Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1095, the TSA Loose Change Act. I support the goals of the bill that would allow the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to transfer monies left by travelers at airport security check points to USO-type organizations.

The bill is intended to provide support to organizations that exist for the sole purpose of lifting the spirits of America's troops and their families.

Travelers often see young men and women of the armed services in airports who often travel for hours and sometimes days to reach their destinations.

It is important that while they or their families are traveling they are provided with access to rest areas and a warm welcome.

The TSA Loose Change Act modifies existing law by requiring TSA to transfer unclaimed loose change found at passenger screening checkpoints to organizations that provide places of rest and recuperation at airports to service members and their families, such as the USO.

Last year, TSA collected over $500,000 in unclaimed money at passenger screening checkpoints.

Under H.R. 1095, this money will go to the noble cause of providing support for service members and their families.

During Committee consideration of this bill in October, during Full Homeland Security Committee markup, I offered an amendment to the bill that will require TSA to publish in the Federal Register the name of the organization that successfully applies for the funds via the Request for Proposals process called for in the bill.

I was pleased that my amendment was met with the unanimous support of the Committee and is now a part of the legislation before the House today.

With my amendment included, we can have confidence that we will have knowledge of the organizations or organization that receives the money and can ensure its proper use.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our troops and their families by voting in favor of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2719, the ``Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act.'' The bill requires the Transportation Security Administration to implement best practices and improve transparency regarding technology acquisition.

I thank the Chairman Michael McCaul and Ranking Member Bennie Thompson for their bipartisan effort to make air travel safer.

I want to take this time to remember Gerardo I. Hernandez, a Transportation Security Administration officer who was killed in the line of duty at the Los Angeles International Airport.

There were two other TSA officers wounded along with a schoolteacher during a gun battle with two airport police officers.

I continue to keep them, their families, colleagues and friends in my thoughts and prayers.

This incident punctuates the importance of securing our airports and flights from threats. A critical component of the security strategy being pursued is related to the acquisition and use of technology.

The Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act builds upon the Committee on Homeland Security's work on the issue of TSA's acquisition practices.

For years, I, along with Ranking Member Thompson and my fellow colleagues on the Committee have urged TSA to be more transparent and accountable when acquiring security-related technologies. H.R. 2719 requires just that.

It also requires TSA to take a hard look at the obstacles it has encountered in the area of small business contracting and to identify ways to improve in that area.

There were three Jackson Lee amendments offered to improve the bill that aid in meeting the goals of the bill.

The first Jackson Lee amendment directs the Comptroller of the United States to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Homeland Security on their findings regarding the status of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) implementation of GAO recommendations related to acquisition of security technology.

The second Jackson Lee amendment directs the TSA to provide a report to the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees on the feasibility of inventory tracking through automated information and data capture technologies.

This Jackson Lee amendment allows the TSA to investigate private sector use of inventory tracking technology and determine if any of these technologies would be beneficial to the agency.

The third Jackson Lee amendment states that to the extent practicable, the Chief Privacy Officer for the Department of Homeland Security shall include consultation with organizations that advocate for the protection of privacy and civil liberties.

These Jackson Lee amendments were adopted en bloc by the Full Committee and are included in H.R. 2719.

I was pleased to support this legislation during both the Subcommittee and Full Committee markups of the measure and continue to support it today.

Critically, this legislation requires TSA to develop a multiyear plan for its investments in security-related technology.

With the plan, vision, and oversight this bill mandates, I am hopeful TSA's missteps in the area of security-related technology acquisition will soon be a thing of the past.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2719. I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1204, ``Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2013.'' Ranking Member Thompson's steady and long term work on improving airport security is recognized and respected by members on both sides of the aisle.

The Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act, introduced by Ranking Member Thompson, establishes in law the critical Aviation Security Advisory Committee.

The bill states that the Security Advisory Committee shall be consulted by and advise the Assistant Security on aviation security matters, including the development and implementation of policies, programs, rulemaking,

and security directives pertaining to aviation security.

Since just after 9/11, the Aviation Security Advisory Committee has played the critical role of being industry's voice before TSA, helping to develop policies that make sense operationally, and more importantly, work for the American people.

When Congress established TSA in the wake of the tragic terrorist attack on 9/11, we granted TSA broad latitude to implement policies stakeholders are required to comply with and, in some cases, implement.

The Aviation Security Advisory Committee ensures that the security directives TSA develops are not created in a vacuum.

Establishing the Aviation Security Advisory Committee in law will ensure that the Committee never again becomes inactive, as was the case during the previous Administration.

Mr. Speaker, as a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee and the sponsor of numerous legislative proposals to reduce gun violence, I rise in strong support of extending H.R. 3626, the ``Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988'', which bans guns that can pass unnoticed through a metal detector. I support this legislation because it will help reduce gun violence and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Gun violence has affected many of our districts and continues to be a pernicious problem on the national stage to which we have to address.

Every day 45 people are shot or killed because of an accident with a gun. When firearms are in the home they are 22 times more likely to be used in homicides, suicides, and accidents than in instances of self- defense. Even though 34 percent of American children live in a home with a gun, fewer than half of those homes store firearms in a way that denies access to children, meaning that guns are locked, unloaded, and separated from ammunition.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988'' was originally passed in 1988 and signed into law by President Reagan. It was reauthorized in 1998 and 2003. Unless reauthorized, the ban on undetectable firearms expires this week, on December 9, 2013. It is therefore imperative that we act now to extend the ban so we can reduce gun violence and enhance the safety of our first responders.

While we cannot stop every instance of gun violence, we can help reduce their prevalence. By acting now with this legislation, we can institute common-sense standards that are focused on protecting our nation from violence by those who would do us harm, without infringing on Americans' Second Amendment rights.

H.R. 2665 and H.R. 3626 can go a long way towards making our homes, schools, and streets safer for families across this country. We may not be able to prevent every gun-related tragedy from occurring in the future, but we have a responsibility to implement reasonable, common- sense standards so that innocent lives will not continue to be lost.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me rise to indicate my recognition of the importance of this legislation and to support it.

