Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Dunne Catholic-School in Dallas, Texas for 50 years of educational excellence. Bishop Dunne is a coeducational, college preparatory school which serves grades 6 through 12.

The students here are our best and our brightest, and with encouragement and support from their principals and teachers, these students are achieving remarkable success. Because of the high quality education the students at Bishop Dunne and other schools like it are receiving, they can have the opportunity to live the American dream--to do anything they want to do, to go on to a great college or university of their choice, and to pursue any career path that sparks their interest.

In 1961, Bishop Dunne Catholic School began under the name Our Lady of Good Counsel High School. The Sisters of St. Mary of Namur had established two girls' high schools in Dallas; Our Lady of Good Counsel Academy in Oak Cliff in 1901 and St. Edward's Academy in East Dallas in 1912. At the request of the Diocese of Dallas, the Sisters agreed to close the two high schools and invite students from them to be part of a new entity, a diocesan sponsored high school. In 1963, the name of the school was officially changed to Bishop Dunne in honor of one of the first bishops of Dallas. In 1969, the school officially became coeducational.

Core values Bishop Dunne instills in its students and counts as a priority are spiritual growth and faith development; academic excellence in an innovative and creative environment; formation in a positive and nurturing environment; commitment to fellowship, social justice and community service; appreciation of individual uniqueness and value; commitment to social and civic responsibilities and to global leadership and; Service to a multi-cultural community.

Mr. Speaker, my community and our country benefits immensely from the educational excellence Bishop Dunne Catholic School continues to provide. I congratulate them on 50 years of service.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the Waxman amendment, and without the amendment I rise in opposition to H.R. 2681, the Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act of 2011.

As we all know, cement plants are one of the primary sources of mercury pollution in the U.S. In my State of Texas alone, there are 10 cement plants which emitted 225 pounds of mercury in 2009 alone. It takes only one-seventieth of a teaspoon of mercury to contaminate a 25- acre lake and render the fish unsafe to eat. And children are the most vulnerable.

Mercury exposure impairs a child's ability to learn, write, walk, talk, and read. As a registered nurse, I have seen firsthand how children are particularly sensitive to emissions of mercury and other air toxins. As a mother and a grandmother, I cannot stand by and watch these emissions go unchecked.

I have always been a strong and proud defender of EPA's charge to protect public health and the environment. In 2009, I led a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for even stronger emissions standards to reduce mercury pollution. Last year, I was pleased to see that EPA finalized standards for cement plant emissions that will reduce mercury and particulate matter pollution by over 90 percent, resulting in health savings of up to $18 billion each year.

Despite all the talk that we have heard in recent months, EPA regulations do not kill jobs. As the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I know that our Nation's scientific, entrepreneurial, and industrial sectors have and will innovate to meet new standards as they always have. We will reduce air pollution in this country while creating thousands of jobs.

The predictions of widespread economic disruption and collapse of our industrial sector because of what some have called the overreaching Clean Air Act have been proven wrong time and again. We should expect that today's hysteria is no different.

Therefore, I stand with the citizens of Texas and impacted communities across the Nation in opposing this bill and not with the big polluters. Congress passed the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, and we have cleaner air today because of it. But we can always do better. And that is why we must support the purpose and the mission of the EPA and oppose this bill without this amendment. We are not here to kill jobs, but we are here to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Reverend Dr. Robert H. Wilson, Sr., retired pastor and an executive of the National Baptist Convention of America, NBCA. Dr. Bob, as he was called, passed away on September 26.

Dr. Wilson was a beloved pastor of the church as much as he was the beloved father of two children, Roberta Nicholson and Robert H. Wilson, Jr. Dr. Wilson dedicated his entire life to his faith, having pastored his first congregation at the youthful age of 16 and then in various other congregations until he was 82 years old.

Gifted with the ability to effectively preach, Dr. Wilson would go on to pastor a number of churches throughout Texas, although his first experience as a pastor began in Columbia, South Carolina. Ultimately, his destiny led him back to Texas, reunited with his family.

