Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

There is much happening in Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots completed their elections on Sunday, July 28, and a new government must now be formed.

I congratulate them for this exercise in the democratic process, which has been a major focus on the northern part of the island. Meanwhile, the Greek Cypriot government has been going through a period of economic turmoil and restructuring that has dominated public debate.

It is my hope that when matters settle down in the months ahead, the two sides will be able to resume productive reunification talks that resolve longstanding issues about the structure of government and the quality of life on the island of Cyprus.

From March 2008 through May 2012, serious reunification talks occurred, often under the direct supervision of former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. These talks have been suspended for more than a year through the economic crises faced by the island, but there is some room for hope that discussions can restart this fall.

I rise today to urge this Administration to promote such discussions and join in the efforts to reach a reunification agreement on the island of Cyprus that benefits both Cypriot communities.

Such progress will be of great benefit to the world community. It will also directly serve to remove a source of friction between two NATO allies, Turkey and Greece. It is my hope that a bizonal, bicommunal federation agreement that establishes a strong, functioning democracy can be reached in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to work together. You can poll any one of them that is coming through these halls as tourists, as Americans, and I know they want us to work together.

I think it is important that we announce to the American people that we will immediately get rid of sequester and stop the laying off of valuable Defense Department workers and Health and Human Services workers, people who help generate the economy because of the work that they do in places beyond the beltway, government workers who are servants of the people.

We need to get rid of sequester and begin to fund those child care seats that have been lost, those Meals on Wheels, and Medicare resources for our seniors. We need to stop playing around with the budget.

We need to insist that the bills of the American people be paid through raising the debt ceiling, and not in an angry manner, but recognizing our responsibilities.

We know that the NSA has been looked at. I stand here as someone who will stand on behalf of the civil liberties and civil rights of Americans. I have introduced an intelligence bill to review the enormous number of contractors that are being used to give top secret credibility and, as well, to do our outsourcing of our work.

I have introduced a bill dealing with the FISA Court, to release the FISA Court opinions, because I believe it is important for the American people to know and be protected in their civil liberties.

Finally, ObamaCare is one that I am proud to be supporting because it helps small businesses. It helps those who don't have care, and it provides for young people to have health coverage. ObamaCare serves the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who preceded me for that very powerful message; and it reminds us generally of, really, the elements of our presence here in this House. When we represent the people of this country, it is important that we are lawmakers and that we have the compassion that was evidenced by the movement that Dr. King led and by the movement that he was leading at the time of the tragedy of his death and that was, of course, the Poor People's March in 1968.

I rise today to discuss that capacity and to say that I know that our friends, Republicans and Democrats, can come together around important service elements that this Nation engages in. The Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy day. It is the engine of the economy. It is the answer to issues such as transportation and housing. It really provides housing to working families. It boosts the middle class and poor families, and it gives jobs to builders and contractors. So that is why, I think, it was quite appropriate for this, unfortunately, poorly driven and constructed Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill to go to its timely death.

How can you with any compassion cut so much money that you cut even the amount of money under the present budget, and you cut 9 percent below the level now mandated by the across-the-board spending cuts by sequestration?

You went below that. This bill was $44.1 billion--shameful--cutting public housing, cutting housing vouchers, cutting opportunities for the homeless, and particularly for our young people. As the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, every day, I note that children in America suffer for a variety of reasons. The Senate, of course, had a bill, which they are pushing through, that was at the $54 billion level--still very far short of the great needs of this community.

So I rise today to say that it landed with a thud, and I think, more importantly, my colleague from Texas--again, from Houston--spoke on the floor of the House about some untimely language on page 52--I remember it--that cut into the light rail system of Houston. It would impact my district. It would stop students at the University of Houston and at Texas Southern University from being able to have access to rail by cutting down on their travel costs because there was a provision in the bill that did not fund just a sector of that light rail.

My colleagues, how can you build light rail when you cut it in the middle, almost like the western movies, where the train rushes up and finds a big hole over the mountains where something has happened and it can't go any further?

It was a bill that was destined to die and should have died because it lacked compassion. I stand here opposing any language that does not fund or find an alternative route in any community's light rail new starts on which that community chooses to move forward. In Houston, we should not be attacked, if you will, for that kind of singular targeting. Our light rail should proceed.

I rise today to again reinforce this question of homelessness by showing this picture, which sates, ``Houston seeks better ways to serve homeless youth,'' and to be able to indicate that in trying to count homeless youth, they were only able to count a tenth, 378. When Houston's leadership went out on streets to try and count them, there were over 4,000. Our school districts say there are 19,000. Yet, we have a home called Little Audrey that the very public dollars that are supposed to be in the HUD funding could fund. We have a directive housing community development near Ratcliff that has a million dollars that could fund this particular facility. Mind you, in a city as large as Houston, there are only four for homeless youth.

I visited Little Audrey. These are the kind of young people who are there:

A young man who lived in a crack house not because he was on crack, but because he had no place else to live. He's found his way to Little Audrey; or the twins whose father died in Hurricane Katrina, were brought here by their mother to Houston, and then the mother died and they were homeless; or a young woman who was abused; or a young man who came and was put out of his house, from Dallas.

Little Audrey is a refuge that would be as helpful to the children that I met with and sat down with as this young man is being helped by Covenant House. Covenant House cannot do it alone. So it is important that communities who receive the public dollars, who, given the opportunity such as the public facilities dollars that the Housing and Community Development office has in the city of Houston, utilize it so we do not have this kind of shame in our community.

I look forward to working with the city Housing and Community Development and the Secretary of Housing to stop youth homelessness in America and to helping these young people. I know we can do it together.

Mr. Speaker, this is a picture of a homeless young person; 19,000 of them are in Houston, according to 28 school districts. And just think, on the floor of the House before it went thud, there was a housing bill that cut the housing appropriation for homeless and veterans and working Americans to $44.1 billion. But more importantly, under the sequestration amount offered by the Republicans, even the Senate, in a compromise manner, put it at $54 billion.

So I rise today to ask, is anyone speaking for these young people, such as those who reside in a place called Lil Audrey in my district, where I sat down with young people who had lived in a crack house, not because they were on crack, but because that was a place for them to live until they found Lil Audrey? Or the young lady that was abused until she found Lil Audrey? Or the twins who were homeless with no parents until they found Lil Audrey?

I'm going to ask the city of Houston to use its public facilities money, money that it has been blessed to have from the Federal Government Housing and Urban Development, to help build a facility for Lil Audrey, and I'm going to insist that when local communities get Federal dollars that we fight so hard for, to be able to use them creatively to serve people, to serve the taxpayer, to serve the homeless, to serve homeless youth.

How long are we going to have to cry out for young people who suffer from mental concerns and others who have no place to live? I hope Houston will listen, and I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle will have mercy on those who need housing.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his distinguished leadership and friendship, and the chairman of the full committee, because I believe that it is fair to have a difference of opinion. It is also fair to say that there are times when we have a great opportunity to work together.

I believe the gentleman mentioned my tenure on the Judiciary Committee, so let me document for my colleagues: the REINS Act goes around and around and around and around. It is constantly repeated and reintroduced, and it constantly fails.

For the new Members, my friends on the other side of the aisle who are standing up and talking about what a great impact this would have, they are using old data and misinterpretation, for there is no real documentation that the REINS Act is going to stop $1.5 trillion in excess cost. In fact, the authors of the study that my friends are using--the study was assessed by the Congressional Research Service.

I know when I speak to the American people and my colleagues they want to debunk all of this procedure and say ``enough is enough.'' But the CRS showed that the study was flawed, but more importantly, the author said: ``We never intended for this to determine benefits to regulation. Our studies have nothing to do with it.''

We cannot document the $1.5 trillion or the billions of dollars that our friends say that they're going to lose. They know full well that there is a procedure of disapproval that Congress can respond to the needs and the questions of the American public.

What they do not tell you is that this procedure--oh, I hate to talk about it. Please let me apologize. If you hear it, your eyes will roll back in your head, for what has to happen now is that the agency is doing its work. The DOD, Health and Human Services, the Department of Education are doing their work under existing law. They are trying to work on clean air and clean

water, safe toys, safe cars, and safe workplaces.

By the way, I offered an amendment to exempt children's regulations for babies who are 2 and under, and I was denied by the majority, by the Republican Rules Committee, so that babies who need safe cribs and toys now have to have this happen. Unless both Houses of Congress pass a joint resolution--let me tell you how long that might take--2 years, 3 years, five sessions, who knows--and then such rule within a fixed 70-legislative-day period, it kicks over into the next Congress. In the meantime, babies' heads are driven through cribs.