I want to make a point simply on this bill dealing with the Secretary of the Interior, that it is to study the issue of large parks, urban parks in our respective urban areas as being in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, the Interior Department, because we are losing that park land because of the inability to collaborate with the Federal Government on the resources that are so necessary.

I recognize that we are in sequestration, but I believe that it is important that we collaborate. I wanted to make sure that I put that on the record.

Let me also put on the record, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, my support for the TSA Loose Change Act, H.R. 1095; my support for H.R. 2719, the Transportation Acquisition Security Reform Act; and my special support for H.R. 1204, the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation Act of 2013 because, in fact, that stakeholder committee is going to help provide more security for our TSA officers and have stakeholders dealing with issues like phones on airplanes and knives on airplanes. Certainly, guns are only held by the pilots in the pilot program. But it is going to be able to allow stakeholders to be able to have a real say in aviation security, and I think that is crucially important.

Let me also acknowledge my support for the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 and its extension. I would hope that that bipartisan support, along with Mr. Coble, whom we have so much great respect for, will lead us to universal background checks and the passage of Federal legislation that would require all of us to store our guns. It is not difficult to provide or buy a simple safe to store your guns and to protect those from undue harm.

I thank my colleague for yielding to me.

My understanding is that we are here on the floor of the House to do work. Some people find it humorous when Members rise to the floor and add additional commentary dealing with their constituency and their work. And since I believe in working and I believe in working on behalf of my constituents, I am very grateful to the gentleman from Arizona recognizing the seriousness of which I make these points and allowing me to have this time on this legislation. I think all of us can recognize that when the floor is open, it is open for Members to come and make serious commentary about the work that they would hope this Congress would be able to do.

I close by thanking the gentleman. He has many capacities, such as the cochair of the Progressive Caucus. I want to thank him for his leadership on immigration reform. And for those of us who were down with the Fast for Families, I again say that we pray for them. We pray that the hearts of this Congress will be touched, that we will be able to finish and complete comprehensive immigration reform, something my constituency is also now praying for on the steps of the city hall.

Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand simple, one-page legislation, H.R. 3626, that passed on the floor of the House today by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, it was a gun bill. It was to extend and to ensure that undetectable firearms would be regulated so that plastic guns cannot pose a danger to law enforcement or the police.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why we cannot come together to stop the kinds of killings at Sandy Hook and Aurora by passing universal background checks, or the bill that I introduced, which is a gun safety and storage bill. For the likes of a young man by the name of Braveon who died in the hands of strangers in my district 2 weeks ago, or the young man, 16 years old, who just was shot this past weekend in a local park, or two teenagers that died 3 or 4 weeks ago while 19 were shot at a house party, all using guns got on the underbelly of life. Not stopping stash houses, or keeping guns from going from one hand to another without a background check.

A simple bill was passed, Mr. Speaker. I ask: Is there any heart in this Congress to pass reasonable gun safety legislation to save the lives of our children and to stand against violence, gun violence? Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, in the life of this nation there have been a few events of such consequence and moment that they have a transformative impact on the people of the country. For my parents' generation the death of President Franklin Roosevelt was such an occasion.

The explosion of the Shuttle Challenger in 1986 left a traumatic and indelible impression on my children's generation. The morning of September 11, 2001 is a day no living American will forget.

For my generation, however, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 is the moment that lives with us forever. For on that day, my generation lost its leader, its hero, its champion. And its innocence.

None of us can forget where we were and how we felt when we learned the terrible news. I was a young schoolgirl when my teacher, wiping away tears, announced to the class that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, Texas and was dead. I was stunned and shocked and sad and heartbroken. I cried all the way home. When I got there I went to my room and prayed.

A half century later, I still remember that day as if it were yesterday. And every year on this day for the last 50 years, I always pause to remember the man who inspired me to devote my life to public service and who, along with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, taught me by their example that the greatest calling in life is the call to serve others.

And I still say a prayer for President Kennedy each November 22 but they have not been prayers of lamentation for many years. They are prayers of thanks to the Lord for his infinite wisdom and grace in blessing our country with a captain as perfectly suited to lead our ship of state during the epochal time that was the 1960s as was Abraham Lincoln to the 1860s.

The year 1963 is one of the most momentous in the life of our nation. It was in August, 50 years ago, that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. challenged and inspired a nation by sharing his dream about its future at the largest peaceful demonstration in American history.

The year 1963 also marked the centennial of the Gettysburg Address, which redefined and reenobled the meaning of the American experience and is the only other American speech that can stand with Dr. King's and not suffer in the comparison.

At Gettysburg, President Lincoln delivered the words that consoled and helped to heal and reunite a divided nation. He reminded us

that just 87 years before, in 1776, America had given birth to something new in the world, self-government, and he made us understand that in the life of nations, ours was still a young country with an unfinished democracy and an uncertain future.

He then paid tribute ``to those who died so the nation might live'' and challenged the living to dedicate themselves to the ``great task'' remaining before them, which was not just to ensure the survival of the union, but for us to honor those who ``gave the last full measure of devotion'' by giving the nation a ``new birth of freedom.''

One hundred years later, in August 1963, Dr. King reminded us that the great work of democracy which had been so nobly advanced a century before remained unfinished but expressed the confidence that his and future generations of Americans, would like their forbears, rededicate themselves to the proposition that all people are created equal and resolve to continue the task of perfecting our democracy until ``justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.''

And in those heady days there was little doubt we would become the country foretold by Dr. King because America in that year and at that time was powerful and prosperous and confident and optimistic.

And no one better symbolized the nation's vitality and sense of purpose and unlimited possibility than the man it had elected to lead them, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

John Kennedy personified the pioneering, trailblazing, independent, courageous, and can-do spirit for which America is justly celebrated around the world. He was the youngest person and the first Catholic elected President and the first person born in the 20th century to hold the office.

A junior officer who served heroically during World War II, the greatest conflict in world history, John Kennedy was the leading member of what has been called the ``Greatest Generation'' and the first of the seven of its members elevated to the presidency, the most of any generation ever.

