Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be on the floor with Mr. Tierney and the gentleman from California, and their commitment and their comments on the question of the equality of education for at-risk children. I think if there is anything that comes out of this important discussion, and from the chairman's presence on the floor, it should be that we should be focused with tunnel vision on the concern about at- risk children.

My amendment is a straightforward amendment. It is an amendment that gives information. Specifically, it calls for a study and a report containing recommendations regarding the advisability of authorizing a State education authority to close a school district over the opposition of the locally elected school board, families, students, teachers, and calls for best practices governing the exercise of authority by a State education agency in monitoring, supervising, and controlling underperforming school districts, with particular emphasis on rural and underserved districts and underserved communities.

Our children are our precious resource, and I have been in schools and school districts where children loved the atmosphere in which they are in. They clamor for the teachers. There is a mutual respect and coming together, and all they need is a focus of resources and improvement. But rather than getting that, authority is used to either undermine the funding of those school districts or in essence say to those school teachers and all of those who have been working--and taxpayers--that, in fact, this school will not be given dollars to improve.

The Center on Reinventing Public Education assessed a number of States, and the interesting determination was that States spent less on improving school districts and schools, less on improving, but more on shutting them down or not allowing them to go forward in at-risk areas. This chart gives you the balance of distribution of performance and improvement; and many States, such as Texas, spend less than 5 percent on performance.

So what does my amendment do? It provides balance between local control over schools and our State educational agencies by providing a report. It makes sure that taxpayers and locally elected officials are not ignored by the State. It also has a way of preventing communities from being blamed as the problem and engaging the community. It prevents poorly prepared State-elected officials who've been placed in positions to run schools from taking money from those schools as opposed to investing in those schools.

It makes sure that minor problems are fixed before you go to drastic concerns. It allows a determination of a structure of appeal so that the appeal is allowed broadly by those who are impacted, taxpayers, for example, who are very important. And it allows a determination whether the State authorities are given the effective oversight of a rural district, an at-risk district; and then it provides the opportunity to ensure that there is fair play and that we are interested in the quality of education.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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 #24 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 #24

This amendment directs the Secretary of Education to conduct a study and produce a report to Congress with recommendations regarding the advisability of authorizing a state education authority to close a school district over the opposition of a locally elected school board, and regarding best practices governing the exercise of authority by a state education agency in monitoring, supervising and controlling underperforming school districts with particular emphasis on rural and underrepresented school districts.

The purpose of the amendment is to create an opportunity for states to receive information guidance on what is happening around the Nation regarding forced school district mergers or closures.

Forced school district mergers and closures by a state without careful consideration of the sensitivity of the communities impacted can result in unintended consequences.

A report can provide recommendations regarding the advisability of an authorized state education authority to close a school district over the opposition of a locally elected school board.

Having access to the knowledge and experience of other state education agencies to factor into the decision to close or merge a

school board can be of benefit to the 24 states with laws that allow these types of actions.

A report is not intended to suggest that there are no circumstances when a state may need to exercise its authority to intervene and act in the best interest of children or communities if the school district is unable to do so.

The report can provide easy access to lessons learned and a list of voluntary best practices that may be of great benefit to states that have the authority to close a locally elected school board.

The 24 states with the authority to close or merge a school district include: Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri, Arkansas, California, and New Mexico.

There are important reasons why states need to have the report proposed by this amendment as resources they can reference when making a difficult decision regarding a school district's future.

Much of the reason for such a report flow from the same arguments many of my colleagues make regarding the power of the federal government.

When states close or merge local school districts their actions: reduce local control over schools and increases state authority over school districts; imply that the community has the problem and the states have the answers, and assumes that states have the ability to effectively run school districts; routinely place poorly prepared state-selected officials in positions to run school districts, which means there is little possibility of any meaningful change occurring in the classroom; usually focus on cleaning up minor problems and incompetent administration but do not go to the root of the social problems facing disadvantaged students in urban and rural school districts; foster negative connotations and impressions that hinder self-esteem of school board members, administrators, teachers, students and parents; and produce unnecessary showdowns between state and local officials which slow the overhaul of management practices, drain resources from educational reforms and reinforce division between impacted citizens and state government.

Another damaging impact of forced school district closures are the foreseeable hardened negative feelings toward state government that result.

