Bobby Jindal

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 295.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 295) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives supporting the establishment of September as Campus Fire Safety Month, and for other purposes.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 295, a measure to support establishment of September as Campus Fire Safety Month. So often in this Chamber we consider legislation to expand access to college and strengthen our Federal higher education programs. Today, we have an opportunity to discuss the need to bolster safety on college campuses, specifically fire safety; and we are right to do so. Our Nation's college students should be able to live on campus with the confidence that they will be safe in their dorms, apartments or other housing. This measure will take a key step toward ensuring greater awareness of this issue. I thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), for taking the lead and offering this legislation. This is not the first time this year that campus fire safety has been a priority for the House. In March, when we passed the College Access and Opportunity Act, we also endorsed an effort to ask colleges and universities to report annually on fire safety efforts. The report would include such information as a list of all student housing facilities and whether or not they were equipped with a sprinkler system or other fire safety program, as well as statistics on occurrences of fires, false alarms, information on various fire safety rules and regulations, and other measures as well. Mr. Speaker, although that measure has not advanced with our friends on the other side of the Capitol, today we have the opportunity to demonstrate our continued commitment to the safety of college students. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, and I thank the primary authors of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by praising my colleagues on the other side of the aisle but also praising Mr. Weldon, who I know wanted to be here to speak on this. My colleague is correct: I think he is the only former fire chief to be serving in the United States Congress. He has been a vocal leader on the need for fire safety and a strong supporter of our first responders, and I know he feels very strongly about the legislation in front of us. Mr. Speaker, I urge quick passage of the resolution.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6106) to extend the waiver authority for the Secretary of Education under title IV, section 105, of Public Law 109-148.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 6106.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation. It is in response to the devastating Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the impact they had on the schools of Louisiana. More than 1,100 public and private schools were forced to close in the wake of those hurricanes. Approximately 158,000 students were displaced as a direct result of the hurricanes. Restoration efforts are under way, but there is still much work that needs to be done. As a result of the storms and the flooding, the local tax base in several gulf coast communities was decimated. The loss of business and government infrastructure, jobs and housing deprived school districts of local property taxes that normally fund school operations. In Louisiana, Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes were the most severely impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Currently, approximately 23,000 students are enrolled in the Orleans Parish School System and Recovery School District. That is compared to an original enrollment of 62,000 students prior to the hurricanes. In St. Bernard Parish, only 3,300 students have returned out of a total of 8,400 before the hurricane. The Hurricane Education Recovery Act, included in the Defense Appropriations Act of 2006, granted the U.S. Secretary of Education the authority to waive, in many of the programs falling under her jurisdiction, select provisions having to do with the State or school district's financial commitment. Under ordinary times, these provisions require States and local districts to contribute sufficient local and State funding to receive Federal aid. However, when communities have decimated and local funding is unavailable, these provisions can place much-needed Federal aid in jeopardy. The Secretary's authority to grant this waiver was critical to ease the burdens on State and local educational agencies in the gulf coast region. Through this language, the Secretary granted waivers for fiscal year 2006 that provided Louisiana school districts the flexibility they needed to begin the recovery process. These waivers have proven critical to the recovery of our schools in several parishes and counties in the impacted areas. Unfortunately, the waiver authority is set to expire on September 30 of this year, even though families continue to return to the area and there are schools in need of rebuilding. This bill will extend this critical waiver authority for one more year through fiscal year 2007. By extending this authority, it will provide districts the flexibility they need to continue moving students and teachers back into classrooms. Under the Hurricane Education Recovery Act, the Orleans Parish schools received $132 million in restart funding, and St. Bernard Parish has received $21 million. Without this waiver, the schools would not have the flexibility they need to use these funds. These districts are facing the tremendous challenge of rebuilding a school district while continuing to operate at the same time, akin to changing a tire on your car while driving it. Without this waiver authority, these districts will not receive the resources to replace textbooks, library books, computers, instructional materials, and other supplies lost during the storm. I urge swift passage of this legislation to grant an additional year of flexibility and the use of Federal dollars to rebuild schools for Louisiana and gulf coast children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) not only for his support of our legislation but for taking the time personally to visit my State after it was devastated by these storms, to visit personally with our teachers, principals and students and see for himself the needs of our State, and for his continuing hard work to try to address those needs through our committee. I appreciate his commitment to helping my State recover and our students return to school. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Scott is correct. There are several Members from Louisiana, indeed the entire delegation, that supports this legislation. I especially want to mention in addition, to Mr. Melancon and Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Boustany, who has several schools in his district that were also impacted by Hurricane Rita in particular. I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for yielding me this time and for their support of this important legislation. The legislation in its amended form on the House floor is now supported by not only the entire Louisiana delegation but the Jefferson Parish Council, the Town of Jean Lafitte, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation, the League of Women Voters, Marrero Land, as well as the Louisiana Audubon Council. Now, I will just very briefly state for my colleagues why this is such an important bill for the State of Louisiana. This bill not only expands the preserve by over 3,900 acres, but it does a lot to protect Louisiana's important wetlands. Studies by our scientists have shown, since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the importance of wetlands as natural hurricane buffers which protect our levees. While these wetlands cannot prevent the devastating effects of major hurricanes like Katrina and Rita, they are known to significantly reduce the storm surges associated with the more frequent tropical storms and smaller hurricanes. They absorb the energy. They reduce the hurricane surges, and as a result, they reduce some of the loss from the open water. Some experts believe that for every linear mile of wetlands, 2 to 4 miles of coastal wetlands reduces storm surge by a foot. Anybody that saw the devastating flooding last year caused by Katrina and Rita certainly understands why this is so important. The preserve is a natural hurricane buffer that provides significant protection for the greater New Orleans area, particularly for the 500,000 residents of the west bank of Jefferson Parish. I will close by saying this preserve in particular lies outside of the levees and so serves as a critical estuary for our wildlife, but also is a significant protection against hurricane and tidal surges. I thank my colleagues for their support.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 5682, the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006. The bill would facilitate the sharing of civilian nuclear technology in an attempt to decrease competition for scarce energy resources and strengthen relations between the two nations. With the receding of the global divisions established during the Cold War era, there has been increasing recognition that significant benefits can be obtained from closer cooperation between the U.S. and India. H.R. 5682 reflects broad agreement that peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and also minimize potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This ranges from shared strategic interests, such as enhanced stability and security in South Asia and the international system as a whole, to more specific priorities, such as combating global terrorism. Today, the chief threat to our security and the security of our allies worldwide is posed by violent acts of terrorism by extremists and rogue nations engaged in nuclear experimentation to the detriment of the principles of freedom worldwide. As we witnessed recently by the bombing of Mumbai's subway system earlier this month, global terrorism is a threat that India shares with the United States. We need India's ongoing partnership in the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, by engaging in this agreement with India, we are able to strengthen the international nonproliferation regime by placing a majority of India's nuclear plants under international inspection. This is a more practical and realistic shift in U.S. nuclear policy that should be viewed as a victory for nonproliferation advocates compared to our previous policy of forced abandonment which yielded little towards achieving greater international security. For our own sake, if for no other reason, it is imperative that we help countries like India and China curb their increasing consumption of oil and natural gas for domestic and commercial use. This, in turn, will help us curtail the cost of oil and natural gas, while helping India develop its own nuclear power sources sufficient to meet their growing demand. The result is that prices worldwide will decrease as overall supply of oil and natural gas increase, thus helping our own economy by preserving many of the industries that have been forced to close their doors because of high production costs. Our relationship with India is unique--the United States and India are the oldest and largest democracies in the world. While we cannot foresee that China will share common political principles in the near future, because India's history is rooted in Democracy they are an ideal partner for achieving our goals of creating international and economic security. Passing H.R. 5682 is an important step toward cementing the great strides we have made in the past year in establishing this strategic partnership.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. I will, but let me actually tell you what happened in New Orleans. I would like to offer a few facts for the record as well. There was looting, for example, of stores, where guns were potentially going to fall into the wrong hands. Nothing in this bill would prohibit law enforcement, after arresting those looters, from securing those firearms.