Those of us who are mothers know that era. It hasn't stopped. Each time, you have to look at the technology of cribs--or of toys that they choke on--and be able to discern how newborns are impacted. The Consumer Product Safety Commission can't effectively put a regulation in. Mothers understand that. Can you imagine a resolution of two Houses of Congress? Right now, we can't even get a budget resolution going forward.

I will tell you what the American people want us to do. It's not the REINS Act, which goes around and around. I think it was in the 112th Congress and in the 111th Congress. We are now in the 113th, and we will do it in the 114th. It does not save money. The American people want a solution-based budgeting process. They want us to go back to the budget reconciliation. They want us to stop laying off, as my good friend from Connecticut said, hardworking Defense workers, hardworking Homeland Security workers, hardworking Department of Education workers, who are trying to help this country be better. They want us to reduce the deficit. I will raise my hand for that. That is a good thing. They want us to create jobs, and they want us to be fair to the middle class.

I come from Texas. One of the worst disasters ever to occur was in West, Texas--the tragedy and the devastation of the loss of our fellow Americans in an explosion that should not have happened. What was the cry? What was the Federal Government doing? What was the regulatory scheme in order to prevent whatever ignited that terrible tragedy to see the loss of first responders?

The Federal Government is an umbrella on a rainy day. Fix the problems of regulation one by one. If there is one that is undermining small businesses, we are happy to do the disapproval process, and you can be assured that the voices of the American people will cry out. I can tell you that there is no proof--no legitimacy, no documentation-- but anecdotal stories of, I hate the Federal Government. I don't hate the Federal Government. I pledge allegiance to this great flag and to this great Nation. I love my country. Therefore, I understand that it is the umbrella on a rainy day.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for his kindness.

Mr. Chairman, the reason we had to reassess the Army Corps of Engineers and have a regulatory scheme is that we lost almost 1,000- plus individuals in Hurricane Katrina. It wasn't the hurricane that had come through; it was the dam that broke. I know it well because I walked those streets of the Ninth Ward, and I saw the babies' shoes and the clothing hanging on closets and the whole area that was literally destroyed and that killed 1,000 people.

It's the regulatory structure of what kind of oversight was given, what regulatory structure the Army Corps was working under, what oversight they gave, what the regulation period was in which they had to review these kinds of structures around America. Then people wanted us to get in and get something accomplished. So I am just perplexed that there is no evidence whatsoever that this will create jobs, and it does not answer, by any means, how this government can work better.

I started to say to the gentleman from Tennessee that we all love this country--we pledge allegiance to the flag in our schools and in this body--and I wish my friends on the other side of the aisle would find some other way that we could work together. They talk about Obama administration regulations. My friends, they have been submitting this over and over again. These regulations have been carried forward from the Bush administration. This is not from the Obama administration.

Let me close by saying that I want clean air, that I want clean water, that I want our babies to be safe in their cribs and playpens. I am appalled that they put this legislation on the floor as something new when this is as old as Methuselah and, I might say, has limited value. As we would say in Texas, it's something that would be very doubtful. I'll leave it at that because we usually talk Texan in Texas, and I'm not there now.

What I will tell you is that we have ways of explaining how things are not relevant. This is not relevant, and it does not equate to a State legislature at all. This is for the United States of America. You cannot put the REINS Act in place and talk about jobs. I simply ask that we defeat this bill and pass these amendments that have been offered by Democrats, who want to make sure that we address the question of the American people.

I leave this podium by saying to the gentleman from Tennessee: Is it ludicrous to place as a responsibility of the Congress a 70-day window for two Houses to pass a resolution when we did not and were not able to pass a student loan effort for months and months, which, by the way, was made better by Senate Democrats? Is it reasonable?

Congress adopted the current system over a hundred years ago because it recognized the necessity of assigning the job of crafting appropriate regulations to the scientific, economic, legal, and other experts in agencies. The REINS Act is an extreme departure from current procedures designed only to stymie the development of regulations with which the industry does not want to comply.

The current system of administrative agencies of the federal government began more than 100 years ago, and developed through the 20th century. It was codified in its present form in the Administrative Procedures Act. The REINS Act guts this precedent, and replaces it with insurmountable hurdles.

Congress already has the power to stop regulations if extreme circumstances dictate under the Congressional Review Act. The REINS Act requires agencies to submit new final rules to Congress for review, delaying the effective date of those rules to permit Congress to block them, and establishes a fast-track process for legislation proposed to overrule a regulation.

The bill would make it virtually impossible for an approval resolution to pass because it does not entirely prohibit a filibuster. Since the bill does not clearly prohibit a filibuster in the Senate, more specifically it does not prohibit a filibuster on a motion to take up a matter, it would empower a few, or even one Senator, to block regulations.

The legislation gives Congress a short 70-day window to approve a regulation, and if either chamber fails to do so during that time period, the regulation is deemed to have been rejected, and Congress is barred from subsequently voting to approve the regulation or one ``substantially similar'' to it for the remainder of that Congress. The 70-day requirement will make it next to impossible for any regulations to be approved.

Resolutions approving regulations would first have to be cleared by committees. The vast majority of bills introduced in Congress die in committee, and there is no reason to believe that new regulations wouldn't suffer the same fate.

Claims about so-called ``job-killing'' regulations are a fabrication, a reiteration of the same doomsday rhetoric that has been used to oppose virtually every major step forward for health and safety. In actuality, the REINS Act is about giving representatives of industry more opportunities to kill regulations they find inconvenient, posing a great detriment to public safety and health.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close?

Is it the proponent or the author of the amendment?

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues. Whenever they engage in debate, I know they have a serious commitment to the process of this House and this Nation.

But I rise today to offer an amendment, and I hope that it addresses the chairman's offer of legislative collegiality. If this is such an important effort, then I believe that the amendments that have been offered by my colleagues, and the one that I introduce as we speak, are ones that makes this bill reasonable.

My amendment would except from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security organized and established in the backdrop of the heinous and tragic terrorist act of 9/11. In fact, I can't imagine this legislation being effective in the midst of tragedy and devastation.

I don't think my friend understands that there's nothing in the REINS Act that prevents a filibuster. A filibuster means that we will never get a resolution voted on by the two Houses--never--because it does not negate a filibuster.

So in the midst of a crisis, where people are in need of relief by the Department of Homeland Security, such as the Department of Homeland Security having to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations in the protection of critical infrastructure, here it comes, the dastardly REINS Act. I think we would be better off right now to be debating H.R. 900 to eliminate the sequestration to bring jobs back to America.

But I hope that this amendment will be considered, because I can't imagine the very Department that was established to put its foot in the gap now is going to be hindered by the REINS Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Thank you.

To the contrary, to my good friend from Virginia, the bill does not entirely prohibit a filibuster. In fact, a filibuster can be used on the procedural motion to bring the bill up, and in the Senate they can never bring this up.

So let me remind my friends:

Galveston, 6,000 people dead and climbing, 1900; Hurricane Katrina, one of the 10 worst, killing 1,836 in 2005; 1980, a heat wave in the southern and central States killing 1,700; Chicago heat wave in 1995.

Disasters that need the relief that the American people deserve.

This tells us what we will be facing while a filibuster is going on in the Senate. This is a map only of this year. Already disasters in Washington State with mud slides, Oklahoma with tornados, Arizona with wildfires, Miami with mud slides.

Then they want to block Homeland Security from developing regulations for infrastructure, they want to stop what is going on with Hurricane Sandy and the repair that is needed and the infrastructure with something called the REINS Act, which, as I said earlier, goes around and around and around.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman pointed us out to pages 12 to 14, because he indicated a number of procedural hula hoops that we have to jump through. Each of those procedural hula hoops will be subject to a filibuster.

But this is what the American people go through: Here is a tornado or an earthquake, here is Hurricane Sandy. There are a variety of issues that it results in. Here is a wildfire.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Let me thank the gentleman.

I would like to ask my colleagues to be sensible and realize that you cannot control the other body.

This amendment is a sensible amendment that responds to the outcry of wildfires, tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes. The American people are looking for the Department of Homeland Security to be able to focus on the infrastructure repair, the regulatory scheme and structure to respond to an emergency.

This bill does not deal with emergencies. It deals with an elongated process that, unfortunately, will drown, if you will, the people with a regulatory structure that does not provide them with the relief that first responders need or the people need.

I ask my colleagues of this House to be sensible and vote for the Jackson Lee amendment.

My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to an emergency.

The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk.

