Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1244, ``Recognizing the National Collegiate Cyber Defense Competition for its 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in support of H. Con. Res. 284, ``Recognizing the work and importance of special education teachers.'' I would like to thank my colleague from Texas for shedding light on this very demanding and vital occupation.

Special education teachers teach students with both physical and mental impairments. A physical impairment is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as: ``Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.''

A mental impairment is defined by the ADA as: ``Any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.''

Neither the statute nor the regulations list all diseases or conditions that make up ``physical or mental impairments,'' because it would be impossible to provide a comprehensive list, given the variety of possible impairments. However, the number of disabilities covered by the ADA continues to grow, as has the number of people diagnosed with learning disabilities. For example, it is estimated that between 3 and 5 percent of children have met criteria for diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). This represents approximately 2 million children in the United States, and means that in a classroom of 25 to 30 children, it is likely that at least one will have ADHD. In total, according to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately 6,500,000 children (roughly 10 percent of all school-aged children) receive special education services.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that ``The highest cost of an education is not getting one.'' in 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that children with disabilities have the same right to receive a quality education in the public schools as their nondisabled peers. Because of this ruling, special education teachers had to be prepared to handle these students and their individual needs.

Special education teachers work with children and young adults who have a range of disabilities. A small number of special education teachers work with students with severe cognitive, emotional, or physical disabilities, primarily teaching them life skills and basic literacy. However, the majority of special education teachers work with children with mild to moderate disabilities, modifying the general education curriculum to meet the individual needs of the child and providing required corrective instruction. Today there are over 370,000 highly qualified special education teachers in the United States.

Special education teachers use various techniques to promote learning. Depending on

the student, teaching methods can include intensive individualized instruction, problem-solving assignments, and small-group work. Special education teachers ensure that appropriate accommodations are provided, such as having material read orally, or lengthening the time allowed to take the test for students who need special accommodations to learn the general curriculum or to take a test. In some cases, teachers also provide students with career counseling or help them learn life skills, such as balancing a checkbook.

Helping these students can be highly rewarding and gratifying for the teacher, but the work also can be emotionally demanding and physically draining. Teachers are often consumed with paper work and burdened with a heavy workload--not to mention administrative responsibilities. The teacher is responsible for assessing the student's progress toward gaining the knowledge necessary to pass the course as well as consider the students' progress coping with their learning disability.

I applaud the steadfastness of all teachers for their diligence in teaching our youth and preparing them for the future. I am grateful for special educational instructors, who not only must deal with the curriculum of a classroom, but must also manage all of the other factors that may impede learning. Because of this, I strongly support H. Con Res. 284 and I encourage my colleagues to join me.

Mr. Speaker, tell me it's not true. Republicans again are attacking Social Security. Yesterday, our minority leader indicated that he wanted sweeping cuts in Social Security. Sounds like deja vu when the Republicans stood side-by-side saying ``privatize Social Security.'' Can you believe that the Republicans are now standing with raising the age for retirees to get Social Security to age 70? Can you believe there will be a means test that you won't be able to get Social Security if you earn a certain amount? Can you believe they want to take this money to pay for the Iraq and Afghan war? Can you believe they're fighting Democrats to not extend unemployment benefits? Can you believe that they are fighting us from creating jobs, as Democrats are doing, giving opportunities to small businesses.

I really can't believe it, Mr. Speaker. Here we go again--cutting our seniors again, raising the Social Security means test as a way of saving money. What are we going to do? Fight back as Democrats and stand with our seniors.

Madam Speaker, this is a very emotional time for many Americans as they look at pending unemployment, long months of addressing the question of how they pay their mortgage, and reflecting on how we got to this place.

That is why I stand today to support the underlying rule and this financial accountability complex legislation that has taken many, many hours and days and weeks for us to come up with a way to say to America, We heard you.

And so the first point of this bill is that there will be no taxpayer-paid bailouts. And then for the first time the consumers of America will have their own personal advocacy. They will have the Consumer Protection Board that will look at credit card increases and outlandish interest rates. They will have an oversight board that will look at how they address the question of banking loans. Small businesses will be able to access credit. There will be transparency and accountability. What is there to be opposed to?