Mr. JINDAL. I thank my colleague from New York for handling this bill and for supporting this in committee. Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police endorsing H.R. 5013, which I am pleased to submit for the Record. Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, July 24, 2006. Hon. Bobby Jindal, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Jindal, I am writing to you on behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our support for H.R 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act,'' which is scheduled to be considered by the House tomorrow This legislation would prohibit the use of any Federal funds from being used to seize firearms during a major disaster or emergency, except under circumstances currently applicable under Federal or State law. As we witnessed in the communities along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, large scale critical incidents demanded the full attention of law enforcement officers and other first responders. During this time, the preservation of life-- search and rescue missions--is the chief priority of every first responder. Further, breakdowns in communications systems and disaster-related transportation or other infrastructure failures will lengthen a law enforcement agency's response times, increasing the degree to which citizens may have to protect themselves against criminals. A law-abiding citizen who possess a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this bill and look forward to working with you to getting it passed. If I can be of any further assistance on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco in my Washington office, Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President. Madam Speaker, a lot has been made and said about this bill, H.R. 5013, and I want to take people back into the days, the hours right after Hurricane Katrina that devastated my home State. I want to remind people my constituents, many of them, were sitting in their homes without power, without water, and without communication. It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 9/11. For many, there was no recourse or ability to call for the police. Now, the first responders, the local and State law enforcement agents, many did a heroic job; however, they couldn't physically be at every place at every time. Indeed, many law enforcement officials advised residents to only return if they had firearms. Members of my staff were advised only to return if they were in possession of a firearm. It was a very different time than what we are normally accustomed to in our cities. H.R. 5013 makes sure that those that are obeying the law, lawful residents, are able to keep their legally owned firearms, whether it be in their home, in their cars, in their businesses. There were instances where people were deprived of this right. Now, let me repeat this. At the same time that we had looters, at the same time we had other problems in our State and in our city, we absolutely had bureaucrats depriving people of their legal constitutional rights to possess a legally owned firearm. Now, contrast that with the situation in our neighboring State of Mississippi where the Governor famously said, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' There were literally signs put up saying, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' This bill is intended to make sure that, God forbid, if there is another hurricane, another natural disaster, another calamity in my home State, that my constituents aren't left defenseless, they aren't left without the ability to call 9/11, they are not left without the ability to defend their homes, defend their properties, or defend their families. Now, indeed, Ronald Reagan once famously said, and I will paraphrase, at the very least, we want any potential looters to have to think twice before they go through that front door. We want them to at least think twice that maybe those potential victims are armed and maybe that can serve as a useful deterrence. There are many things this bill does not do. It does not create any new rights or any other limitations under Federal, State, or local law. Now, I was pleased to answer the questions of my colleague from New York. This bill, further, does not prevent, does not prevent confiscating guns from felons. It has no effect on law enforcement operations outside of the disaster relief situation. It does not have any impact on law enforcement's ability, for example, to go after criminals and looters, to stop suspect behavior. It has no impact on law enforcement's ability to secure weapons, for example, that may be lying outside of somebody's possession. States are able, under this bill, to regulate their own shelters. States are able to adopt their own laws. For example, in Minnesota, a firearm cannot be brought on private property when the owner has posted a notice of that prohibition. My bill does not change this. This bill specifically allows the Coast Guard and others who are evacuating individuals to have their own regulations, to have their own requirements for getting on those boats, or getting on those helicopters. For example, it allows the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition of entry. If a State, and many do, if a State does give express authority to ban possession of a firearm to the government, to others, my bill does nothing to supersede that. In conclusion, I am proud that my bill has the support of over 150 Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, and it has the support of the national Fraternal Order of Police. A similar bill has been adopted in my home State of Louisiana. It does one simple thing: it merely protects residents' legal right to own firearms.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JINDAL. What happened actually in New Orleans, let's actually go back to what happened.

Mr. JINDAL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This bill does not create nor does it delete any existing rights or State laws. So for example if there are existing State laws prohibiting guns in State shelters, this bill would do nothing to remove that prohibition. For example, many States already have existing laws prohibiting guns or firearms in schools, in sports arenas, or in other areas commonly used as shelters. Nothing in this bill would override that prohibition.