The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk.

According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs.

There is no need for this legislation, aside from the need of some of my colleagues to protect corporate interests. This bill would make it more difficult for the government to protect its citizens, and in the case of the Department of Homeland Security, it endangers the lives of our citizens.

In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill.

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we have overhauled the government in ways never done before. Steps have been taken to ensure that the communication failures that led to 9/11 do not happen again. The Department of Homeland Security has helped push the United States forward in how protect our nation. Continuing to make advance in Homeland security and intelligence is the best way to combat the threats we still face.

The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security.

In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States.

We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, manageable, and cause the least possible damage.

Like other national security challenges in the post 9/11 era, the cyber threat is multifaceted

and without boundaries. Some cyber attackers are foreign nations' that utilize their military or intelligence-gathering operations, whereas others are either operating alone or are connected to terrorist groups. In addition, there are cyber threats that are international or domestic criminal enterprises.

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to USCERT has increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 400 percent increase).

The four most prevalent types of cyber incidents and events reported to US-CERT during FY 2009 were malicious code; improper usage; unauthorized access and incidents warranting further investigations (unconfirmed malicious or anomalous activity).

Critical infrastructure in the nation is composed of public and private institutions in the sectors of agriculture, food, water, public health, emergency services, government, defense industrial base, information and telecommunications, energy, transportation, banking and finance, chemicals and hazardous materials, and postal and shipping.

With cyberspace as their central nervous system--it is the control system of our country. Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work. Thus, the healthy, secure, and efficient functioning of cyberspace is essential to both our economy and our national security.

In light of an attack that threatens the United State's cyber protection, Homeland Security officials may need to issue emergency regulations quickly. Attacks can be sent instantly in cyber space, and the protection of our critical infrastructure cannot be mitigated by cumbersome bureaucracy.

The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to do its job?

The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from these threats.

Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is the one of the busiest.

More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2011, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS.

If Coast Guard intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents, by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill.

The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response.

There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents.

Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We can hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people.

I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to ensure that life saving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with my good friend who has offered this amendment, which is even more extreme.

I proceeded to read the sections that my good chairman referred me to on how expeditious this process would be in the United States Senate. It's unworkable. How does anyone think that the Senate is going to pass this bill? They've never passed it because what it says is that you're going to kick the resolution out of committee, that you're going to discharge it, and then you're going to move it beyond all of their rules. You're literally abolishing the Senate's rules that they have not redone themselves. They never got an agreement on ending a filibuster, so I have no idea as to issues of security and safety as it relates to homeland security or of the issues dealing with fuel and greenhouse gases, which have decidedly impacted positively the American people as it relates to emissions.

Now we're going from $100 million to $50 million, which, I hate to say, in a country of this size means that we are going to multiply the number of resolutions on this body that has really been slow in the passing of any legislation. Then we are going to move to the Senate, and we are going to tell the Senate committees, If you don't act in 15 days, we're discharging this. Then we will expect the Senate to pass this bill, which is the only way that it's going to get to the President's desk.

I might also say to my good friend from Tennessee, over and over again, we keep talking about what President Obama's administration has done. If this is about President Obama, that's one thing. If this is about creating jobs, the President has offered the American Jobs Act, and we have introduced a bill that has been calculated to have helped create jobs and stop the bleeding of the economy.

I am glad my good friend talked about the success of the Dow. That translates into jobs if we get rid of the sequester. There is a bill that will get rid of it, H.R. 900, offered by Mr. Conyers, which many of us have cosponsored. Where is the debate on the floor of the House of that?

I would simply say that we are now going from the extreme to the very extreme, and you're going to see a pounding of regulations. Moms and dads and children--families--municipalities, places need clean air, clean water. They need better emissions to the extent that it helps with clean air. They need safety. They need security. Now we are going to pile it up with those that may cost $50 million.

How absurd is that in terms of the legislative schedule of this place and the legislative schedule of the United States Senate? Now, I'm not saying anyone is going to shuck off any work--we welcome that--but you have the regular order of legislation. Then every time an amendment comes up--now $50 million--then you're going to say that this must kick in.

I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment because it simply will not work.

I'm just delighted to be able to say that the leadership of the Senate realized that the Republican bill would have overwhelmed our young people.

I was just talking to someone just a few minutes ago, and they were saying we need to have a commitment that every person that graduates from college has a job. We should also have a commitment that every young person that wants to go to school and get a higher education should not be burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt.

For over 2 years, our good friend, Mr. Courtney from Connecticut, Democrats, the Education Committee, and Mr. Miller have been begging on behalf of the American children to not cause them to pay this enormous amount but to hold the interest rates for middle class families and working families at 3.4 percent. And we struggled. There were many discussions in the United States Senate. And the reason why they continue to struggle is because they wanted to make sure that the victory came out for those young people of working parents and middle class parents. That's why we're here today--because they held out and we held out. Now we're glad to be in a bipartisan mode. But it's important to note that this was a struggle.

If we pass this bill and get it on the President's desk, the 3.6 percent or so will be held. As we go forward over the years, we'll have a measured increase. Not a high increase to market rates or rates higher than that, but a measured increase or 3, 4, or 6 percent. And then some 5 years out, when it reaches about 7 percent, we'll have the ability as a Congress to come back and look. Because we should not burden our students to the point where they cannot get an education.

We all are created equal. Maybe education is not written in the Constitution, but certainly the opportunity for the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the opportunity for education must be protected.

This is a crucial difference between the bipartisan Senate bill of $11,000. The current law right now is $14,000. And what the House Republican bill passed was almost $17,000.

Mr. Speaker, this is a relief. This is to be applauded. And I'm delighted that we have finally come to our senses.

Today the House of Representatives will have a second chance to get Student Loans right. This is an opportunity to relieve the fears and anxiety of families of college bound students across the nation by passing H.R. 1911--the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. By passing this legislation the Congress can take a concrete step toward restoring the economic security, educational opportunities, and peace of mind of America's students.

The goal of our nation should be to educate our youth to reach their greatest potential in life. A good education should be accessible and affordable to all of your young people.

For too long, millions of America's best and brightest have been waiting for Congress to find a responsible solution to rising student loan interest rates. While House Republicans have insisted on saddling students with even more debt, the bipartisan legislation we passed today seeks to ease that burden.

This bipartisan compromise offers hardworking students and families critical protections, reduces rates on all new loans this year, and saves undergraduates $1,500 on average over the life of their loans.

The plan caps market-based interest rates, ensuring students won't bear the brunt of skyrocketing rates in the future. While the House Republican bill considered earlier this year only offered uncertainty, insecurity, and more debt for our students, the Senate compromise that we are considering today will restore a sense of security for nearly 11 million Americans who are seeking a better life through higher education.

The passage of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, Congress made historic investments in student aid. The law did what Congress should always do when considering the needs of students seeking education to improve their chances of success. This bill halved interest rates on need-based federal student loans to 3.4 percent-- making these loans more affordable for low- and middle-income students. If Congress doesn't act before July, the rate will jump back up to 6.8 percent, making it much more difficult for many American students and their families to afford a college education.

I represent colleges and universities in my District who serve the higher education needs of tens of thousands of Houstonians and others who come to our city for its education opportunities.

A college education should not be only for the lucky few, but should be available to all of those with skill and determination. Given the opportunity, millions of young and older Americans would access higher education to provide their families with a more certain financial future, while also strengthening our nation's economic and national defense human capital. A college degree is also becoming essential to a growing number of jobs in the 21st century economy.

STEM Education Statistics

STEM workers earn 26 percent more than non-STEM graduates.

By 2018 we will need: 710,000 Computing workers, 160,000 Engineers, 70,000 Physical Scientists, 40,000 Life Science workers, and 20,000 Mathematics workers.

STEM Computing Jobs are critical to America's future: Software engineers, Computer networking workers, Systems analysis, and Computer researcher or support workers.

College student STEM retention according to the President's report is improved when students have the proper peer and instructor support system, which is what Superintendent Dr. Soner Tarim has done at each of the area's 17 Harmony Schools.

By providing access to an affordable education we are eliminating the shortage in two ways by: (1) creating opportunities for Americans to prepare for STEM careers, and (2) by welcoming those from other countries who choose to study and remain in the United States to work.

According to the Association for Computing Machinery K-12 computer science education as a component of STEM education would help students have a deeper understanding of the fundamentals of computing, which is a critical foundational knowledge for a wide range of education needs for other STEM education programs and future jobs.

We know that fewer than 40 percent of new college students enter College intending to get a STEM related degree. This is not good enough for America--we need to do much better.