Furthering his dedication to the church, Dr. Wilson founded his very own church in Dallas, the Cornerstone Baptist Church of Christ, where he pastored for 25 years.

Not surprisingly, Dr. Wilson made a number of contributions outside of his church as well, primarily with the NBCA. Dr. Wilson held a number of positions there, boasting 18 years of service as the first Congress Director for the National Baptist Congress of Christian Workers as well as being elected Secretary-Treasurer of the NBCA Foreign Mission Board. His wide range of contributions toward promoting his faith was diverse.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Wilson was loved and respected by all. He gave the ultimate sacrifice by dedicating his entire life to inspire and empower members of faith. His legacy will remain

with the Cornerstone Baptist Church of Christ and its members. He will be dearly missed and I am honored today to pay a final tribute to this outstanding community leader, Dr. Robert H. Wilson, Sr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a former Member of the Florida state and U.S. House of Representatives, Congresswoman Carrie Meek. Congresswoman Meek has also served in the Florida State Senate in what was a small part of a diverse history of public service.

With over 24 years of combined public service on both the state and national level, Congresswoman Meek has a true understanding of what it takes to enrich the lives of others. Her service, as a teacher before winning her seat in the Florida State House is yet another testament to her public contributions.

Congresswoman Meek had all throughout her career a reputation for being a strong legislator. She was the first African American woman elected to the Florida Senate and the first African American to serve there since Reconstruction. In the Florida State Legislature, she staunchly promoted literacy and championed minority business enterprise laws.

Her career in the U.S. House was no less distinguished than it was on the state level. Almost immediately, the Congresswoman established herself as a champion of expanding federal programs to create jobs and providing

initiatives for African American business owners. In a battle that is still being fought today, Congresswoman Meek passionately opposed cuts to social welfare programs in the 90s to prevent the financial burden from being carried on the backs of the middle class and the disadvantaged.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Meek has been an asset to this country and it is important that we recognize her lasting contributions to her district and our nation. It is always my pleasure to honor an individual with such exemplary character and integrity such as my dear friend Congresswoman Carrie Meek.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of President Obama's American Jobs Act. As a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I am especially glad to see that the President has maintained his unwavering commitment to modernizing America's infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, highways, and transit systems support millions of jobs throughout the country that are crucial to strengthening our economy.

The establishment of a national infrastructure bank is a bipartisan proposal that I have been a strong proponent of for many years. More recently, I have learned that my senior Senator is also very supportive. This bank would leverage private and capital funds to invest in infrastructure projects of a national significance. It's public and private partnerships like this that make our country succeed, and we need more of them. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure.

God bless the troops, God bless America, and God bless the Members of the people's House to rise above partisanship and be bipartisan in addressing the people's problems.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Sigma Pi Phi Fraternity.

In 1904, a small group of top professionals in Philadelphia set out to create an organization that would provide a vehicle for black men of high stature to network and learn the best from one another. These visionaries were Dr. Algernon B. Jackson, Dr. Henry McKee Minton, Dr. Edwin C. Howard and Dr. Richard J. Warrick.

At that time of Sigma Pi Phi's founding, accomplished black men lived and worked in isolation as they were not offered participation in professional and cultural associations organized by the white community. Inequities such as racism, discrimination, segregation, and inequality were rampant throughout the United States. It took the ingenuity and courage displayed by these men based on their shared conditions to form an organization that would not only bring them together in fellowship, but benefit the country they loved for more than a century to come.

To quote Dr. Minton ``professional men should have an organization that should be a fraternity in the true sense of the word; one whose chief thought should not be to visit the sick and bury the dead, but to bind men of like qualities, tastes and attainments into a close and sacred union that they might know the best of one another.'' Members would not be ``selected on the basis of brains alone--but in addition to congeniality, culture and good fellowship; that they shall have behind them [at initiation] a record of accomplishment, not merely be men of promise and good education.'' His fraternity would contain the ``best of Skull and Bones of Yale and of Phi Beta Kappa.''