Mr. JINDAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding. Again, if there is existing law allowing the Governor in a state of emergency or other circumstances to take extraordinary measures, nothing in this legislation would prohibit that Governor from doing so, or in Louisiana's case, it may by the primary law enforcement officer of the parish, we call them parishes, not counties, nothing in this bill would override, supercede existing State laws that allow the Governor or chief executive officer from doing so.

Mr. JINDAL. Madam Speaker, again, let us be clear. I know there has been a lot of confusion and a lot of rhetoric about the private right of action contained in this bill. In Louisiana's case, going back to what happened specifically after Katrina, our State has already passed a State law prohibiting anybody in State or local law agencies from confiscating legally owned guns. The intent of this law is to apply to those agencies receiving Federal funds. The intent of the right of action was to counteract what happened last year when, even despite a court judgment, despite a ruling from a judge, there was still not compliance with that court ruling to return the firearms. So the intent is to be able to allow the individuals to recover, for example, attorneys fees, court costs to put some teeth into this bill to make sure that if a judge does indeed rule in favor of a plaintiff that action will be taken. That did not always happen last year in Louisiana after Katrina.

Mr. JINDAL. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am talking about the instance of firearms lying around this store that has been looted. In the situation the gentleman describes, there is no reason for law enforcement officers to be in somebody's home that has been abandoned.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Israel's right for self-defense. The killing of Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of their soldiers by Hamas and other groups were unprovoked acts of war. Israel's response to these acts of war is designed to secure the release of its soldiers, end ongoing rocket strikes by terrorist groups and deter further attacks on its citizens. Israel is exerting its right to defend itself by carrying out operations, both inside Gaza and southern Lebanon. This strike took place following Israel's full withdrawal from Lebanon, a move that was applauded by the international community and fully certified by the U.N. Security Council. Hezbollah, since then, has launched dozens of unprovoked attacks since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, including the firing of hundreds of rockets and mortars at civilian areas and the kidnapping of a number of Israelis. During the past 6 months alone, nearly 1,000 short-range rockets have been fired into Israel landing on homes and in schools. An additional 150,000 Israeli citizens and numerous strategic facilities are now within range of these missiles and their ability to reach Israel. Israel's actions are aimed at securing the release of its soldiers and degrading the abilities of Hamas and Hezbollah to threaten its citizens with ongoing barrages of rockets. Madam Speaker, that is why I ask the United States to stand at Israel's side as it defends itself.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for offering this very important resolution. I rose to speak earlier today on the importance of America standing by our good friend, Israel, as it was attacked by terrorists. I rise today to also speak of the importance for America to stand by our good friend, India, as it too is attacked by terrorists. On July 11 of this year, a series of seven explosions killed over 200 people on crowded commuter trains and stations in the Indian city of Mumbai. This deadly attack was an attack not only on India but on the very democracy and pluralism that India represents, values that are important for India, but also for America, values that are important in that part and every part of our world. Nearly 700 people were injured in the blast in the city's western suburbs as commuters made their way home. All seven blasts came within an 11-minute time span. Timers apparently were hidden in pencils and discovered in at least three of these seven sites where these bombs exploded. The bombs were believed to have been made of RDX, one of the most powerful kinds of military explosives. The attacks obviously reminded many of the terrorist attacks on the London public transportation system last July and the Madrid train bombings in March 2004. They also reminded India, however, of a series of terrorist attacks; for example, a series of bomb blasts in Mumbai in 1993 that killed more than 250 people. The Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Singh, attended the G-8 summit with a clear agenda. The world community must declare, in his words, ``zero tolerance for terrorism anywhere.'' And he is correct. We must not forget. March of 1993, there was a terrorist attack in India again that killed 257 people, wounded more than 1,000. December of 2001, militants attacked India's Parliament, leaving 14 people, including several gunmen, dead. In September of 2002 militants attacked a temple, killing 33 people, including two attackers. March of 2003, a bomb exploded in Mumbai, killing 10 people. August 2003, two taxis packed with explosives blew up outside a tourist attraction, killing 52 people. October 2005, three bombs killed 62 people. And in March 2006, bombs killed 20 people. July 2006, bombs killed more than 140 people. I applaud my colleagues for offering this resolution. I think it is important that America extend its sympathies and that we stand with the people of India and Israel as they are subject to these terrorist attacks and we help our allies, our democratic allies stand for the very values of pluralism and democracy that are so important to us here at home in America.