The parents, students or elected school boards have no voice in the decision by the state to close or merge a school district.

This amendment does not assume that there is no role or circumstance under which the 24 state governments with laws that allow intervention and closure of school districts should not be able to act. The amendment seeks to provide information to these states on the experience of other states with the power to close a school district. The benefit of the report can be accessed by all states who may want to weigh the pros and cons of pursuing action against school districts as well as provide guidance on best practices.

Due process that is transparent and supports the principle that all school districts within a state will be treated the same would be a strong step forward in raising public confidence in the decisions of state government. It would be very prudent to be sure that when a state decides to act to help a failing school they can recruit the best experts in the field. Finally, local engagement in the decision making process removes tension and raises the possibility of a successful outcome.

My Congressional district once included the North Forest Independent School District, which was closed by the Texas Education Agency on July 1, 2013.

The decision to close North Forest Independent School District by the Texas Education Association displayed a reckless disregard for the children, parents, teachers, and administrators of the North Forest Independent School District.

There was no reason to close the school district and many reasons to work with the elected school board and engaged community to address the issues raised by the Texas Education Association.

The decision to deprive the community served by the school district did not give parents any say or control over the decision to dissolve the locally elected 7-member North Forest Independent School District board and was not in the interest of the education of the students served by the schools in that district. All of the members of the former North Forest Independent School board were African American. The North Forest School District was 70% African American and 29% Hispanic.

In making the decision to close the district, the Texas Education Agency took a ``guillotine'' approach to resolving the problems associated with the North Forest Independent School District--an approach that was wholly unnecessary given the progress the district has made as well as the availability of viable and less disruptive alternatives, including a proposed partnership between North Forest Independent School District and local public charter schools that was announced on March 8, 2013.

There must be a remedy to prevent this from happening to any other school districts. Jackson Lee Amendment #24 is designed to prevent this from happening by providing Congress with much needed information on the impact to school districts that face closure or merging.

The practice of closing and merging school districts is disproportionally happening to school districts serving rural and underserved students. This amendment is intended to provide Congress with more information about what happens to these school districts and discover better remedies when there are goals that are established by States that can mean the closing or merging of a school district.

A study conducted by S.L. Bowen in 2007, titled ``Is bigger that much better? School district size, high school completion, and post- secondary enrollment rates in Maine,'' published in the Maine View suggests the best interest of students are not being served. This study supported by the Maine Heritage Policy Center compared high school completion rates of the 15 largest and 15 smallest school districts in Maine and found that the graduation rate for smaller districts was six percent higher than for larger districts.

Another study, by A. Howle & C. Howley conducted in 2006 on the subject of small schools and the pressure to consolidate is available in the Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 14(10), 1-23.

This report on school size reviewed the research on the effects of small schools. The report states that children from economically disadvantaged families have higher achievement in small schools and small districts; the relationship between aggregate student achievement and socioeconomic status is consistently weaker in smaller schools and districts (equity effects of size); dropout rates are lower in smaller schools; students' school activity participation is higher in smaller schools; and smaller high schools can offer adequate curriculum.

There is research to indicate that this would be a worthwhile amendment that the full House can support.

I urge all members to vote in favor of Jackson Lee Amendment #24.

Seven Reasons Why the Jackson Lee Amendment is Needed

The Jackson Lee Amendment would: Balance local control over

schools with state authority over school districts; make sure

that taxpayers and locally elected officials are not ignored

by the State; prevent communities from being blamed as the

problem and the states as having all of the answers; prevent

poorly prepared state-selected officials from being placed in

positions to run school districts; make sure that minor

problems and incompetent administration issues can be dealt

with without merging or closing school districts; make sure

that state appointed heads of school districts have effective

oversight to be sure that a fair and impartial process for

decision making is established and maintained; and prevent

unnecessary showdowns between state and local officials which

slow the overhaul of management practices, drain resources

from educational reforms and reinforce division between

impacted citizens and state government.

In Support of Jackson Lee Amendment #24--North Forest Independent

School District

The facts about NFISD:

The closure of North Forest Independent School District was

unnecessary given the progress the district had made as well

as the availability of viable and less disruptive

alternatives, including a proposed partnership between North

Forest Independent School District and local public charter

schools that was announced on March 8, 2013.