By making college more affordable and accessible we could increase the retention of the STEM degree majors from 40 percent to 50 percent, if we reach this goal the nation can meet three fourths of the 1 million STEM workers we will need.

Minority college students who major in STEM higher education make 25 percent more than minority graduates with non-STEM educations. Minority students who take STEM jobs make 50 percent more than minority non-STEM graduates.

Students and families cannot wait any longer to know how much they will owe on their student loans in the coming academic year. Making college more affordable is critical to sustaining America's economic competiveness. Business leaders know it is vital for the workforce of tomorrow to get an education beyond high school. If more of today's students cannot afford college, businesses will not have the workers with the education and training they need to keep our economy competitive and dynamic far into the future.

I urge my colleagues in joining me in support of this Student Loan legislation.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and wish to express my appreciation to Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Young and Ranking Member Visclosky for their skillful leadership in shepherding H.R. 2397, the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2014, to the floor.

This body has no greater obligation than to ensure that our men and women in uniform, and those civilians who support them, have the resources needed to keep our country safe. I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for crafting a bill that keeps faith with our obligation to those who risk their lives to protect our freedoms.

Madam Chair, let me also express my appreciation to my friend and colleague, Congressman Amash, and to Congressman Conyers, the gentleman from Michigan and the Ranking Member of Judiciary Committee, for their good and hard work in fashioning the bipartisan amendment before us. Their work on the Amash-Conyers amendment is an example of what can be accomplished when members put aside partisanship and work across the aisle in an effort to come up with workable solutions to serious problems.

Madam Chair, the Amash-Conyers Amendment to H.R. 2397 prohibits the use of appropriated funds execute any order issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) that does not include the following sentence:

This Order limits the collection of any tangible things

(including telephone numbers dialed, telephone numbers of

incoming calls, and the duration of calls) that may be

authorized to be collected pursuant to this Order to those

tangible things that pertain to a person who is the subject

of an investigation described in 501 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).

The Amash-Conyers Amendment was prompted by the recent unauthorized disclosures regarding the National Security Agency's collection from Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering operation was swift and negative. There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and a large percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of this NSA data collection operation, which exceeded by orders of magnitude anything previously authorized or contemplated, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threat to the civil liberties of American citizens.

To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National Intelligence declassified and released limited information about this program.

According to the DNI, the program does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone's phone calls. Nor does the information acquired include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber.

The DNI stated that ``the only type of information acquired under the Court's order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.'' The DNI stated that the data collection was ``broad in scope because more narrow collection would limit our ability to screen for and identify terrorism-related communications. Acquiring this information allows us to make connections related to terrorist activities over time.''

As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have long been committed to safeguarding and protecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans. Indeed, in 2001 I voted against the Patriot Act on the House floor because I was concerned that it did not contain sufficient protections to safeguard civil liberties, after it was rewritten from the bipartisan committee product that had strong civil liberties' protections.

I am also a charter member of the Homeland Security Committee, which is charged with the indispenable role of providing direction, guidance, and oversight to the Department of Homeland Security so that it fulfills its mission of keeping the homeland safe. So I am very familiar and sensitive to the inherent tensions between liberty and security.

I believe the questions raised by supporters of the Amash/Conyers Amendment about the NSA metadata program are legitimate, particularly the question whether there are sufficient protections for Americans' civil liberties. On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment would also have the effect of precluding the use of section 501 to obtain an individual order for any business record (not just telephone data) about a person associated with someone who is the subject of an authorized investigation because of the defunding.

Madam Chair, striking the appropriate balance between the competing interests of national security and civil liberties requires thoughtful and careful deliberation. I believe that decisions of this scope and moment should be made in the regular legislative process where they are first vetted by the committees of jurisdiction which have the resources and expertise to examine the issues carefully, debate them fully, and to compile a legislative record that will enable the House to render a wise and informed judgment.

Because a funds limitation provision on an appropriations bill is poorly suited for this purpose, I do not support the Amash/Conyers Amendment. In contrast, I support and am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2399, the ``Limiting Internet and Blanket Electronic Review of Telecommunications and Email Act of 2013'' (``LIBERT-E'' Act''), introduced by Congressmen Conyers and Amash and look forward to working with them and Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that this legislation is considered under regular order by the Judiciary Committee.

Similarly, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, markup, and report favorably to the House H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' bipartisan legislation I introduced last month that will bring much needed transparency without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or ``FISA Court.'' Specifically, my legislation, which is the House counterpart to bipartisan companion bill introduced in the Senate:

requires the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the PATRIOT ACT and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance needed to keep Americans safe;

addresses national security concerns by providing that if a decision of the FISA Court cannot be declassified without undermining national security interest, then the Attorney General shall disclose a summary of the opinion;

provides that if the Attorney General determines that even a summary of opinion would endanger national security interests, the Attorney General shall to provide a report to Congress describing the process to be implemented to declassify FISA Court opinions; and

requires the Attorney General to provide an estimate of the number of opinions that will be declassified and the number that are expected to be withheld because of national security concerns.

Madam Chair, it is critically important that legislation adopted by the House strike the proper balance between national security interests and protection of civil rights and liberties and the public's right to know. My legislation H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' strikes the proper balance.

More important, by considering this legislation in regular order instead of during the truncated and expedited proceeding that is a funding limitation amendment to an appropriations bill, the danger of making an incorrect decision can be avoided and the likelihood of reaching an informed and carefully calibrated decision that will enjoy the support of a majority of the Congress and the public will be increased substantially.

For these reasons, Madam Chair, I must reluctantly oppose the Amash- Conyers Amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in favor of adoption of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2014.

I thank Chairman C.W. Bill Young and Ranking Member Pete Visclosky, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense for their work to provide for our nation's national defense.

I also want to extend thanks and appreciation to the men and women in and out of uniform to defend our nation. You serve your nation with honor and distinction. In each generation our nation must remember that the freedoms that we enjoy come at a price, which you have paid without hesitation or complaint.

Each year the Congress takes on the tasks of providing appropriations for the nation's defense. The Appropriations subcommittee that focuses exclusively on the work of the Department of Defense is the subject matter experts who manage the long process that resulted in the bill before us for consideration. As members of the House of Representatives we are each subject matter experts on the committees that we serve, but we are also experts on the constituencies we seek to represent.

My work in the 18th Congressional District has allowed me the privilege of working with men and women in the military, the workers in aeronautics and space industries that contribute to our nation's defense as well as those in the Department of Defense who work in and around our nation's capitol.

Through my work as a member of Congress I know those who have served and returned home to a tough economy, struggles with physical disabilities and life changing injuries associated with their service to our nation. I do not know the military as a mass of statistics, but individuals with names and faces--real people who depend on each of us to pursue their best interest.

I know you know that none of our offices received calls from lobbyist on behalf of the men and women who serve in defense of our nation in and out of uniform. That is why we must rely upon our own experience and that of the Appropriations' Subcommittee on Defense to reach the best result in a very long and arduous legislative process.

Military families make sacrifices with long separations of parents from spouses and children that last for over a year. Many miss some of the important moments in their children's lives when they are deployed when they have young children. The Defense Appropriations bill includes $580 million for a military pay raise consistent with the raise included in the House Armed Services bill for a 1.8 percent increase.

I am pleased to say that this Defense Appropriations bill does a great deal more for the men and women serving in the military and places more focus on the needs of their families. This bill maintains the objective of previous Congresses to assure that our nation's military is the best trained, best prepared, best equipped, and best cared for fighting force in the history of the world. That is the least we can do for those who willingly risk their lives to keep us safe.

The bill also recognizes that the military is changing due to the expanded roles for women who pursue careers in the armed services. I strongly believe that this choice should not mean a diminution of rights or opportunities from what they would enjoy these women had pursued a different career path.

For this reason, I sought and the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense provided $150 million for a Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program. The program fills a unique niche among private and public funding sources for cancer research and presents an

opportunity to forging new ideas and scientific breakthroughs in the nation's fight against breast cancer.

My work to expand the Department of Defense ability to provide assistance and support for medical research related to breast cancer included Jackson Lee Amendment #1 which provided $500,000 in increased funding for breast cancer research, which was adopted by the Full House. This additional funding raised the amount in the bill to $130 million and will be made available for Triple Negative Breast Cancer research. Triple Negative Breast Cancer is one of the most deadly forms of the disease that is extremely difficult to detect, and has an extremely high mortality rate.