Those who happen to be included in minority- and women-owned businesses will for the first time not be stopped at the door to access credit.

Then of course we'll be able to have an oversight board that will forever eliminate the words ``too big to fail.'' Experts who will continuously look at the infrastructure of this financial system.

We know that capitalism is strong, but it must be a strong system that has a heart, that can withstand the scrutiny of those who are seeking to find the weaknesses. We have to stand with the consumer so that the consumer does not fall victim to the too big to fail who were willing to take risks because they were padding their pockets.

This is the right decision that is now being made, and this bill will provide you with the oversight and the protective coverage for the banking consumer. Support the underlying rule and this bill. Stand with the American people and make a difference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1321, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the political situation in Thailand be solved peacefully and through democratic means. I thank my colleague, Mr. -Faleomavaega, for introducing this important resolution.

Beginning in mid-March 2010, anti-government protestors occupied parts of Bangkok for nine weeks. Initially peaceful, the demonstrations and the response from the security forces became increasingly aggressive, eventually spiraling into urban warfare. Most of the protestors, known as the ``red shirts,'' are loyal to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was ousted in a military coup in 2006. On May 3, 2010, the Thai Prime Minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, offered talks and proposed a ``reconciliation plan'' including an election on November 14, 2010 in an effort to end the political crisis that immobilized Bangkok and killed 88 people and wounded hundreds. Although the violence has subsided, the political divisions remain stark and the threat of more confrontation lingers. Continuous progress has been made on the Thai Government's reconciliation plan. A public forum was convened on June 17, 2010 as a brainstorming session on how to move the process forward. According to the Prime Minister, the views gathered during this public forum reflect visions for both the Thai people and society and were in line with those of the government. Two committees will be set up by the end of June. The first committee will focus on strategies and priorities for reform to be proposed to the government and the second will work on nation reform assembly which will serve as a channel for all sectors of society to put forward their views and proposals with help from academic works.

Thailand has been a long-time military ally and a significant trade and economic partner. Our close relationship and longstanding friendship with Thailand dates back to 1883 when the two countries signed the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Despite differences on Burma policy and human rights issues, shared economic and security interests have long provided the basis for U.S.-Thai cooperation. Thailand contributed troops and support for U.S. military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq and was designated as a major non-NATO ally in December 2003. Thailand's airfields and ports play a particularly important role in U.S. global military strategy, including having served as the primary hub of the relief effort following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

As a major recipient of foreign direct investment, and with exports of goods accounting for over 70 percent of its GDP in 2007, Thailand's economy depends heavily on its trading partners. Economic relations with the United States are central to Thailand's outward-looking economic strategy. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, U.S. trade with Thailand in 2008 consisted of $9.1 billion in exports and $23.5 billion in imports. The State Department reports that although Japan is Thailand's biggest trading partner, the United States is currently Thailand's largest export market.

With more than 200,000 people tracing their ancestry to Thailand, our two nations share extensive social and cultural links.

We recognize that enormous challenges remain ahead. Thailand has a past of turbulence and turmoil--the country has experienced 18 coups in the past 77 years. I am hopeful that their continued progress can lead to an ever more fruitful economic and political relationship between the United States and Thailand, contributing to the well being and prosperity of both our nations.

The United States is hopeful that Thailand's political problems will be solved peacefully and through democratic needs. The United States supports the national reconciliation plan proposed by the Prime Minister which encompasses upholding the monarchy, instituting political reform, and eradicating injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1405: ``Congratulating the people of the 17 African nations that in 2010 are marking the 50th year of their national independence.'' As a cosponsor of this resolution, I am proud to acknowledge the progress made by these 17 nations as well as the other African nations that gained independence in the early 1960s. The 17 African nations that gained independence in 1960 are:

The Republic of Cameroon (January 1, 1960);

The Togolese Republic (April 27, 1960);

The Republic of Mali (June 20, 1960);

The Republic of Senegal (June 20, 1960);

The Republic of Madagascar (June 26, 1960);

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (June 30, 1960);

Somalia gained its independence on (July 1, 1960);

The Republic of Benin (August 1, 1960);

