Floor Statements

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for being a champion of this issue of eliminating the disparities that have so long plagued so many communities. I thank the chairman, John Conyers, for being persistent over the years on the criminal justice issues--even coming to Houston, Texas, and listening to a teeming room of individuals who came to tell him how they had been discriminated against by this overwhelming inequitable law dealing with crack cocaine. Thank you.

Today we're doing something that is not going to be soft on crime. But let me see if you understand this.

It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum. It just takes 5 grams of crack cocaine. Similarly it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum but 50 grams of crack cocaine.

And so it is important that this 1-to-18 be put in place in response to the 1980s when we thought this devastating act of using drugs was the underpinnings of crime. But what we have seen and what the U.S. Sentencing Commission has seen is that we're creating crime by throwing these individuals in jail instead of rehabilitation and by keeping this oppressive sentencing structure.

So for the first time, we're eliminating the 5-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine and it encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines.

In addition, however, there's more to go. Passing the Promise Bill to detour young people away from crime. H.R. 265, the bill I introduced, which was the underpinnings of the S. 1789, had a number of other provisions that would be dealing with rehabilitation and drug courts.

So there's more work to be done, Mr. Speaker. But I believe this is a first step and all good-thinking Americans who understand justice will appreciate the fact that we are eliminating these disparities. And in particular, I will say to you that this fell heavily on the poor African American and Hispanic communities.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

The statistics are very clear that the burden fell on a population that suffered more by not getting into rehabilitation than others. It is very clear that those numbers are strong.

So I would simply say that as we begin our work on establishing fairness, this is a first step. And I would say to the distinguished Members that we can do better on rehabilitation, drug court, intervention--which allows people to get into rehabilitation and have an obligation to finish.

And the main thing that I want to leave us with, doing this will help us detour any number of individuals to be able to support their family and maybe be real role models for children who we likewise want to detour away from crime by having an innovative juvenile justice system by passing this bill and going on to have criminal justice reform as we pass the Promise Act as well.

I rise in support of S. 1789, a bill that seeks to amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeates the Sentencing Guidelines. I also want to thank Senator Richard Durbin (IL), for introducing this important legislation and being a leader on this issue.

This act requires Congress to change existing legislation in order to increase the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking. This bill also calls for an increase of monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances.

Last year I introduced a bill called the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009, H.R. 265, in which I proposed many of the reforms proposed in S. 1789. In H.R. 265, I proposed 1 to 1 for crack and cocaine and added a long list of drug treatment measures. It is widely known that it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. While it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5- year mandatory minimum sentence, it takes just 5 grams of crack cocaine to trigger that sentence. Similarly, while it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, 50 grams of crack cocaine will trigger the same sentence.

This disparity made no sense when it was initially enacted, and makes absolutely no sense today, because cocaine base commonly known as `crack cocaine,' is made by dissolving cocaine hydrochloride, which is commonly known as `powder cocaine,' in a solution of sodium bicarbonate (or a similar agent) and water. Therefore, crack and powder cocaine are simply different forms of the same substance and all crack cocaine originates as powder cocaine.

Both forms of cocaine cause identical physical effects, although crack is smoked, while powder cocaine is typically snorted or injected. Epidemiological data show that smoking a drug delivers it to the brain more rapidly, which increases the likelihood of addiction. Therefore, differences in the typical method of administration of the two forms of the drug, and not differences in the inherent properties of the two forms of the drug, make crack cocaine potentially more addictive to typical users than powder cocaine. Both forms of the drug are addictive, however, and the treatment protocol for the drug is the same regardless of the form of the drug the patient has used.

Although Congress in the mid-1980s was understandably concerned that the low-cost and potency of crack cocaine would fuel an epidemic of use by minors, the epidemic of crack cocaine use by young people never materialized to the extent feared. In fact, in 2005, the rate of powder cocaine use among young adults was almost 7 times as high as the rate of crack cocaine use. Furthermore, sentencing data suggest that young people do not play a major role in crack cocaine trafficking at the Federal level.

The current 100 to 1 penalty structure undermines various congressional objectives set forth in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Data collected by the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that Federal resources have been targeted at offenders who are subject to the mandatory minimum sentences, which sweep in low-level crack cocaine users and dealers.

It is time for us to realize that the only real difference between these two substances is that a disproportionate number of the races flock to one or the other. It follows that more whites use cocaine, and more African Americans use crack cocaine. The unwarranted sentencing disparity not only overstates the relative harmfulness of the two forms of the drug and diverts federal resources from high-level drug traffickers, but it also disproportionately affects the African- American community. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's May 2007 Report, 82 percent of Federal crack cocaine offenders sentenced in 2006 were African-American, while 8 percent were Hispanic and 8 percent were white.

Like H.R. 265, my bill, S. 1789 will eliminate the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine. It also encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its sentencing guidelines to (1) increase sentences for defendants convicted of using violence during a drug trafficking offense; (2) incorporate aggravating and mitigating factors in its guidelines for drug trafficking offenses; (3) promulgate guidelines, policy statements, or amendments required by this Act as soon as practicable, but not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act; and (4) study and report to Congress on the impact of changes in sentencing law under this Act.

For the foregoing reasons, I stand with Mr. Durbin in support of amending the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeate the Sentencing Guidelines.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Edwards, for introducing this important bill honoring our continued commitment to support the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice their very lives in the service of our nation and the freedom we so cherish. Our armed forces and their family members are among the most valued members of our society, custodians of our freedom and protectors of our democracy. We must continually re- commit ourselves to serving them with the same honor, dignity and respect with which they serve their country.

This bill generously provides substantial funding, over 77 billion dollars, in the service of our men and women in uniform, veterans, and their families for fiscal year 2011. It is a continuation of three and a half years of hard work and tireless efforts on behalf of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. This bill is a testament to their commitment to our soldiers, veterans and their loved ones. Moreover, the bill contains specific guidelines and provisions to ensure that all funds are spent responsibly, accountably and in a way that serves our troops and American taxpayers.

