Doris Matsui

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. We are dealing today with our agenda of 100 hours. As my colleague from Texas understands, the American people have spoken, and we intend to make progress quickly; that is why we are doing this bill today.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I am, as many in this Chamber are, a proud parent and almost embarrassingly proud grandparent. All parents and grandparents are different, of course, but I believe almost all of us share one thing in common, and that is a hope that our children and our grandchildren will have a chance to do a little better, to go a little further, to have a little easier time than their parents and grandparents. That aspiration has a name in this country; it is called the American Dream. And the American people understand that education is the key to making that dream a reality. Today, we consider legislation to combat a very real threat to that dream. The unfortunate reality is that skyrocketing college costs are putting a college education out of reach for many middle class families. Tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation since 2001. At private universities, tuition has increased by 17 percent after inflation. It is worth repeating because it is truly shocking: these figures are after inflation. Indeed, according to the Congressional Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, financial barriers will prevent almost 4\1/2\ million high school graduates from attending a 4-year public college over the next decade, and prevent another 2 million from attending any college at all. Those statistics are very sobering, and the sound they make is that of the door of opportunity being closed on many young people. That is why I am very pleased that our congressional leadership has made cutting interest rates on student loans one of its top priorities for the first 100 hours of this Congress. The legislation being considered today will cut interest rates for subsidized student loans in half over the next 5 years from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. As a result, we will help around 5.5 million more students afford college. Mr. Speaker, my constituents are demanding quick action on this legislation, and with good reason. With Sacramento State University in my district and the University of California at Davis nearby, they are all too aware of the impact rising tuition costs are having on students and their families. A recent study demonstrated that this legislation would, on average, save the average student borrower in California starting school this year almost $2,500 over the life of the loan. For students beginning college in the year 2011, the legislation will save almost $5,000. We will need to do more to make college affordable, but my constituents in Sacramento who are struggling to afford college will welcome this very important first step. Mr. Speaker, helping all qualified students attend college is essential for our economy, for our competitiveness and for our future; but not only that, it is essential for ensuring that the American Dream remains a reality for our young people. That is why there is a remarkable consensus supporting this proposal across our country. Newsweek reports that 88 percent of the country supports this legislation, including wide majorities of both Democrats and Republicans. We are not talking about the Democratic dream or the Republican dream, but the American Dream. Further, this legislation meets our pay-as-you-go requirements and, therefore, will not add to our budget deficit. Fully five of six of the offsets have been approved previously by the Bush administration or Republican congressional leaders. That, again, is a remarkable consensus. It is now time to act. All too often the American people look at Congress and they hear a lot of argument and see a lot of activity, but wonder though what Congress is doing to improve their lives. If we act on this legislation quickly, however, students will start to see a difference as soon as July 1. So let us surprise our skeptics, take action, and pass this legislation now on a bipartisan basis. It has been gratifying to be a Member of Congress for the first few weeks of this Congress, which by wide bipartisan majorities has increased the minimum wage, approved potentially life-saving research and enacted genuinely bipartisan recommendations to improve our Nation's security. Our first 100 hours has been a good time for the middle class and for Americans who favor progress over partisanship. This legislation is another such opportunity. Americans of every political stripe understand that if we allow college education to become too expensive for hardworking and qualified middle class students, we will have lost something very special in this country, we will have lost a part of the American Dream. Let's show them today that we understand that as well, and that we are doing something about it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 65 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First, I wish to thank all the Members who participated in this discussion on the importance of increasing opportunity and affordability for all of our Nation's young minds. We are all in agreement on the importance of education and the central role it played in expanding the next generation's horizons. Mr. Speaker, as I described in my opening remarks, the resolution before the House allows for a vote on a Democratic proposal to cut subsidized student loan rates in half over the next 5 years. It will reduce the cost of college to some 5 million students by an average of $4,400. This is good, responsible progress for America's middle class, for our working families looking out to provide the next generation with a brighter future. Today's vote on the issue can make it a reality. Last week, as part of Speaker Pelosi's 100-hour agenda, Democrats acted swiftly to help average Americans. We voted to increase the minimum wage, expand Federal stem cell research, negotiate lower drug prices for our seniors, and implement 9/11 Commission recommendations. All of these issues passed by wide bipartisan margins and enjoyed significant bipartisan support. I expect that today's bill will be no different, so let's get to it.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the new Congress has begun and today we debate the first piece of our 100 hours agenda, H.R. 1--the implementation of some of the long-overdue bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations. As I have stated on numerous occasions, national security is our highest priority. By passing these long-overdue 9/11 Commission recommendations today, we will be taking significant steps towards better protecting our country. This means scanning all air cargo loaded onto passenger planes and seaborne cargo containers shipped into the United States, as well as encouraging intelligence information sharing among federal, state and local agencies. Further, it will increase the share of state homeland security grants provided to our communities, based on risk--an issue of particular concern to my home state of California. The current formula results in 40 percent of funding equally distributed to each state with the remainder allocated based on risk. With H.R. 1, each state is guaranteed a minimum of .25 percent of funding, while states that share an international border, or are connected to a body of water with an international border would receive at least .45 percent. This strikes a balance between risk-based allocations and ensuring a funding minimum for all states. Another result of this new distribution is that more funding will be directed towards essential programs such as the Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention program. Concerns have also been raised about the gaps in the Department of Homeland Security's critical infrastructure asset database. Over the past year, I have repeatedly highlighted overlooked infrastructure with DHS, which led to the Department making changes to the Urban Area Security Initiative Grant. This bill will begin to close this gap by requiring annual assessments of information regarding critical infrastructure and the creation of a regularly updated asset databases. As I have repeatedly stated, the federal government needs to do its job of protecting the American people. Part of that is providing leadership by setting standards as incorporated in H.R. 1 and the other is to provide resources. Mr. Speaker, Congress has had far too long to implement these critical reforms recommended by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. I am pleased to be able to vote today in favor of H.R. 1. I know that these reforms will direct our limited federal funds toward areas facing higher threats, and ensure further safety standards for our transportation systems. Through H.R. 1 we will ensure that our country is better protected against and prepared for any future terrorist attack.