The Republic of Niger (August 3, 1960);

Burkina Faso (August 5, 1960);

The Republic of Cote d'Ivoire (August 7, 1960);

The Republic of Chad (August 11, 1960);

The Central African Republic (August 13, 1960);

The Republic of the Congo (August 15, 1960);

The Gabonese Republic (August 17, 1960);

The Federal Republic of Nigeria (October 1, 1960); and

The Islamic Republic of Mauritania (November 28, 1960)

When the nations in Africa gained independence during the 1960s and 1970s, there was an expectation that the end of colonialism would usher in a new era of representative government in which the people of these new nations could freely choose a government that represented their interests. Fifty years after independence, however, the progress of these nations has been mixed at best. In many nations, progress has failed to match expectations as the people of these new nations struggled to shed the yoke of their colonial legacies. These legacies include inorganic borders and inherited systems of patronage.

Although many African nations were dealt a difficult hand, the continent's new leaders, by in large, sought to consolidate and retain power rather than embrace political systems defined and strengthened by their diversity. Since independence, transfer of political power has consistently been a thorn in the side of side of most African nations.

Although many of the challenges of broadening and democratizing political participation in Africa rests in the hands of a few `big men,' there are also significant challenges at local levels. Today, millions of people in Africa are stateless. Some because their births were never recorded, others because they belong to the `wrong' ethnic group. Civil conflicts in Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo and numerous other countries have been fuelled if not created by pernicious citizenship policies that sever the link between certain parts of the population and the state. As rebel leader in the Ivory Coast reportedly exclaimed, ``Give us our identity cards and we hand over our Kalashnikovs.'' This, to me, captures both the tension and the stakes in play. The people of Sudan, the DRC, Guinea, and others have long since passed the point where they can afford to be at war. It is imperative that we work to end conflicts and facilitate governments that reflect the will of the people.

While we must remain vigilant in our scrutiny of those leaders who stifle democracy, we must also recognize leaders who promote democracy even if it imperils their own political position. Last summer, I visited Ghana and saw a democracy that is heading in the right direction. During the December 2008 Presidential elections, John Atta Mills of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) won the election in an extremely narrow victory that required a run-off with Nana Akufo-Addo of the former ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP). Domestic and international observers deemed the election free and fair. Facilitating mature democracies requires us to find ways to encourage leaders to relinquish power, and I think we can improve our use of these `carrots.'

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution and renew the commitment of the United States to help the people of sub-Saharan Africa to foster democratic rule, advance civic freedom and participation, and promote market-based economic growth, and to alleviate the burden of poverty and disease that so many in the region continue to face. We must also remember to keep ``fifty years of independence'' in context. Fifty years may seem like a long time, but consider America's own history when, fifty years after independence, the country had not yet had experienced its civil war.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3140, a bill to permanently authorize Radio Free Asia, and for other purposes. I thank my colleague Senator Lugar for introducing this important bill that reasserts our commitment to a free press and freedom of speech in Asia and throughout the world.

Freedom of the press is one of our most cherished values and enshrined in our first amendment. ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'' I believe it is one of the most valuable and fundamental rights written in the Constitution, as it grants us as people the ability to speak truth to tyranny. In the United States we often take this freedom for granted, but in many countries throughout the world it does not exist at all, or exists only on paper and not in practice.

Thus the United States has long sought to expand this freedom throughout the world, promoting free speech and freedom of information in places where governments have strangled their people's ability to speak their minds. Most notably during the Cold War, Radio Free Europe was one of the many tools the United States used to try and reach out to those behind the Iron Curtain, who were deprived of information and whose right to speak their minds freely was severely curtailed. Radio Free Asia, RFA, attempts to do the same for the people of Asia whose freedom of speech and press, particularly in China and North Korea, has been stifled by increasingly restrictive government policies.

The consistent and continued attempts on behalf of these governments to block and jam RFA's broadcasts are a testament to their value and effectiveness. Like a cool breeze drafting through a hot, stifled room, RFA is a breath of fresh air to those who are deprived of information and afraid to speak freely. Creatively using shortwave broadcasts and the Internet, RFA has been able to circumvent many of the restrictive tactics of oppressive governments, often relying on the ingenuity and intelligence of local listeners themselves to spread the word.