Of the 77 billion dollars, 18.7 billion are for Military Construction. The funds will provide adequate housing for our young military trainees bravely serving their country; it will fund environmental cleanup of closed or moved bases as we strategically re- align resources; it will provide for a National Guard and Reserve initiative for the men and women serving their nation at home; and it grants funding for critical construction for overseas contingencies operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also dedicates over 56 billion dollars to Veterans Affairs honoring those who, after serving their country overseas, returned home to re-integrate into the society they fought valiantly to protect. The majority of the funding, over 37 billion, will go to providing much needed and well deserved medical services for all veterans, including mental health services and assistance to homeless veterans. The remaining funding will be used for major and minor construction projects, medical and prosthetic research, and medical facilities in the service of our honored veterans.

Finally, in Related Agencies, the bill is providing for a number of other critical needs, such as the National Cemetery, funding for an Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the Monuments Commission which manages and cares for the monuments and cemeteries around the world that honor the service of our armed forces.

Additionally, in respect for the fact that the American public has rightly demanded greater

efficiency in government and efforts to reduce our deficit spending, there are a number of important provisions to ensure that all funds are spent in the most effective, efficient and expedient way possible. The provisions include several controls for Veterans Affairs spending and contract oversight, as well as oversight provisions for all construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.

Although I am disappointed that my amendment, establishing portability between states for individualized education, disability and therapeutic benefits of a dependent of a member of the armed forces upon transfer of the member, was not included in the final version, I still gladly and proudly support this bill.

However, I would like to reiterate that an important part of anyone's quality of life is their family and dependents. One of the ways in which we can serve the members of the armed forces who sacrifice so much for our safety and our liberty is to ensure that their families are taken care of, and eliminate the bureaucratic red tape involved in moving from one place to another. Members of the armed forces often find themselves moving, and uprooting their families and their lives. Hopefully such a provision, aimed at facilitating that process by making the educational, disability and therapeutic benefits of a child or dependent of a member of the armed forces transferable from one state to another, will be included in future legislation.

In closing, I reiterate my strong support for this bill, and express my most sincere and heartfelt appreciation to everyone fighting to defend our country for their service and sacrifice for the good of the nation.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Having recently returned from Afghanistan, I can say to you that our soldiers are resilient, and the people of Afghanistan are looking for their government to provide them with the leadership and the resources to improve their quality of life. But our plan is not working.

And now that we have two of our trusted and wonderful naval personnel missing, and we realize that this is a place that needs a plan, we cannot continue to support this war when the Government of Afghanistan will not stand up. They will have the necessary security forces. They need to be in front of the line.

And we need to provide moneys for Pell grants, for teachers, and firefighters, and police officers, for the settlement for black farmers, 100,000 of them, and for youth jobs and summer jobs for people in America who are unemployed, and those families who need support as a bridge to carry them over.

I believe in this Nation, and I believe in our soldiers. I salute them. And I believe it is time to bring them home with honors. They are our heroes. They have done what they needed to do in Afghanistan. They provided for a democratic government. It's time now to bring them home with honor. Vote ``no'' on this supplemental.

I thank the distinguished manager and I really applaud Congressman Kucinich for allowing us to come to the floor today and discuss a crucial aspect of America's foreign policy.

Frankly, I believe it is time for us to come home from Afghanistan, having just returned just over 2 weeks ago, in the early part of July, when I was able to see the enormity of corruption and the lack of standing up by the Afghan Government. But I saw the resilience of the United States military and the willingness of the people in Afghanistan to be able to desire a better quality of life. I think that we are now poised to build the Afghan national security forces and to remove our forces from the dangers of the Taliban neighbors who live in Afghanistan, who are not leaving, who have a difference of opinion.

In the instance of Pakistan, I think it is key that we recognize that there are some troubling circumstances. And yes, we do have some questions as relates to the people of Pakistan understanding the great humanitarian work that the American people have done; the work they've done with USAID, the work they've done in helping to build schools, and it is the responsibility of the Pakistan Government to be able to emphasize what the presence of the United States is all about.

I do not want boots on the ground dealing with hostility. We have boots on the ground all around the world, but they're not engaged in hostility. They're providing, if you will, a level of peacekeeping and friendship and cooperation.

Now we need to rid ourselves of the involvement of the ISI in undermining American soldiers in Afghanistan. They cannot be playing around with the Taliban while we are investing treasure. But at the same time Pakistani army or military forces is investing their treasure and we are trying to provide them with the training that is necessary.

I believe that what Congressman Kucinich has done here is important, and he is absolutely right to be able to have this discussion and to recognize that something is awry. We've got to work together on the humanitarian side to be able to inform the Pakistani people and the Pakistan Parliament and government officials to not run away from the humanitarian work that the United States is doing. We have just passed a multi-billion-dollar bill that is going to work on building and helping to rebuild Pakistan from the education and social and health care-wise.

So the training that is being done by our military should be done in a peaceful mode. That should be annunciated by the officials of the Pakistan Government, and they should not run away from the good things that we are doing there.

My concern to be able to acknowledge or affirm that we have troops there under the War Powers Act would suggest that we are there in a hostile manner.

We are perceived with hostility because there has not been a standing up by our friends in Pakistan that we are working collaboratively in a diplomatic manner to enhance the quality of life and to provide for the security, if you will, of the Pakistan people, working with or with their military in the forefront.

So I would argue that we have much work to do in Afghanistan, our troops need to come home, and the technical assistance that is being given to the neighbor Pakistan must be defined as that and not defined as a hostile manner.

I'm looking forward to us clarifying the relationship and ensuring that the Pakistan intelligence is not undermining this diplomatic, civilian-focused effort of our military using training techniques and to be able to cooperate by allowing the Pakistani military to interact with our military for procedures and process. It is clear that we have a very contentious situation in the region; Pakistan, India, Bangladesh.

We have a contentious relationship there, but I have great hope as the cochair of the Pakistan Caucus that, working with Pakistani Americans, building on the core of humanitarianism that we are working with with the Pakistan American Foundation that has been developed, that we can overcome the image and the perception the Pakistan

people have that we're not there to work with them to fight the Taliban, to fight against al Qaeda, to fight against Osama bin Laden, and to put them forward trained and equipped to be able to work on behalf of the Pakistan people.

