Floor Statements

As you can see, there are untold stories of valor on the front lines of war around the world. We can be very proud as Americans of the resilience of our men and women in the United States military and those valiant animals who stand by them and the support that families have given to them.

I stand here as a proud American not out of arrogance, but simply out of recognition that we are the front-liners for peace and democracy. I had the privilege of spending the last week in Afghanistan, not closed in in a small room, but traveling throughout the country, visiting with our commander on the ground, visiting with the international allied forces, being briefed and seeing in action the Afghan National Security Forces, meeting the leadership of the Afghan Government in Kabul, going down to Kandahar and being out on a command post and a check site that was engaged with Afghans on the highway. I got a sense of a country--of which I chair the Afghan Caucus in this Congress. And I want what is best for people who are striving for democracy and freedom.

I want to say to my colleagues that I stand here asking us to do what we did not do in Vietnam, which was to recognize the valiant and outstanding service of our men and women, and to understand victory had been achieved. Today we have two Vietnams side by side, North and South, exchanging and working. We may not agree with all that North Vietnam is doing, but they are living in peace. I would look for a better human rights record for North Vietnam, but they are living side by side because that was a civil war.

And because the leadership of this Nation did not listen to the mothers and fathers who bore the burden of 58,000 dead and did not declare victory, the mounting deaths, the violence continued going up and up. Rather than understanding the political nature of the war in Vietnam, we did not listen to those families. So we mourned. But I say today they were valiant heroes, proud of them, although fallen, and proud of those who lived.

As I look back on Afghanistan and the past week, I will say to you that it is time not out of defeat, but it is time in victory to return home. Our soldiers can come home in victory, for not one more treasure should be cast in this war that is a civil war. Al Qaeda is not present in Afghanistan. And we have the opportunity to cast over to the Afghan civilian government, which is now working to build up the Afghanistan National Security Forces, which we expect to be some 300,000 strong over the next couple of months, national police, and national army, trained by the brilliance of our young men and women.

We understand the military says the job is yet not done, conditions on the ground. Conditions are movable. They are always changing. What you have to look at is whether you have a government that has the resolve to lead itself. President Karzai must stand against corruption, he must fight to eradicate the poppy crop, he must stop the bribery so that farmers can get their products to market. That is a civilian challenge. That is a challenge of the Afghan people. He must get electricity with the money that has been given to him down in the south.

But to go into the NATO hospital, or to go into a hospital in Germany, to see the brutality of the IED injuries, to see the lost limbs--we have claimed victory. We have provided an opportunity for President Karzai to lead.

And so I'm a proud American; again, not standing here in arrogance, but for the sacrifice of the reservists and others who have come and the full-time military willing to stay as long as the civilian leadership of this country demands that they stay.

And so I say to the moms and dads and families who've sacrificed their loved ones both in terms of those who now serve us and those who have fallen in battle, we cannot thank you enough. And none of us can mourn as you're mourning if you have lost a loved one. But we can say ``thank you'' by bringing our troops home with a hero's welcome, something we have not done probably since World War II.

It is time to bring our troops home, to declare victory, and to thank them for being heroes, not only of America but for this world, in the name of peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3976, an act that seeks to amend the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 to authorize more appropriations through the fiscal year of 2015. I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Elijah E. Cummings, for introducing this important legislation.

Today we acknowledge the success and importance of the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Inc., and seek to provide it with appropriations. This bill will amend the National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 to extend the authorization of appropriations for grants to the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Inc., in Baltimore, Maryland, through 2015. This bill will also carry out programs related to civil rights and juvenile justice through the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center.

The National Great Black Americans Commemoration Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-238, 118 Stat. 670-672) directs the Attorney General to make a grant to the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Inc., in Baltimore, Maryland, to be used only for carrying out programs relating to civil rights and juvenile justice through the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum and Justice Learning Center. To receive a grant, the Great Blacks in Wax Museum, Inc., shall submit to the Attorney General a proposal for the use of the grant, which shall include detailed plans for such programs.

The founders of the museum outlined four specific areas that they meant for the museum to cover. First, according to a mission statement they wrote, the founders of the museum wanted the Great Blacks in Wax Museum to stimulate an interest in African-American history by revealing the little-known, often-neglected facts of history. Second, the museum was intended to use great leaders as role models to motivate youth to achieve. Third, the museum should improve race relations by dispelling myths of racial inferiority and superiority. Lastly, the museum supports and works in conjunction with other nonprofit, charitable organizations to seek to improve the social and economic status of African Americans.

The museum's goals are important to achieve in our society. It is important that we cherish and appreciate our history while looking to the future. In the process of this remembrance, we can work for a brighter future.

For the foregoing reasons, I stand with Representative Elijah E. Cummings in support of this act.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4438, the ``San Antonio Missions National Historical Park Leasing and Boundary Expansion Act of 2010,'' as introduced by my fellow member of the Texas delegation, the distinguished Ciro Rodriguez. This bill will expand the boundaries of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, adding an additional 150 acres of land to the site that preserves important pieces of Texas history.

In the early 18th Century, the five missions in San Antonio were the largest concentration of Catholic missions in North America. Built primarily to expand Spanish New World influence northward from Mexico, the missions also served to introduce native inhabitants into Spanish society. All five thrived through the middle of the 18th Century, and then slowly declined towards the end of the 1700s, through disease, inadequate military support, and increased hostility from Comanches and Apaches.

The Alamo, the most famous of the missions, is well known to all, as a shrine of Texas history. The other four missions--San Jose, San Juan, Concepcion, and Espada--have been in active operation as houses of worship since the 1800s, and are still important to the history of Texas.

In 1978, the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park was authorized by the National Park Service. At that time, the San Antonio River, which runs through much of the Park's area, was somewhat polluted. It was always planned and expected that, as the river was cleaned up, the Park would expand to take advantage of the unpolluted riverside areas. Now, that time has come.

H.R. 4438 will direct the Secretary of the Interior to study lands within Bexar and Wilson Counties in Texas, to identify lands that would be suitable for inclusion. It will also authorize the leasing of office space for a headquarters and support building, and allow the construction of an education and research center. It is only fitting that, as Mission Concepcion has recently been restored, and Mission San Jose is about to be restored, that the Park they are a part of is expanded to what it was originally imagined to be. Therefore, I strongly support this legislation, and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the NAACP, which is holding their 101st convention, or celebrating 101 years, a century of service. I also want to affirm their First Amendment right to make statements on the policies of groups who advocate for causes that sometimes are colored in race.

The NAACP is a fighter for justice for all people, and I was glad to be there this weekend speaking about issues dealing with the environment, civil justice and the economy.

It is also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that corporations are now showing one of the best quarterly returns that they have ever had. Businesses create jobs, and we have created an economic opportunity for them to do so. But all of the economists are saying they are sitting on their money. They are hoarding their money.

It is time now for us to stand up as Americans and work together to create jobs, just as this government has stimulated the economy by providing stimulus dollars to create thousands and thousands of jobs. Work together, not divide. That is how we will move this economy forward.

Congratulations, NAACP.

I am very glad to join multiple friends from a number of our great States in America. But more importantly, I am glad to be part of the team, working with the Congresswoman, our leadership, of course, and the President that focuses on creating jobs for Americans. That's an exciting message for all of us.

And I am very delighted to sort of dash the misstatements that have been going on about what we have accomplished here, and if I might just be redundant and cite the fact that the private sector has created 83,000 jobs in June.

But I would like to add something else, Congresswoman. I think you have seen this number as well, that this has been one of the best quarters for corporations in terms of profits. It is well known, and of course many of us encourage individuals to save money and to invest. But I think it's particularly important for the American public to know that our corporations have money. We've created the right economic atmosphere for them to grow, but they've decided to not create all of the jobs they could. And I would just like this evening to congratulate them for the profits that they've made, but I want them to be inspired to create jobs for the American people because the government has worked very hard to create a banking system for them to feel comfortable with as we pass the Wall Street reform so that they can create jobs, hire people.