But RFA needs more time and more resources to do its job right. It is of paramount importance that Radio Free Asia continue its broadcasts in the future, until its implementation is made obsolete by its own success in promoting freedom of information in the countries it currently serves. According to Freedom House, freedom of the press is in decline almost everywhere in the world, making Radio Free Asia's services that much more vital in reaffirming this Congress' concern for the freedom of people around the globe. I am glad that the Congress has decided to continue the important work of the RFA and to promote freedom to our oppressed brethren in Asia.

Ms.ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1462, support for the people of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador as they persevere through the aftermath of Tropical Storm Agatha which swept across Central America causing deadly floods and mudslides. I would like to thank Mr. Mack for introducing this resolution underlining our heartfelt support for our North American neighbors in their time of desperate need.

Mr. Speaker, the countries of Central America have suffered devastating damage and loss of life at the hands of Mother Nature. Tropical Storm Agatha has left over 200 dead and over 95,000 in shelters, most of them in Guatemala. The powerful storm has inflicted over $475,000,000 in damages throughout the region, destroying critical water and sanitation infrastructure. Combined with recent droughts, high food prices and a dramatic drop in remittances from the United States, Guatemala in particular has suffered severe food insecurity that will likely increase due to the effects of the storm.

I join my fellow members in expressing our most heartfelt condolences for the loss of life and suffering the Guatemalan, Honduran and Salvadoran people have endured in the wake of the storm. We mourn for those who are no longer with us, and extend our deepest sympathies to those they have left behind, in many cases without food or shelter. It is a tragedy for anyone to lose their home, their father, their mother, their children, their friends. We will do everything we can to help them recover from this disaster.

But we also commend the people of these ravaged countries for their bravery, and for standing tall in the face of adversity. In spite of the frustration and sadness that come in the aftermath of a disaster, they are fighting hard to recover. They could certainly use our help.

The international community and the United States have already responded. Countries, NGOs and humanitarian aid agencies from around the world have generously contributed millions of dollars in medicine and aid, and mobilizing to transport and deliver support and supplies. The United States continue to assert and strengthen our commitment to participate in the global outpouring of support to our devastated neighbors to the south.

After all, we are no strangers to the effects of natural disasters, and many of our cities have suffered through more than their fair share. As a Representative of the good people of Houston, Texas, many of the Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms that wreak havoc every summer hit very close to home. From

Ike to Ivan to Wilma to Katrina, we know all too well the devastation that befalls those unfortunate enough to be standing in the path of one of the North Atlantic's deadly hurricanes or tropical storms. We have seen the destruction first hand; I have spoken to the victims; we have known the pain and suffering those natural disasters can cause.

We know the road of recovery can be long and fraught with challenges. But we have recovered, and so shall the people of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. And the United States must help ensure that they do.

As such, I am proud to stand behind my fellow members in calling upon the Congress to urge the Secretary of State and the United States Agency for International Development to continue working on a strategic plan to promote food security and recovery efforts, with the aim of mitigating current and future effects of the recent natural disasters that have devastated Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the tribute to Senator Byrd yesterday on the floor of the Senate, the other body, and I was struck by one comment on his integrity. It was that if Senator Byrd gave you his word you could go to the bank on it.

I rise today to support this legislation because I want the American people to know that this Congress who has

taken their vote really needs to stand by its word. That word is to be there for America during a rainy day. This unemployment insurance extension is not a handout; it's a hand up. Democrats have voted to create thousands of jobs in America but it is not enough.

All the economists will tell you that Americans are not at work because they don't want to work. They are not at work because jobs have not been created, and one of the downfalls of the bailout, for those of us who did vote against it but because of the outpouring of our own constituents who asked us to vote ``yes,'' we voted ``yes'' for small businesses and businesses in general to create jobs, but if the too- big-to-fail banks refuse to give them loans to create jobs then we are stuck with no job creation at the level we would like.