The North Forest Independent School District electoral

district had 50,000 registered voters whose voting power was

diluted because they will be absorbed into the Houston

Independent School District but no additional seats will be

added to the Houston Independent School District board.

There was no reason to close the North Forest Independent

School District since it was solvent; had received awards for

excellence and had received significant outside funding to

continue.

The North Forest Independent School District proposed a

sound alternative plan to the Texas Education Agency that was

applauded by the U.S. Department of Education and supported

by experts like Dr. Rod Paige, former Secretary of the

Department of Education.

The North Forest Independent School District was the victim

of an unfair process since there was no provision for an

appeal of an adverse decision by the Governor, who appears to

have unfettered discretion.

The State appointed official that made the decision to

close North Forest was the only person to hear opposition to

their plan. There was no appeals process to check the

discretion of the state appointed official.

When states close or merge local school districts, their actions:

Reduce local control over schools and increase state

authority over school districts; imply that the community has

the problem and the states have the answers, and assumes that

states have the ability to effectively run school districts;

routinely place

poorly prepared state-selected officials in positions to run

school districts, which means there is little possibility of

any meaningful change occurring in the classroom; usually

focus on cleaning up minor problems and incompetent

administration but do not go to the root of the social

problems facing disadvantaged students in urban and rural

school districts; foster negative connotations and

impressions that hinder self-esteem of school board members,

administrators, teachers, students and parents; and produce

unnecessary showdowns between state and local officials which

slow the overhaul of management practices, drain resources

from educational reforms and reinforce division between

impacted citizens and state government.

Mr. Chairman, well, as we started, the reason why the Federal Government got engaged in education is because I remember times in the South and across America when there was unequal education and we needed the U.S. Department of Education. More importantly, we needed the courts. Today I stand here and ask for a simple inquiry made by the U.S. Department of Education: Are State agencies effectively closing school districts and not seeking to improve them?

A very fine example is the closure of the North Forest Independent School District in Houston, Texas. It's solvent, 50,000 registered voters, 7,000 students, had received awards, and what did the State agency do, the State agency came in, to the opposition of the community, teachers, supporters of a combined effort between a public school and charter school, proposed coming together to put forward the best proposal to keep this school teaching our children, support by Republicans and Democrats, and an autocratic State agency closed the school district.

So this is a simple inquiry. It is an inquiry as to whether or not you want to boost up the taxpayers and boost up the parents who have no standing. It is a question of whether or not you want to make sure that there is a basis of a fair appeal as opposed to an autocratic process, a dictatorial process. I ask my colleagues, all of them have faced this. No one wants to interfere with the running of a school district or interfere with the administrators or educators; but what you do want to interfere with is business decisions closing rural school districts and closing urban school districts and not allowing the people, the teachers to be able to understand and to give input into the best process, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to refer to the Center on Reinventing Public Education, and I would argue in closing, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment gives opportunity. I ask you to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Virginia for his courtesy, and I thank the Speaker.

Yesterday was the 95th birthday of former President Nelson Mandela. What a joy to be able to hear that during the time of celebration that we had here in the United States Congress, President Mandela, who had been ill for a period of time, had earphones on and was looking at television. The words that came from the minority and majority leader, Republicans and Democrats, the Speaker and leader, Republicans and Democrats and various leaders of the House, commended and recognized that a man who had come from the tyranny of separation and apartheid, who had to be against his government in order to free his people, could be recognized and applauded, because when he walked out of Robben Island, he walked without bitterness.

And one of the greatest opportunities that he gave to the world was the idea that there could be a democratic election in South Africa. And from that time, he has been a man who promoted peace and promoted love and led his nation out of the devastation of separation and bitterness with kindness and love.

I'm delighted to stand on the floor today and say: happy birthday, Madiba; happy birthday, President Nelson Mandela. And if it's God's will, may you live forever onward in better health.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to President Nelson Mandela and to commemorate the 5th anniversary of ``Nelson Mandela International Day.'' On this special day, the thoughts, prayers, and wishes of all Americans, and peace loving people the world over, are with Nelson Mandela and his family.