There were 9,000 manufacturing jobs created in June, and I think that is extremely important, but 136,000 jobs since December. We have good news for the American public. We have heard you, and we believe in buying America and making it in America. Therefore, we're going to be looking, over the next couple of months, to craft an agenda where you will see jobs being created by the message of this Democratic leadership.

We can tell you that we mean business because we can show you the facts. For the 11th consecutive month, the manufacturing sector has expanded. They have heard our call. They have heard our creed.

The Purchasing Managers Index registered at 56.2 in June. Of the 18 industries surveyed, 13 reported growth.

Look at, if you will, the gigantic change that we have seen in the automobile manufacturing sector where our companies are coming back. Many people complain about the approach we utilize, but we can look at the bottom line. Ford never took the money. GM has paid the money back. But what we want them to do is to manufacture smartly, hire people and create jobs. We have created--this Democratic leadership, this President has created the atmosphere for these companies to grow, and we want them to grow more.

Let me just add these one or two points. Consumers who have been feeling the pinch--we know there's unemployment, and right now, today, we're fighting to extend unemployment for those hardworking Americans who have seen their jobs go but need to support their families.

And let me make it very clear. Unemployment insurance is not a handout. It is a gift coming back, or it is an acknowledgment of your hard work, and we want to keep you over a bridge. We want to give you a bridge until you get another job.

But disposable personal income grew by 0.5 percent in May. It grew by .6 percent in April, and it grew by .4 percent in May. So you can see that it's steadily going up. It's steadily going up, and this is making a difference.

As I cite these last points, Congresswoman, to emphasize how we, on this side of the aisle, the Democrats, have a positive attitude about knowing that America's going to make it as we make products and as manufacturing grows, I'm disappointed that some of my friends who are on the other side of the aisle are thinking differently.

One of the things that they don't like to say is that when President Obama first came into office he inherited an economy that was losing an average of 750,000 jobs in 1 month. Now, I'm not the kind of personality that wants to look back and blame the last administration. But we know for a fact that there were no jobs created in the last 8 years.

And so let me conclude on remarks that have been made by a good friend. The minority whip asked the question, stimulus dollars have not produced jobs. This is what the minority whip

said while hosting a job fair in Virginia. And I would only like to say that to help the American people, it would be grand for us to work and march in step, in a bipartisan step, and that is the only thing we're concerned about, no matter what region we come from, is creating jobs.

Many of you know that we are being hit in the Gulf in many different ways by the BP oil spill. My good friend is being hit for tourism. I just had one of her mayors before my committee, and they said they're not being listened to about tourism.

I'm being hit because of fishermen and shrimpers and oysters, but also I'm being hit by the hardworking people who work in the energy industry who are innocent who may be losing jobs who cannot work offshore.

But our good friend, Mr. Cantor, rather than working together to produce jobs, has said this: He hasn't seen any evidence of jobs being created.

Well, according to the Council of Economic Advisers, the Recovery Act created or saved more than 48,000 jobs in Virginia in 2009. In May, the Congressional Budget Office reported that in the first quarter of 2010 the Recovery Act was responsible for an increase in the number of people employed by 1.2 million, and 2.8 million. This is stunning.

And the job fair that Mr. Cantor had, and I congratulate him for having a job fair. I congratulate the companies for coming, and I'm very glad that the companies that were in the room had gotten $52 million in Recovery Act funds to create jobs.

Can you imagine?

This is not a partisan commitment to America. Wherever you are and you need a job, our stimulus dollars have been there.

And so I hope that we can end our criticism of the Recovery Act, because we know we can point out infrastructure projects and jobs created in all of our home districts, and we can point to the Democratic leadership where their message is jobs, jobs, jobs.

We have nothing to be ashamed of, but we must stay steady. We must stay consistent. We must make sure that the unemployment insurance goes out to our constituents. We're going to fight to the end to make sure that that goes where it needs to go, and that is to the people who need it.

And finally, I'm excited about the manufacturing spurt, surge that we're going to continue when we take the message of buy America and make it in America, we are creating jobs. And this Democratic leadership believes that America is standing tall, and we will be a country that recovers in a very, very special way.

And I'm delighted to be able to join with my friends who understand that there is an American economic recovery. We know it, we see it, and we're working on it.

I yield back.

Would the gentleman yield just for a quick comment? That very product, T-shirts, hats, and there may be many others, just fits right in with small- and medium-sized businesses, the very businesses that make jobs. I would yield to the gentleman for a response on that. Isn't this the kind of products that fit right into that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4173, ``the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010'', also known as ``the Dodd-Frank Act.'' This historic bill will go a long way to address a variety of defects and shortcomings currently seen in our financial services system. It is a major step towards meaningful ``measured'' government regulation to protect the interests of consumers, investors and everyday working Americans. After years of consumer mistreatment, fraud, and abuse, this bill represents the first principled effort to bring financial fairness to all Americans and to ensure that financial transactions be both honest and transparent.

One of the strongest provisions designed to protect the consumer in this legislation is the formation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, empowered to write rules for most consumer financial transactions. Existing consumer-protection authority is currently scattered and largely ignored by existing financial regulators. This Act will consolidate these authorities in the CFPB, and give the bureau teeth in exerting its power to enforce these protections. With this newly defined power, the creation of the CFPB will usher in a new era of oversight. I urge Congress to stand tall and create a society where unfair practices are stopped before they become pervasive, where the average consumer is protected from fraud and abuse, and where big bank bailouts are prevented before they come at the expense of taxpayers.

Another major provision in this bill is the establishment of broad statutory protections against abusive mortgages. These provisions include; requiring lenders to evaluate borrowers' ability to repay loans before and after teaser rates have expired; banning prepayment penalties that lock borrowers into high-cost loans; prohibiting incentives to steer borrowers into higher-cost loans that they don't even qualify for; limiting total fees for most loans; and banning mandatory arbitration clauses for mortgages.

In addition to these key provisions, this bill will also create a $1 billion emergency loan fund to help families at risk of losing their homes due to unemployment or illness. Because unemployment--9.7 percent is partly a direct result of the reckless lending and collapse of the housing and financial markets, this fund is especially important in reversing these negative economic effects and providing assistance to those who have been hurt by unfair practices. A recent Center for Responsible Lending, CRL, report found that, unfortunately, the foreclosure crisis is far from over. Foreclosures are likely to continue to climb and losses will continue to increase, further burdening our economy and financial services system, unless the government decides to intervene by passing this Act.

The bill also addresses bank interchange fees, the fees charged on debit card transactions. Under the bill, such fees would be reduced. While the banks and credit unions opposed any reduction in fees as embraced by the Durbin amendment, the arguments advanced by the retailers won the day. While I support credit unions, which are the backbone of many communities and have traditionally served the special needs of teachers, public service employees and the average government worker, about the use of the fees to cover many bad transactions related to their debit card business, the fees generated by the debit card transactions represent a major profit making activity for the banking industry. These fees are generally passed onto the consumer in the form of higher retail prices. Interchange

fees also tend to fall disproportionately on minority and low-income consumers by making them pay higher prices.

Another issue the bill addresses is the underrepresentation of minorities and women in the financial services industry. The bill requires each of the federal financial services regulatory entities to establish Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. These Offices will facilitate the participation of minority and women-owned business in nontraditional types of financial activities, something long overdue. In addition, the bill requires expanded efforts to recruit and to retain minority and women financial services professionals, traditionally excluded from the upper ranks of management in most of the federal financial services regulatory entities.