Today, the dream of Drs. Jackson, Minton, Howard and Warrick lives on and is stronger than ever. Sigma Pi Phi has over 5,000 members and 126 chapters throughout the United States and the West Indies. Members of Sigma Pi Phi have provided leadership and service during the Great Depression, World War I, World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, and addressed social issues such as urban housing, and many other critical issues affecting all people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Sigma Pi Phi for their tireless work which has benefited our great nation for more than a century. Our country is a better one because of Sigma Pi Phi and I am proud to honor them today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sadness over the passing of one of America's greatest assets to the field of optometry, and one of my dear friends, Dr. Stanley Pearle. The man behind the eyewear business Pearle Vision, passed away last week at the age of 92 in his home in Dallas, Texas.

Pittsburgh-native Dr. Pearle graduated from Northern Illinois College of Optometry in 1939 and relocated to Dallas to take his board examinations and later marry his high school sweetheart, Elsie. He served in the U.S. Navy for a few years and after World War II he worked for several eye care companies, rising to a management position with Lee Optical in Dallas. Eager to start his own business he left the company in 1961 to open his first store. More than 40 years and 675 company and franchise stores later, Pearle Vision remains a trusted household name with locations across the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico.

His contributions to the world of optometry are world renowned. Dr. Pearle's vision was to change how people were fitted for their eyewear. Initially, eye patients would visit an optometrist for a medical procedure but Dr. Pearle made it a more fashionable purchase and experience in a well-lit store with a vast array of frames to choose from. Pearle Vision has boasted that it is the first nationwide optical retailer and it is all thanks to the vision of Dr. Pearle himself. I knew his wife, Elsie Cohen who was a dear friend of mine. Dr. Pearle is survived by three of his four children, 10 grandchildren and 11 great- grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dr. Stanley Pearle. I appreciate the dedication and innovative changes he made to optometry. He will truly be missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the bill being considered S. 627, The Budget Control Act. This bill should be called the Boehner Default Act because it is just another attempt for Congressional Republicans to hold the American economy and jobs hostage while they relentlessly pursue an extreme partisan agenda that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of seniors and the middle class. This approach has been met with widespread rejection by the public and it should be rejected by the House now.

This bill is not a serious attempt to deal with the national debt limit and it is not responsible legislation. House Republicans need to go back to the drawing board and show real leadership by crafting a plan that does not threaten the United States with a credit downgrade and higher interest rates while providing only a short-term debt limit increase.

It is inexcusable for Congress to have set up yet another partisan standoff on this issue just a few months down the road. It is unacceptable to slash Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security from our nation's seniors while asking nothing in return from the nation's most wealthy corporations and individuals.

It is time for Republicans to stop trying to score points with their political base and start legislating on behalf of the American people. As the majority party in the House of Representatives, the American people are owed better.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment would simply highlight the longstanding role of EPA in supporting the education of our Nation's top environmental scientists by inserting the word ``fellowships'' after research and development in the Science and Technology Account. EPA currently awards the fellowships, and thus my amendment has no scoring impact and does not authorize a new activity.

I realize that my Republican colleagues will surely not agree to this amendment, but they have to agree that science is the underpinning of great and good environmental policy. As the scientific arm of EPA, the Office of Research and Development supports world-class research and development activities to protect man's health and the environment. Supporting the next generation of scientists and engineers through fellowships is just one way the government supports the kind of critically important research that private industry and academia alone cannot and will not do.

With no real justification or detail, the committee's report language for this bill specifies that funds are not provided for the fellowship programs, amounting to a substantial $17 million loss to this field. Lab equipment cannot operate itself. They cannot publish important papers or make groundbreaking discoveries, which creates jobs. That requires people. And EPA has a history of fostering some of the Nation's top young researchers that have gone on to apply their talents across government, academia, and industry. For instance, since 1995, EPA has awarded approximately 1,500 STAR fellowships.