The threat of sexual assault of both women and men serving in the armed services is a real threat to unit cohesion and professional conduct among the ranks. The troubling aspects of the stories we have heard is the lack of comprehension of the traumatic nature of this crime among superior officers in a position to help. The Defense Department Appropriations bill offers an additional $25 million for a new Sexual Assault Special Victims Program in addition to fully funding request of $156.5 million for a Defense-Wide and the Military Service Program which I strongly support.

I sought and the Appropriations Committee provided $80 million in funding for a Prostate cancer program to be included in the final bill at 100 percent of the requested amount. The most prevalent type cancer in men, and second most diagnosed cancer in the nation, kills over thirty thousand people per year.

Veterans, especially those exposed to defoliants have been identified as being more prone to this disease. Research on prostate cancer will lead to better early diagnostic tools as well as better treatments and improvements to quality of life for prostate cancer survivors.

The unique nature of combat can produce illnesses that threaten health and life expectancy. This is why I requested $25 million and the Committee provided $20 million or 80 percent of my request to fund a Gulf War Illness Research Program, GWIRP. The bill provides $20 million in funding to support the identification of treatments and diagnostic markers for Gulf War Illness, a chronic multi-symptom illness with no effective treatment affecting 250,000 Gulf War veterans. Treatments will benefit military personnel at risk of similar neurotoxic exposures. The FY14 program funded by this bill will fund studies of promising treatments and larger clinical trials of treatments previously shown to be effective.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 that was adopted by the full House under debate of the bill offered additional funds from $10 million provided by a transfer to an account that could be used to support work to assist military persons suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders, PTSD. As we look to PTSD, some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye, for these are wounds that should be properly treated. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the number of medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to serve the needs of men and women currently serving and those who have become veterans.

Post traumatic stress disorder, one of the most prevalent and devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear. A suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate their close friend instantaneously and right in front of their face.

Yet, as American soldiers, they are trained to suppress the agonizing grief associated with those horrible experiences and are expected to continue on with the mission. And carry on they do, with courage and with patriotism.

The bill also provides $125 million in funding to for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Psychological Health research, and $4 million for alcohol and substance abuse research. In addition, $20 million is provided for suicide prevention and outreach.

My focus is also the military of the future and the overwhelming need for people who have strong science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, educations to fill the positions required for the successful defense of our nation's cyber networks.

I sought $30 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions, HBCU/MI. The Funding requested was approved by the Appropriations committee at the level at over $35 million or a 116 percent over the amount I requested. The funds appropriated will reinvigorate the relationship between the Department of Defense and the HBCU/MIs and to ensure that minorities are represented in the long-term development of the STEM workforce pipeline. The funding will support undergraduate and graduate STEM programs to increase the participation and success of minority students through engaged mentoring, enriching research experiences, and opportunities to publish, present, and network. Consistent with the report of the National Academy of Sciences ``Expanding Underrepresented Minority Participation: America's Science and Technology Talent at the Crossroads,'' the funding is intended to enhance the Department's efforts to emphasize STEM education improvement within the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions program. The Committee should encourage the Secretary of Defense to consider these factors when awarding competitive funding under this program, as well as ensuring that selected programs have a sufficiently large cohort of students to allow for effective peer-to-peer mentoring.

I offered language to create a report that the Secretary of Defense must present to Congress on the topic of hazing in the military, harassment and mistreatment of service members across the Armed Forces. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 180 days after enactment of this act on the prevalence and consequences of hazing, harassment and mistreatment of service members and the policies in place to address cultural sensitivity and hazing and harassment prevention and intervention. Further, the report shall include recommendations for the services to accurately record and prevent incidences of hazing, harassment and mistreatment of service members and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort. Finally, the report shall propose a plan to implement and monitor these recommendations.

On balance this Department of Defense Appropriations bill overall is a good thing for the men and women of the armed services especially with the additional of an amendment to prohibit the use of funds to deny Department of Defense civilian employees security clearance because of financial difficulties caused by ``furloughs'' due to sequestration.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because this bill would delay the implementation of the employer mandate a key provisions of the Affordable Care Act until 2014.

The House majority on May 16, 2013 placed before this body another bill in another attempt to end the Affordable Care Act also known as Obama Care. Their efforts to do anything and everything they can think of to stop millions of Americans from enjoying the security of health care enjoyed by all of my colleagues in this body is astounding. The Health care we enjoy is at the taxpayer expense so we do know what a federally supported health plan can do.

27.6 percent of Texans are without health care coverage

The Department of Health and Human Services announced over $9 million in grants to fund community health centers all over the State of Texas. The funds will be used to enroll the uninsured in new health coverage options made available under the Affordable Care Act--or Obama Care Act.

The Affordable Care Act is needed and we should not pretend otherwise. The Administration announced that it would on its own allow a delay to work with the 5 percent of employers who are having difficulty meeting the mandate for providing health insurance for all of their employees. This means that 95 percent have met the obligation so the need for this change in law is not founded in fact.

In my district over the weekend, I held a press conference to congratulate Community Health Centers in the City of House who received part of $9 million to the State by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Grants to Community Health Centers will fund work to enroll the uninsured in new health coverage options made available under the Affordable Care Act--or Obama Care Act.

Community Health Centers are non-profit, community focused health care providers who serve low-income and medically underserved communities.

Community Health Centers care for over 22 million people nationally.

In 2012, 50 million people in the United States had no health insurance coverage, with many losing insurance as a result of the recent recession.

The grants provided to Community Health Care Centers like Legacy Community Health Services located in my district will help millions of uninsured people in our nation get the medical care they need and deserve.

List of Community Health Centers Awarded Funds in the City of Houston

Fourth Ward Clinic--$124,395

El Centro Del Corazon--$144, 525

Houston Community Health Care--$90,691

South Central Houston Community--$165,755

Asian American Health Coalition of the Greater Houston Area--$90,867

Spring Branch Community Health Center--$108,346

Houston Area Community Services--$73,981

Legacy Community Health Services--$267,747

Health Care for the Homeless--$104,000

Harris County Hospital District--$154,326

In 2012, Texas had 67 health centers operating in 388 sites providing services to over 1 million patients. Fifty-one percent of the 1 million people cared in my state for were uninsured.

Statistics on the Affordable Care Act

--Affordable Care Act Benefits to the 18th Congressional District:

11,400 young adults have insurance through their parents.

4,100 seniors received $5.4 million in discounts for prescription medication and average of $600 per person. This was a cost savings of $650 on average and so far in 2013 the savings are $1,040.

71,000 seniors are now eligible for Medicare prevention services without paying co-pays.

121,000 individuals, including 23,000 children and 50,000 women now have health insurance that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20 percent of their premium dollars on profits and administrative overhead.

46,000 children with pre-existing illnesses can no longer be denied insurance.

153,000 people in my district have health insurance that have no lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits.

Up to 193,000 people in the 18th Congressional District of Houston Texas will have access to quality health affordable health care without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of preexisting health conditions.

17,000 individuals who purchase insurance on the private health insurance market established for individuals or small groups will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will have access to financial assistance.

National Benefit of Obama Care

13 million Americans received $1.1 billion in rebates from their health insurance companies last year.

105 million Americans have free preventive services.

Millions of women now have free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive medical services.

100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare coverage.

17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers.

6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans.

6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs.

3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under Medicare.

360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers.

Statistics on Texas and the Affordable Care Act

3.8 million Texas residents receive preventative care services.

7 million Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance.

300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance until age 26.

5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on healthcare.

4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health insurance.

In 2014, Insurance companies will be banned from: discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition; charging higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime dollar limits; enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.

The healthcare law has many benefits.

For these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule for this bad bill.

The House and the Senate have real work to create jobs, strengthen the food security for our most vulnerable--children, elderly, disabled and low-wage workers. We need to address immigration reform and Border Security and we should be focused on the need to pass appropriations bills that eliminate Sequestration that is strangling the financial security of millions of Federal workers. Sequestration not only hurt Federal workers but the local economies that no longer have the incomes provided by Federal agencies to stimulate the recovery our Nation is now entering.

We should be about the business of the people sent us to Washington to work in their interest.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the rule for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because this bill would delay the implementation of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act until 2014.

This bill is about avoiding personal responsibility for persons who could afford health insurance but decide not to purchase it. When people arrive at emergency rooms without health care insurance, they are not turned away, but receive treatment. The cost of this care is often much higher than if a patient visits a doctor early to address health issues rather than wait and go to an emergency room for care. Persons with health insurance avoid going to the doctor out of fear of what it will cost that concern can be eliminated by getting health care insurance or coverage.