The bill preserves the role of community banks, recognized for their positive lending habits to small business and other major community stakeholders. These banks can always be counted on to lend for nontraditional purposes, while maintaining flexible lending standards based on risk assessment as it relates to a person's background and ties to the community. Many of these banks continued to lend during the liquidity crises, making it possible for small businesses to make payroll and for people to continue to pay their mortgages. Community banks remain pillars of strong communities and neighborhoods throughout this Nation, and this bill acknowledges their important role in the economy.

Further, the bill brings much needed sanity to the derivatives markets by requiring more rigorous standards related to over-the counter derivatives; provides new rules related to transparency and accountability and our nation's credit agencies; institutes new mechanisms to avoid bank bailouts of financial firms that threaten the economy; and reforms the Federal Reserve by requiring greater oversight and transparency in its transactions.

Mr. Speaker, this Act is of extreme importance to the consumer, the investor, to the average American, and to the Nation's economy as a whole. It is time to end the Wall Street ``joy ride'' and give the American people the protections and information they need to be better informed consumers and investors in this highly technologically driven economy. The way the average consumer, borrower, and home-owner have been targeted by many of our Nation's financial institutions and lenders makes this legislation all the more important. These practices must end. H.R. 4172 will stop many of them. For these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to make the changes in our laws to protect the American people and to help strengthen the U.S. financial system.

Mr. Cardoza, I thank you for sharing with us what is not a funny anecdotal story or cartoon. I think from your words you are saying to the American people that their predicament is not a cartoon. And it is interesting when one of my colleagues comes to the floor of the House and poses a question, What do we say to the unemployed mother or what do we say to the person who is trying to manage themselves and pay their mortgage? Or what do you say to the caller that called in I believe from Florida this morning on C-SPAN and said he's laid off from a furniture store that closed and he is looking for work. And if I might paraphrase him, he said something about getting off our rears here in Congress and helping him. Why are we blocking his unemployment insurance?

Now, I can quote a lot of statistics, and somebody said something about numbers of individuals who are unemployed. There are double-digit communities with high unemployment, 13 percent, 15 percent, 16 percent, high numbers among our youth in their twenties, recent college graduates, individuals who are likewise looking for work as those who have been employed and are now unemployed.

Ladies and gentlemen, unemployment insurance is the prerogative, it is the owned by the worker who has worked. Unemployment insurance is what this is called. Why do the Republicans want to block it, why do the Republicans in the other body stand against unemployment insurance, this is an outrage. There is no explanation for it.

For the people who can get unemployment insurance, they are paying their mortgage. It churns back into the economy. They are buying groceries. They're paying car payments. Maybe they will have an opportunity to keep a young person in a community college by putting their pennies together. But here we stand today having to go back again because the Republicans had the audacity to vote against unemployment insurance coverage. So to the man who is saying, I'm going out looking for a job every day, to the mother who is saying, I am looking for a job every day, no hope is being given to them. This is not explainable.

So I am on the floor today, because we must go forward on a supplemental. Maybe my colleagues will join me and vote against the war supplemental so we will be able to balance the budget. But if they are not going to be serious about saving money, they cannot stop the vote to help provide unemployment insurance for Americans out of work. We have created 200,000 jobs in the last month; some are public jobs, but you cannot get the private-sector engaged until you begin to see the churning of the overall economy.

The Federal Government is the umbrella for a rainy day. We are in a rainy day. But I have faith in this Nation. We always rise. We are going to rise now. We are going to stand with the unemployed so they can soon get work and we are going to give this money to them today. And I dare my Republican friends to vote against this effort to help our fellow Americans.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you very much, Chairman Conyers. We owe you a debt of gratitude.

We are very pleased that we have answered the call of the pain of people like Michelle, and if you can read this language, it says ``When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to show them a pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved them.'' That means, of course, that we are stranded on an island with laws that do not understand the crisis that these families are facing.

These are the pictures of families who have lost loved ones and pictures of their loved ones who we are now standing on the floor of the House to say that any horrific tragedy such as the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010, will not go unanswered, and these families will not remain and be alone. This bill is assuring these families that they will not be alone; that the person or the entity that harmed them will not be able to escape the full extent of the cost of their actions that are inflicted on the people and the communities. It amends the Jones Act, an old law, and brings it in line with the needs of the

21st century, meaning that if you were an engineer on that Deepwater Horizon drill, you are not covered by the present laws; or, for example, the law that was used that was passed in the 1800s where they limited the amount of liability such that one of the actors in this went to court in Houston and wanted to limit their liability to $23,000. Under the Act in its current form, the family members left behind by seamen killed on the job can only recover economic losses. But it also does not cover those who are not classified as seamen. This bill amends DOHSA and, of course, it provides some very, very important changes that will make the lives of these loved ones left behind better. Without their loved ones, they are not good. But this will make them better.

To the industry, and let me say one that I come from--and I am from the gulf region--and I believe what we are doing today is going to help the shrimpers, the oystermen, the fishermen, and we must continue to do that. We're changing the laws to respond to the current crisis, and we will not leave them alone.

I look forward today to, as well, introducing the Remedies Act of 2010 that will further expand on the rights of families, will invest in R&D to improve what's going on in the gulf. But I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for being first and a leader to help these families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5503, the ``Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act,'' introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. I commend Chairman Conyers for shepherding this bill through the Judiciary Committee, and am proud to have worked with him on the Manager's Amendment.

This bill makes great steps in reforming aspects of our laws that have grown outdated, and in assuring that those responsible for a variety of harms are not able to escape liability for the full extent of the costs their actions inflict on the people of the communities around them. It amends the Jones Act, a law enacted in 1920, and brings it in line with the needs of the 21st century. Under the Act in its current form, the family members left behind by a seaman killed on the job can only recover for economic losses, sometimes only the expenses of a funeral. There is no provision for damages for the emotional loss of a loved one, the loss of that person's care, comfort, and companionship. H.R. 5503 amends that restriction.

H.R. 5503 also changes another outdated maritime law, the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920. The changes Chairman Conyers' bill makes to DOHSA will allow those same claims for loss of care, comfort and companionship. This bill will also allow claims under DOHSA to be brought before a court of law, rather than admiralty, and allow a jury to decide the relevant facts. It will allow recovery for the pain and suffering a decedent experiences before his death, and expand the geographic reach of DOHSA.

H.R. 5503 makes other crucial changes. It eliminates certain limits on the liability of ship owners, remnants from a time when communications were much slower and owners might not be aware of their crews' actions on the other side of the ocean, or the other side of the globe. H.R. 5503 changes our bankruptcy laws, and prevents responsible parties from escaping their liability through misuse of bankruptcy proceedings. Finally, it amends the Class Action Fairness Act to prevent suits brought by the States, on behalf of their citizens, from being removed to languish in Federal courts.

These are all very, very important changes, and I want to state again how glad I am to have been able to work with Chairman Conyers on these issues. However, there are other harms that the disaster in the Gulf has inflicted, harms that are not addresses in this bill.

Last month, I spent time at the United Command Center in Hammond, Louisiana and flew over the impacted areas to assess the devastating damage to the Gulf region and visited Plaquemarins Parish, Pointe a La Hache (Hash), Louisiana to meet with local oystermen and other individuals affected by the oil spill. My experience left my heart wrenched and even more determined to work with my colleagues to develop an aggressive proactive strategy to assist the victims of the oil spill and to develop measures to prevent it from happening again.

We need a claims process on the Gulf coast to remedy the harm caused by the oil spill before it is compounded by delay and we need to ensure that claims are evaluated and paid through an expedited equitable and transparent process.

There are numerous accounts of concerns of claimants that have underscored the importance of the need for the Federal Government to require that a totally independent claims process is set up to process claims related to the BP oil spill, and that structures are set up to process claims without delay. We know that victims are seeking assistance, but have experienced complicated claims procedures to follow, and have not been able to obtain relief or compensation from BP but rather, a hard way to go and the never-ending claims requirements to satisfy the claims they have brought against BP.