Turning our backs on the next generation of academic researchers, governments scientists, science educators, and environmental engineers all but ensures that we are doomed to make bad, uninformed environmental decisions for the future.

I realize the gentleman's point of order. I do not agree with it. But I'm sure he will be upheld by the Parliamentarian. So I simply would ask that if we could work together to try to preserve some of this talent that we have already put in place and some of the equipment that's already in place to continue groundbreaking research, that is going to be one of the few ways that we're going to develop good sound jobs for the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I accept that point of order, but I would like to appeal to the chairman of this committee to work with us and see if we can't preserve some of the investments we've already made and some of the talent that is in place.

Mr. Speaker, the Unitell States has reached the current debt ceiling, which is set by law at $14.294 trillion, and Congress must act by August 2, 2011 to avoid defaulting on its loans. If Congress fails to reach an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, it will cripple our economy, halt our recovery and end up costing taxpayers more in the long-run. For those reasons, I agree with financial analysts and experts who say that raising the debt ceiling is necessary to ensure our fiscal stability and continued economic recovery.

Although the bill to raise the debt limit did not pass in the U.S. House of Representatives in May, I voted in favor of the measure because the consequences would have been disastrous for our economy.

The Republican leadership brought this bill to the floor, but ironically urged their Members not to vote for it. The national debt limit is not a joke and needs to be taken very seriously. Normally, the periodic raising of the national debt limit is a noncontroversial legal necessity to ensure that the U.S. does not default on its debt obligations to foreign creditors and maintains its credit rating.

Raising the debt limit does not authorize new spending--it simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past. The United States Congress has acted 78 times to raise, extend, or revise the debt limit; 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents.

While no one is more frustrated than I am about our current fiscal state of affairs, I support responsible efforts to bring down our national debt. I firmly believe that it is a mistake to compound past irresponsibility with further irresponsibility on this issue. If Congress fails to increase the debt limit, the government would start to default on its foreign owned debts, which would have ``calamitous'' consequences for the U. S. economy. Not to mention it would be unprecedented in American history.

In addition, if the United States defaulted:

Investors would be less likely to lend to this country; borrowing costs, not only for the federal government, but for families, businesses and local governments would increase; and so would interest rates for municipal bonds, mortgages, car loans, and student and business loans.

Mr. Speaker, America's debt is a non-partisan concern. Both parties share responsibly for ensuring that this nation's bills are paid. I stand ready to work with all of my colleagues to meet our obligations and put forward a productive plan to reduce the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, we need bipartisan efforts that focus on fiscal responsibility while maintaining important investments in our communities that will create jobs and grow the economy.

Even now, I am trying to be confident that the best interests of the American people will prevail, but it is terribly disappointing that ending Medicare for seniors is so important to Republicans that they continue to pursue this agenda at all costs and willingly put our national economy in peril.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has been under the control of the Republicans for nearly 200 days, and they have yet to bring a single job-creating bill to the floor. This is an issue that should always be above partisan politics. It seems that they would rather see the United States default on its existing debt for the first time in history, watch our economy lose hundreds of thousands of jobs, and cause interest rates and consumer goods to skyrocket in the process.

We must do something about it.

Let me thank the leadership on the committee and then simply appeal to my chairman, Mr. Mica, to come and reason together, because this has been a committee that has had a history of reasoning together. Without my standing here and going through it, you are very aware of what the most objectionable part of this extension is.

If we are serious about passing an extension, let's pass the extension and deal with the other issues at another time. Yes, it has been since 2007, and it has been because of the battling back and forth. You're either pro-labor or anti-labor, but we are ruining the lives of workers. We are subjecting safety to the whims, and we are messing up projects and wasting money by allowing this bickering to continue.

I would simply appeal to our chairman to please come to the table, and let's pass a clean extension bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, the Republican ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,'' which is before us today. I am sorry that the House of Representatives has to spend any time on this deeply flawed piece of legislation instead of dealing with the host of serious issues facing our Nation.