In 2009, the United Nations dedicated this day in recognition of Nelson Mandela's commitment to humanity as a human rights lawyer, a prisoner of conscience, an international peacemaker, and as the first elected president of a free, democratic, and multiracial Republic of South Africa. Nelson Mandela dedicated his life to serving humanity in the fields of conflict resolution, race relations, the promotion and protection of human rights, reconciliation, gender equality, the rights of children and other vulnerable groups, the uplift of poor and underdeveloped communities, and the struggle for democracy internationally and the promotion of a world culture of peace.

In honoring these dreams, hopes, goals, and acts, the United Nations calls upon people everywhere to devote 67 minutes today to helping others, one minute honoring each year that Nelson Mandela devoted to us, humanity. Through our service to others, we honor the achievements and sacrifices of Nelson Mandela.

Today we honor the life and work of a man who by his courage, commitment to justice, grace in the face of unearned suffering, and capacity to forgive continues to inspire the world.

In the words of Nelson Mandela: ``For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.''

Happy birthday to one of the greatest men of our time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman very much. I am reminded in my amendment of the high calling of Chairman Miller and President Bush some many years ago with the name Leave No Child Behind.

My amendment could be called ``Throw No Child Away'' or ``No Child is a Throwaway,'' for that is the necessity of where we are today with the underlying bill. We must restore and help those children who are considered throughout America as at-risk children.

Research shows that a disproportionate number of schools with predominantly low-income African American and Hispanic students have low housing stability and that such students are more likely than others to switch schools in the middle of the year. High student mobility has consequences for students, teachers, and schools, and could result in lower achievement levels, slower academic pacing, and lower teaching satisfaction.

My amendment expands that concept; and it indicates that States with insufficient funding should find a way to target funds for schools serving neglected, delinquent, migrant students, English learners, at- risk students, and Native Americans to increase academic achievement of such students, all with the idea that there are no throwaway children.

Children and education are one and the same. That is the work of children. When children are at work and are fully educated--and when I say that, at their work, a combination of education and play--what you create is a greater America.

Poor families, for example, move 50-100 percent more often than nonpoor families. Migrant children typically move from community to community. Foster children often change schools each time they're removed from a home. Right now, as I speak, we in Houston are trying to establish one of those homes for aged-out children who are still in high school who've aged out of foster care.

Those children typically are at risk. We can't shortchange them, as the underlying legislation does.

Student mobility has consequences with students and teachers and, therefore, we need to help build higher achievement levels because there is a possibility of lower achievement levels, lower academic pacing, and lower teacher satisfaction.

Take the school district that I represent, HISD, 200,000 students, 80 percent of which are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. Children can not learn if they are hungry.

HISD has a diverse population. But, 100 of the largest districts represent less than 1 percent of all school districts in the Nation. Yet it enrolls 21 percent of all students, including 25 percent of census poverty students, 33 percent of Black students, 32 percent of Hispanic, and 31 percent of all minority students.

But the real point is that, in addition to these large school districts, this amendment respects the rural communities of America and deals with at-risk children in those areas, and deals with migrant students in those areas, and indicates that a State should not shortchange those individuals if their grant money is, in fact, shortchanged. Don't shortchange the children. Again, there are no throwaways.

So I think my amendment balances great needs in the underlying legislation by saying to my colleagues that the understanding of education is that it should be equal to all. And the quality should be equal to all, and therefore, whether you are a student that moves frequently, or a migrant student, or an English-learner student, you should not be denied an excellent education.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his expression on this particular amendment. Let me frame it, as I close, thanking my colleagues and expressing my commitment to the concept that no child should be thrown away.

With formulas changing, block grants being promoted, the idea of a State being shortchanged in its awards means that there needs to be focus and refocus, and that is, from my perspective, to look at those children, whether they're rural or urban communities that need to be educated who could be considered neglected, delinquent, migrant students, English-learners, at-risk students, Native American youth, and to determine again, to find a way to focus those dollars in a way that will lift, in essence, all educational boats.

Sometimes that will be an enormous challenge, as this formula has evidenced. And I would like to see that no matter what happens in the underlying bill, that we have these children protected, many of whom are in the school districts that I represent, including formerly the North Forest Independent School District, that could have benefited from those resources, having given to them a number of rural school

districts in Texas that could have benefited from targeted dollars, to be able to keep them as existing viable school districts, teaching their children, not closed school districts.