We need to be able to provide for those who need us now, provide for those without jobs or losing jobs, and get off this high horse of breaking your word to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5618, Restoration of Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act. 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. People cannot function without some means to subsist, while continuing to look for work that in many places in 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. Unemployment is an emergency. Just ask someone who has been unemployed and looking for work, and they will tell you the same.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.7 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, with more than 241,152 individuals remaining unemployed. Indeed, I cannot 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 the hot summer of 2010--only made more unbearable by this nonsensical approach to their plight.

H.R. 5618 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 the economy, we cannot sit idly and ignore the unemployed. As such, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5618.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5611, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010: Part II. This Act would extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund as well as extend authorizations for the airport improvement program. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) provides much needed funding to assist in our Federal commitment to the Nation's aviation system. Such funding is necessary for the development of our nationwide airport and airway system as well as for investments in air traffic control facilities to meet the current and future projected growth in aviation.

The Trust Fund provides 100 percent of the funding for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport grants, facilities and equipment, and research, engineering, and development. Allocations are also provided to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and Facilities and Equipment, (F&E) and funding from the Trust Fund also helps support basic FAA operations.

I would like to emphasize that the AAFT trust fund was not created solely to finance aviation infrastructure. Throughout its history, it has financed a wide array of operations including administrative expenses, attributable to the administration of the airport improvement program and research and development, as well as general FAA operations. It is very important that this funding be continued.

While the trust fund pays a large share of the bills for the FAA to operate the national airspace system, a troubling gap has grown between the revenue that comes in and what it costs to govern the FAA. This has sharply driven down the Trust Fund's uncommitted balance; its surpluses from previous years. If this trend continues in our poor economic state where airlines are cutting benefits and increasing prices, the future of American aviation is grim.

Mr. Speaker I am concerned for the future of American aviation-- especially for the future of the George Bush Intercontinental Airport located in my home district of Houston, Texas. Current airport standards are not only threatened by decreased FAA funding but also by the proposed merger of Continental and United Airlines, the former of which is based in Houston. Should this merger be allowed, the future of American aviation in regards to customer satisfaction, safety standards, and general flight, would slowly decline. We cannot add to such destruction by denying the FAA appropriate funds through the AATF. As the airline industry continues to grow and serve more and more Americans, it is our duty to the American people to ensure that the future of

airport security, infrastructure and improvement, research and development, continue to develop to better serve our needs.

For these reasons Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5611, the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010: Part II.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5552, the Firearms Excise Improvement Tax Act of 2010. I would like to thank Chairman Levin and Congressman Kind for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor.

H.R. 5552 will amend the Internal Revenue Code to require: (1) excise taxes on recreational equipment to be due and payable on the date for filing the return for such taxes (i.e., quarterly); and (2) the Secretary of the Treasury to assess and collect, in the same manner as delinquent taxes are assessed and collected, mandatory orders of restitution for victims of crime. The bill has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. The funding will also create jobs for Americans across the country.

Mr. Speaker, it must be stated that in a time when firearms are being used to commit heinous crimes against individuals in this country, it is important that we remember to ensure that we use strict measures to ensure that we can track the owners of firearms and requiring such excise taxes is one way to do so.

In this Congress, I introduced H.R. 257, The Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009--which would amend the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to: (1) raise the age of handgun eligibility to 21 (currently, 18); and (2) prohibit persons under age 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with exceptions.

It would also increase penalties for: (1) a second or subsequent violation by a juvenile of Brady Act provisions or for a first violation committed after an adjudication of delinquency or after a state or federal conviction for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a serious violent felony; and (2) transferring a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is under age 21, knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to use it in the commission of a crime of violence.

The bill also would prohibit any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. Authorizes the Attorney General to suspend or revoke any firearms license, or to subject the licensee to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, if the licensee has knowingly violated this prohibition.

H.R. 257 would prohibit keeping a loaded firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises knowing or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child: (1) is capable of gaining access to it; and (2) will use the firearm to cause death or serious bodily injury. It would also require the parent or legal guardian of a child to ensure that a child attending a gun show is accompanied by an adult.

My bill would also authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that each school district should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students.

Yesterday, in its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. We know that the decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying ``the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.''