I have limited time, so I am not going to try today to cover all of the significant problems inherent in H.R. 2560; I know that there are other Members who plan to address many of the issues I care about, such as the central truth that this bill would end the Medicare guarantee. That in itself is reason enough to oppose H.R. 2560, but I also want to highlight the devastating impact this bill would have on our Nation's competitiveness, our ability to innovate, and our ability to create the jobs of the future.

As written, the legislation before us today would cut non-security discretionary spending for FY 2012 by $76 billion. That translates into a 25 percent cut in budget authority next year with similar draconian cuts in the years that follow. What will be the impact of cuts of that magnitude? They will be profound and will inflict long-term damage to our Nation's well-being. Let me give just a few examples.

First, let's consider the impact of such a cut on the programs that help to predict severe weather, something that has been a particular concern in many parts of the Nation this year. With these cuts, Mr. Speaker, we would essentially be guaranteeing a diminished national capability for weather forecast and prediction, especially of severe weather events. Why? Because a 25 percent cut to our polar and geostationary weather satellite programs will delay NOAA's ability to procure follow-on weather satellites that provide the weather data needed 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to make accurate long-term weather forecasts.

What will happen? Well, for one thing, we won't get 10-day weather forecasts; the best we'll get with good accuracy are 48-hour weather predictions. Farmers, emergency management officials, military planners, fisherman, coastal residents and marine transportation capabilities, the tourism industry, and all Americans and other American businesses will be operating with weather predictions that are severely diminished in accuracy. When it comes to extreme weather events such as those that we've been experiencing across the Nation, diminished weather forecasting directly increases the risk of loss of lives and property, not to mention the widespread economic losses that come from our inability to prepare for such extreme events.

Mr. Speaker, why would Congress want to ``go blind'' to severe weather and put our people and our economic infrastructure at risk, especially when our economic recovery is so fragile and Americans are struggling daily to make ends meet?

Turning now to NSF, while it's difficult to quantify the devastating impacts of a 25 percent cut to the NSF budget, we can roughly estimate that such a cut would lead to the reduction of over 17,000 research grants: about 16,500 funded by the various Research Directorates, and 750 funded by the Education and Human Resources Directorate.

We cannot predict where the next scientific breakthroughs will come from, or which research grant will lead to the next Google or GPS. So not only will these budget cuts affect over 200,000 people supported by NSF, including graduate students, undergraduates, K-12 teachers, and K- 12 students, but these cuts will most certainly significantly harm our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs, and compete in the global economy.

With these kinds of budget cuts, we will be supporting less cutting- edge research and building fewer critically important scientific research user facilities, but perhaps the biggest problem is the loss of human capital. China and Europe are increasing funding for research and building world class research facilities while we are heading in the opposite direction. Those countries are successfully recruiting our best and brightest as we successfully recruited theirs for many decades.

Such steep cuts to the National Science Foundation will cause vital investments in sustainability, leading edge technology, and STEM education to be greatly delayed, reduced, or altogether cancelled. These investments include support for: NSF-wide emphasis on Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability, including vital investments in clean energy research; major investments critical to job creation and competitiveness, such as advanced manufacturing and the National Robotics Initiative; pathbreaking efforts to improve pre- college and undergraduate education, including the Teacher Learning for the Future program and new investments to transform undergraduate science courses.

A budget cut of even 5 percent to NSF's Major Research Equipment and Facilities and Construction account would result in the termination of approximately $100 million in contracts to industry for work in progress on major facilities for environmental and oceanographic research. This would directly lead to layoffs of roughly 100 direct scientific and technical staff, with larger impacts at supplier companies. In addition, costs over the life of these projects would increase by over $100 million because of delays in the construction schedule. Again, this is the potential scenario with a 5 percent cut-- not the 25 percent cut to discretionary authorizations included in the bill before us today.