Ms. MATSUI

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

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, here in the first hours of the 110th Congress we rise to restore decorum and civility to what has been from its founding the greatest deliberative institution. In doing so, we open a new chapter in the history of the House of Representatives, one that is dignified. Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear this past November, and I am proud to say that the Democratic majority is responding to that call. This legislation marks a new beginning. The Democratic reform package, H. Res. 6, enacts long overdue congressional reform: restoring an open government, an honest government, an ethical government; and it marks the restoration of the American people's priorities to the people's House. It is my hope that by enacting these changes we will be able to change the tone of how we conduct business in this Chamber and with each other. I recall a time in the House of Representatives and not too long ago when Members had friends on both sides of the aisle. Our children played together, they got to know each other, they became friends. Our families ate dinner together. We treated each other as friends and colleagues, and debate on the House floor reflected mutual respect even when we disagreed and an understanding that we all have a role to play in the legislative process. We are here today to say that this sense of civility and decorum is not dead. This institution is too great to permit any tarnish of its honor to become permanent or to allow the slights of yesterday to interfere with our efforts to build a better tomorrow. Civility can return to this great institution with the right style of leadership. As we turn here and now in the first hours of the 110th Congress, part of that process is making sure that House rules can prevent the abuses of prior Congresses. This is the overarching intent of H. Res. 6. In particular, there are several provisions in title III of that resolution that will begin to restore civility and decorum to the legislative process and which will honor this Chamber's place as the people's House by making us more accountable to the people who sent us here. The first provision of title III prohibits floor votes from being held open for more than 15 minutes for the sole purpose of changing the outcome of a vote. Voting is a Member's core responsibility and our primary means of giving voice to the view of our constituents. This reform is important and long overdue. The other two provisions address the handling of conference reports, with the goal to end backroom deals for special interests. In the 110th Congress, conference committees will be conducted in an open and fair manner, and conference reports containing last-minute provisions will not be considered on the House floor. A Chamber worthy of the title the people's House is one which conducts its business within the people's view. By making this reform package the very first item considered in this Congress, our new leadership is sending a strong message to all of the American people, Democrat, Republican, Independent, that we have heard the message you have sent us, demanding honest and ethical leadership, and we are heeding that call. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments so that all Members may keep in mind the heart of what we are doing today. These two days of debate on the House floor mark a historic moment for reform of the people's House. The American people grew tired of a Republican Congress too unethical to conduct its business in the light of day and too deaf to hear the people's complaint. And so this past November the people exercised their right to vote in order to send a message. It was a mandate for change, to restore civility, decorum, and ethical behavior to Congress. Democrats are acting swiftly in response to their call. When it passes the House later today, the Democratic ethics package will be the greatest reform of this institution in history. There will be no more corporate jet travel paid by special interests, no more roll call votes held open for hours in the middle of the night so that Members could be arm twisted on the floor, no more anonymous earmarks, no more last-minute provisions slipped in conference reports. In short, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic reform package is far tougher than anything Republicans ever proposed or enacted, and it will restore integrity to this sacred institution. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman, our new Member from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Slaughter to respond.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the chairman of Rules Committee.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 1 minute to a new Member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney). (Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to one of our new Members, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley).