This bill is another attempt by the House Republican majority to frustrate the successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Their effort to increase the burden on individuals who take personal responsibility and exercise choice in purchasing their own health

care insurance should not encouraged by our actions. This bill will assure that those individuals who can pay for their health care insurance do so. If they do not purchase health insurance when they had the means to, then a fee will be assessed that they will be used to cover health care expenses.

Everyone must act responsibly in making the Affordable Health Care Act work and that includes every member of the Congress.

In my state:

27.6% of Texans are without health care coverage.

In my district over the weekend, I held a press conference to congratulate Community Health Centers in the City of House who received part of $9 million awarded to the State by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Grants to Community Health Centers will work to enroll the uninsured in new health coverage options made available under the Affordable Care Act--or Obama Care Act.

Community Health Care Centers will ensure that even the poorest of our citizens take personal responsibility to acquire health insurance coverage as long as we as members of Congress do our jobs and let our constituents know about these health care options.

Today, Community Health Centers care for over 22 million people nationally. The funding provided by these Department of Health and Human Services grants will mean that millions more will have access to health care and health insurance.

In 2012, 50 million people in the United States had no health insurance coverage, with many losing insurance as a result of the recent recession. The grants provided to Community Health Care Centers will help millions of uninsured people in our nation get the medical care they need and deserve.

List of Community Health Centers Awarded Funds in the City of Houston

Fourth Ward Clinic, $124,395;

El Centro Del Corazon, $144,525;

Houston Community Health Care, $90,691;

South Central Houston Community, $165,755;

Asian American Health Coalition of the Greater Houston Area, $90,867;

Spring Branch Community Health Center, $108,346;

Houston Area Community Services, $73,981;

Legacy Community Health Services, $267,747;

Health Care for the Homeless, $104,000;

Harris County Hospital District, $154,326;

Statistics on the 18th Congressional District, Nation and State

Affordable Care Act

Affordable Care Act Benefits to the 18th Congressional District:

11,400 young adults have insurance through their parents;

4,100 seniors received $5.4 million in discounts for prescription medication and average of $600 per person. This was a cost savings of $650 on average and so far in 2013 the savings are $1,040;

71,000 seniors are now eligible for Medicare prevention services without paying co-pays;

121,000 individuals, including 23,000 children and 50,000 women now have health insurance that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premium dollars on profits and administrative overhead;

46,000 children with pre-existing illnesses can no longer be denied insurance;

153,000 people in my district have health insurance that have no lifetime limits on their coverage and will not face annual limits;

Up to 193,000 people in the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas will have access to quality health affordable health care without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of preexisting health conditions;

17,000 individuals who purchase insurance on the private health insurance market established for individuals or small groups will have access to more secure, higher quality coverage and many will have access to financial assistance.

National Benefit of Obama Care

13 million Americans received $1.1 billion in rebates from their health insurance companies last year;

105 million Americans have free preventive services;

Millions of women now have free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive medical services;

100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare coverage;

17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers;

6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans;

6.3 million Seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs;

3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under Medicare; and

360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers.

Statistics on Texas and the Affordable Care Act

3.8 million Texas residents receive preventative care services;

7 million Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance;

300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance until age 26;

5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on healthcare;

4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health insurance;

In 2014, Insurance companies will be banned from:

discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition;

charging higher rates based on gender or health status;

enforcing lifetime dollar limits;

enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.

The healthcare law has many benefits.

For these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the rule for this bad bill.

The House and the Senate have real work to do such as creating jobs and strengthening food security for our most vulnerable--children, the elderly, the disabled and low-wage workers. We need to address immigration reform and Border Security, responsible gun safety measures, equity in our judicial system and voting rights.

We should also focus on the need to pass appropriations bills that eliminate Sequestration that is strangling the financial security of millions of federal workers. Sequestration not only hurts federal workers, but the local economies that no longer have the incomes provided by federal agencies to stimulate the recovery our nation is now entering are.

I urge the rejection of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to many of my good friends and to colleagues. We are, in fact, good friends and colleagues hoping to do what is right on behalf of the American people. I always appreciate and respect those individuals who have chosen to serve the Nation, so I take issue very briefly with my good friend and colleague about the criminal acts of one of the most honest and forthright Attorney Generals of the United States of America.

Attorney General Holder has not been charged with criminal activity, except for the aggressive and desperate actions of our Republican friends. He has been noted for his great leadership on civil rights and criminal justice issues. He's been a leader on the prohibiting and fighting against human trafficking. And certainly he has been one who has stood up for our children in this Nation, and also the many law enforcement officers who are on the front lines protecting us here in America. I hope that we can respect those who offer themselves to the service of this Nation for as long as Attorney General Eric Holder has done.

I have listened to friends as well speak about the devastation of the sequester. I again suggest to my colleagues that, through H.R. 900, a simple bill that eliminates the sequester and goes back to the budget reconciliation of 2011 and, as well, to force or to push this Republican majority to move to conference, would be the better approach.

I, too, have gone and delivered meals for Meals on Wheels, and I've seen the faces of seniors who will now face serious cuts in this effort. I see the loss of 750,000 jobs. I see the impact on the economy, where the unemployment has stayed somewhat static. But when you go into the business community and the hesitation, even though Wall Street is thriving, it all points to the fact of the sequester. It has become a dirty word. It has become one that has victimized the American pubic: it has victimized young families; it has victimized college students; it has victimized seniors; it has victimized those who are ill. And yet we continue to, piece by piece, fix the FAA problem but do not address the 70,000 children that are suffering and losing seats in Head Starts.

I remember, as the Head Start seats were being lost, fathers crying when they were told by their Head Start facility that their child would no longer have a seat. It seems sad that we would cut Head Start or disaster aid by $1 billion because we have Head Start, or the Department of Transportation, $1.9 billion, when many of us know that those are the basic reasons for job creation is building America's infrastructure.

As we plod along with sequester and we see good public workers not being able to work--and might I just say, let me thank our own staff, which gets condemned all the time. You work for a U.S. Member of Congress, and every day our staff fights to help some constituent keep their house from being foreclosed on or keep a Medicare recipient continuing to get their benefits or veterans, and yet we are furloughing them. We are cutting people that are mere workers, that are working for us. They can't make ends meet. They're getting second jobs. It's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace. I am not going to condemn our staff--committee staff, government staff. They are working for the American people.

Then I want to offer a disagreement, Mr. Speaker. I know the Senate is going to vote on a student loan program. They say it's a compromise. Well, I've got to tell my students, because I've held campus meetings, we've met, I've got to tell them and I've got to tell the parents, yes, they're going to get a low interest rate today, but watch out for tomorrow because it's a trigger. Before you know it, they may be paying 10 percent.

They say it's a cap, but I don't know what the cap is going to be as it relates to whether a student can pay 6 percent or 7 percent, when they can stay at 3.4 percent. As someone said, why should the Federal Government be making money on the backs of students? I'm concerned about that.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say there has been a lot of discussion this week about issues of race, issues of the tragedy of Trayvon Martin. I intend to introduce the Justice Exists for All Act, a review, as Senator McCain has suggested, of the Stand Your Ground legislation across America. It will increase public safety. It will reduce the incidence of gun violence, among other things, by providing incentives for any State with the Stand Your Ground law to amend it to require a duty to retreat. For States that do not require a duty to retreat, we will question their Federal funding and assess their Justice Department funding and reduce it by 20 percent.

We will also decrease the incidence of gun violence resulting from vigilantes by reducing by 20 percent the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to any State that does not require local neighborhood watch programs be registered with a local enforcement agency, and require the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, to study Stand Your Ground laws.

Let's speak to the pain of the American people. Let's look at ways of fixing the law.

Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I rise to support H.R. 2611, a bill to designate the new Coast Guard headquarters building as the ``Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard Headquarters Building.''

Douglas A. Munro, a signalman first class of the United States Coast Guard, died heroically on Guadalcanal Island on September 27, 1942, after succeeding in his volunteer assignment to evacuate a military unit of Marines under fire from opposition forces.

Born on October 11, 1919, Munro was raised Washington State and attended the Central Washington College of Education for a year before enlisting in the United States Coast Guard in 1939. He had an outstanding record of service in the Coast Guard and was quickly promoted to signalman, first class.

In the Battle of Guadalcanal, Munro was in charge of the boats that had landed the Marines at the scene. When it became necessary to evacuate the Marines, Munro volunteered to lead evacuation. He did so under heavy enemy fire, ultimately using himself and his boats as cover allowing the last of the Marines to leave. Tragically, Munro was fatally wounded in the process.