Take the story of Byron Encalade. Mr. Encalade, as owner of his own fishery company, and as President of the Louisiana Oysters Association, has sought to file claims with BP to recover damages suffered as a result of the Gulf oil spill. Unfortunately, Mr. Encalade has had a horrible experience with the ever-changing claims process.

Though Mr. Encalade came with the paperwork he was originally told to provide BP claims adjusters, he was told that he needed to provide his tax statements in order to be compensated for his loss. When inquiring about a second $5,000 check he was supposed to receive from BP, he was told that the check was in the mail. He has yet to receive the check.

He was also informed that his claim would be based upon his net receipts and not his gross receipts. This policy puts Mr. Encalade and many others in a situation where they cannot recover the full value of their losses due to investments that were made to fishing boats that were lost in Hurricane Katrina. As such, this policy will prevent many fishers and shrimpers from recovering the full value of their loss.

I can also tell you the story of the owner of a small seafood restaurant in Houston, Texas, who I have known for years and have supported. She is in trouble at this very moment, wondering whether her business will remain open to long-time customers like me. Whether she, as a small business owner and woman, can afford to pay the bills and continue to earn a livelihood. Although she is hundreds of miles away from the actual site of the oil spill, she too is a victim. Her restaurant relies on a variety of suppliers of Gulf seafood, and she bills her establishment as one which prides itself on seafood from Louisiana, a part of the Gulf region. So, now she confronts two issues that could prove fatal to her business. One, if the seafood is from the Gulf region or Louisiana in particular, perhaps it is tainted by the oil. Two, the prices of seafood from the Gulf continues to rise, making it impossible for the restaurant to carry certain items. Many items on the menu her patrons can no longer afford. It is the classic Catch-22 situation, and what is clear to me is that unless this Congress acts and acts quickly restaurants like hers will be history.

We need to make sure that victims like her, and like Mr. Encalade, are able to receive compensation for the harms inflicted on them, without the years of litigation that civil suits frequently entail. We need to establish independent claims systems, with established categories that treat fishermen, shrimpers, and other categories of indirect victims appropriately, and with clear and consistent guidelines for what types of proof claimants need, to avoid unnecessary delay.

We need to update the liability cap under the Oil Protection Act, so that responsible parties cannot escape with paying a mere fraction of the damages they inflict. We also need to change the permitting process, so that entities drilling offshore must demonstrate they have a workable Plan B when their Plan A fails; and to establish a requirement that those disaster and spill mitigation plans be reviewed and approved by independent, disinterested experts.

There are additional changes to both the Jones Act and DOHSA we should make. Both laws currently allow only one ``personal representative'' of a decedent to file claims, and there may be cases where that personal representative does not act in the interest of the parents, children, or other family members who face this terrible loss; we should allow those family members to make claims on their own behalf. We need to amend the Jones Act so that it covers all those injured on our ships, even those who may not meet the technical definition of seaman. Further, we should allow punitive damages under those laws in cases of gross negligence.

As important as it is that we make the victims of this disaster whole, it is equally important to take steps to prevent the next spill of this magnitude. Therefore, we must establish a clear framework for response, so that there is never again a question of who is in charge. The United States is the world leader in science and technology, and it is in our best interest to direct some of our energy towards research and development of technologies that will better enable us to deal with leaks deep below the surface of the ocean, and provide access to those technologies to the appropriate agencies.

Nonetheless, for all that remains to be done, H.R. 5503 is an important step, a necessary

step, towards repairing the harm the disaster in the Gulf has done. Chairman Conyers has crafted a piece of legislation that I am proud to be associated with, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will have an opportunity to do something we have not been able to do, and that is to debate the Afghan war and the direction that this war is taking and the impact on our men and women on the front lines. I particularly want to say to the families how much we appreciate the sacrifice that you've made as these men and women stand on the front lines of Afghanistan. But I think we're long overdue for a major debate that has to do with that direction.

I support this underlying rule for the purpose of allowing us to have this debate, but also that it provides, on the domestic spending, crucial issues.

Pell Grants will be provided for in $4.95 billion; border security that impacts the northern and southern border so that we can stand as we do comprehensive immigration reform and assure the American people that we will secure our boarders.

In the most catastrophic oil spill from the region that I come, the tsunami of oil spills, we are taking care of the people by providing $304 million for the gulf coast oil spill, including moneys for unemployment assistance.

Then, coming from the region I belong to, as well, we had a tragedy at Fort Hood, and we are now rebuilding the Fort Hood processing center that saw a terrible loss of life because of terrorism.

FEMA disaster. This is the most vigorous season that you could have ever imagined that is to be expected in hurricanes, and we know, among other disasters, we'll have the money here.

But we're also going to say to the youth of America when we vote on this, we're providing money for summer youth jobs, $1 billion in youth jobs that we in the Congressional Black Caucus--and many Members joined us--are fighting for. This is a crucial step forward. We're providing for black farmers who have been discriminated against over the years.

And then, as I have indicated, we will have an opportunity to question not the men and women in Afghanistan or Iraq, but to question whether or not it is wise to focus on insurgents versus terrorists so that we send men and

women into harm's way without a discerning goal.

I thank the gentleman.

I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, when you begin to fight those who are classified as your neighbors--and I don't use that term loosely. The Taliban live in Afghanistan. And whenever you determine to fight those individuals, it makes it very difficult to win this war.

The gentleman has his own time. I appreciate it. I am concluding.

And finally, let me say that I offered an amendment to maintain NASA human space exploration and the funding as it was. I look forward to working with this Congress and the Democrats to make sure that happens.

I thank the gentleman.

And let me publicly apologize to the gentleman. I was rushing. I wanted to make sure I mentioned NASA. But let me say that, yes, I am aware, and I am enthusiastic about that language. And I thank the leadership for it because, in fact, it is celebrated and supported by 40-plus school districts in Texas to prevent the Governor of the State of Texas from misusing education dollars, as they have been misused before. This is money that will be effectively used for the schoolchildren of the State of Texas. And I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, what I'm aware of is that this language is supported by at least 40 school districts that support the money being able to come directly to them or not being used if it is not used for education. Additionally, this language only includes education funding not stimulus dollars. So it will not artificially increase any costs to the taxpayers. The school districts will benefit from the Governor having to use federal education dollars for education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before you today in support of H. Res. 1500, a rule providing for H.R. 4899, the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.''--a bill that will help create jobs for Americans and provide assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis for their leadership on this timely legislation. Clearly, this is an important bill and must be only amended with items that are essential to provide the necessary assistance this country so greatly needs.

H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge-building, but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental appropriation is quite different from any other supplemental appropriation that members of this body will ever consider. This supplemental appropriations bill provides over $37.47 billion to support our troops, over $24 billion to keep teachers, firefighters and law enforcement personnel on the job while states continue to recover from the recession; over $13 billion for Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange; $5.7 billion for PELL; $2.8 billion for Haiti; $677 million border security; $275 million for the Gulf Coast oil spill including unemployment benefits program and unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an oil spill relief employment program that are underway for the self-employed businessman and women who were greatly impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill.

No price is too great to pay, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to doing what is necessary to aid our country. This bill must only be amended with key items that are critical to adequately address this nation's needs. I am therefore, offering several amendments to H.R. 4899.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 4899--``Supplemental Appropriations Act 2010.'' H.R. 4899 will provide funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge- building but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the nation.