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so if the gentleman from California would like to use his time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, these 2 days of House floor debate will culminate in a reform of House Rules unlike any other in history. This reform is a response to the American people to their mandate. This past November, the people exercised a right to vote in order to send the message. It was a mandate for change to restore civility, decorum and ethical behavior to Congress. As I said in my opening remarks, debate on House floor must reflect mutual respect, even when we disagree. I look forward to restoring decorum and civility to this House, restoring integrity to what is truly the people's House. I urge all Members to join us in that effort.

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, national security is our highest priority. Congress has created risk-based grants to direct limited federal funds toward areas facing higher threats, in order to ensure that our country is protected against and prepared for any future terrorist attack. Over the past year, however, my attempts--along with the efforts of a bipartisan coalition of my colleagues--to work with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to address concerns about one of those risk- based grants, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), have been fruitless. This experience has led me to question whether we are successfully directing funds as this grant was intended. For this reason, I am introducing the Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act of 2007. Using the information I have gleaned over the past year, this legislation will ensure the grant functions as it was proposed. It will also make certain that instead of making arbitrary decisions, DHS uses conclusive data to inform its policy. The questions surrounding the UASI grant arose last January, when DHS released a list of 35 urban areas considered eligible to apply for UASI funding through the FY 2006 process. Eleven additional areas, including Sacramento, the Congressional District I represent, were placed in a second group and notified that their UASI funding may be terminated in future years if they did not meet the new risk assessment standards. When DHS announced that Sacramento's UASI funds may be in jeopardy, the decision seemed unwarranted. Sacramento has a population of almost two million people, and is the capital of California--the most populous state in the nation and the sixth largest economy in the world. The city is also home to dozens of critical federal and state government buildings and much of the state's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems are managed from Sacramento. To suffer an attack would have repercussions beyond our region. Immediately after learning about the changes to the UASI program, I requested meetings with DHS officials to understand their new risk assessment guidelines. After unsatisfactory responses from DHS, I led a coalition of my colleagues to demand information regarding DHS's revised guidelines for eligibility in an effort to urge them to change their policy. The Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, colleagues from San Diego and Sacramento, both of California's United States Senators and I requested a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into the UASI grant process. The preliminary findings of that investigation were completed in mid-December. GAO analyzed the risk methodology and the effectiveness of the assessment, in addition to reviewing planned changes to both in the upcoming year. The report confirmed that DHS had made many arbitrary decisions during their UASI determination that skewed the outcomes of the risk-scenarios and grant awards. Of particular concern is that DHS arbitrarily cut the number of eligible cities to 35 and created a second group of 11 of which were only able to apply for ``sustainment'' funding. Additionally, DHS assigned arbitrary values to assets and population without running a study of how the variation in the output of models (numerical or otherwise) used for such awards can be manipulated--a process commonly referred to as a ``sensitivity'' analysis. This analysis would have ensured that any changes to these values have little or no impact on the ranking of each urban area. Both 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the role our first responders play in any incident, whether an act of terrorism or mother nature. And the Urban Area Security Initiative is a critical component to ensuring the preparedness of those brave men and women and, ultimately, our nation's preparedness. We all recognize that we need to direct our limited resources towards the most at-risk locations. However, and DHS has acknowledged this, they have overlooked critical infrastructure. These arbitrary decisions may have influenced the outcome of the UASI grant. This is poor national security policy and in an era when national security is a priority, it is unacceptable. DHS will shortly be announcing those urban areas that will be eligible to apply for funding. However, Sacramento and all heavily populated urban areas will have to worry each year about whether DHS will arbitrarily change the number of eligible cities and thus, if they will even be able to apply for funding. This places significant and undue burdens on our regional homeland security efforts, as first responders attempt to prepare for and protect against any future threat, without knowing from year to year whether they can even apply for funding. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. The UASI Improvement Act will allow the 100 most populous urban areas, as determined by the census and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to apply for UASI funds. While each urban area does not have to apply, this will guarantee that those urban areas who believe they need the funding or who find that they meet the eligibility guidelines as determined by DHS will be able to at least apply for these vital funds. The bill also mandates that DHS conduct a sensitivity analysis. The GAO found DHS's decision to arbitrarily assign values during the risk- assignment without conducting a sensitivity analysis to be a significant flaw in the UASI grant determination process. By conducting such an analysis, DHS will have conclusive data rather than uninformed decisions to guide their decision-making. Our local law enforcement and first responders continue to do an incredible job understanding the threats facing our country and are working hard to prevent and prepare for an attack. And while these heroes are doing their jobs, the federal government needs to do its job. Part of that is providing leadership by setting standards and the other is to provide resources. My concern is that the federal government has been shirking its responsibility, and so I am introducing legislation to make sure that Sacramento and all at-risk urban areas have the funding they need. Madam Speaker, the Urban Area Security Initiative Improvement Act will guarantee that our most at-risk urban areas will have access to necessary federal funds, which our first responders and law enforcement need in order to protect our citizens. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill in the newly-elected ll0th Congress.