Mr. Speaker, on H. Con. Res. 301, rollcall 473, I was unavoidably detained in a hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1504, ``Recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990'', introduced by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, and Majority Leader, Representative Hoyer.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in the last few decades, and has had overwhelmingly bipartisan support. It was implemented to ``provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' It places an affirmative obligation on employers, government entities, and places of public accommodation to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal chance to participate in mainstream American life, and that reasonable accommodations be made to remove barriers that might prevent full participation in society by people with disabilities.

In the twenty years since ADA's enactment, it has had an undeniable, positive impact on the lives of disabled Americans. People in wheelchairs now have access to places they could never go twenty years ago, or only with great difficulty--movie theaters, restaurants, clothing stores, and government buildings. Now, people who use service animals to participate in regular daily life are allowed to bring them where they previously couldn't. The disabled are no longer excluded from places of business, mass transit, or schools.

Just as disabled Americans benefit directly from the improvements that the ADA has made in our society, so have we all benefited. Before the passage of the ADA, those Americans with disabilities were unable to meet their full potential, due to the physical barriers to education and employment. As they were denied the opportunity to participate in society, we were all deprived of their contribution to our economy, scholarship, research, and civic life. Today, we are better able to benefit from the contribution of all Americans; there is no better illustration than the fact that, today, Congressman Langevin presides from his wheelchair--raised to the Speaker's rostrum by a mechanical lift.

Last week, the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the ADA. We heard from our witnesses about the impact the ADA has had on their lives, some who grew up with the ADA and its benefits, and others who had previously been unaware of the ADA and found how important it was after a life- changing event. The ADA has had a profound impact on American life, but there is still more to do.

I join with Representatives Hoyer, Sensenbrenner, Langevin, and the other cosponsors of this resolution in honor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in their pledge to continue to improve the ADA and its impact on the lives of disabled Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in that support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.

Res. 1543, ``Honoring the educational significance of Dr. Jane Goodall's work on this the 50th anniversary of the beginning of her work in Tanzania, Africa.''

Dr. Goodall once said: ``Young people, when informed and empowered, when they realize that what they do truly makes a difference, can indeed change the world. They are changing it already.'' This is the creed in which Dr. Goodall has based her entire life's work. In May 1956, a friend of Dr. Goodall invited her to visit her farm in Kenya. She was so excited, she quit her job in London and moved back to Bournemouth so she could waitress and earn the fare she needed to get to Africa and back.

Dr. Goodall or ``Jane,'' as she was known back then, was 23 years old at the time. Jane had a wonderful time seeing Africa but the single most important event of her time in Africa was meeting Dr. Louis Leakey, a famous anthropologist and paleontologist. Leakey hired Jane as his assistant and secretary at the Coryndon Museum and soon Jane and another young student were in the Olduvai Gorge digging up fossils with Dr. Leakey and his wife: anthropologist Mary Leakey.

Looking for someone to go to Tanzania and study the chimpanzees, Dr. Leakey found a willing assistant in Jane. Not much was known about wild chimpanzees at that time, Dr. Goodall figured that studying them would be a fascinating adventure.

With persistence, Dr. Jane developed a relationship with the chimpanzees and observed them doing things that only humans were thought to have done, such as creating tools to hunt for food and taking in orphan chimps to raise as their own. She also discovered that chimps were not primarily vegetarians, as first believed. After these discoveries, National Geographic decided to sponsor Jane's work and sent a photographer and filmmaker. Eventually, Dr. Goodall wrote a number of journals and books to document her experiences. One of her books in particularly, ``In the Shadow of Man and Through a Window'' gave a new outlook to chimpanzees of Tanzania to people all over the world.

In conclusion, I support H. Res. 1543 and commemorate the 50th year of the beginning of her groundbreaking research. Dr. Goodall has been a role model for youth of all ages, inspiring boys and girls alike to take action for people, animals, and the environment; and through her Jane Goodall Institute, Dr. Goodall established the Roots and Shoots global youth program which now has members in more than 110 countries. This resolution acknowledges the groundbreaking environmental education advancements by the Jane Goodall Institute's Roots and Shoots initiative on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Dr. Jane Goodall's research, as well as the role that her research played in understanding both the natural and human world. It also recognizes the adventurous spirit of Dr. Goodall and the way she inspired children around the world explore this world and all its wonder.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was designed in 1990 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan approach to implement laws that would provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Why did we wait so long? How grand it is to be able to respond to those disabled, who are challenged, who are intellectually challenged, physically challenged, and who are experiencing difficulties that they should not as a full American citizen. So this law provides them with the armor to prevent discrimination.

Today, in Houston, Texas, I was very proud to be with the City of Houston and their 20th celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act at the West Gray Multi-Service Center. I can assure you that this evidence of serving people was a grand celebration. So many were there, celebrating at the West Gray Multi-Service Center in Houston, Texas.

Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlelady from Ohio, and I'm very glad to follow on the theme that Congresswoman Kaptur of Ohio spoke to and the note that she ended on, recognizing that we have to do more.

There is pain out there, but to actually say to the American public that our President, President Obama and this administration with this Democratic Congress has created more jobs in the last 18 months than were created in the tenure of the last administration, I don't know how many times we have to say that, but allow me to say it one more time, that this administration, President Obama's administration with this Democratic Congress, has created more jobs than the last administration in their entire tenure, and that was 8 years.

Let me also cite for my colleague and let me as well express my appreciation in joining the Congressional Black Caucus special hour that we have participated in and educated really the American public, and I thank you for your leadership.

Chairman Bernanke spoke last week in a number of hearings--and I think it's important to note--I know that many of our colleagues are either at hearings or they see the hearings. We try to twist and turn on our questions. If we don't like the answer, we try to throw it back at the witness. But the chairman of the Federal Reserve was very, very definitive when he said: It is important to invest in the economy, and if you want to use the term ``stimulus,'' I'd like to use the word ``investment,'' is the way to go, and all of those who are concerned about deficit, all of us we want to keep a balanced budget in our own personal homes. He said: The most important thing is to keep this economy churning and to not be so concerned about deficits as opposed to investing in our economy.

That investment has caused a churning of the economy, such that we see the growth of jobs. We see the private sector working, but yet we have obstacles. Those obstacles concern me, and that's why we've come to the floor of the House to let everyone know that the Congressional Black Caucus is fighting still on the cause of expanding job opportunity.