A naval officer, congressman, senator, and author of the Pulitzer Prize winning ``Profiles in Courage,'' John Kennedy was both a man of action and a man of ideas. He was pragmatic and compassionate; tough- minded and tender-hearted, determined but not dogmatic. He was, in short and in sum, a man with great charisma and great character.

Most of all, John Kennedy was a man who never stopped thinking about tomorrow or working to realize the full promise of America. And he understood that we all had a place in that future and a role to play in bringing it about. That is why he proclaimed in his stirring inaugural address: ``Ask not, my fellow Americans, what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.''

John Kennedy believed there was nothing America could not achieve once it set its mind to it. In September 1961, President Kennedy came to my home city of Houston, Texas and committed America to send a man to the moon and to bring him safely home before the end of the decade. Asked why we should go to the moon, President Kennedy said:

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other

things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

To anyone who might doubt America's ability to make good on this commitment, President Kennedy said, ``this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.''

President Kennedy knew first-hand the horrors of war so he worked for peace. What kind of peace? He told us in the commencement address he delivered at American University in April of the momentous year of 1963:

Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American

weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of

the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of

peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind

that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build

a better life for their children--not merely peace for

Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace

in our time but peace in all time.

President Kennedy led our nation safely through two of the most perilous events of the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Thanks to his cool resolve, calm restraint, steely determination, and clear thinking, nuclear war was averted and America's freedom, and that of our allies, was secured. Like Lincoln, President Kennedy knew the value and cost of freedom and the sacrifices required to win and keep it:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill,

that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any

hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to

assure the survival and the success of liberty.

President Kennedy was the first president to see first-hand the Berlin Wall when he traveled behind the Iron Curtain to that divided city in 1963 and gave hope to the besieged people of West Berlin by pledging America's unwavering support and aid in its struggle to remain free:

You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is

part of the main. So let me ask you, as I close, to lift your

eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow,

beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your

country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere,

beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond

yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all

are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to

that day when this city will be joined as one and this

country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and

hopeful globe. . . . All free men, wherever they may live,

are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take

pride in the words ``Ich bin ein Berliner!''

Above all, John Kennedy was a man of consistent and tremendous moral courage. To him, freedom was indivisible, the birthright of every person on earth. John Kennedy, like Abraham and Martin, understood that ``when one man is enslaved, all are not free.''

And nothing better illuminates this great quality of this remarkable leader than the speech he delivered to the nation the evening of June 11, 1963, committing the federal government to the cause of civil rights, in full support of the Civil Rights Movement and to the eradication of racial segregation and discrimination.

In that landmark address, President Kennedy informed the nation that he had ordered troops to enforce a federal court decree directing that two highly qualified African American students be enrolled at the University of Alabama notwithstanding Governor Wallace's vow to block their admission by standing in the schoolhouse door.

President Kennedy saw clearly and connected the events and circumstances facing Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to the challenges confronting Dr. King in 1963, stating:

It ought to be possible for every American to enjoy the

privileges of being American without regard to his race or

his color. But this is not the case.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as

old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American

Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to

be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we

are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be

treated.

One hundred years of delay have passed since President

Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons,

are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of

injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic

oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its

boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are

free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we

cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the

world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is

the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no

second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class

or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with

respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its

promise.

The following week, President Kennedy sent to Congress legislation making good on this promise. Although he did not live to see its enactment, that legislation--brilliantly shepherded to passage by President Lyndon Johnson--transformed America. Along with the passage of the Voting Rights Act the following year, America made more progress in backing up its boasts and fulfilling its hopes than any time since the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and ratification of the Civil War Amendments. It is no exaggeration to say that these actions constituted another ``new birth of freedom'' foretold and predicted by Abraham Lincoln and Dr. King.

Abraham Lincoln and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. are two of the towering figures in American history. And so is John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Taken together, the lives of these three giants teach us at least three important lessons when it comes to the question of race: Words have power. Actions matter. Moral courage is indispensable.

Many persons have one of these qualities but much rarer are those who possess two, let alone all three in the abundance and to the degree possessed by Abraham, Martin, and John. Is it any wonder then that we still revere them after all these years and still miss them so much?

The 1968 folk classic, ``Abraham, Martin, and John,'' by Dion and the Belmonts still sums up the feelings of countless millions, here in America and around the world:

Has anybody here seen my old friends?

Can you tell me where they've gone?

They freed a lot of people,

but, it seems the good they die young.

You know, I just looked around and they were gone.

Abraham, Martin, and John.

They may be gone but they will never be forgotten. Their works--the glow from their fire--truly lit the world.

So on this day I am remembering President Kennedy. His flame glows eternally in Arlington Cemetery and in the hearts of untold millions the world over, including that little schoolgirl he inspired long ago and who is now the Member of Congress from the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas.

God bless President John Kennedy. I ask that a moment of silence be observed in memory of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act.

The United States space program has existed for over half a century and my commitment to providing NASA with the resources to carry the agency forward with its ambitious agenda of research, exploration, and discovery is unwavering.

In June 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NASA signed an agreement to coordinate standards for commercial space travel of government and non-government astronauts to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station (ISS).

The FAA regulates and licenses all U.S. private companies and individuals seeking to engage in commercial space transportation. The FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation has licensed 207 successful launches, including two non-orbital commercial human space flights in 2004 and the recent first launch to the ISS and re-entry of a non-manned commercial spacecraft. For details on FAA commercial space transportation responsibilities, visit:

The two agencies agreed to join efforts to expand commercial and non- commercial space exploration by creating a framework for the U.S. space industry. The two agencies will be able to avoid conflict regarding requirements and standards for the purpose of advancing both public and crew safety.

This is an important collaboration that for the private sector is a good sign for companies seeking to reap commercial benefits that may be found in spaceflight investments.

NASA continues to push the boundaries of what is possible, keeping our Nation on the forefront of innovation and exploration. It is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress.

Space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. It inspires our children to look to the stars and dream of what they too, one day, may achieve. Space exploration allows us to push the bounds of our scientific knowledge, as we carry out research projects not possible within the constraints of the planet Earth.