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, it is disappointing we are adjourning after passing only 2 of the 13 appropriation bills that fund the Federal Government. We should have done better, and clearly we could have done better. Instead, we are leaving this year's unfinished business to the next Congress. That is far from the ideal way of handling our constitutional responsibilities. Nonetheless, that is a reality, and we will deal with it as such when Congress returns next year under new leadership. But the American people should be assured that such a turn of events will not alter the focus of the next Congress. We will remain focused on the critical priorities of American families, priorities that were made clear in the recent election: a sensible energy policy, affordable health care for working families, reforming prescription drug benefits, honest wages for honest work, increasing homeland security, and responsible oversight of and a change in direction of our policy in Iraq. I hope those issues will be addressed next year in a bipartisan manner, with open debate and a focus on concrete results for the American people. The time to deal with those will come soon. The problem before us now is that the Federal Government shuts down at midnight tonight unless we invoke martial law under this rule. It concludes the 109th Congress on a less than satisfactory note, but it is nonetheless necessary Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from West Virginia, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. MATSUI

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an important piece of legislation I will reintroduce early next year, along with my colleague, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, to encourage the deployment of broadband high- speed Internet service throughout the United States. The Broadband Expensing Act of 2007 will allow immediate depreciation of the costs of new infrastructure investments providing broadband connectivity. In previous Congresses this measure has received extensive bipartisan support with as many as 225 House cosponsors and 65 Senate cosponsors. As the Congress and administration consider various methods of encouraging innovation in America, a broadband incentive of this nature must be of high priority. This bill was a priority for my late husband, who worked with Mr. English, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and the late Senator Moynihan to craft it in 2000. They all worked hard on it for several years and built tremendous bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. My husband spent a lot of time discussing this measure with his colleagues in the House, explaining how it would work, seeking cosponsorships. It has been a popular measure. On three separate occasions it has almost passed the Congress, but each time fell short in the House. Three times this bill has passed the Senate, and three times it has been rejected in conference with the House, to the disappointment of my husband, my colleague Mr. English, and many other members of this body who supported it and felt it could make a significant contribution to improving America's telecommunications and information technology infrastructure. Now we are prepared to make another push for this bill in the 110th Congress. The Broadband Expensing Act will provide a temporary two- tiered tax incentive to stimulate new investment in this crucial infrastructure: 50 percent expensing for investment in ``current- generation'' broadband infrastructure in rural and underserved areas, and full expensing for ``next generation'' broadband investments in those same areas, as well as residential areas generally. Moreover, it is designed to be technology neutral, making delivery of service, not the delivery medium, the factor for eligibility. Any broadband provider meeting the required speeds, measured in megabits of data delivered to and from the consumer per second, is eligible, whether such service is provided over telephone wire, cable modem, optical fiber, wireless, satellite, or other forms of technology. It is important to act quickly. Recent reports by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Telecommunications Union find the United States lagging in broadband penetration compared to other nations. We should not sit idly by and allow the United States to fall behind in this crucial area. Just as the federal government stepped in to provide national availability of electrification and transportation in the mid-1900s, we must now ensure a national system of electronic information. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important measure. I look forward to working with my cosponsors and the leadership of both parties to see the Broadband Expensing Act become law in 2007.