Munro posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor, the Purple Heart Medal, and was eligible for the American Defense Service Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Area Campaign Medal, and the World War II Victory Medal.

Mr. Speaker, Douglas A. Munro gave his life to protect his fellow service members and defend this great Nation; it is most fitting that the U.S. Coast Guard's new headquarters is named in his honor.

With its long, rich history and significant contributions to homeland security, I can see why the Coast Guard was selected to be the first occupant of the Department of Homeland Security's new permanent home-- on the campus of St. Elizabeths. I wish the Coast Guard the best as it begins a new chapter in its new headquarters.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the men and women of the Coast Guard who continue to serve our country today, ensuring the service lives up to its motto of Semper Paratus, or ``always ready.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2611.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I'm hoping to convince my colleagues that, albeit what numbers you may have in this increasing and emerging epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder, let me give a personal story that comes by way of my interaction often with veterans and, particularly, a post-traumatic stress disorder center that we were able to fund in a hospital that previously had not had the ability to serve Active Duty soldiers and veterans.

It's a small hospital off the campus of our main Veterans Hospital in Houston, Texas, but we established a post-traumatic stress disorder center there that allowed veterans who may not have traditionally been at the Veterans Hospital, not because they did not have benefits, but for a variety of reasons, to find a comfort place to be treated for their post-traumatic stress disorder.

And they were not just veterans of the Afghan and Iraq wars, but these were ones from the Persian Gulf, from Vietnam. And they could not thank the staff and could not thank the work that we had done to secure just a small amount of dollars, which this amendment does.

This takes a small amount of dollars from a very large funding for, certainly, a commendable challenge, but it is one that I believe would benefit, as we seek to create a better quality of life for our soldiers, wherever they might be, and our veterans.

This is a $500,000 deposit, if you will, on the high numbers of post- traumatic stress disorder. I have seen it in our returning soldiers, I have seen it in our veterans, and it is clearly something that is not going away.

I think the poignant story that I want to share is how grateful this particular veteran was, who said he had never been to treatment and his whole life had been turned around. His wife was there with him. She said their lives have been turned around.

So I ask my colleagues to consider the responsible approach that we have taken for just this amount of money to reinvest in our needy, but deserving, men and women who are both Active Duty. In the instance of the story that I gave, because this facility was able to utilize TRICARE, they could serve Active Duty, and they could serve those who were veterans as well.

So I thank the chairman and ranking member and urge support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'm overwhelmed and very grateful to Chairman Young, my dear friend who has done so much, as well as the ranking member, likewise, for his great service. He's done so much.

Let me just conclude by saying that PTSD, as both the chairman and the ranking member have agreed, is an invisible wound that you don't often see. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the medical facilities and also the medical professionals. These additional dollars, as I understand the intent of both the ranking member and chairman, will be used effectively.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent, devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I withdraw amendment No. 11.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and I thank the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, let me, first of all, acknowledge the hard work that it takes to provide for the men and women of the United States military and to secure America. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the combined efforts, obviously, in the military and the line of demarcation between civilian, but we all are committed to the national security of this Nation.

This amendment deals with the reduction in funding of the procurement Defense-wide by $1 million. I want to give the good news. The good news is that this money would be put in deficit reduction. But I do want to acknowledge that one of the issues that we must address as we go forward in the collective intelligence agencies, as we have listened to some of the challenges that we are facing in light of the present status of the leaks that have occurred by an American citizen who was working in the capacity as a contractor--this impacts all of us. So as this $1 million would be submitted into the deficit reduction pool, I believe it is extremely important that we look very closely at the extended use of civilian contractors, the extended use of a budget that is responsible for 70 percent of the intelligence of this country.

Now, I know that some of the contractors deal with issues that are not individual personnel, but are dealing with research and dealing with equipment. But I believe that it is important that we look at the question that resulted in the disclosure of leaked and highly sensitive classified information, and the continuing raising of concern of whether or not the national security of this Nation has been impacted because of the outsourcing of intelligence responsibility.

In particular, I think we need to look at the outsourcing of determining top secret clearance. Obviously, the circumstances that resulted in the leaking is an individual that had an interesting resume, from the educational level of a high school GED--of which we respect and encourage people to complete their education--of the military service, and then on to top secret by a contractor who gave out top secret clearances. We hope that there was some kind of review. So my amendment is intended to highlight this issue.

I would hope that as we proceed, that this question will, if you will, have the ability to slow--not halt--the use of civilian contractors out of all of our agencies dealing with the issue of intelligence. We want to assure the American people that we are concerned about the protection of this Nation's national security-- civil liberties as well, but also to prevent the leaks that have occurred.

Let me conclude my remarks and let me just say that I hope this brings about a discussion that will cross jurisdictional lines of the Judiciary Committee, the Intelligence Committee, our appropriators. Let's fix this enormous use and reliance on these contractors' outsourcing. Let's develop a highly trained group of Federal Governmental professionals committed, if you will, to the ongoing service to their Nation. Respecting contractors have the same loyalty, but I think it would be better, Mr. Chairman, if we can frame the utilization of contractors in such a way that we can be assured that everything that deals with the national security of this Nation will be protected.

With that, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Visclosky for their leadership for an important responsibility in this Nation.

My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military.

The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; in this instance, it's a triple negative. But I raise an article that says: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.''

We all know, by the way, that breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Let me say that sentence again. Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011. And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.

The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military. This, however, will allow for the additional research. As new young women come into the United States military, as women stay longer in the United States military, as women get older in the United States military, as women ascend to leadership roles in the United States military, these dollars provide research.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male servicemembers, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story.

Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, says Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. He says life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer.

So, my friends, I am asking that we do the right thing. We're on the right track, we're on the right rail, we're on the right road. But with the expansion of women in the military, I can assure you, for long life, a vital service that

these men and women give, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment.

Researchers point to a high use of oral contraception that's linked to breast cancer among women that would ensure that this particular amendment would be a positive step forward.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me thank the gentlemen, and thank them for their commitment to the men and women of the United States military. And let me thank my colleagues for accepting this amendment.

With that, I know that we will be safer, secure and healthier with this fight against breast cancer that continues to grow in the United States military.

I ask my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from New York and let me thank our chairperson, the Honorable Marcia Fudge, and all my colleagues that are on the floor tonight to accept the challenge that has been given over the airways by many people.

I want to thank Mr. Jeffries for pointing out--as I stand here as a mother, I would make the argument of a son, of a Black son. I can affirm that any child's life is of great value. In fact, we spent the weekend in Houston reaffirming the value of a child's life.

I want to cite and compliment Bishop James Dixon and Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, Pastors Henderson and Nash and Lawson and many other pastors that were there, who obviously joined with so many, including my colleague who is here on the floor of the House, Congressman Al Green. I heard nothing but an affirmation of the value of life.

I'm delighted as a lawyer and as a legislator that you reaffirm that African Americans do not coddle crime of any kind, a crime that happens to be between two African Americans or, in essence, two Caucasians. It is noted, if my facts are correct, that 84 percent of the crimes perpetrated on White Americans are done by White Americans.

Eighty six percent of the crimes done on Black persons, on Black Americans, are done by Black people.

It might be that it speaks again to the isolated, segregated neighborhoods that we travel in, but the one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is unique is that you can count on the fact that those African Americans who perpetrated crimes are incarcerated over and over again at a higher number than any other population in this Nation.

Their lives, the premise of much of what we are discussing tonight-- and I would hope that as I finish that it will also be a pleading that we have a discussion on race. Let me just cite these numbers since I started out with the idea of incarceration. Incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

For example, incarceration rates in the United States by race were as follows: 2,468 per 100,000 are Black; 1,038 per 100,000 are Latinos; 409 per 100,000 are White. The United States locks up its Black males at a rate 5.8 times higher than what previously has been known as one of the more racist countries in the world, which is South Africa. Under apartheid in 1993, Black males were only 851 per 100,000. In 2006, Black males were 4,789.

I would say to my colleagues and to the Speaker and to my colleagues here: What are we to think when the scales of justice are unequally balanced?

As my friends have said, it is the pain that we felt at the loss of Trayvon Martin and the simplicity of an arrest and then ultimately, with a Sanford jury in a State trial, that we could not even find with much evidence to prove that there was not enough commonality of cultural connection and that they could not see that something should have valued the loss of an innocent child who simply was walking to get home.