Because of the ground breaking work of NASA commercial applications for space, such as commercial satellites have become critical for mobile communication services.

Smartphones rely upon commercial satellite to function, which makes possible the communication revolution we are witnessing today.

Today, the ground work done to advance knowledge regarding space exploration has reached a point where private sector companies are exploring ways to commercialize space exploration.

For example, Companies like Virgin now operates Virgin Galactic has completed its second test flight for commercialization of space travel and is selling passenger tickets for its first flight. However, we must still fully fund NASA and U.S. public space exploration.

A critical milestone for space exploration will be successful commercial efforts to provide services or develop new methods of manufacturing that are space based or the exploration of neighboring bodies for discovery of rare earth minerals or discovery of more abundant sources of elements or resources that can aid human development.

H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act provides a means of making it possible for private companies to pursue commercial space projects.

I ask my colleagues to support this effort to make the next step in human development of space a successful one by joining me in voting in support of H.R. 3547, the Space Launch Liability Indemnification Extension Act.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World AIDS Day. And before I left my home district this morning, I gathered with longtime friends and fighters against the surge and the scourge of HIV/AIDS.

Although we have come a long way and made a great difference, 50,000 people are affected each year by HIV/AIDS. This is the 32nd year of the establishment or the announcement of the epidemic of HIV/AIDS, and today some 34 million-plus around the world live with HIV/AIDS. Every 9\1/2\ minutes, someone in this country is infected with AIDS.

So I stand here in salute of the Thomas Street Health Center and the

AIDS Foundation, one, because of the health care that the Thomas Street Health Center gives and to be able to thank them for the litany and devotional that they provided for us, and to the AIDS Foundation, of course, to thank them for letting people live with AIDS and to have the comfort of those who will stand with them.

I am also wearing another button today, and that is to salute those and to embrace those who are for the fasting families. We must have comprehensive immigration reform, and I stand with them to save lives, as well.

I thank the gentleman from New York. It was thought provoking to hear the gentleman from Nevada offer his thoughts of bipartisanship and to listen to the astute gentleman from Virginia on the many issues that have been left along the highway of despair, and also to be joined by Congresswoman Clarke from New York, whom we will hear from shortly.

Let me thank you for the leadership you have given to this special time, and let me try to work to be succinct on the issues that have been left along the highway of despair.

You started out with immigration reform, and you were kind enough to note that I have served on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years, formerly the ranking member on the Immigration Subcommittee, and now the ranking member on the Border Security and Maritime Subcommittee.

I will tell you that there are many times when we could have come together and passed comprehensive immigration reform, but I am going to tout as a bipartisan legitimate expression of border security, to share with my colleagues H.R. 1417, which many know was passed out of the Homeland Security House committee through the efforts of Republicans joined by Democrats, and the legislation passed with no weaknesses, no loopholes, no disrespect for the importance of the security of the northern and southern border. There were very strong responses as it relates to operational control, as it relates to the amount of control that we would have at the border, but matching it with the recognition that there must be an infrastructure of immigration reform. But let me throw all those words away and say there must be humanity. There must be concern for human beings, for families torn apart, for DREAM children destined to be valedictorians or salutatorians or to be generals in the United States military. We are losing the talent of those who have trained here with knowledge about the next level of technology because of the no H-1B because we do not have a comprehensive approach. Those folks are leaving, and, therefore, we are losing the geniuses that we trained to be able to help us.

So I want to join the gentleman and say to him that, if there is any cause on which we can come together, it would be comprehensive immigration reform. Might I just take note of my button that honors the Fast for Families, those that have been fasting for almost 20 days, almost a month, because they are trying to pull at the heartstrings of America and the heartstrings of this Congress to recognize that they are Americans, too. They are just a few blocks down the street. A few blocks down the street, families, children are fasting, asking, Is there someone who can hear our plea?

So I thank the gentleman for bringing it up, and I just want to make some other points that we have been lingering on and have not followed through on.

I introduced H.R. 2585, which is an antibullying bill, Prevention of Bullying and Intervention, and reflects where America is when you can find most every child that is interviewed has indicated that they have been bullied; or something happens to a child in high school, and they will talk about having been bullied some years back; or a child will be shot or violence will occur, and they will talk about bullying, even to the extent it is raised up in the NFL. And I want to pay tribute to a young man at the Baltimore Ravens, Mr. Rice, who has taken this cause up from the NFL.

H.R. 2585 would reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant, and it would provide sort of a sentence road map that allows organizations that would be funded under the block grant to be able to focus on bullying prevention and intervention. How simple a legislative initiative is that? And I would offer to say that I heard from leadership on both sides of the aisle. So why not pass something as simple as that even before Christmas to be able to move forward on something that would not, in fact, be a negative?

I just quickly want to indicate that we have young people exposed to violence in ways that we have not known. Thirty percent of U.S. students in grades 6 through 10 are involved in moderate or frequent bullying. There are cases in Florida where young people have been arrested because, tragically, someone committed suicide, or the hearing I held in Houston where parents upon parents and students came in to testify how they had been bullied. One out of four kids is bullied.

Some would say they are calling everything bullying. Well, I believe if we do the outreach, we can find a way to develop an infrastructure so that there will be people who find the comfort of knowing someone cares, a system that intervenes when someone feels something is untoward, and to break the shackles of bullying by getting rid of the atmosphere that is tolerated because it is done in silence and fear.

I also introduced gun safety legislation, and I would hope that some day we could have universal background checks. As I was driving to the airport, I read an ad in the Houston Chronicle that had gun safes on sale. I said that guy, I want to give him an award, because my simple legislation requires individuals to store their guns. They can have all the guns they want, but have them stored and safe, particularly if you have a large number of them, to be able to secure and protect children and those who want to do us harm.

One of the things that the CBC worked on, and I am proud that we

worked on it, but I will say that it brings me sadness, we are at a point where we have cut $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition program. I went to my food bank and had them explain what a devastating impact that $40 billion, $4 billion a year, will have on the people who are in need in Houston in particular.