It baffles me how long we had to work to get the unemployment extension to be passed by the other body. Clearly, unemployment insurance is not a handout. It is a trust that is established with a working American. When they work and they fall upon hard times, they are due an unemployment insurance to carry them over the bridge of difficulty.

This bill that we passed was focused on the unemployment extension that finally got passed after constant advocacy by this caucus, after meeting with Senate leaders over a period of time by Chairwoman Barbara Lee, after calling and prompting, that bill was passed. However, the component that would have added extra jobs, the component that would have provided youth jobs or summer jobs--and what date is it today, July 26. It saddens me; it saddens me. I remember us standing in the heat of summer in the month of June, standing with the constituents of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, teenagers from this region, standing with us and making a simple plea, put us to work, let us work.

The other body has stood as an obstruction. When I say that, let me clarify. The Senate Republicans have been very, very challenging.

But what we just had a chance to pass involved providing tax relief to businesses and State and local governments to help them invest and create jobs, provide important tax cuts to put money back in the pockets of working families to help restore the flow of credit to enable small businesses to expand and hire new workers by extending the small business loan program; extending eligibility for unemployment insurance, COBRA, health care tax credits and others; and close tax loopholes for wealthy investment fund managers and foreign operations of multinationals.

Work still to be done, and that kind of work will really provide for enhanced opportunities for our small businesses.

Our colleague from Maryland was saying that why can't we pass this small business lending bill that would make a huge difference coming out of the summer months, getting our small businesses ready to be the backbone of America and hiring those who need it.

But let me speak to the emotion of what is going on, if I may, to my friend and colleague from Ohio, and if I may, Madam Speaker, just comment a moment because it troubled me how long it took for the unemployment insurance.

People actually fell off the flat Earth. They literally fell off, 2.5 million, before we were able to pass this insurance; but more importantly, can you imagine as they were counting their dollars and they were not getting any word that we had passed it, can you imagine the stress that anyone who was having to be responsible for family members and children felt, the pressure, the intensity. I don't know why anyone doubts that people are looking for work.

Eight thousand people came to a job fair that I held last year; 10,000 came to another one that I held. But these are just pictures of everyday Americans around America who have been standing in line for jobs, for jobs. Does anyone have any sense that there is a need out there, that people are not serious, that we shouldn't have extended the unemployment as well as extend dollars to small businesses and provide them with lending opportunities? Does anyone not see that this is a serious issue when people are standing in the hot sun for long hours when there is a job fair?

Many people will tell us that there are thousands that come out when anyone has a job fair, when anyone has it; and what I focused on was the government opportunities because in many instances we're hiring, but let me just give some numbers that are so frightening.

The Houston Crisis Center is seeing a startling increase in the number of suicide-related calls this year. The economy and job losses are among the top reasons people say they need help. The Crisis Intervention Center of Houston noticed more calls were coming in, many of them related to unemployment. The executive director says they compared calls from January to June of 2010 to the same time period last year, 2009, and that it has been a 220 percent increase of suicide-related calls, 1,446 suicide-related calls this year, people saying I don't know where to turn.

Unemployment insurance that we fought so hard for, that could have been passed over a month ago, the realism of them understanding that people are impacted because they don't know how they're going to pay their mortgage, their rent, their food, college education for those whose children may still be in college, or other needs that they may have, medical bills.

Let me just add this: according to foreclosure crisis on July 1, online publication, the people are stressed out from layoffs, actual or feared, and underemployment with salaries being slashed. The foreclosure crisis has taken a toll on the mental health of the people in no certain way.

Take the story of Deanne Ross, for example, who was working full time, and she was a counselor dealing with the unemployed and helping them address their mental health situation. She was working with the national alliance dealing with mental illness and was a field operator, but she lost her job. Since that time, Ms. Ross, who is in her early forties and suffering from bipolar disorder, is battling urges to withdraw from social contact.

We found this story on a foreclosure crisis Web site. Apprehensions about becoming homeless are haunting her, anxiety is crushing down upon her. She has five children to care for. All her life she has been hardworking and managing things, even with the physical challenge that she has had, and, therefore, now she finds herself unemployed. Does anyone get it?

We need to pass a jobs bill to complement the hard work that you have already seen by this Congress and this administration in creating jobs. This is a public and private partnership. The private small businesses and large corporations who now are restraining themselves need to have confidence to invest in making and creating jobs.

How do they do it? With the help of the Federal Government, by focusing on what we Democrats will be leading with, making it in America, emphasizing manufacturing, and that expands to other markets to allow people to not be in foreclosure, to not be without rent money. This is the way to go.

Finally, Dan McCarthy of Magellan Health Services said, for many American workers, this financial stress, uncertainty, and anxiety can be significant, and it is important that they have places to turn for guidance and support. The services focus on managing benefits related to mental health.

My key point is to dispel the myth that these are people who don't care, are not looking for work, don't need any resources. These are hardworking Americans, and it is important to note that they should look for support systems. Don't go this alone. Don't be alone when you are struggling to pay bills. There are many support systems in your own community, from the faith community to United Way, to various mental health associations, to your State unemployment offices. Don't handle this alone. Don't go it alone.

But while you are working to survive, we in the United States Congress should do so.

Let me close, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that there is much work left for us to do: creating public job initiatives involving the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, the Corporation for National and Community Service, locally directed programs for youth summer jobs.

To my disappointment, it is almost an embarrassment to stand on the floor of the House. This House passed it, and we cannot get the Senate that doesn't understand that the families of youth are standing in unemployment lines, and we can't pass a simple summer youth program or youth jobs of a billion dollars to put young people to work who may be providing for some extra income to these desperate families, locally directed funding, as I indicated, for our summer youth; enforcing the minority contracting requirements under the National Significance and National Corridor grants in an extension of the SAFETEA-LU; and strengthening apprentice and training programs, which I am working with in the city of Houston; expanding unemployment insurance, which we have done, and COBRA benefits; providing access to capital and technical assistance for capital for small businesses from SBA and MBDA.

There is work to be done, and I would simply say that this effort tonight is important to educate our colleagues to call upon our Senate Republicans to think about people and to care about those who desperately need our help.

