which can identify the reasons behind each death--in the hope that when possible we can prevent these deaths. The collection of this type of information is a vital first step in this process. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and disseminates this type of data. Originally the program was initiated by The Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2000, upon the expiration of the Act; the BJS continued to collect this information. The BJS needs our support as they represent a unique national resource for understanding mortality in the criminal justice system.

We all know the important role that law enforcement officers play in protecting our streets and our neighborhoods. This data reflects the challenges that they must face in the line of duty and how to best address those challenges. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, forty-seven States and the District of Columbia reported 2,002 arrest-related deaths during the three years from 2003 through 2005. Homicides by State and local law enforcement officers were the leading cause of such deaths at 55 percent of deaths, followed by alcohol and drug intoxication incidents, which accounted for 13 percent of deaths, and suicides that represented 12 percent of deaths. In 80 percent of homicides by law enforcement officers, the person being arrested reportedly used a weapon to threaten or assault the arresting officer. Virtually all homicides by officers which accounts for 96 percent of deaths were caused by firearm use. According to the FBI during the same period 380 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty of which 159 were homicides. Having these facts readily available will allow authorities to find ways to address the issues faced by those being detained, in detention, and those responsible for safeguarding our neighborhoods and upholding our laws.

H.R. 2189 requires States to report to the Attorney General on quarterly basis information regarding the death of any person who is detained, arrested, en route to incarceration, or incarcerated in state or local facilities or a boot camp prison. To encourage compliance with this requirement States that fail to comply must pay a penalty. H.R. 2189 also requires the head of each Federal law enforcement agency to provide a report directly to the Attorney General. The Attorney General will then study the information and report on means by which it can be used to reduce the number of such deaths.

Summarily H.R. 2189 reauthorizes the Death in Custody Reporting Act. This legislation requires the submission of death statistics at the Federal, State and local levels. The legislation also provides for reductions of up to ten percent of Federal Byrne JAG grant funds at the discretion of the Attorney General, in the event of a State's non- compliance with the reporting requirements. H.R. 2189 also requires an accurate and complete study and report of information on deaths that occurred in custody. Further, H.R. 2189 does not authorize or require any additional spending.

For these reasons I support this legislation and firmly believe it can be used to advance our understanding of mortality in the criminal justice system, which will one day save a life. We must continue to protect persons who are in the custody of Federal, State, and local authorities. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.