In my city of Houston, the census report said over the last 12 months, 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level, and 18 percent of households in the State of Texas in 2009 through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food security. So why can we not have an ag bill that would restore the $40 billion? Why are we suggesting that those individuals are deadbeats when one-half of the persons on food stamps or SNAP are, in fact, children? That is something, Mr. Jeffries, that we could come together on and redo or the conference could redo. We could look to ensure a place of laws but a place of humanity.

In conclusion, allow me to throw in two disparate points, but I consider them justice issues. First, that is the Affordable Care Act, which is a justice initiative. It is to say that we all have access to good health care. That is not a carte blanche for good health because we must all change our attitudes and do a lot of things to make us healthy, but it certainly is an intervener that allows to us have preventive care; it allows women to not be characterized as a preexisting disease because they are pregnant; it allows children born with preexisting diseases not to be eliminated from the insurance rolls; and it allowed 13 million Americans to receive $1.1 billion in rebates from their health insurance last year when the Affordable Care Act was in place. Now 105 million Americans have free preventive services.

So all of the talk of the technology takes away from the core value that Americans should have access to health care, and today I am glad to hear that we are making strides in a technological system that is not always perfect. Let us not undermine this bill. I am very glad that the Congressional Black Caucus, under the leadership of our chairwoman, has been strong in educating our constituents about the Affordable Care Act.

In conclusion, a remaining challenge that we have: the Voting Rights Act must be reauthorized to the extent of a provision that was eliminated by the Supreme Court decision wrongly, Shelby County v. Holder, that took away the provisions of preclearance which, in fact, provided justice and the right to vote for all Americans. We are gathered, hopefully, in a bipartisan manner with the leadership of Mr. Sensenbrenner and others who are on various committees in the Congressional Black Caucus and the leadership of our Democratic Caucus and the Republican conference to come together in a bipartisan manner to be able to accept the constitutional premise best said by the Declaration of Independence: that we all are created equally with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We have coddled the right to vote. We have welcomed the right to vote. I am reading a story about our Puerto Rican citizens who don't have the right to vote and how they felt like second-class citizens. There are those of us on the mainland that have had roadblocks thrown across the pathway that needed to be protected not only by the Bill of Rights but by the Voting Rights Act that has withstood the test of time, that has been reviewed. So it is important that we get a construct that all of us can support so that if there is a voter ID law, it does not block people from voting, it does not keep one particular group from getting a voter ID law because they do not have access, like in Texas with the Department of Public Safety. In essence, the Voting Rights Act is one that reaffirms America's commitment that every person has a right to vote--one person, one vote.

I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for being a leader on so many issues, from preventing gun violence to the issue of dealing with our children and anti-bullying and intervention, to the idea of the Affordable Care Act, to restoring SNAP funding, to the Voting Rights Act and, yes, to a comprehensive approach to immigration reform, particularly the idea that we worked on so extensively, and that is diversity visas.

When I go home and speak to people from all walks of life, particularly the African community, they understand the work the Congressional Black Caucus has done--the Haitians, those from the Caribbean, those from South Asia--in reuniting families. They understand that we have been a leader on the broad landscape of comprehensive immigration reform.

For that reason, I am hoping that we will not end this session by looking sadly back on what we have not done, but that we will roll up our sleeves. I also hope that before we leave here before the end of this particular first session of the 113th Congress, we will have the opportunity to see an ag bill that will restore a portion of the SNAP dollars, helping those who cannot help themselves; that we will actually have passed anti-bullying legislation that should draw Republicans and Democrats together; that we will have confronted the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, listened to the voices of reason, and passed legislation in regular order and then, as well, that we in conclusion find it within ourselves to eliminate the sequester in a way that provides funding back to the basic responsibilities of this government in rebuilding infrastructure, creating jobs, stopping the bleeding of losing jobs because we have kept the sequester long overdue; funding our defense; providing for education and the safety and security of our seniors and our veterans. Let's get to work.

I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) for reminding us that we came here to roll up our sleeves and to work for the American people.

I introduced the above legislation H.R. 2585 to save our children's lives.

summary of bill

H.R. 2585 will help to stem this epidemic by reauthorizing for 5 years Juvenile Accountability Block Grant program (JABG) and providing funding to state and local governments for the creation of bullying and gang prevention programs.

Legislation authorizes such appropriations as may be necessary, which is anticipated to be at least $40 million per year ($200 million total) for the 5 year reauthorization period.

In addition to reauthorizing juvenile justice programs, legislation clarifies how to address the occurrences of bullying through developmentally appropriate intervention and prevention techniques, which center on evidence-based models and best practices that rely on schools and communities rather than involvement from law enforcement and the justice system.

Legislation designed to help both the victims and perpetrators of bullying. Research studies have shown that approximately 25 percent of school bullies will be convicted of a criminal offense in their adult years.

H.R. 2585 also includes provisions for gang prevention programs, which will help guide our children towards socially beneficial paths.

If we want our children to learn, we must be able to maintain a safe and healthy school environment.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the stance of the Congressional Black Caucus in their daily fight to preserve, support and increase funding for initiatives to end hunger in America. The Congressional Black Caucus has proposed a fiscally sound and morally responsible budget that protects the SNAP program as well as other programs that are vital to vulnerable communities.

As a member of the House Hunger Caucus, Out of Poverty Caucus, and proud co-sponsor of H.R. 3353, the ``Extend Not Cut SNAP Benefits Act'' I am dedicated to educating my fellow Members on hunger-related issues as I understand the devastating impact hunger has on millions of children and families in our country.

The cuts in SNAP benefits implemented on November 1, 2013, reduce the amount per-meal that beneficiaries receive to $1.40, affecting not only the families that rely on SNAP but also straining the resources of local food pantries that will be pressed to fill the gap, to keep people from going hungry. Together, the SNAP meals lost in 2014 from the scheduled cuts--nearly 3.4 billion meals--would exceed the projected annual meal distribution by Feeding America food banks around the country.