The National Science Foundation is the premier STEM education research organization in the country. For decades, NSF has been a leader in improving our collective understanding of how students learn, and how we can develop the most effective and inspiring curriculum and train the most effective and inspiring teachers. The education research being funded at NSF is critical to helping us to better understand what works and what doesn't, so that we can invest in programs that will really make a difference in our schools. Cuts to STEM education at NSF not only will directly impact many students and teachers across the country, but it will greatly limit our ability to improve the state of education in this country for every student and every teacher.

We cannot afford to make cuts to STEM education at a time when other countries are consistently outperforming us on international tests. For example, in the 2009 PISA, American schoolchildren ranked 17th out of 34 OECD countries in science. Shanghai-China, Finland, Hong Kong-China, and Singapore were the highest performers in the science assessment. Furthermore, American schoolchildren ranked 25th out of 34 OECD countries for math. Shanghai-China, Singapore, and Hong Kong-China ranked first, second and third in math, respectively. This is simply not the time for us to be cutting funding for critical STEM education programs at the NSF.

Mr. Speaker, the bad news in this bill does not end there. The impact on NASA is equally grim. For example, a 25 percent reduction to NASA's Space Operations account is over $1 billion. This cut could cause NASA to reduce the number of cargo and crew transportation flights to the International Space Station, thereby jeopardizing its agreement with ISS partners to have 6 crew members operate the $100 billion research facility. Delaying contracted for cargo and crew flights from commercial partners and Russia may have financial repercussions. It could render NASA unable to fulfill its agreed-to pension liability payments to shuttle workers and it could jeopardize our ability to receive data from on-going deep space missions by not having the money needed to replace critical components in its unreliable and outdated communications network.

A 25 percent reduction to NASA's Exploration account would cut almost a billion dollars, further delaying the development of the Space Launch System and Multipurpose Crew Vehicle--NASA's follow-on human space transportation and exploration vehicles--causing an even greater gap in the ability of a U.S. government-operated human transportation system to access space whenever needed, as well as causing disruption to on- going contracts, possibly requiring extensive layoffs and financial compensation due to terminated contracts and further destabilizing the aerospace industrial base.

A 25 percent reduction to NASA's Aeronautics Research account is over $142 million. This will force cuts to NASA's critically important research in aviation safety and airspace systems and delay work needed by the FAA to increase the capacity and efficiency of the nation's air transportation system through NextGen modernization. In addition, it will prevent NASA from conducting unique research required to develop environmentally responsible aircraft.

NASA's science programs would also suffer deep cuts, an outcome that will be doing long-term damage to an area in which the United States has maintained unquestioned leadership. It is doing the challenging R&D projects that keep our companies and workforce at the top of their game--whether it's landing spacecraft on Mars, acquiring data to understand the complex behavior of our own planet, or carrying out the analysis of data collected from space. Cutting NASA's science programs by 25 percent will severely harm our ability to carry out pathbreaking research, such as investigating dark energy, which may lead to revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of our Universe. It will also draw the best and brightest who seek inspirational and challenging projects.

A cut of this magnitude would not only preclude new projects, such as those recommended in National Academies decadal surveys, but could even jeopardize missions being readied for launch in FY 2012, such as the Mars Science Laboratory, the NPP weather satellite, and the Radiation Belt Storm Probe, a mission that will help us understand the impact of the radiation belt environment on spacecraft, something with important practical significance.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to sit on the sidelines while other nations are the first to announce major scientific discoveries, draw the world's top science and engineering talent into their fold, and begin to assume leadership in areas where the U.S. has always been on the cutting-edge.