I hope that we are inspiring our colleagues to be renewed in their vigor to fight for the jobless, and I hope that we are challenging Senate Republicans to recognize that they have a responsibility as well to the thousands and millions of individuals who are calling out to get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is simply the morally right thing to do. And as I listen to the bantering and the chattering and the constant obstructionist policies of my friends, Republicans in this body and the other body, I'm amazed that there is no moral compass to say that millions of Americans, those who have worked, are simply asking that they be able to survive.

This is not a handout. This is a trust, a contract, that when you work you invest in unemployment insurance to a certain extent, first given by the States, and now, because the States have run out of money, our federal government, their government is extending those dollars. And we know that it's the right thing to do because those people on the other side of the aisle have allowed this obstructionism to go forward, but they couldn't fight it anymore.

They couldn't fight 62 percent of the American public who said this is the right thing to do. They couldn't fight the Congressional Budget Office who said this is the most cost-effective and fast-acting infusion of dollars to help people pay their mortgage and food and car payments and to stay off the streets, and to improve the economy.

And further, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Bernanke said, It's no time for the deficit hawks to raise their heads. Continuing to stimulate the economy is the right approach.

What we, as Democrats, are doing, infusing dollars into the economy, is the best approach to get the economy to grow. Corporate revenues grew in the last quarter, but corporations are hoarding their money, for now. I believe we will see more job creation soon.

We are creating jobs and therefore we must continue to stimulate this economy by these unemployed individuals having resources to buy into the economy and to make a difference.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and allowing me to say that all of the economists point to the fact that we're doing the right thing. I ask the Republicans to join us today and stand as Americans and do what is right for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4213, ``The American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. I am primarily concerned with the unemployment provision in this piece of legislation. If passed, this bill will restore unemployment aid to 2.5 million Americans who have lost their benefits and are still seeking work in this emerging economy. It will give hope to the long-term unemployed and allow them a chance to survive by extending their benefits to November 30th, 2010.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a single federal program that is absolutely critical to people in communities all across this nation at this time, it would be unemployment compensation benefits. Unemployed Americans must have a means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many parts of the country is just not there. Families have to feed children. Unemployed workers, many of whom rely on public transportation, need to be able to get to potential employers' places of work. Utility payments must be paid. Most people use their unemployment benefits to pay for the basics. No one is getting rich from unemployment benefits, because the weekly benefit checks are solely providing for basic food, medicine, gasoline and other necessary things many individuals with no other means of income are not able to afford.

Personal and family savings have been exhausted and 401(Ks) have been tapped, leaving many individuals and families desperate for some type of assistance until the economy improves and additional jobs are created. The extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed is an emergency. You do not play with people's lives when there is an emergency. We are in a crisis. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent, preventing and prolonging people from receiving unemployment benefits is a national tragedy. In the city of Houston, the unemployment rate stands at 8.3 percent as almost 250,000 individuals remain unemployed. Indeed, I can not tell you how difficult it has been to explain to my constituents who are unemployed that there will be no further extension of unemployment benefits until the Congress acts. Whether the justification for inaction is the size of the debt or the need for deficit reduction, it is clear that it is more prudent to act immediately to give individuals and families looking for work a means to survive.

H.R. 4213 is just the right measure at the right time. The legislation will send a message to the nation's unemployed, that this Congress is dedicated to helping those trying to help themselves. Until the economy begins to create more jobs at a much faster pace, and the various stimulus programs continue to accelerate project activity in local communities, we cannot sit idly and ignore the unemployed. As such, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4213.

Mr. Speaker, the supplemental that this leadership passed was to create jobs, and I hope that the bill that comes from the Senate will embrace the need for American jobs.

In Ohio, the home of our minority leader, there is a 10.5 percent unemployment. Can anyone explain to me why the Republicans continue to obstruct the extension of unemployment

benefits, benefits that will benefit those who work and who have worked and who need to pay their mortgages and provide food on the table? We need to extend unemployment benefits for unemployed Americans now.

Again, we have another story. Here is a story of privatizing Social Security or extending the age before receiving Social Security. I remember the fight. I was here on the floor of the House when seniors were calling our phone lines and saying don't privatize Social Security. Thank goodness for the wisdom of our seniors. If we had privatized Social Security, it would have collapsed in the abysmal disgrace of Wall Street--no money. But Social Security has been paying on a faithful basis now for decades.

We know that 72 percent of the American public don't want us to raise the age to be eligible for Social Security, but yet the minority leader wants to raise it so he can pay for the Iraq and Afghan war. Bring the soldiers home. Recognize that 36 million families are in need of Social Security. Seniors are in need of Social Security. Keep our Social Security the way it is--strong and solvent.

I thank the gentlelady who chairs the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and has done an excellent job. I thank the ranking member that shares that responsibility with her, Mr. Lungren.

I rise today to congratulate these members for the Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010 and to make the point that under Chairman Thompson we have, in actuality, passed more authorization bills on our committee, and particularly those that relate to subcommittees. The Committee on Transportation Security has passed H.R. 2200 and is waiting for action in the Senate.

I join my friend from California and indicate that homeland security is not a partisan issue; it is a bipartisan issue, as he has indicated. And I join him in wondering when we can adhere to the 9/11 Commission report and get a more single-focused review of homeland security in the Homeland Security Committee. I hope that maybe we will have the opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner, to work with the other body, and to really accomplish the idea of maintaining homeland security issues in the Homeland Security committees, both in the House and the Senate.

This legislation shows what our committee can do under the leadership of Chairwoman Clarke and Ranking Member Lungren to be able to establish a roadmap for Science and Technology. After listening to the oversight findings of the Committee on Homeland Security, the GAO, and the DHS Inspector General, H.R. 4842 requires Science and Technology to establish requirements for how basic and applied homeland security research is identified, prioritized, funded, passed, and evaluated, and emphasizes the need to prioritize research around risk.

We all know that Science and Technology really is the backbone of our homeland security efforts. It is to keep us ahead of the terrorists who want to do us harm. H.R. 4852 authorizes the establishment of a more quasi-autonomous Testing, Evaluations and Standards Division within S&T to help ensure that technology is properly evaluated.