Further, a family of 4 will receive $36 less each month which translates into a week of groceries that will be taken away from poor working families, disabled persons, the elderly and children.

This reduction in benefits is the largest wholesale cut in the program since Congress passed the first Food Stamps Act in 1964 and affects nearly one in seven Americans or more than 47 million people. The cut is equivalent to 16 meals a month for a family of three.

SNAP programs lifted 4.7 million Americans above the poverty line in 2011, including 2.1 million children. Approximately 91% of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line. SNAP is also a win for the economy because every $1 in benefits generates $1.70 in economic activity.

In the 18th Congressional District of Texas, my constituency, there are 154,741 persons who will suffer because of the reduction in food assistance to an average of $1.40 meal. Studies have documented the inadequacy of this level of funding to meet the minimal nutrition requirements for children and families. Hundreds of thousands of Texans may go hungry if the cuts to the SNAP programs are not restored.

As I stated earlier I am a strong advocate for H.R. 3353, the ``Extend Not Cut SNAP Benefits Act'', which maintains SNAP benefits at the pre-November 1, 2013 levels and allows the House and Senate to work to reach agreement on the Fiscal Year 2014 budget for food programs.

Congress has the power to enact supporting legislation for the individuals, families, and communities that struggle with food security in our country. I encourage the collaboration of both sides of the aisle to work for this common good.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1900, the ``Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Act.''

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated this week as this House has debated the other energy bills, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not pro- or anti-fracking. I am, however, strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-sustainable environment.''

As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.

Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.

Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that are of great concern to me.

Pursuant to Section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the permit or license within 90-120 days.

I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.

First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.

Thus, the provision is unwise.

Second, the provision is unnecessary because FERC has, since fiscal year 2009, completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548)

of all pipeline applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the process may not be perfect or as quick as we would like but it is working well and administered by hardworking individuals who carefully and meticulously consider permits and license applications for natural gas pipelines on a case-by-case basis--as they should.

The approval process for a pipeline is not like deciding to grow a garden in the backyard of your home--given the inherently dangerous nature of the activity, the review and approval process takes time and requires careful attention--as it should be.

In short, the bill before us is a remedy in search of a problem. There is no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline projects awaiting action by FERC.

Third, the provision is irresponsible because it would require FERC and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.

Compounding the problem is that the fact that FERC, like virtually every federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the nation and to our economy.

FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year, according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.

So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources.

Thus, because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite effect intended by proponents.

In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.

Mr. Chairman, given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline, does anyone doubt that were this bill to become law FERC will be more likely to err on the side of caution and deny applications that may otherwise have been approved if it had more time and more resources to carry out its responsibilities?

Mr. Chairman, we should not take that chance. An amendment I offered, and which was made in order by the Rules Committee, avoids this outcome by conditioning the effective date of this bill upon the termination of sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in recognizing how detrimental sequestration has been to our fiscal policy and to the economy.

Earlier this week, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, joined by the 12 Subcommittee chairs, wrote a letter to the Budget Conferees in which they call upon the Budget conference to reach an agreement as soon as possible because among other things: ``the current sequester and the upcoming 'Second Sequester' in January would result in more indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have negative consequences on critically important federal programs''.

The Appropriators go on to state that: ``The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by their elected representatives, not by a meat ax.''

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with Chairman Rogers and the Subcommittee chairs.

Sequestration is bad fiscal policy. It results in unwanted and unintended legislative consequences. It is bad for the economy. It is unfair to the American people and they know it.

According to an analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Third Way, the damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial.

Sequestration has cost the United States $179.4 billion in lost economic activity and more than 1.88 million jobs, which means the economy grew by -1.04% less than it would have otherwise.

The corresponding figures for my home state of Texas are $15.2 billion in lost economic activity and 153,541 jobs.

The human toll of the sequestration is even greater.

Texas, for example, will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk.

In addition about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding.

Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

Approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees in Texas may be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total.

Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.

More than 83,000 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment because Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning.

Up to 2300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job.

Because of sequestration, 9,730 fewer children in Texas will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations.

Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served.

Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events.

In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting in around 28,600 fewer HIV tests.

Mr. Chairman, I join with Chairman Rogers and the Subcommittee chairs in calling upon the Budget conference ``to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and 2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the appropriations process to move forward to completion by the January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing Resolution.''

I agree with them that if an agreement is not reached and sequestration remains in place, ``the likely alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.''

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us compounds the damage already being done by sequestration. It is for this reason that I urge all Members to join me in voting against H.R. 1900 as an unwise, unnecessary, and irresponsible measure.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I offer an amendment that responds, I believe, to the importance of the issue and also to the purpose of the underlying bill, and it deals with safety.

My amendment delays the date upon which the bill can be implemented until such time that the Federal Government is no longer operating under a budget dictated by the sequester, which some would call a ``meat-ax,'' that is dipping into and diving into the works of the Federal Government, such as agencies like FERC.

The likely impact of this bill, if passed, is to put FERC in a position of having to work faster, to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees, and to have a reduction in resources, thereby impacting safety and security, if I might say, because FERC, like virtually every other Federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the Nation and to our economy. I might add, Mr. Chairman, the important aspect of this is that the ultimate results will be, FERC, if you don't do your work, if you are not thoughtful, if you are not deliberative, we deem the approval.

There is no evidence that FERC is backlogged. This has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline, the procedures of which are in another agency altogether. So you would ask: What problem is this bill solving? None. Absolutely none. With a budget of $306 million--because of sequestration--and with a $15 million reduction in spending, 5 percent of FERC's budget is impacted. This is a bill seeking a solution to a problem that does not exist, and it is dangerous to have legislation that deems approval when the agency which has jurisdiction has not completed its investigation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, sequestration is not only impacting the whole of the work of FERC's; but, in actuality, sequestration is undermining the economy of the United States of America.

In my State alone, we have lost 153,000 jobs. The United States has lost 1 million jobs. It is so devastating that I offer to submit a letter for the Record from the Republican cardinals, dated November 18, 2013, calling upon the Budget Committee to rid us of the disastrous sequestration.