So I hope that as we proceed that the message that comes, ultimately, from Members of Congress is that we promote education first, and the children at risk will never be lost in the debate, but we'll always support them.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it takes health care away from America's children, seniors, and others. Again, getting a sound bite for America.

Thank you to the manager--Dr. McDermott, I like to call him--who has been a mainstay of good health care in this Congress for a very long time. He is managing as well with the gentleman from Georgia, who has practiced medicine.

But we can have a disagreement. The vigorous disagreement that we have, I must say, Mr. Speaker, is with the weight of truth that falls on what we have done on behalf of ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act.

I enjoy sledding. I enjoy the snow. When you get on a sled, it rolls down and you're happy, and you come to a successful end. We've rolled down, and we keep on rolling because the Affordable Care Act is allowing young people to have insurance. It's reducing the cost of prescription drugs for our seniors. It's allowing a State like Texas, which has the highest number of uninsured--some 121,000-plus in my district--to now have insurance. It allows about 10 community health facilities to be able to begin enrollment this coming September and to be able to outreach to those families, who will now have coverage for them and their children.

Let me be very clear. How many times do I have to say, no, you cannot have your way?

The Supreme Court has ruled. This is the law of the land, and there is no reason whatsoever to go back on a plan that has allowed the New York insurance rates to go down on health care. There is nothing wrong with the President engaging business. These are large companies that have said we just need to look at it so we can streamline it. That's to make it better. If they undermine the individual mandate, 13 million Americans will not have insurance.

How many times do I have to say ``no''?

The Affordable Care Act is going well. People are insured and Americans are healthier. Let's keep the Affordable Care Act. Vote ``no'' on the underlying bills.

When will you ever understand that it's over? It's over.

As a mother and an American, I am well aware that this Nation is a nation of laws. And our system of justice speaks, and the reason why we are a democracy is because we adhere to that. But I'm proud of my constituents and others in Houston, Texas, who saw the need to petition and to be able to join the family of Trayvon Martin in praying to petition their Federal Government. That is America, Mr. Speaker--that all Americans have a right to come and petition their government.

Thank you for being peaceful. Thank you for being prayerful. Thank you for being ready to speak in tones seeking justice, but doing it in a way that is respectful of our system, and ready to be able to achieve what your desires are through continuing to pray and be peaceful. In Houston, Texas, that is what occurred. And I want to say thank you for that peace and that respect of the dignity and democracy that America is, and the respect for Trayvon Martin's family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in strong opposition to the farm bill rule and the underlying bill because it takes food from children, and it increases the number of starving children in America.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.

Referring to your previous ruling, one is allowed to give explanation for one's opposition, and those words are to be counted as part of the unanimous consent.

Will you declare, Mr. Speaker, what the interpretation is for excessiveness?

In continuing the parliamentary inquiry, is the amount of passion in your voice in opposition to the idea that this bill creates more starving children?

The only thing that this House will do when it votes today is defeat starving children. It will again put starving children in the abyss of the uncaring attitude of my friends who for the first time in decades are separating the heart line of the farm bill--the nutrition program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food stamps program.

I am glad to stand with the Democratic Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus and others to be able to say that hunger is silent. There are no children at that microphone on this floor today, standing over here, telling you that their bellies are protruding because they have not eaten. There is no one on this floor today who goes to a summer program and who did not eat because the breakfast program is tied to the school, and they are out of school, and summer brings about hunger. There is no one who has told you that families have an extra $300 bill in the summertime to feed their children, and for those who do not have it, no one has told you that the lack of protein in a diet leads to the disease and decay of teeth and bone for the very children that we say are the priority of this place.

In decades, you have never separated the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--a $20 billion cut, a $3 billion cut, making it $23 billion in cuts. You will never put that on the floor. You will slide it through because all the folks want is a piece of a sound bite at home to say they believe in deficit reduction.

I believe in the life of the children. I believe in growing our children. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

On the basis of such an eloquent statement by our ranking member, my inquiry is: At this point, could we not, in essence, table this bill and begin the process of reconstructing the bill, as the ranking member has so eloquently stated, in order to be able to feed America's children and not continue the starvation that this farm bill will create and promote for years to come?