My amendment would ensure: all managed funding for the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA) NASA Constellation programs will be maintained through fiscal year 2015 with the assumption that the Constellation program will continue: (2) U.S. human space flight systems shall be lead by the U.S. government to ensure crew safety and to ensure skill, capabilities and institutional knowledge attributable to NASA and ISS can be retained by the U.S. for the appropriate time; (3) strengthen partnerships between universities and NASA centers; and (4) ensure a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization shall be established.

The President's proposed FY2011 budget eliminates funding for a portion of the Constellation Program which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

Earlier this year, I introduced H. Res. 1150, ``Designating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a national security Interest and Asset,'' and stating findings that the elimination of funding for the NASA Constellation program in the President's proposed FY 2011 budget presents national security concerns.

It is critical that managed funding for the NASA Constellation programs is maintained through fiscal year 2015 as:

1. Elimination of the Constellation programs will present Homeland Security implications for Cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and Intelligence community of the United States;

2. Elimination of the Constellation programs will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence; and

3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to maintaining thousands of American jobs and the U.S.'s leadership role and technological edge as well as securing valuable knowledge that improves national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

International Leadership and Technological Competitive Edge

Eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of the Space Shuttle will diminish the nation's international leadership role and efforts to advance scientific research in space. The United States will for the first time, since its space program began, be without a human space flight program.

Additionally, transferring funds from the Constellation program to the development of commercial space programs to carry a human crew into space is taking a chance on an unproven quantity and is an unnecessary and unreasonable risk this country must not take at this time. It is more prudent to establish a protocol for commercial human space flight utilization at this time.

It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today. Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life.

The retirement of the Space Shuttles this year will leave the United States vulnerable and dependent upon Russia to put U.S. astronauts in orbit without the Constellation program. In May of last year when it became clear the U.S. had no one else to turn to, Russia raised its prices from $48 to $51 million per launch for each astronaut.

In addition, it is important for us to remember that the Constellation program is not just about going to the moon, as the U.S. has a commitment to the International Space Station (ISS). With the Space Shuttles being retired this September, the Constellation is the only system under development that will give NASA the future capability to launch crews to and retrieve them from the ISS. Decreasing the use of the International Space Station would impact the ability to sustain its systems and physical infrastructure.

National Security and Homeland Security

The Congress should recognize the policy outlined in section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a), that the United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit, and beyond, as an essential element of national security and the ability to ensure continued United States participation and leadership in the exploration of space.

The human space flight program should be funded to continue use of the International Space Station to support the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic research and technology testing needs. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency.

NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports has improved decision making for natural resource management and

emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack.

NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about the water cycle, and contribute to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space. We must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can better protect the United States through NASA's research.

Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United States. Elimination of the Constellation program will also compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence.

Continuation of NASA's human space flight program is crucial to improving national security, studying climate change and its effects, and research in science and medicine.

Conclusion

For all of the above reasons, it is my hope that this committee will join me in supporting efforts to maintain NASA's Constellation Program. It is through balanced policies that promote economic growth that we will continue to maintain our international leadership and technological competitive edge, and gain valuable knowledge relating to the national security of our nation. I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that we preserve a robust human space flight program in the United States.

Amendment to H.R. 4899

Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

I rise strongly to support the Barbara Lee amendment, of which I am a cosponsor. And this is allowing the orderly withdrawal of our troops, one thing that we did not do in the Vietnam war, when we lost 58,000 of our young men and women, who we treasure and thank them for their service.

Now today we have the opportunity to do what Congress should do. It's not to give an unending mandate to a war that is not a constitutionally declared war, which this is not.

So I would say that if we are looking for the terrorists, al Qaeda is not there. Our intelligence authorities, and General Petraeus have indicated that there are less than a hundred al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan. There are insurgents who are the Taliban. It is well known that if you give to the Taliban the mountains and valleys that have been given by General McChrystal, and concentrate your war efforts in the cities, you still will lose this war. The Taliban will never surrender the mountains and will continue to attack.

A thousand-plus have died; $37 billion is in this bill. We must do what we did not do in Vietnam, and not cry after the fact when we saw the 58,000 body bags come home.

Yes, we salute the young men and women who are on the front lines. We thank them for their service and the sacrifice of their families. I have been to Afghanistan many times, and I believe we have a better way. Now is the time to invest in the Afghan people, and the government to make a difference, not continue to lose the precious treasure of America. Stand against this war and have an orderly withdrawal for the sake of the American people and bring our troops home with honor. America has not lost the war. America has created a roadmap for Afghanistan to follow and to build its country up.

Our stated, limited military mission was precisely to hold back Talibon momentum--i.e., to ``stalemate'' it--while economics development and good governance took hold and we enabled Afghan security forces to replace ours. Instead, our military assistance has dwarfed our development and government efforts--which are still stumbling--and no independent analyst seriously thinks the Afghan army and police will be able to take over the nation's security for years. Military's momentum has taken over.

We have changed the Afghan equation, but for the worse. The U.S. troop surge illustrates a lesson we learned in Vietnam. Large-scale insertion of foreign troops into a domestic insurgency--whatever its initial cause--dramatically transforms the hostilities from an internal dispute into one focused on driving out ``foreign invaders,'' as Afghanistan has done repeatedly throughout its history.

Even if, contrary to fact, a Taliban takeover threatened our security, the Administration's strategy would make no sense. There is a basic contradiction between, on the one hand, the claim that defeating the Taliban is vital to our safety and, on the other hand, the claim that our commitment is short term and of limited extent. The two efforts to square that inconsistency have already proven unrealistic.

The Pentagon told us that successful campaigns in Taliban strongholds like Helmand and Kandahar Provinces would break the back of Taliban efforts to control the country and bring them to the bargaining table.

The Pentagon told us that successful campaigns in Taliban strongholds like Helmand and Kandahar Provinces would break the back of Taliban efforts to control the country and bring them to the bargaining table.

But it now is very unlikely that our military will be holding a decisive upper hand after the Kandahar and similar campaigns. The Helmand campaign remains, at best, a ``work in progress,'' with dubious results thus far. The supposedly decision campaign to ``win Kandahar province'' has been heavily diluted and downgraded, even before getting fully underway. The new focus on nighttime raids and air strikes continues to kill civilians, badly undercutting U.S. strategy to ``win over'' the Afghan people.

June was the deadliest month of the nine-year-long Afghanistan war. Should the U.S. get out of Afghanistan? Why or why not?

Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said: There is no use throwing good money (and good bodies) after bad. There can be no successful outcome to this war, unless we are prepared to stay in Afghanistan forever. We need the money back home, Let's just declare victory and get out!

Paul Kawika Martin, policy and political director of Peace Action, said: Yes, the U.S. should get the military out of Afghanistan.

Today, Representatives in the house will have the opportunity to vote against $33 Billion dollars ``emergency'' supplemental funding for the failed escalation in Afghanistan. They will also have the opportunity to vote for a MdGovern/Obey amendment that will among other things require the president to present Congress with:

(1) a new National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan by January 31, 2011. 2) a plan by April 4, 2011 on the safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, including a timeframe for the completion of the redeployment.

The amendment also requires Congress to vote if the president wants to change his announce plan to begin to drawdown troops by July 2011 and expands oversight of private contractors in Afghanistan to deal more effectively with corruption, waste, fraud and abuse.

A large coalition of 20 organization representing nearly 13 million people support this amendment because the enormous costs in blood and treasure is not necessarily making Americans safer. Instead, focusing on regional political solutions and investing in Afghan-led aid and development that brings people out of poverty has a far better chance of success at a fraction of the cost. Let's not forget that we are funding this war by borrowing from China and as Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said last week: debt is the number one threat to America's National Security. It is time to bring our troops home with honor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Non- WIA not

deaths KIA hostile WIA RTD** RTD** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Speaker, among the many challenges of this Nation is the ongoing oil spillage in the gulf, a region that I come from.