Maybe it is the words of Frederick Douglass that he said on April 16, 1883:

It is a real calamity in this country for any man, guilty

or not guilty, to be accused of a crime. We are all upset

when that happens--guilty or not guilty, perpetrator or not--

but it is an incomparably greater calamity for any colored

man to be so accused. Justice is often painted with bandaged

eyes. She is described in forensic eloquence as utterly blind

to wealth or poverty, high or low, White or Black; but a mass

of iron, however thick, could never blind American justice

when a Black man happens to be on trial.

I would say to my colleagues that that is something we have to move beyond in America.

In an E.J. Dionne article, he said:

The dignity and grace of Trayvon Martin's family should

inspire all of us to keep our eyes on the future. We should

not blind ourselves either to the persistence of racism or to

our triumphs in pushing it back.

It does not help when those who are not like those of us who are on the floor--members of the Congressional Black Caucus--want to push back and call those of us who raise questions of justice--which, by the way, if you impact and correct the criminal justice system, you're going to impact Whites and Latinos, and you're going to impact African Americans. If you address the question of mandatory minimums, if you address the question of rehabilitation funding, if you address the question of providing housing and opportunity for work for those who have come out of prison--no matter from where they come out, the Federal system or, in fact, the State system--you make it better for all. But every time we raise the question of improving issues of justice, we get called or get labeled as being racist.

So I want to say to America and to our friends: Can we not be called ``Americans''? Because that is what the Congressional Black Caucus stands for.

In 1997, John Hope Franklin finished a report that called itself ``One America in the 21st Century: Forging a New Future.'' I will read one sentence:

America's greatest promise in the 21st century--which we're

in right now--lies in our ability to harness the strength of

our racial diversity.

We have not done that, and that is why the Congressional Black Caucus is here on the floor of the House to be able to accept the challenge that the President made as he indicated to America, unabashedly and without fear: that it's not only that Trayvon may have been my son, but that he may have been me.

The President said something very powerful. He said that we must, all of us--Members of Congress and Governors and pastors and plain civilians and young people--do some soul searching, and that we must as families and churches and workplaces find the possibility of being a little bit more honest and at least ask yourself your own questions: Am I ringing as much bias out of myself as I can? Am I judging people as much as I can based not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character? That, I would think, would be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

So tonight, Mr. Speaker, in joining with my colleagues, I'm going to stand unabashedly and ask for that kind of discussion. I want it for those who were standing on the street corners yesterday in Houston, Texas, shouting out that people were racist because they were concerned about a court decision that they didn't think was fair. I am concerned that all of those people who were marching would be labeled across America, in all the cities in which they were--peacefully without arrest or incident--as ``un-American.'' That's when we have to ring, if you will, our souls and find that we take from it the bias that we might perceive to be blocking us from understanding the richness of our diversity.

So I would argue that we are blessed because we have Asians, blessed because we have White people, blessed because we have Latinos, blessed because we have African Americans, blessed because of the diversity in sexual orientation, blessed because we have people who are short and tall, blessed because we have people who are wealthy and middle class, and blessed because as a Congress we can work on those who are impoverished, and we can stop the devastation of the SNAP and provide the opportunity for those individuals who are impoverished to do better.

Finally, let me say this. This past week, we honored an icon who moved me because of the diversity of those who were honoring--from Senator Cornyn from my State and Senator McConnell, organized by Maxine Waters and Eric Cantor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senator Durbin, and on and on and on, Leader Pelosi and Clyburn and Hoyer--and I'm sure I've missed many others--our chairwoman and Eleanor Holmes Norton. What a vast diversity of individuals who rose to honor Madiba, Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela said something that should be potent as we look to fix the inequity of self-defense laws, as many of us look at racial profiling, which exists extensively in this country, as evidenced by the heinous crime that generated the hate crimes legislation in our State of Texas--the killing of James Byrd, an individual who was dismembered, who was an African American male who was minding his business while walking along a lonely rural road. Another man was killed in Mississippi, who just came to a hotel and went out to his car, and was killed tragically just because of who he was. The numbers of cases that we've had are that impact that we have not yet understood--the greatness of America.

So we've got to change stand-your-ground laws, and I intend to introduce that legislation this week. I look for bipartisan support because, as Senator McCain said, maybe we need to look and to review federally what stand-your-ground laws are doing, not the Castle laws, but the extension of those that then carry this power out into the public where you do not have to retreat.

But I read these words of Mandela's. They say:

Our struggle has reached a decisive moment. We call on

people to be able to intensify the struggle on all fronts.

He had another quote that I'd like to read:

Honor comes when you pursue and are determined in your

struggle.

He mentioned the fact that, even with humiliation, even with insults and even with defeat, if you continue in your struggle, then there is honor due.

Let me thank Mr. Jeffries for laying out the opportunity for the Congressional Black Caucus to answer the question: the road to equality is under construction. Also, let me thank him for allowing us to rise to the floor.

I go to my seat by saying that equality will come when school districts like North Forest Independent School District will not be destroyed and closed in Houston, Texas, when we raise up education; equality will come when we focus on ridding this Nation of poverty by making sure that we have the kind of economic programs; and equality will come when we recognize that justice should roll down on all of us, and that we address the question of the criminalization of African American males and others so that justice is equally applied but, as the individuals return and have done their time, that they will come to a place that is welcoming so that they can serve their Nation.

For that reason, I yield back my time with a great hope of the same message that came in the treatise by John Hope Franklin. He chaired the committee on race and said that America's greatest promise is in her diversity.

I call upon my colleagues, my friends in Texas, my friends in my district: let's sit down at the table of harmony. Let's talk about race as we embrace each other and love each other, because that's what America is all about. Thank you to the Congressional Black Caucus for its vision and its leadership.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for their work to improve education for our Nation's children. I thank the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee Amendment #5 for full consideration by the House of Representatives.

My amendment to H.R. 5, the ``Student Success Act,'' is simple and is an important addition to this bill. I believe that my amendment to H.R. 5 can be supported by every member of the House.

Jackson Lee Amendment # 5

Jackson Lee Amendment #5 would direct States with insufficient funding to target funds to schools serving neglected, delinquent, migrant students, English learners, at-risk students, and Native Americans, to increase academic achievement of such students. The purpose of the Amendment is to make the best use of the funds available to focus resources on students with the greatest need.

According to research conducted by Chester Hartman, titled, High Classroom Turnover: How Children Get Left Behind, found that a disproportionate number of schools with predominantly low-income African American and Hispanic students have low stability, and that such students are much more likely than others, to switch schools in the middle of the year. High student mobility has consequences for students, teachers, and schools and can result in lower achievement levels, slower academic pacing, and lower teaching satisfaction.

Poor families move 50-100 percent more often than non-poor families. Welfare reform has resulted in residential mobility. Migrant children typically move from community to community. Foster children often change schools each time they are removed from a home. The education administrators' role in education should emphasize meeting the needs of disadvantaged students, and students who are mobile are among the most disadvantaged.

In the past, the government has taken limited steps to address this issue. Jackson Lee Amendment #5 is intended to support schools educating children who are neglected, delinquent, migrant students, English learners, at-risk students, and Native American youth.

The topic of delinquency also presents challenges to schools and educators. Children live in their own worlds, which can present threats to their health, safety and emotional well being.

Children become delinquent or can become at-risk for a number of reasons including school bullying and violence.

Consequences of bullying:

15 percent of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school.

According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying.

Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic.

Statistics on Houston Independent School District and Large School

Districts

1. HISD has over 200,000 students, 80 percent of which are eligible for free and reduced price lunch. This means that, 80 percent of students come from low socioeconomic households. HISD has approximately 25 percent African American students, 63 percent Hispanic students, and 30 percent students with limited English proficiency.

2. The 100 largest districts represent less than 1 percent of all school districts in the nation, yet enrolls 21 percent of all students, including 25 percent of the Census poverty students, 33 percent of the black students, 32 percent of the Hispanic students, and 31 percent of all minority students.

Houston Independent School District's challenge in providing a world class education faces many of the challenges that Jackson Lee Amendment #5 would address.

The Nation's first line of national defense is a well educated population. Much of the Nation's defense depends on what is developed and created by STEM jobs. It is also important that men and women serving in the Armed Forces have a basic working knowledge of STEM to succeed. For these reasons, it is vital that every child have the best education that this Nation can provide. There is no one size fits all, and there are changes with each generation of teachers and students, but the one constant are the needs of all children are not the same.

There is no deterministic model that decides which child will succeed and which will fail. What we do know is that given the right learning environment with teachers with the right training and support we can graduate students who can create, innovate, lead and succeed in life.

I urge all members to vote in favor of these amendments.