It indicates that we have a severe problem in sequestration. This legislation to expedite the approval of needed gas pipelines is, again, an initiative looking for a solution. Since fiscal year 2009, FERC has completed action on 92 percent of their pipeline applications. Mr. Chairman, there is no problem. There is no backlog. The idea that sequestration's impact is overstated is not true. According to an analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models and Third Way, the damage to the economy caused by sequestration is substantial.

I would also like to offer a personal story that deals with the impact far-reaching. It is the fact that pediatricians today are seeing babies who are malnourished. Because of these horrible cuts and the cuts in SNAP, mothers are putting water in the formula. It may be a far reach; but because we are under these horrible caps of sequestration, it is impacting the far reaches of government. Even babies are suffering and are malnourished because of sequestration.

So, if this bill passes today, my desire is--if it even goes anywhere, if it finds a problem that it is trying to solve--that it should not be implemented at all; but if it is implemented, it certainly should not burden an agency that has proven to do its work timely 92 percent of the time. It should not burden that agency by insisting that it goes into implementation right away. It should not be in until we have moved forward and have gotten rid of sequestration.

In conclusion, there are enormous amounts of human toll impact through social safety net and health education: 600,000 women and children thrown off WIC; 807,000 fewer hospitals for Native Americans; the national security impact of the U.S.'s ``let's prepare for WMD incidents.''

So I ask my colleagues not to support the underlying bill, but to support the Jackson Lee amendment--no action until sequestration is gone.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, straightforward, and practical. It simply postpones the effective date of the bill until the end of sequestration.

Although I share many of the concerns of my colleagues and the administration regarding the wisdom of this legislation, my amendment does not effect any change in the bill's regulatory scheme.

Because of sequestration the legislation would achieve the opposite effect intended by proponents.

In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more.

My amendment avoids this outcome by conditioning the effective date of this bill upon the termination of sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I am not alone in recognizing how detrimental sequestration has been to our fiscal policy and to the economy.

Earlier this week, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, joined by the 12 subcommittee chairs, wrote a letter to the budget conferees in which they call upon the budget conference to reach an agreement as soon as possible because, among other things: ``the current sequester and the upcoming `Second Sequester' in January would result in more indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have negative consequences on critically important federal programs''.

The appropriators go on to state that: ``The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by their elected representatives, not by a meat ax.''

Rather, my amendment merely delays the date upon which the bill can be implemented until such time as the Federal Government is no longer operating under a budget dictated by the ``meat ax,'' instead of a balanced plan of needful investment and deficit reduction.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days.

The likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources.

This is because FERC, like virtually every federal agency, is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the Nation and to our economy.

FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.

So if H.R. 1900 were to become law the most likely outcome is that FERC and other agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.

Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with Chairman Rogers and the subcommittee chairs.

Sequestration is bad fiscal policy. It results in unwanted and unintended legislative consequences. It is bad for the economy. It is unfair to the American people.

I urge support of the Jackson Lee Amendment because it will prevent the bill before us from yielding unwanted and unintended results.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Chairman, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Chris Van Hollen,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patty Murray,

Chairwoman, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Jeff Sessions,

Ranking Member, Budget Committee,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Ryan, Chairwoman Murray, Ranking Member

Sessions, and Ranking Member Van Hollen: We call on the

Budget conference to reach an agreement on the FY 2014 and

2015 spending caps as soon as possible to allow the

appropriations process to move forward to completion by the

January 15 expiration of the current short-term Continuing

Resolution. We urge you to redouble your efforts toward that

end and report common, topline levels for both the House and

Senate before the Thanksgiving recess, or by December 2 at

the latest.

If a timely agreement is not reached, the likely

alternatives could have extremely damaging repercussions.

First, the failure to reach a budget deal to allow

Appropriations to assemble funding for FY 2014 will reopen

the specter of another government shutdown. Second, it will

reopen the probability of governance by continuing

resolution, based on prior year outdated spending needs and

priorities, dismissing in one fell swoop all of the work done

by the Congress to enact appropriations bills for FY 2014

that reflect the will of Congress and the people we

represent. Third, the current sequester and the upcoming

``Second Sequester'' in January would result in more

indiscriminate across the board reductions that could have

negative consequences on critically important federal

programs, especially our national defense.

In addition, failure to agree on a common spending cap for

FY 2015 will guarantee another year of confusion.

The American people deserve a detailed budget blueprint

that makes rational and intelligent choices on funding by

their elected representatives, not by a meat ax. We urge you

to come together and decide on a common discretionary

spending topline for both FY 2014 and FY 2015 as quickly as

possible to empower our Committee, and the Congress as a

whole, to make the responsible spending decisions that we

have been elected to make.

Sincerely,

Harold Rogers, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations;

Jack Kingston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health

and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies;

Tom Latham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation,

and Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies; Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on

State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies; John

Abney Culberson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies;

John R. Carter, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland

Security; Tom Cole, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Legislative Branch; Frank R. Wolf, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies; Rodney Frelinghuysen, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Defense; Robert B. Aderholt, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies; Michael K.

Simpson, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development, and Related Agencies; Ander Crenshaw,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial Services and

General Government; Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, there are remaining issues of justice that this House must address.

First, let me offer my deepest sympathy to the people of the Philippines who, as you look at the landscape, 10 million people have been affected, 4,011 deaths, and 4.4 million people displaced. We must come together as a Nation and come together as a Congress and provide the resources. Let me salute the United States military and our marines who landed first who are a lifeline to those people. Let me say to them that we are with you.

Then I want to say that the Senate has addressed the justice issue ENDA for the LGBT community. How can we stand here on the precipice of honoring great leaders and not recognize that there are people who need human dignity? Pass ENDA now.

And let me pay tribute to the 50th year of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and salute him--yes, salute him--as one of the greatest leaders and visionaries--Camelot--who led this country and inspired this country to greatness and service. We owe a debt of gratitude and appreciation to the legacy of his family and to the service they have given.