I also happen to come from the city of Houston and represent a number our large energy companies, along with wind and solar and natural gas. We truly need a seamless energy policy, but our consuming responsibility is to stop this oil spillage and to stop it now. And I believe it is important that we do it with an understanding of a long- range strategy to address this crisis.

Right now, as I speak, Hurricane Alex has made its way along the gulf. And during this hurricane season, we don't know how many other hurricanes will come and disrupt the clean-up actions that are going on.

So today I've introduced H.R. 5676, the Right to Equitable Means of Ensuring Damages for Injuries are Efficiently Secured Act of 2010, or the REMEDIES Act. And I rise today to introduce this to address the many issues created by the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

For over 2 months the blown-out wellhead beneath the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon platform has spewed tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and the gulf coast communities on a daily basis. The initial explosion killed 11 people, seriously injured 17 others, and destroyed a multi-million dollar platform. But the extent of the damage done is far, far greater. The disaster and its aftermath have wrecked local industries and polluted or outright destroyed precious natural resources, and people are unable to work and to earn the money to pay for food, mortgages and other basic expenses.

And in my visits to the gulf region, these people were unattended to; oystermen, fishermen, shrimpers, restaurants not having any way to access a quick and immediate response.

Oh, yes, you see now a claims system in place. You see that there is now an established $20 billion fund that I am grateful to our President for establishing. But look how long it took because there was no structure in place.

It is obvious that the existing body of law is antiquated and, therefore, inadequate to cope with the current situation. The liability caps under the current law will allow the responsible parties to pay just a mere fraction of the damages they have inflicted on the people of the gulf. Legislation enacted in the early part of the last century does not properly cover all the workers in the contemporary industry, and BP and other oil industry entities need to be able to address this question.

My bill would establish a tiered liability system so that we would provide a structure to provide coverage, yet protect the smaller and independent operators. The REMEDIES Act will also make some needed changes to 1920-era laws such as the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act, to ensure that family members can recover, such as mothers and sisters, brothers and wives, which is not the case at this point. The language suggests that it will be a personal representative.

In addition, my bill would cause the end of lax permitting of the Minerals Management Service and the Department of the Interior and would require that if you had five safety violations, you would immediately put a moratorium and shut-down of the deepwater drilling.

My bill would also increase the oil spill liability trust fund from $1.6 billion to $10 billion. The money would be standing there now.

In addition, the Federal Water Pollution Act would be amended, as I said earlier, permitting, requiring that any permit would require you to establish a vetted recovery plan, so that if your BOP did not work, you had a back up plan that had been vetted and assessed as workable.

In addition, as I mentioned, if you had any violations, as these companies have been known to have, but, in particular, this company, you would immediately be shut down.

When I asked one of the new members of the MMS why BP wasn't shut down with the enormous list of violations that it had, the question was, not to the fault of the person who answered the question, but it was, We just haven't looked at that now.

My amendment, or my legislation, will call for the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a separate claims process under their jurisdiction. This legislation will ask the President to establish an emergency spill coordination team led by the commandant of the Coast Guard, along with the EPA, and the Secretary of Energy.

My amendment would also establish a research and development fund funded by the industry up to $1 billion to be able to design the most sophisticated technology for recovery, research, and remediation in an oil spill.

And my amendment would require immediate post-traumatic stress disorder counseling for all of the people who we are not even addressing the pain or the mental distress that is being caused.

I ask my colleagues to review H.R. 5676, the REMEDIES Act, so that we can go forward and establish a pathway to solve this problem and not have it happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a far reaching, comprehensive piece of legislation to help address some of the many issues created by the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the ``Right to Equitable Means of Ensuring Damages for Injuries are Efficiently Secured'' Act of 2010.

For over two months, the blown out wellhead beneath the wreckage of the Deepwater

Horizon platform has spewed tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast communities on a daily basis. The initial explosion killed eleven people, seriously injured seventeen others, and destroyed a multi-million dollar platform, but the extent of the damage done is far, far greater. The disaster and its aftermath have wrecked local industries and polluted or outright destroyed precious natural resources, and people are unable to work and to earn the money to pay for food, mortgages, and other basic expenses.

It is obvious that the existing body of law is antiquated and therefore inadequate to cope with the current situation. The liability caps under current law will allow the responsible parties to pay a mere fraction of the damages they have inflicted on the people of the Gulf, legislation enacted in the early part of the last century does not properly cover all the workers in the contemporary industry, and BP is nickel and diming the people its recklessness has put out of work.

Damage from the oil spill in the Gulf region will almost certainly total in the billions of dollars, but current law caps liability for damages at $75 million. While that seems like a huge number, it is less than 20 percent of the cost of the platform itself. My bill would establish a tiered liability system, so that the oil industry pays all the costs for cleanup and damages caused by the spills it creates, while still allowing independent operators to stay in business. This provision would be retroactive.

The REMEDIES Act will also make some needed changes to two 1920's era laws regarding injuries or death at sea. It will change the Jones Act so that the engineers and others who were killed or injured on the Deepwater Horizon, but who were not technically ``seamen,'' will be covered, and allow actions against anyone whose acts or omissions were a cause of those deaths or injuries.

My bill will also amend the Death on the High Seas Act, so that victims or their survivors will be able to receive compensation for their suffering, or the loss of their loved ones' companionship, rather than just the economic damages allowed under current law. It will also allow for punitive damages in cases involving gross negligence.

Of course, part of the cause of the explosion was the lax permitting processes. In 2008, the Minerals Management Service, MMS, and Department of the Interior changed regulations so that BP was not required to file a detailed blowout plan, and simply accepted BP's assertion that it was ``unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities,'' and allowed the project to go forward. The REMEDIES bill will change that, requiring that operators file detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans, and detail their backup plans as well. Those plans would have to be vetted by impartial experts instead of simply rubber-stamped by industry insiders.

Under my bill the MMS will be allowed to suspend permits and cease operations when specific operators' safety records show that they are so focused on production that they risk the safety of their workers as well as the environment. Since 2007, BP had over 872 serious safety violations--a staggering 97 percent of the serious violations in the entire industry--at just two of their refineries.

BP is currently facing a criminal investigation for possible similar violations on the Deepwater Horizon platform, and new information strongly suggests that BP consistently made decisions that increased risk in order to save time or costs. While nobody wants to shut down such an important sector of our economy, it is important to make sure that the penalties for blatant disregard of our safety laws and regulations are strong enough to be taken seriously, rather than just paid as the cost of doing business. Making the continuation of production contingent on good safety records should be something BP and others commit to wholeheartedly. My bill imposes such requirements.

While there is now a $20 billion escrow account for third party claims against BP, administered by an independent third party, that took months to establish. Before that, the process BP had set up for the people of the Gulf Coast communities was a disgrace. BP's claims department engaged in a process in which people who are out of work because of the disaster on the Gulf Coast received some compensation, but by BP's own estimates, roughly twenty thousand of the forty thousand claims that have been filed had not been paid. The $5000 payment that most claimants have received was barely a drop in the bucket against the payments on loans for boats and other necessary equipment, and small business owners had frequently been given the runaround as to what exactly a ``legitimate'' claim was under BP's standards. Under my bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security will have the power to require businesses responsible for claims for oil spills to set up a more streamlined process, with guidelines for the proof necessary, so that legitimate claims are no longer delayed or denied.

In addition to the various provisions already identified, my bill will prevent unnecessary delays in the legal process for claims arising from this disaster. Under current class action law, BP and other defendants are allowed to have lawsuits brought against them by the states and municipalities it has harmed removed to Federal courts. While our federal judicial system is more than competent to handle these claims, it is also overloaded. By having cases filed in state courts removed to Federal court, defendants would be able to greatly and unfairly delay every step of the process, prolonging the damage their recklessness has caused and possibly pushing many to settle for less than they are fully entitled to. The REMEDIES Act will create a carve-out for cases brought by states and their subdivisions on behalf of their citizens, allowing them to remain in state courts and acted on quickly.