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Pombo for his very good work on this bill. I would encourage support and a yes vote on this bill for several reasons. If you are worried about rising energy prices, I would recommend a yes vote on this bill. Thirty percent of the Nation's energy comes off the gulf coast. If you are interested in treating the gulf coast States equally, the way that we treat on-shore drilling on Federal lands for inland States, I would recommend a yes vote on this bill. If you are interested in our environment, if you are interested in restoring America's wetlands, I would encourage a yes vote on this bill. Louisiana loses 30 miles a year off our coast. We lost 100 miles last year off our coast thanks to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have lost a size of land equivalent to the entire state of Rhode Island. The State of Louisiana is poised to pass a constitutional amendment dedicating 100 percent of the royalties we will receive under this bill for coastal restoration, hurricane and flood protection, restoring our coastal infrastructure. If you are worried about the hundreds of thousands of jobs we are losing in this country, if you worried about the 100,000 jobs we have lost in the wood and paper industry in the last 6 years, the 100,000 jobs we have lost in the petrochemical industry in the last 6 years, I would encourage a yes vote on this bill. In Louisiana alone, we have lost 5,000 jobs, 5,000 jobs in the last couple of years, jobs that averaged $50,000 a year, jobs in our fertilizer industry, jobs in our wood and paper industry, in part because natural gas prices are half, in Russia are half or less overseas compared to what we are paying right here in the United States. If you are worried about keeping those jobs, I would encourage a yes vote on this bill. If you are worried about the hurricane damage that occurred in Louisiana, one of the reasons the entire Louisiana delegation, our Democrats and Republicans, our Democratic governor, are strongly encouraging a yes vote for this bill is this is our best chance to get the recurring revenue sources we need for category 5 levees. This is the best chance we have for recurring revenue sources to restore our coasts. Every 2.4 miles of wetlands absorbs 1 foot of tidal surge. I am going to repeat that. Every 2.4 miles of wetlands absorbs 1 foot of tidal surge. We were all shocked, outraged and hopefully sympathetic with the people of Louisiana after last year's hurricanes. The best way to help those people is with a yes vote on this bill.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita impacted hundreds of thousands of individuals and caused billions of dollars in damage to public and private property. However, in the greater New Orleans area, directly in the path of the hurricane, Hurricane Katrina, 63 mitigated private residences survived the hurricane and did not flood despite being surrounded by properties receiving 3 to 4 feet of water from levee breaches. In 2004, these properties were demolished and rebuilt in place to higher code-compliant standards under an authorized pilot program for mitigation of severe repetitive-loss properties. It is estimated that total benefits to the Nation of mitigation grants between mid-1993 and mid-2003 yielded $14 billion in savings at a cost of $3.5 billion, presenting an overall benefit-to-cost ratio of 4.0. Despite clear cost savings stemming from predisaster mitigation efforts, FEMA has failed to include intrinsic project eligibility criteria from its widely successful 2004 severe repetitive-loss pilot program into its national Flood Mitigation Assistance grant program. Many communities are interested in buying out repetitively flooded properties, but other communities and property owners are interested in measures that retain affordable housing and private ownership. The list of eligible activities under FEMA does not include demolition and rebuilding, and FEMA has interpreted this omission as a statutory limitation, despite language that allows approval of other activities not explicitly described in the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. My amendment is fairly straightforward. It merely clarifies that demolition and rebuilding should be a mitigation option available under the regular Flood Mitigation Assistance program. The demolition and rebuilding option is specifically allowed under the Severe Repetitive Loss Program created by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 and FEMA has interpreted the difference to mean it cannot approve the measure under FMA. This creates unnecessary confusion, restricted options at local government levels, and a waste of taxpayer money.

Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.