To President John F. Kennedy, may he rest in peace and thank him for inspiring millions of people.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak of messages and missions yet undone. This Congress, both House and Senate, was sent here on behalf of the American people to ensure that their voices and their needs are adhered to. They are not interested in the clanging of voices; they are interested in the rolling up of sleeves and making sure our government works. So I stand here in reflection of a very successful enrollment day in Houston, Texas, last Saturday, where people came and stood in line to be able to seek information and, yes, enroll because they have faith in this Nation.

As the Affordable Care Act goes along and fixes broken promises and

broken technology, what we should be focused on is making it work for the American people. Making sure that those with preexisting disease can have insurance, young people with minimal income can have insurance, those between 50 and 65 can have insurance, and those with catastrophic illnesses can have insurance. I have faith that as we work through this, what is best for the American people is the choices they will have, and the fact that they will keep what they have and be able to enroll for a year is a response to the pain.

We know that the insurance companies did not need to send cancelation letters; they could have sent modification letters, but I want to go forward.

Things yet unfinished--one happens to be the enormity of gun violence among our young people that has been reflected in incidents in Houston, Texas; 19 shot, two dead, teenagers at a house party. This past weekend, one shot at a house party, who has lost his life. My sympathy to their families. I call out now for all of our forces, Federal, local, and State, PTOs and school districts, teachers, civic organizations and faith organizations, that we work together to be able to stop the surge of gun violence and the loss of our young people.

Statistics will show that in African American communities and Hispanic communities where there is homicide, that a high percentage is by a gun. So I would ask that we look seriously at legislation I introduced, H.R. 65, the gun storage and safety device bill, and a bill that also indicates, except for exceptions, that guns should not be in the hands of young people under the age of 21, and for someone who allows that to happen, there should be higher penalties on that individual.

I have been told by urban mayors that there are stash houses where people can go and rent guns. Let's not be afraid of background checks. More importantly, let's not be afraid of weeding out this horrible scourge on our community, and the deaths that families have to contend with.

Then, I think it is important to note that we have got to continue to speak on the issue of mental health needs. Tragedy occurred in Virginia, and the story that is unfolding saddens me because that story is similar to the one in Sandy Hook. The young perpetrator had issues they had to deal with in terms of their mental health. We have got to be able to provide more resources for beds for young people. We have got to intervene. We have got to help families. We have got to not run away from mental health issues, but run toward them.

Then I would like to make mention of those families who are suffering because their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over the last month has been cut. They are expecting in this budget coming forward that $40 billion will be on the table to be cut again.

I have visited my food banks. I took the SNAP challenge and ate on that budget. No one should call those folks deadbeats. And every time there is a deadbeat, you can be assured that person will be found out. I am concerned about the seniors and the young children that go to bed hungry, and one-half of those who get SNAP benefits, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, are in actuality children.

As we go toward this budget process deadline of December 13, let us have a sense of compassion. Let us have sources that will help us and the Department of Justice to be able to deal with this proliferation of guns, these Saturday night specials, these stash houses to help our children. Let's expand counseling and pronouncements by the local community that we are standing up against this violence that is attacking our children. Let's find dollars to help out local and State communities on resources for mental health.

Let me thank one of the leaders in my community, Patrick, who is a Vietnam veteran who has raised up the issue in Houston on the need for mental health beds and intervention, stories that I have heard in my own community where a grandfather took his grandchild to a county facility, they did not have a bed, and ultimately that grandchild stabbed and killed his grandfather and the grandfather's daughter.

We know that there are challenges, missions, and messages yet undone. Let's get to work on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the rule governing debate on this bill, H.R. 1900, the ``Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Act.''

Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday when we debated the other energy bills, I am not anti-energy exploration. I am not pro--or anti- fracking. I am, however strongly ``pro-jobs,'' ``pro-economic growth,'' and ``pro-sustainable environment.''

As a Member of Congress from Houston I have always been mindful of the importance of, and have strongly advocated for, national energy policies that will make our nation energy independent, preserve and create jobs, and keep our nation's economy strong.

That is why I carefully consider each energy legislative proposal brought to the floor on its individual merits and support them when they are sound, balanced, fair, and promote the national interest.

Where they fall short, I believe in working across the aisle to improve them if possible by offering constructive amendments.

Although I believe the nation would benefit by increased pipeline capacity to transport our abundant supplies of natural gas, the legislation before contains several provisions that are of great concern to me.

Pursuant to Section 2, paragraph (4) of the bill, a permit or license for a natural gas pipeline project is ``deemed'' approved if the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies do not issue the permit or license within 90-120 days.

I have three concerns with this regulatory scheme.

First, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact.

Thus, the provision is unwise.

Second, this provision is a remedy in search of a problem. There is no lengthy or intolerable backlog of neglected natural gas pipeline projects awaiting action by FERC.

The provision is unnecessary because FERC has, since fiscal year 2009, completed action on 92 percent (504 out of 548) of all pipeline applications that it has received within one year of receipt. And the remaining 8% of decisions that have taken longer than one year involve complex proposals that merit additional review and consideration.

Third, the provision is irresponsible because would require FERC to and other agencies to make decisions based on incomplete information or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time.

Compounding the problem is that the fact that FERC like virtually every federal agency is operating under the onerous and draconian provisions of the disastrous sequestration which has caused so much misery and disruption across the nation and to our economy.

FERC, for example, with a budget of $306 million faces a $15 million reduction in spending authority this fiscal year, according to OMB. That sum amounts to 5% of FERC's budget.

So the likely impact of this bill if passed is to put FERC in the position of having to work faster to issue decisions with fewer experienced employees and a reduction in resources.

Given the inherent dangers involved in the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline, does anyone doubt that this state of affairs is likely to lead to FERC to err on the side of caution and deny applications that may otherwise been approved if it had more time and more resources to carry out its responsibilities?

Mr. Speaker, we should not take that chance. That is why I offered an amendment, which the Rules Committee made in order, to suspend the effectiveness of this legislation so long as sequestration is in effect. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment when it comes to the floor later this week.