Mr. Speaker, if I could continue my parliamentary inquiry.

Is the bill not flawed, as the ranking member has said, for it has left out what has traditionally been a major component of the farm bill, which is the supplemental nutrition program, which deals with feeding hungry Americans and hungry children?

I will go back and return again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand the passion, but I think what we've come to today is the ripping apart of our literal hearts around a bill that is going to continue to pierce the existence of 46.2 million people living in poverty and almost 10 million families. And for my friends from my State, it will affect 3.4 percent of children living in poverty, 17 percent of the elderly, and 21 percent of all adults. Because this is about hunger, and hunger is silent.

We cannot pass this farm bill today because there is no proof, there is no documentation, there is no written commitment that we will ever get to the SNAP program. And food stamps will be no more. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will be no more. As I said, the only thing we will carry home today will be bragging rights of a sound bite: I cut the budget; I threw the children of America under the bus.

We should vote ``no'' on the farm bill and not throw the children under the bus.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2642--Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.

Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this nation must have to exist and to prosper. The $20.5 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP would remove 2 million Americans from this important food assistance program, and 210,000 children would lose access to free or reduced priced school meals.

The course of our nation's history led to changes in our economy first from agricultural, to industrial and now technological. These economic changes impacted the availability and affordability of food. Today our nation is still one of the wealthiest in the world, but we now have food deserts. A food desert is a place where access to food may not be available and certainly access to health sustaining food is not available.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as a ``low- access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery store is more than 10 miles.

Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a result of fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.

The result of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other health disparities that impact minority and low-income communities in rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that it does not it does not support normal metabolic functions.

Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in food deserts are the presence of fast food establishments instead of grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast foods this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for arterial disease, a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a constant diet of fast foods are also vulnerable to higher risks of insulin resistance which results in diabetes.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of residents do not

have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

At the beginning of the third millennium of this nation's existence we should know better. Denying a higher quality of life that would result from better access to healthier food choices is shortsighted--it is also economically unsound and threatens our national security.

Social stability is threatened when people's basic needs are not met--food, clean drinking water and breathable air or the least of the requirements for life. Denying access to sufficient amounts of the right kinds of food means people will become less productive, more prone to disease and will not be able to function as contributing members of a society.

For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.

Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask for help, they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their children can eat.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households or 20 percent of residents do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.

In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.

In 2011, According to Feeding America: 46.2 million people were in poverty, 9.5 million families were in poverty, 26.5 million of people ages 18-64 were in poverty. 16.1 million children under the age of 18 were in poverty, 3.6 million (9.0 percent) seniors 65 and older were in poverty.

In the State of Texas: 34% of children live in poverty in Texas, 21% of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas, 17% of elderly live in poverty in Texas.

In my city of Houston Texas the U.S. census reports that over the last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.

In 2011: 50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children, households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.

Eighteen percent of households in the state of Texas from 2009 through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity--only the state of Mississippi exceed the ratio of households struggling with hunger.

In the 18th Congressional District an estimated 151,741 families lived in poverty.

There are charitable organizations that many of us contribute to that provide food assistance to people in need, but their resources would not be able to fill the gap created by a $20.5 billion dollar cut to Federal food assistance programs.

Food banks and pantry's fill an important role by helping the working poor, disabled and the poor gain access to food assistance when government subsidized food assistance or budgets fall short of basic needs. Food pantries also help when an unforeseen circumstance occurs and more food is needed for a family to make it until payday or government assistance arrives. However, food pantries cannot carry the full burden of a communities' need for food on their own.

During these difficult economic times, people who once gave to food pantries may now seek donations from them. Millions of low income persons and families receive food assistance through SNAP. This program represents the nation's largest program that combats domestic hunger.

For more than 40 years, SNAP has offered nutrition assistance to millions of low income individuals and families. Today, the SNAP program serves over 46 million people each month.

SNAP Statistics: Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp benefits, 23 percent of households include a disabled person and 18 percent of households include an elderly person, The FSP increases household food spending, and the increase is greater than what would occur with an equal benefit in cash, every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much ($9.20) in total community spending.

The economics of SNAP food it does not support programs benefit everyone by preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable supermarkets. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the cost of food for everyone less expensive and assure a variety and abundance of food selections found in grocery stores.