There has been overwhelming legislative action surrounding the oil spill by various Committees of this House with jurisdiction over this issue, including the Judiciary Committee of which I am a Member. I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 5503, ``the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act,'' introduced by our distinguished Chairman John Conyers, and supported by Representative Charlie Melancon. My bill adds a new dimension to the debate and to the evolving legislative process. In this regard, I plan to work closely with Members from both sides of the aisle to forge an effective legal response to address this crisis and to prevent similar disasters in the future, and ask my colleagues to join me in my efforts.

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in strong support of NASA programs across the country, and I share their concerns regarding the administration's proposal to cancel NASA's Constellation Program, which includes the Orion Crew Capsule, the Altair Lunar Lander, and the Ares I and Ares V rockets.

These programs, which together comprise our human spaceflight program, were authorized in both 2005 and 2008 by Republican and Democratic Congresses respectively. It is under the Constellation program that NASA is currently developing new launch vehicles and spacecraft capable of travel to the moon, Mars and other destinations. Not only does cancelling the Constellation Program jeopardize America's leadership role in human space exploration, but it will have detrimental effects on our economy and national security.

Take, for example, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The Johnson Space Center has the lead to manage the Constellation Program and several of its major elements, including the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Altair Lunar Lander. Without Constellation, the Johnson Space Center could lose anywhere from 4,000 to 7,000 high-tech jobs. If the JSC loses 4,000 direct jobs, an additional 2,315 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 6,315; loss of income and expenditures locally would be over $567 million. If the JSC loses 7,000 direct jobs, an additional 4,052 indirect jobs would be lost, totaling 11,052; loss of income and expenditures locally would total almost $1 billion.

When speaking of the decision to cancel the Constellation Program, Administrator Bolden stated that ``NASA intends to work with the Congress to make this transition smooth and effective, working responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers.'' To the contrary, I believe that the best use of taxpayers' money is to continue the investment in NASA to build America's scientific future. That future will create jobs.

The present administration's plan for the Constellation Program would cause drastic job loss across America and would place America in a behind the edge position as it relates to competitiveness in scientific research. NASA and the space industry are critical to Houston's economic success in both the short and long term. According to the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, NASA accounts for nearly 16,800 direct federal jobs and serves as the engine for another 3,100 civilian jobs that together supply more than $2.5 billion in payroll into Houston's regional economy. The Johnson Space Center is the primary location

for training astronauts for spaceflights and this move; yet, the proposed budget will effectively cancel America's human spaceflight program.

In his statement announcing NASA's budget, Administrator Bolden stressed that changes in the FY 2011 budget would be ``good for NASA, great for the American workforce, and essential for our nation's future prosperity.'' Madame Speaker, while I seek the same objectives, I strongly disagree with the closing of this project and I believe it will hurt America's scientific progress. Additionally, the aerospace industry would lose as many as 20,000-30,000 jobs nationally in either of these scenarios.

Given our current economic downturn, we cannot take the possibility of these job losses lightly and the Johnson Space Center is just one example of what the cancellation of this program would do to other NASA centers nationally. It will take years for the commercial spaceflight industry to get up to speed to reach the level of competence that exists at NASA today.

Our government has already invested literally years and billions of dollars into this program. We should build upon these investments and not abandon them. Our country can support the commercial spaceflight industry, but not at the expense of our human spaceflight program, which for years has inspired future generations and driven technology that enhances our quality of life. This technology is crucial to our national security. NASA conducts aeronautics research to address aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions reductions and fuel efficiency. NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and water supports improved decision making for natural resource management and emergency response, thus enabling us to better respond to future homeland security threats.

Knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is particularly vulnerable to attack. NASA sensors also provide a wealth of information about the water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe; airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are plausible threats against which we can protect.

I have asked my colleagues in Congress to join me in my efforts to restore funding for the Constellation to the FY 2011 budget for the following reasons:

1. Elimination of the Constellation program will present homeland security implications for cyberspace, critical infrastructure, and the Intelligence community of the United States;

2. Elimination of the Constellation program will compromise the effectiveness of the International Space Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space station research, and intelligence;

3. Continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial to improving national security, climate, and research in science and medicine.

It is my hope, that this Congress will continue to support NASA's Constellation program and to support balanced energy policies that promote economic growth and will help us meet our clean energy goals.

H. Res. 1150

Whereas the United States has invested in human flight

program since May 5, 1961, a program that has been a source

for the United States leadership role in space exploration

and advancement in scientific research; and is a national

security interest and asset for the Nation.

Whereas the Constellation program is a human space flight

program that includes: the Ares I launch vehicle, capable of

launching to low-Earth orbit; the Ares V heavy-lift launch

vehicle, to send astronauts and equipment to the Moon; the

Orion capsule, intended to carry astronauts to low-Earth

orbit and beyond; and the Altair lunar lander and lunar

surface systems astronauts will need to explore the lunar

surface.

Whereas the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget provided

$18,700,000,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA); the Budget funds a program of space-

based research to advance our understanding of climate change

and its effects, as well as human and robotic space

exploration; and the budget supports the use of the Space

Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space

Station.

Whereas the 2010 NASA budget funded a program of space-

based research that supports the Administration's commitment

to deploy a global climate change research and monitoring

system.

Whereas 2010 NASA budget was to fund the safe flight of the

Space Shuttle through the vehicle's retirement at the end of

2010. An additional flight will be conducted if it can be

completed safely before the end of 2010.

Whereas the President's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget proposes to

eliminate the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA)'s Space Shuttle and Constellation program and allocate

$6,000,000,000 over 5 years for the purpose of developing

commercial space flight.

Whereas the Congress recognizes the policy outlined in

section 501(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space

Authorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16761(a)), that the

United States shall maintain an uninterrupted capability for

human space flight and operations in low-earth orbit, and

beyond, as an essential element of national security and the

ability to ensure continued United States participation and

leadership in the exploration of space.

Whereas eliminating the Constellation upon retirement of

the Space Shuttle will create a national security risk to the

United States and will diminish the Nation's efforts to

advance scientific research in space.

Whereas the United States will for the first time since its

space program began, be without a human space flight program.

Whereas transferring funds from the Constellation program

to the development of commercial space programs to carry

human and crew into space is taking a chance on an unknown

quantity and is an unnecessary and unreasonable risk this

country must not take.

Whereas the retirement of the Space Shuttle this year will

leave the United States vulnerable and depending on Russia to

put United States astronauts in orbit without the

Constellation program; in May of last year when it became

clear the United States had no one else to turn to, Russia

raised its prices from $48,000,000 to $51,000,000 per launch

for each astronaut.

Whereas the Constellation program is not just about going

to the moon, as the United States has a commitment to the

International Space Station (ISS), and with the Space Shuttle

being retired this September, the Constellation is the only

system under development that will give NASA the future

capability to launch and retrieve crews to and from the ISS.

Whereas decreasing the use of the International Space

Station would impact the ability to sustain its systems and

physical infrastructure.

Whereas the Constellation program should be funded to

continue use of the International Space Station to support

the agency and other Federal, commercial, and academic

research and technology testing needs.

Whereas partnerships between universities and NASA centers

should be established to provide research opportunities for

conduct of research in the United States International Space

Station National Laboratories for the next generation of

scientists in order to ensure effective utilization of the

International Space Station research capabilities.

Whereas NASA conducts aeronautics research to address

aviation safety, air traffic control, noise and, emissions

reductions and fuel efficiency.

Whereas NASA's contribution to our knowledge of air and

water supports improved decisionmaking for natural resource

management and emergency response, thus enabling us to better

respond to future homeland security threats.