NASA's education programs would also suffer if this bill ever becomes law. Mr. Speaker, we tell the youth of this nation to reach for the stars, and NASA is truly one of the agencies that inspire our next generation to dream big and pursue the disciplines that we know are needed to keep our nation strong--science and engineering. However, under this bill, a 25 percent cut to NASA's education programs would cripple initiatives such as the Space Grant and EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research) programs, minority education projects such as the Minority Undergraduate Research and Education Project (MUREP), and K-12 teacher training and student opportunities that are so critical to building and stimulating our future capabilities.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a 25 percent reduction to NASA's Cross Agency Support account would have serious implications for NASA's safety and mission success, NASA's information technology activities, and our ability to operate NASA Centers across the U.S. I'd hate to think what a cut to NASA's safety and mission success activities would mean for ensuring the safety of our nation's astronauts launched into space and the success of the critical functions they and our robotic spacecraft perform. At a time when cybersecurity is being discussed as a key issue across federal agencies, this cut would reduce NASA's critical information technology functions, including information security. It is highly likely that a cut to the agency operations budgets included in this account could require NASA to shut down NASA Centers, lay off additional contractors, and take actions that would have negative repercussions throughout communities and regions at a time when local economies are already stressed and jobs are hard to come by.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my remarks give Members and the American public some idea of the harm that enactment of this short-sighted piece of legislation would do, not only to the agencies listed, but also to other important R&D initiatives at the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and NOAA, to name but a few of the affected agencies.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not going to become law. It is simply a diversion from the serious business on which this body should be focusing its attention. However, it is not a harmless diversion. The extreme and ill-considered cuts that would flow from its enactment send a terrible message to our citizens about this House's priorities. When your car is low on gas, you don't siphon more out of the tank, yet that is what this bill would do to the nation's R&D and innovation capabilities. I want the record to be clear that I do not support the cuts in this bill, nor do I support the process under which this bill has come to the House floor. We can--and should--do better. This bill is short-sighted; its negative impacts would cost more in the long-term than any immediate budget reductions would save in the short- term. I urge my colleagues in Congress to vote NO on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this August will mark the 46th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. There are many who say there is no longer a need for the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

It is true that we have made remarkable progress since 1965, including outlawing segregationist principles such as literacy tests, poll taxes and the grandfather clause. However, there is still much work to be done.

As we continue to observe during elections, minorities often face the uphill battle of misinformation distributed in black communities over how and when to vote, and purging of voter rolls and Election Day lines.

The Voting Rights Act was not and never will be about special rights. It is about equal rights and ensuring that all Americans have the right to vote for their candidates of choice. The reality is that some people out there still want to suppress minority voting.

Recently, Texas passed legislation requiring picture identification in order to participate in the voting process. This systematic use of required voter identification cards will disproportionately impact voters that are elderly, minority, or disabled. Requiring individuals to produce picture identification will turn back the clock on voter rights and do little to prevent voter fraud.

Texas remains under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act due to a long history of discrimination of minority voters. I have strong concerns regarding the ability of minority, elderly and disabled voters to obtain a state identification card from the Texas Department of Public Safety. There is only one Department of Public Safety office in Dallas, and no offices in central Houston. For potential voters in Southwest Texas some would have to travel up to 200 miles to obtain a state identification card. While I am already working to ensure individuals have the transportation to obtain IDs, I believe many poor and minority voters simply will not have the means to obtain this required card. Putting undue burdens on a certain population of voters is not in line with requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

Our values, our freedom, and our democracy are based on the idea that every eligible American citizen has the right to vote. We cannot and must not give up until every American citizen has the access and opportunity to vote--regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, or language ability.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain my position on H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. As a Member of Congress for nearly two decades, time and time again I have said that the best way to lower energy costs is to make homes, buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure more energy efficient. In the process, we also create jobs. I remain a steadfast supporter of energy efficiency initiatives, knowing that it is imperative for us as a country to develop an energy supply that is both sustainable and diverse in order to improve our quality of life and protect our environment.

My initial support in co-signing H.R. 2417 was to make light bulbs less expensive and more accessible for low-income families. People living in poverty and low-income elderly should not have to choose between paying their electric bill and buying food for themselves and their families. I initially added my name as a co-sponsor of this legislation with these citizens in mind; however, after hearing from the industry, my colleagues, and most importantly my constituents, I reconsidered my position on the bill and will vote against it.