SNAP is the largest program in the American domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service programs it does not supported by SNAP work with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood as well as faith-based organizations to assist those eligible for nutrition assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and work to ensure the program's integrity.

Yes, more can be done to assure that food distribution from the fields to the tables of Americans in most need can be improved. To begin the process of improving our nations ability to more efficiently and effective in meeting the food needs of citizens must began with understanding the problem and acting on facts. I strongly it does not support hearings on the subject and encourage all oversight committees to consider taking up the matter during this Congress.

However, we cannot ignore the safety process in place to prevent abuse or misuse of the program. The Federal SNAP law provides two basic pathways for financial eligibility to the program: (1) meeting federal eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or ``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.

However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and human services.

TANF gives states flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a wide variation of benefits and services offered among the states. SNAP allows states to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides states with the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.

Congress cannot afford to forget that by the year 2050, the world population is expected to be 9 billion persons. We cannot build our nation's food security on an uncertain future. Domestic food production and access to healthy nutritious food is essential to our nation's long term national security.

Until we see the final farm bill, including the amendment adopted by the Full House, I cannot offer my it does not support for the legislation as it is written.

The bill is too shortsighted about the realities of hunger in our nation--the fact that it proposes to cut $20.5 billion from the SNAP program is of great concern. We should work to create certainty for farmers who run high risk businesses that are vulnerable to weather changes, insects or blight.

We should be equally concerned about providing long term food security for all of our nation's citizens, which include rural, suburban and urban dwellers.

I thank the Agriculture Committee for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc for the bill. I as my colleagues on both sides of the isle should have it does not supported the McGovern Amendment to prevent the $20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. Food is not an option--and people who need help from their government should not be treated like they committed a crime.

I do not support this bill. It removes all authorization to feed our nations hungry.

Mr. Speaker, so much left undone.

Our students are crying out. Maybe they're saying, ``Mercy.''

To avoid this 6.8 percent increase in their rates, putting hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt on our college students, Congress must act immediately, and we must push and drive those who believe our students are not important.

Undone. The high unemployment of youth. In our meeting with the President yesterday, I mentioned the idea that we must construct a program that deals with underemployed or unemployed youth, particularly those high numbers in our minority community.

And then, of course, the prevention of youth violence, gun violence, that is a crucial issue for all of us. The Congressional Black Caucus will be working extensively with the President to help drive legislation that will pass reasonable gun violence prevention legislation but, more importantly as well, keep our young people alive, keep them

in school, and, yes, keep them studying, understanding and preventing gun violence from making them a victim.

This Congress must act now and end sequestration to make sure that America is treated well by this Nation.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), and I rise belatedly to support the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well.

Let me speak from the layman's perspective, although I served for a number of years on the Science Committee and presently serve on Homeland Security, which many of us know that when we deal with the issues of national security, we're dealing with technology, we're dealing with science. In essence, we secure this Nation by being victors of science.

Let me use layman's terms. Let me use what children are studying in their classrooms, maybe Alexander Bell, maybe they're studying Albert Einstein, but maybe they are studying and admire the Nation's astronauts.

For a number of years, I served, as I said, on the Science Committee and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I could see how science permeated not only what we do here on Earth, but obviously space science. It seems to me, although I appreciate the heavy lifting of the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on making determinations and going forward, what is America if we cannot invest in science?

Science is the job creator of the 21st century and the centuries beyond. Science provides jobs by creating new technology, new discoveries, and I, frankly, believe that it is suffering--that we have to subject America to the drastic cuts in science, the drastic cuts that will result in less research in labs, less private research, less teaching on science, and less growth and expansion on scientific inventions and obviously productivity.

So I would hope that, as the gentleman from Illinois has explained, it is a minute aspect of the funding source, and that we could balance our weaponry needs with the idea of advancing science. That's what I see these amendments as doing, both Mr. Hastings' and Mr. Foster's, attempting to not allow America to take a back seat or a second-class position on research and science.

It is clear that our best days are in front of us, and that America has grown and advanced because we have allowed the genius of science to be able to promote, not only our democracy, but our creativity and the curers of diseases, and also the finding of technology and the creation of invention that have made the quality of life better. That's what science is; it is human, it is humanity.