Additionally, in an effort to foster better collaboration between S&T and the private sector firms--most especially small firms--with promising homeland security technologies, H.R.

4842 authorizes the Office of Public-Private Partnerships. I want to congratulate the chairwoman and the ranking member on this issue.

Before my committee, the Subcommittee on Transportation Security, many times small businesses will come before us and really act in angst about the fact that their new technology is languishing at the Department of Homeland Security. Now we have, because of this legislation, the Rapid Review Division that is in charge of establishing an accessible, streamlined system to conduct timely reviews of unsolicited technology proposals in order to more effectively harness the ingenuity of the American private sector in an area where DHS continues to struggle. It is important that we do that.

I thank the gentlelady for her courtesy.

To be able to help our small businesses is a leap forward, and I congratulate them for this innovative division that will help move these technologies forward. I hope that small businesses are listening. They now have a rapid ear under Science and Technology to listen to them in the Department of Homeland Security.

I am very excited about handheld detectors for the Department of Homeland Security to do rapid detection of biological threats at ports and airports and the dual-use terrorist risks of synthetic genomics.

I think it is also important that we have enhancements to unmanned aerial surveillance technology for safe and effective deployment for border and maritime missions. We had a hearing on this just recently. Many of us questioned the safety or the results-oriented work of that unmanned aerial surveillance being used at the border. We need to have those results, and I believe that this legislation will help us do so.

So this is a great step forward, in addition to the authorization of $20 million for the Securing the Cities program for fiscal year 2011 and directs DNDO, in fiscal year 2012, to add at least two new cities, based on risk, to this radiation detection program in operation in New York City. We all know that the threat of nuclear attacks as a homeland security threat is evident, and radiation detection is crucial for us to be sure that we have a number of elements to assess the potential of that kind of threat.

This legislation takes advantage of the concerns we all have of making sure our science and technology is an integral part of defending the homeland. I believe this legislation, H.R. 4842, takes a giant leap forward in being part of the work that we do for defending this Nation, the work that is done by this committee, led by Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King, and of course the work of this subcommittee, Chairwoman Clarke and Ranking Member Lungren. I thank them for their work and ask my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 4842.

H.R. 4842, the ``Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010'' reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) through 2012, and puts these two DHS components on a path to greater effectiveness and efficiency by requiring strategic plans, milestones, and accountability systems.

This bipartisan legislation was introduced by the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity, Science and Technology Chairwoman Yvette Clarke and Ranking Member Dan Lungren.

In advance of floor consideration, the Committees on Homeland Security and Science and Technology collaborated extensively on this legislation and worked together to deliver a bill with the bipartisan support of both committees.

Since 2003, S&T has been responsible for developing technologies to address homeland security capability gaps, as identified by DHS and its operational components--Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Infrastructure Protection (IP), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

DNDO was established in 2006 to develop detection technologies for nuclear and radiological devices--a high-consequence terrorist threat.

H.R. 4842 takes a two-layered approach to authorizing S&T and DNDO: an overarching approach aimed at creating more accountability and effective management of each component; and a more targeted approach focused on specific programs and activities.

In response to oversight findings of the Committee on Homeland Security, the Government Accountability Office, and the DHS Inspector General, H.R. 4842 requires S&T to establish requirements for how basic and applied homeland security research is identified, prioritized, funded, tasked, and evaluated and emphasizes the need to prioritize research around risk.

H.R. 4842 authorizes the establishment of a more quasi-autonomous Testing, Evaluations and Standards Division within S&T to help ensure that technology is properly evaluated.

Additionally, in an effort to foster better collaboration between S&T and private sector firms--most especially small firms--with promising homeland security technologies, H.R. 4842 authorizes the Office of Public-Private Partnerships. Within this office, the Rapid Review Division is charge with establishing an accessible, streamlined system to conduct timely reviews of unsolicited technology proposals in order to more effectively harness the ingenuity of the American private sector, an area where DHS continues to struggle.

With respect to specific programs, H.R. 4842 directs S&T to work towards giving DHS new tools to address the threat of terrorism and enhance homeland security by conducting researching and development regarding: Mobile biometric technologies for deployment at the border (Sec. 807), technology to enhance detection of border tunnels (Sec.804), and utilization of global positioning satellite systems for detection of unauthorized border crossings (Sec. 806);

Hand-held detectors for DHS to do rapid detection of biological threats at ports and airports (Sec. 411) and the dual-use terrorist risks of synthetic genomics (Sec. 407);

Maritime domain awareness enhancements (Sec. 410), technologies to improve the security of underwater public transportation tunnels against explosives (Sec. 408), and technologies to mitigate the threat of small vessel attack (Sec. 419);

Cyber compromises to federally-owned networks and devices that are essential to the reliable operation of critical infrastructure (Sec. 406);

Enhancements to unmanned aerial surveillance technology for safe and effective deployment for border and maritime missions (Sec. 803); and

Technologies to strengthen document security and authentication (Sec. 805).

H.R. 4842 requires S&T to give particular attention to the border security mission. Specifically, the Homeland Security Science and Technology Authorization Act of 2010 authorizes S&T, in coordination with CBP, to pursue research and development to improve effective control of the international land borders of the United States within 5 years (Sec. 409).

In addition to the S&T directorate, H.R. 4842 reauthorizes the DNDO.

Important provisions regarding this vital agency include:

Language to codify in statute the movement of basic and transformational nuclear and radiological research and development activities to S&T;

Requirements for strategic planning, milestones, and accountability in place at DNDO that are parallel to the requirements for S&T;

Authorization of $20 million for the Securing the Cities program for fiscal year 2011 and directs DNDO, in fiscal year 2012, to add at least two new cities, based on risk, to this radiation detection program in operation in New York City. (The House approved H.R. 2611, which authorized the Securing the Cities program on January 20, 2010.)

Authorization of Appropriations

S&T--$1.12 billion for fiscal year 2011 ($12 million over the President's request to restore funding for the University Programs) and $1.15 billion for fiscal year 2012 (3% increase over the 2011 level).