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. Moreover, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

The irony is that there have been 209 homicides so far this year in 2010 in Chicago. We need to strike a reasonable balance between upholding our Second Amendment rights to bear arms, and at the same time ensure that we enact appropriate laws to address criminal behavior and to ensure the health and safety of Americans across this nation.

I hope that we can work towards a reasonable solution whereby gun owners are not deprived of their right to hunt, fish, and use their firearms in law-abiding manners, and also provide the most effective measures to control gun violence and limit injury and death to Americans as a result of unlawful firearm use.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank Congress members Dahlkemper, Kratovil and Childers for introducing this important and much-needed piece of legislation.

The mortgage crisis continues to affect millions of Americans, and has greatly interfered with the American dream of home ownership. It is imperative that we help everyday Americans in their effort to remain afloat in light of the ongoing effects of the economic meltdown. For these reasons, I support the proposed amendments to this Act which will extend the closing deadline for the First-Time Homebuyer tax credit to September 30, 2010.

The housing market is an area that was, perhaps, the most largely affected by the economic crisis. As of January, 2010, there were 315,716 foreclosures on properties in the United States reported just within the month. Additionally, 1 in every 409 U.S. housing units received a foreclosure filing in the same month. Texas received the sixth highest number of foreclosure filings in January, 2010. As of March, 2010, the foreclosure rate in Houston, Texas had increased by almost ten percent from the previous month. Although our economy appears to be on the path to recovery, these statistics are still cause for concern.

The programs set in place to counteract the effects of the economic downturn have attracted many ordinary Americans who are desperate to keep their homes. The first-time homebuyer tax credit, specifically, represented positive steps to guide ordinary Americans towards financial recovery. However, it is important to allow all who are eligible, and especially all who require the help, to benefit from the tax credit by extending the closing deadline. There has been a delay in processing due to all the new mortgages that have resulted from the tax credit. However, ordinary Americans who have attempted to obtain new mortgages, and are sincerely in need of the aid provided through the tax credit should not be punished for the backlog that resulted from factors entirely outside of their control.

We are all familiar with the ongoing effects of the economic meltdown. Jobs have been lost, homes have been foreclosed upon, and many have been left with no source of income or livelihood. In addition, many Americans have been stripped of the ability to achieve a goal that they have, in certain instances, worked decades to attain-- owning a home. Extending the tax credit will provide everyday citizens with an opportunity to realize this dream, even in the midst of a recovering economy.

Madam Speaker, I was detained when my colleagues were on the floor of the House paying tribute to Senator Byrd and did not want this time to go without acknowledging my deep sympathy to his family and to my good friend from West Virginia and to acknowledge how special this man was to the institution we call Congress and to the freedom that this Nation stands for.

I cannot account for my personal encounters with Senator Byrd, but I can tell you, as someone who respects and loves this institution, what a man who understood the Constitution and rules that were not for selfish reasons, to keep people from being in power, but really it was to empower people.

He had no qualms in standing up against Presidential authority that was wrong in the Iraq War. He had no qualms in fighting to ensure that resources came to his great State. He loved the institution. He was a holder of knowledge, and what we will lose with his passing is that special sensitivity to the rules and to the responsibility we have to not play politics with this institution. We are here to serve America, and Senator Byrd did serve America.

May God rest his soul and may he rest in peace. Senator Byrd, we will miss you.

I thank the distinguished manager of the Rules Committee for his leadership.

I thought I would just hold up this book that has many items in it, but the most precious document is the Constitution. And I do want to say that it is clear that the First Amendment, the number one amendment in the Bill of Rights, is not violated, but enhanced by this legislation. That's why the commonsense judgment of Americans are wholeheartedly supporting this.

I had my doubts because there are exemptions here that may help organizations that I would disagree with and do not support, but frankly, this legislation reflects the First Amendment because what it says is we want transparency that in essence tells us who you are. That is no greater affirmation of the First Amendment than one could imagine.