Whereas knowledge of Earth's water cycle is a critical

first step in protecting our water supply; water flows over

the Earth's surface in oceans, lakes, and streams, and is

particularly vulnerable to attack.

Whereas NASA sensors provide a wealth of information about

the water cycle; and contributes to improving our ability to

monitor water resources and water quality from space; we must

also protect the quality and safety of the air we breathe;

airborne contaminants can pose danger to human health; and

chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological attacks are

plausible threats against which we can better protect the

United States through NASA's research: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of

Representatives that--

(1) NASA is a national security asset and interest for the

United States;

(2) elimination of the Constellation program will present

Homeland Security implications for cyberspace, critical

infrastructure, and the intelligence community of the United

States;

(3) elimination of the Constellation program will

compromise the effectiveness of the International Space

Station as it relates to the strategic importance of space

station research, and intelligence;

(4) continuation of NASA's Constellation program is crucial

to improving national security, climate, and research in

science and medicine; and

(5) the United States should maintain its funding of the

Constellation program and should begin funding commercial

space in 5 years and not sooner.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the special order topic of financial reform. I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman Marcia Fudge for bringing this issue to the floor tonight. I would also like to thank CBC Chair Barbara Lee for her leadership on continuing to shine the light on important issues that matter to the CBC and our constituents as well as the Nation as a whole.

It is past time that we take strong action to reform our financial system to ensure that we have strong measures in place to best prevent the economic crisis that we have been experiencing over the last few years. We had years without accountability for Wall Street and the Big Banks under President Bush and congressional Republicans which cost the people of this Nation 8 million jobs.

We will: Rein in Big Banks and their Big Bonuses, put an end to bailouts and the idea of ``too big to fail,'' and create a consumer financial protection agency to protect and empower consumers to make the best decisions on homes, credit cards, and their own financial future.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford to let the fox watch the henhouse. For eight years, President Bush and congressional Republicans looked the other way as Wall Street and the Big Banks exploited loopholes, gambled your money on complex schemes, and rewarded failure and recklessness. America's families and small businesses paid the price. We lost 8 million jobs and $17 trillion in retirement savings and Americans' net worth.

This Congress and President Obama have made tough choices and taken effective steps to bring our economy back from the brink of disaster. The Recovery Act has already saved or created up to 2.8 million jobs and much of the TARP has been paid back. And now we are taking another key step forward with a final agreement on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

As we rebuild our economy, we must put in place commonsense rules to ensure Big Banks and Wall Street can't play Russian Roulette again with our futures. Wall Street may be bouncing back, but we know from experience they're not going to police themselves.

Common-sense reforms that hold Wall Street and the Big Banks accountable will:

End bailouts by ensuring taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street's risky decisions

Protect families' retirement funds, college savings, homes and businesses' financial futures from unnecessary risk by CEOs, lenders, and speculators

Protect consumers from predatory lending abuses, fine print, and industry gimmicks

Inject transparency and accountability into a financial system run amok

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1244, ``Recognizing the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition for its now five-year effort to promote cyber security curriculum in institutions of higher learning,'' as introduced by my fellow member of the Texas delegation, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez.

Our nation's critical infrastructure is composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping. Cyberspace is their nervous system--the control system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential to both our economy and our national security.

One of the most significant security challenges that our Federal government faces today is ensuring that we have an abundance of adequately trained individuals defending our information infrastructure. In the past, I have been proud to sponsor bills that would increase funding for cybersecurity education programs, to ensure that we have a properly trained workforce to protect this vital infrastructure. The National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition (CCDC) is an important piece of the cybersecurity education puzzle.

Since 2005, the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition has given students in the field of cybersecurity the opportunity to showcase their abilities. Rather than having students design an ``ideal'' network, the CCDC requires participants to assume the administrative and protective duties for an existing ``commercial'' network. This allows participants to show their skill at ``real world'' situations, as very few cybersecurity workers will have the luxury of building a perfect system from the ground up. While we obviously want to build the most secure networks possible, our experts must be able to work with the infrastructure that exists, finding and eliminating weaknesses that may already exist, and making imperfect systems secure.

Over the last few years, the contest has grown to include regional competitions in Texas, Maine, Washington, California, and Minnesota, among other locations. This year, there were more than eighty schools that participated, from all parts of the country. The students participating in this contest have not only demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of this important function, but they have also had the opportunity to hone their skills by dealing with actual, real time issues. The National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition plays an important role in the development of our next generation of cybersecurity professionals, and I am proud to join Mr. Rodriguez in recognizing it.

Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a great husband, father, entrepreneur, community activist and all-around great American, Percy P. Creuzot, Jr., who passed on from his earthly life on Sunday, June 6, 2010. We are privileged and honored to salute him as a Great Houstonian for all of America to admire.

Percy Creuzot had a unique ability to reach out and help others. Mr. Creuzot effectively articulated that strong communities are created when we recognize that every member of the community is important. He demonstrated this belief in every aspect of his life.

In 1966 his family moved to Houston, Texas, where he was employed by Herff-Jones Jewelry, a graduation supply company. Percy's first entrepreneurial endeavor in Houston was a snow-ball shop in Houston on Dowling and McGowan. There was a dearth of restaurant chains and, even fewer operated in minority neighborhoods. Mr. Creuzot saw the need for uplifting his community with his cuisine and with that envisioned a need and market in Houston for Southern Louisiana foods. With the influence from family members he decided to open a small sandwich shop in

Houston's Third Ward community. The Scott Street location sold a variety of oyster, shrimp and roast beef po-boys; the business became known as ``Frenchy's Po-Boy.'' As the business showed promise, expansion into other endeavors was likely. With the motivation of a close friend, Mr. Creuzot dove into the fried chicken business and ``Frenchy's Creole Fried Chicken'' is a bustling business to this day.

In 1977, Percy expanded his business interests and opened Frenchy's Sausage Company. The goal was to produce and market Creole foods to restaurants and grocery stores in the Houston area. The business grew successfully and is now run by Percy's son, Percy III, and has become a leading producer of Creole foods and various processed meats in Houston and surrounding areas.

Percy's civic/community involvements began with a desire to enhance the success of Texas Southern University. Percy was a tireless supporter of Texas Southern University and, after being appointed by Texas Governor Bill Clements to its Board of Regents, he faithfully served for 12 years which included being its Vice Chairman. Governor Clements also appointed Percy to the Texas Private Industry Council and he was appointed to the Houston Citizen's Review Board where he served with distinction. Percy also was an active member of the National, Texas, and Houston Restaurant Associations as well as serving on the Catholic Charities' Board of Directors. Percy was a long time member of Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi (Nu Boule) Fraternities and the Knights of Peter Claver. Until his death, Percy provided financial support to the United Negro College Fund, the Urban League, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Xavier University and Hampton University.

Percy is survived by his wife, Sallie Creuzot; daughter Angele; sons Percy III (Cheryl) and John; grandchildren Simone and Terry Williams, Percy IV , Coline and Phillipe Creuzot, Ethan Creuzot ; great-grandson Christien Gilliam; his sister, Martina Cox (Dr. Frank); and numerous nieces and nephews. He also left to treasure his memories many in-laws, colleagues, friends, community members, numerous Houstonian mentees including Anthony Gaynor and Charlie Reado, as well as countless high school and college students.

Madam Speaker, Percy P. Creuzot, Jr.'s life should serve as an inspiration to us all. Through his life and through his legacy he has challenged those who are caught in the grips of poverty to take control of their own destinies. By his openhandedness to his community, he is a shining example of how those more fortunate should share their lives with others.

Madam Speaker, a great American is gone from our midst, but we have been empowered to carry on his work and continue to press toward the mark. His family, friends and everyone he has touched will be in our thoughts and prayers.