DNDO--$305.8 million for fiscal year 2011 (President's request) and $315 million for fiscal year 2012 (3% increase over 2011 level).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be with you this evening, and I thank you for your leadership as we discuss with our colleagues a very important crisis that is now approaching to which, I hope, our message tonight really provides the stopgap, the finger in the dike, if you will, that is about to overrun itself, which is the numbers of Americans who are crying out to this Congress to do the right thing.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her persistent leadership and for her timeliness, because this is a very, very important need that needs action, and it needs action now.

I guess I would like to add to this definition of what ``unemployment benefits'' are and what it means to extend them and the numbers of Americans who are now waiting, between 2 and 15 million Americans who are now waiting for those benefits to be extended, and the extension is simply adding to the 26 weeks that are now expiring. You mentioned that it was not a gift, and I'd like to suggest something even more.

I wonder if we have read recently the story of the good samaritan. That story has traveled with me throughout my public life. In fact, I believe that we on this floor and we in this body are really public servants. We work for the people, and we are to do the right thing-- their bidding--as relates to the enhancement of the quality of life that they have been promised under our Constitution. In fact, the Declaration of Independence really says that we are created with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That pursuit of happiness has a lot to do with prosperity and with the ability to provide for one's family. So, in this instance, the good samaritan is the Federal Government, but it is not in a position of handing out something. As the story goes, the good samaritan helps those who have been violated by others, and they could not help themselves. It's not that they purposely were laying alongside the road. They had been violated by others.

In this instance, the individuals who are on unemployment now and who are looking for an unemployment benefit extension did not create the atmosphere in which they were not working. The very fact that they have ownership to unemployment benefits is the fact that they worked and that they created a trust with the Federal Government. They put their money in a trust while they were working. In addition, they made a contract. ``I will work, and under the present laws, you will help me when I am out of work'' when there is evidence, of course, that there is no work for these individuals to secure at this time.

We have made great strides. Under the Bush administration, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. We have gained jobs because of the stimulus package that the Democratic leadership and Members had voted for, and I am grateful that we took the risk under much accusations and criticism. In that process, we have elevated some to work, but, even with that effort, we find ourselves struggling because there are more people out of work than there are jobs at this time.

So what we are asking the obstructionists to not do is to not block the bridge that these unemployed Americans need. Do not dissolve the trust. Do not breach the contract that we have made with Americans who have invested in their trust funds or in unemployment benefits by their taxes so that, if they were unemployed through no fault of their own, they could secure resources for what all the many stories of Americans will tell you.

These are not resources for vacations. These are not resources for recreation. These are not resources just to stay home and to have an easy day. These people are taking these dollars to keep roofs over their heads, to pay their next mortgage payments, their health care bills, and their utility bills in the heat of the summer. We're having one of the hottest summers that you could ever imagine--high utility bills. For some families who have children with asthma or respiratory illnesses, they need air conditioning. Their bills are high. Certainly, they simply need to provide food on the table for children, who are innocent, for seniors who may be living with families, who are innocent, for single parent heads of households, who are innocent, who literally have worked.

A story I heard today at a hearing in Memphis on foreclosure about a woman with a number of children who worked as hard as she could, but the industry that she was in, furniture sales, obviously, home sales are down, furniture sales are down, she finds herself upon hard times. She needs unemployment insurance to make sure that she doesn't lose the small condominium that she has.

These are painful stories. Sixty-two percent of Americans agree that we should extend the unemployment benefits. The Congressional Budget Office policies that could be implemented relatively quickly are targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost; meaning that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective ways of churning the economy but preventing people from collapsing under the weight and the burden of having nothing.

It also speaks to the mental state of people who are struggling. They need to know that there is an out; there's a way that they can be provided for. And so, we, the Democrats, would provide for up to 99 weekly unemployment checks, averaging about $300, to people whose 26 weeks of State-paid benefits have run out. The benefits would be extended toward the end of November.

What can I say? It's a simple request.

I ask the Senate Republicans to stop now from blocking hardworking Americans from being able to provide for their families. I ask you to accept the Democratic proposal of extending these benefits for 99 weeks, up to 99 weeks, and to do what we did in this House.

I'm appreciative of the gentlelady's leadership and grateful that our leadership came to the floor tonight. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wanted our colleagues to know that the leadership stands firmly behind doing the right thing.

As I close, I want to remind our colleagues of some stories that we heard early on. We were discussing another issue. Some may not be aware that some of our young soldiers have had to be on food stamps in the past. Democrats, of course, have corrected some of that by increasing their wages.

But never let it be said that we are here making tomfoolery out of the budget of this Nation. We're here standing for people who are truly in need. And tomorrow will be the SOS day, the emergency day, the call day for action. And I hope that colleagues will remember the story of the Good Samaritan and provide and reinforce the trust and the contract made with the American people, that if you work, you invest, that when you need the rainy day umbrella of unemployment benefits extended, we will be there for you.

I yield back to the gentlelady.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5114, ``the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010.'' I want to thank Chairwoman Waters and Chairman Frank for their hard work on H.R. 5114. This bill will provide enhanced security, better organization, increased participation, and a clear and improved direction for the future of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). By addressing the financial and administrative issues regarding NFIP, this bill will help protect millions of Americans from the potentially devastating economic effects created by a flood.

Communities like mine in Houston rely heavily on NFIP to provide security against the risk of flood. Without this national flood insurance program, many communities across the U.S. would cease to exist because it is virtually impossible to buy flood insurance in the private market. The importance of this insurance program has grown significantly over the last decade as more and more communities have increased their dependence on the NFIP.

As a direct result of certain natural disasters, including the 2005 hurricanes, and increased annual rain and flooding, NFIP has reached its highest participation rate in its 42-year history. Today, over 5 million homes and businesses rely on NFIP for flood coverage security. It is of extreme importance that this program continues to grow and develop to serve this population.

Mr. Chair, as you know, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has authority to issue, renew, or increase coverage of flood insurance policies under the NFIP; and this authority will again lapse on September 30, 2010. H.R. 5114 will extend these authorities to fiscal year 2015 and continue this program in a renewed and revitalized direction. This bill represents a great opportunity to improve and redefine NFIP and to provide greater security to the American people.