So it is important to acknowledge concerns expressed, but it is equally important to say that we stand on the side of a fair and impartial election, an un-ugly election. And when you get unfettered money in elections, it becomes ugly. So that if you were in the hurricane plains, if you will, of the gulf region and you had a referendum to ask your utility company to stop putting utility poles above ground, spend some money to put them underground so we're not in the dark for 8 and 9 weeks during a campaign season and they take their money in the referendum and work hard to defeat it, that is to undermine the needs of the people of that region. Or you have insurance companies who are not seeing what the American people are now seeing, that, wow, this health care bill really can help me, and they begin to massively campaign against the implementation of the health care bill against America's interests.

This is what this is about because when you see who's putting these political ads up--maybe helping another candidate, a pro-insurance, big business candidate who cares nothing about the people of this Nation-- you will say, you know what? I want to side with letting this health bill work itself out. I want to side with young people being covered. I want to side with seniors getting money back from health reform. That's what legislation is about.

So I would offer to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle you are wrong. This Constitution and the First Amendment provides that no law should impede your right to access, to association, and to freedom of speech, but impeding it does not mean don't tell us who you are, it does not mean contributions can hide in the dark. And every single candidacy, be it city council, or mayor, or be it a Federal election, will have the opportunity to have funds dumped on them with a means of replying.

I thank the gentleman.

Here's what I'd like to do in an election--I'd like us to be able to engage and tell you what our issues are, whatever we're running for. And yes, we have to run with the resources that we raise; and when I say that, no matter what office you are running for, no matter what party you are in. Without this legislation big money will control the people's voice.

But what we most want to do is to break the locks and chains that big money causes in elections. We want to take away the right of those who want to demonize someone who, for example, may be interested in comprehensive immigration reform. That's their viewpoint, they're running on that. Maybe they're not. Or someone who's running against it. We don't want to have big money demonize a perspective that maybe the public should hear.

So I don't know what the opposition is on the other side because the First

Amendment is protected. And I believe, though it's a struggle because we know that there are elements that do raise the concern to some, but I would argue that we should want to break those locks and break those chains of big money telling the American people what to do.

I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5175, the underlying bill, and the rule.

Madam Speaker, after weighing the pros and cons of H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill. This was a decision that took a lot of deliberation, but in the end it is clear that in the absence of supporting H.R. 5175, we run the risk of witnessing the greatest deluge of unreported cash from the richest corporations and special interests that has occurred throughout the history of American politics.

Without some mechanism to ensure that the American people know who is spending potentially millions to influence their vote, we threaten the fundamental core of our democracy--the result will amount to a corporate special interest takeover of our elections. This is the reality. This is what is at stake.

Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of money on our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it provides unprecedented transparency and disclosure of political expenditures by powerful special interests. Much has been said, and many of you have concerns, about exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be forced to disclose more than they do now.

Every single 501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you know exactly which group sponsors the advertisement. Additionally, any exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single corporate dollar on campaign-related expenditures. We are far better off with these reforms than with nothing at all.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that this legislation is bipartisan. Our former colleagues, Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, and Christopher Shays of Connecticut helped authored the bipartisan campaign reform act. Yesterday, they released a joint statement in support of the DISCLOSE Act: ``Voters have a fundamental right to know who is spending money to influence their elections and where that money is coming from. With hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by corporations and labor unions to influence elections, secrecy about these expenditures is simply unacceptable. We urge our former colleagues in the House to vote for the DISCLOSE Act and for the right of citizens to know who is spending money to influence their votes.''

The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and sham organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is critical if we ever hope to keep our constituents informed on who is trying to influence their vote. This bill breaks the ``locks and chains'' of ``big money'' in our democratic process of elections. I would submit this is the time to move forward. As such, I urge my colleagues to support the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175

.House of Representatives,

Washington, DC June 23, 2010.

Congresswoman Jackson Lee Urges Support for H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act

Dear Colleague: After weighing the pros and cons of H.R.

5175, the DISCLOSE Act, I have decided to support the bill.

This was a decision that took a lot of deliberation, but in

the end it is clear that in the absence of supporting H.R.

5175, we run the risk of witnessing the greatest deluge of

unreported cash from the richest corporations and special

interests that has occurred throughout the history of

American politics. Without some mechanism to ensure that the

American people know who is spending potentially millions to

influence their vote, we threaten the fundamental core of our

democracy--the result will amount to a corporate special

interest takeover of our elections. This is the reality. This

is what is at stake.

Right now, any corporation can spend unlimited amounts of

money on our elections. The bill is not perfect, but it

provides unprecedented transparency and disclosure of

political expenditures by powerful special interests. Much

has been said, and many of you have concerns, about

exemptions in the bill. Let me be clear: all groups will be

forced to disclose more than they do now. Every single

501(c)(4) will be forced to ``stand by their ad'' so you know

exactly which group sponsors the ad. Additionally, any

exempted groups will be prevented from spending a single

corporate dollar on campaign related expenditures. We are far

better off with these reforms than with nothing at all.

The DISCLOSE Act ensures that shadowy special interests and

sham organizations are not able to hide their funders, and is

critical if we ever hope to keep our constituents informed on

who is trying to influence their vote. This bill breaks the

``locks and chains'' of ``big money'' in our democratic

process of elections. I would submit this is the time to move

forward. As such, I urge your support of the DISCLOSE Act,

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and boldness on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a version of the Constitution that is in this very distinct book of rules. And clearly I think it is important for the American people to understand really the action items of this legislation.

Can you imagine a government contractor being paid by your tax dollars--they might be doing the right thing, we don't know--but advocating with your tax dollars for a position you do not want without you knowing that that is occurring?

This bill is under the First Amendment because it says that we give you more transparency. If we read the Constitution in its entirety, the opening says that ``We have come together to form a more perfect Union.'' That means if people are dissatisfied with this bill, they have a right to petition the courts. But we believe we are erring on the side of rightness, breaking those bold chains of big money around your neck and allowing people to either be elected or run for office, dominated, slammed down on the basis of big money.

This is a good change. I ask for my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the DISCLOSE Act, H.R. 5175. I have said repeatedly that this has been one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. However, I strongly believe that if we do not support H.R. 5175, we will be overwhelmed during this election cycle by the richest corporations and individuals in the U.S. I do not believe we will be able to even begin to estimate how much might be spent in the mid-term elections.

I do know that without some mechanism to prevent political opponents from tapping into an unlimited supply of cash, we will be setting the stage for our own demise, as well as a dangerous precedent for future elections. U.S. politics will never be the same after the midterm elections if we do not pass the DISCLOSE Act.

Of course, arguments have been made involving the First Amendment. Many arguments opposing the bill on constitutional grounds are legitimate. Yet, these arguments negate the fact that the DISCLOSE Act will actually expand First Amendment rights that might otherwise be drowned out because the legislation provides fair access for all parties, while breaking the chain big money has in American politics. Sitting on the fence on this bill might be considered tempting, although if we sit on the fence today we will pay a price tomorrow.

While the DISCLOSE Act exempts large established 501(c)(4) from some of the bill's disclosure requirements, it addresses the fundamental issue of eliminating the possibility that a rich corporation or individual can hide behind their money. Transparency as it relates to campaign financing is the principle behind the DISCLOSE Act.

After years of the Abramoff scandal, special interests lobbyists writing legislation and an explosion of earmarks, the New Direction Congress is working to restore honest leadership and open government.

Congressional Republicans support Wall Street banks, credit card companies, Big Oil, and insurance companies--special interests that benefited from Bush's policies and created the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression--and are working to be rewarded by their corporate friends.

The DISCLOSE ACT will accomplish a number of things, including:

Prevent Large Government Contractors from Spending Money on Elections: Prevents government contractors with over $10 million in contract money from making independent expenditures and electioneering communications. Before the Citizens United case, corporations could not make political expenditures in federal elections.

Prevent TARP recipients from Spending Money on Elections: Prohibits bailout beneficiaries from making independent expenditures or electioneering communications in federal elections until the government money is repaid.

Limit Foreign Influence in American Elections: Extends existing prohibitions on campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals to domestic corporations in which foreign nationals own more than 20% of voting shares, make up a majority of the board of directors, and/or have the power to dictate decision-making of the domestic corporation.

Strengthen Disclosure of Election Ads: Expands electioneering communications that must be disclosed under the bill to broadcast ads referring to a candidate in the 120 days before the general election, expanded from 60 days before the general under current law.