Not only will this bill clean up the NFIP requirements and expand coverage with ``phase-ins'' of actuarial rates to more properties and in newly mapped high flood risk areas; this bill will also address outreach issues, risk analysis, and economic effects. It will initiate studies to report the impact, effectiveness, and feasibility of NFIP policies as well as potential methods, practices, and incentives that would increase participation by low-income families owning residential properties located within special flood risk areas. The bill will also create an office to oversee and better manage all of the responsibilities of NFIP and provide assistance to communities, businesses, and homeowners with all flood insurance issues.

Furthermore, this bill will require a comprehensive strategy assessing the goals of NFIP to ensure that the program has a clear plan to pay off its debt and ensure itself a healthy future. This not only benefits the recipients of the flood insurance coverage, it also benefits the program, the U.S. budget, and the American people.

I submitted several amendments to complement the goals of this legislation. One would have required a study to analyze important data regarding the damages resulting from floods. The amendment would have directed the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to conduct a study on the impacts of excessive rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways. The results of this study would have been reported to Congress no later than 5 years after the enactment of this bill. Through this study, my amendment would have provided vital information necessary to assess the dangers of an at-risk area and better prepare communities to protect themselves from flood.

Mr. Chair, the only way to achieve the maximum security and preparedness for at-risk communities is to understand these risks with updated, relevant data and analysis. In the Houston area, there is already an on-going study, analyzing the effects of the bayou and rainfall, as flooding and its detrimental consequences are often a concern for the Houston area. The White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project is an existing project in Houston which is a partnership project between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the Harris County Flood Control District (the District). In developing a flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou, the Harris County Flood Control District has performed extensive data collection and analysis. The District has held public meetings within the community several times over the course of developing the project to determine the community's interests and flood damage reduction needs. Using this information, the District developed the flood damage reduction project for White Oak Bayou.

In 1998, the District began a feasibility study for the White Oak Bayou Federal Flood Damage Reduction Project. This investigation has involved an extensive study of the White Oak Bayou watershed. Components to address flooding were analyzed and evaluated in great detail, which generated several alternatives for consideration as part of the project. Some of the components are already being implemented.

Unfortunately, there are many other areas in Houston/Harris County, Texas and other communities throughout this country that experience an inordinate amount of flooding. In Houston, these areas that are frequently flooded from excessive rainwater include the Buffalo Bayou, the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas could greatly benefit from a study and analysis to determine the impact of excessive rainwater on residences located in areas at high risk for flooding from bayous and highways. Such a study would allow for investigators to better determine the amount of flood damage and create and implement measures to prevent such future damage.

Another amendment I offered would have stated that it is the sense of Congress that it is important to provide resources to address the devastating effects of flooding; that homeowners are particularly negatively affected by flooding; that excessive rainfall often leads to unsafe and hazardous living conditions; that flooding presents unexpected destruction and damage; and that it is necessary to provide consumers the opportunity to buy flood insurance.

This amendment declares to the American people in a loud voice, that Congress understands the seriousness of flooding and the importance of flood insurance. It is important that we candidly illustrate our reasoning for the issuance of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, it is clear that we have not been taking this issue as seriously as we should. We have had three lapses of authority this year alone with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). We must not continue to simply extend this program for 30 days at a time. We must not continue to play with the security of the American people when it pertains to an issue so serious and potentially devastating as floods. The people who own homes in these areas and the businesses who own property deserve better. The communities and the many potential homeowners, who cannot purchase homes without access to flood insurance, deserve better. We must take the first step by making it perfectly clear that we as a Congress will no longer play and toil with this issue. We must affirm that we are very serious about protecting our constituents and securing our nation from the devastating consequences of floods.

Finally, I also offered a well crafted amendment that would have effectively prohibited states and local governments from misusing new federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantaged businesses and homeowners in any way. Unfortunately, federal law is often misinterpreted by state and local officials, resulting in unintended consequences in many communities across this country. My amendment was a practical and reasonable response to a previously enacted Houston ordinance that had just such unintended consequences. This ordinance prohibited property construction on vacant land or

substantially damaged property located in major floodways and bayous and almost resulted in the wrongful taking of property from innocent homeowners, merely because their property was located in the wrong place.

In 2006, I began meeting with hundreds of homeowners in Houston from areas such as Shady Acres, a 100-year-old neighborhood, as a result of the implementation of changes to Chapter 19, the City of Houston's floodplain ordinance. Listening to their testimonies and frustration made the impact of this bill very relevant. Just think, in my home district an ordinance was passed that resulted in the massive reduction in property values for almost 10,000 developed and vacant properties, including 2,400 single family homes. The ordinance took advantage of the fact that FEMA would be expected to decrease flood insurance premiums by 5 percent for those areas. Although the communities could pay less for flood insurance, the difference was minimal compared to the losses to their property values. Many owners were afraid that they would have to sell their homes because of the dramatic drop in value.

By firmly stating that state and local governments should not misinterpret these flood insurance laws to put property owners at a disadvantage, I believe we could have sent a strong message that Congress will protect the property rights and interests of American citizens and the people this bill is intended to aid. It is important to make it known that the use of any unforeseen circumstances to treat flood insurance program requirements as a proxy for the wrongful taking of property is utterly unacceptable.

I truly believe my amendments would have complemented H.R. 5114. However, I still believe the bill is a proactive measure that has been long overdue to address the urgent needs of Americans throughout this country, many of whom experience damage and losses to their homes, property and businesses from flooding.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Madam Speaker, thank you for your leadership; and, as well, I appreciate very much the debate that this House had just a few minutes ago about H.R. 5114, the Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010. I rise to support that legislation and, specifically, to discuss an issue that really impacts all Americans.

An amendment that I crafted, a very effective amendment, would have prohibited States and local governments from misusing new Federal flood insurance program requirements to disadvantage businesses and homeowners in any way, meaning, to take their property away because they have misinterpreted the Federal laws as to whether or not your home is in a floodplain or in a floodway. Those of us from the gulf understand that very well.

Unfortunately, under Federal law, it is often misinterpreted by State and local officials, resulting in unintended consequences in many communities across this country. For example, in the White Oak community, 2,400 homes were being violated because a local government was misinterpreting whether or not these particular individuals could stay in their homes. Their values plummeted.

I am going to continue to work on this legislation going forward to ensure this language gets in the bill and that we fight to protect homeowners once and for all.