And so I would ask my colleagues to consider the amendment.

I rise to support science. I think it is valuable, I think it is important. And I think this is a difficult challenge for our committee, for this committee, but I do think that, as we proceed, we need to find a way to increase the funding for science, for us to be able to go forward in the greatness of this Nation in many, many ways.

But science has been a way that America has proven her greatness because we've allowed those with talent and opportunity to be able to share that talent in advancing the quality of life, not only for Americans, but humankind.

I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to add my appreciation to the committee's work. It's tough work. It's important work because this is how we serve the American people.

I ask my colleagues to discuss with me--or follow my discussion on the importance of the amendment that I offer because it is an amendment that takes its funding from a source of funding that has been discussed previously, and that is the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National Nuclear Security Administration. But it does take these moneys and it uses them in a very constructive manner. It is moneys to maintain for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, minority-serving institutions, tribal colleges, and other organizations. This is imperative in preserving sustainability and growth of a community and environment.

Mr. Chairman, that is the intent, the simple intent, that alongside of the important work of this appropriation of the Energy and Water there is a constant need to be assured that our communities are protected. Let me cite just a few examples as we proceed.

Many of us understand the recent tragedy that occurred--not in this country, but recently occurred in Canada where areas were wiped out. This is an important highlight for what environmental justice is all about.

Many of us have heard in the years past of the Buffalo Creek disaster. This is what environmental justice does; it is to fund programs that are vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes.

But it goes further. It is underserved areas. It is as much important to preserve areas in Appalachia, in the Delta, in places where poor communities cannot, if you will, represent themselves. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and our citizens can improve their surroundings.

What better group than Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving institutions that include Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges; why are they the best to move in that direction? Primarily because they communicate with those underserved communities.

Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, weatherization cleanup, and asset revitalization. These improvements will provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.

Many people believe environmental justice has to do with lawsuits. It has to do with outreach and information.

This is simply a small program that allows the Department of Energy to focus on this constituency and ensure the coverage and the protection.

This program provides better access to technology for underserved communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture distributed access to information which generates a recognition of protecting the environment. Community leaders are able as well to participate in environmental justice.

In our communities, in urban areas, there's a need for environmental justice. Again, what better institutions than those institutions that draw their population from the communities, that draw their population from the reservations or from the communities that our Native Americans are engaged in?

So I ask my colleagues to look at this program, look at the, if you will, fiscal responsibility that I've utilized in drawing from the program to invest in environmental justice. It's a fair way to give resources to these vital institutions that, to be frank with you, Mr. Chairman, they don't have the resources, but they do good work.

Texas Southern University had an environmental justice clinic located in Houston in the 18th Congressional District. But let me be very clear, this is not an earmark. These are resources that can be used by the Department of Energy that will respond to this broad depth of universities, Historically Black Colleges, tribal institutions, minority-serving--which include, of course, the Hispanic-serving institutions.

Let me quickly say that since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy projects. But again, this is limited to environmental justice. I believe this is an effective utilization of these funds and would ask my colleagues to ensure that we have the funds to ensure the good work of these particular entities.

Let me conclude by asking my colleagues to support the education of our young people in the environmental protection area that enhances the communities from which they have come, making America better. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady, and I thank my good friend from New Jersey. But I do want to cite that nearly 10 years ago, President Clinton produced Executive Order 12898, thereby highlighting the importance of not only giving greater attention to our underserved communities, but also how we can help our citizens by educating them on the areas in which they live. That falls under the particular account that I'm utilizing, and I would therefore like to go forward in this instance.

Let me just be very appreciative of my good friend, the chairman of this subcommittee, and the ranking member. I am very appreciative of how difficult it is under sequester. But what I would say is that these entities--Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving and tribal colleges--in the course of what we're trying to do, these resources, added to what the gentleman has already indicated, the $3.2 million, $3.4 million is meager in what they could do with protecting communities, educating communities about their environmental needs.

So that's environmental justice. It is expanding the reach so that communities are far more protected than those that we've seen.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Will the gentlewoman yield for a moment if you still have time?

Let me sort of clarify, because the chairman has made a point about a certain area where it is referencing Historically Black Colleges. They are referencing several areas. I am speaking specifically to environmental justice, which is represented in the Departmental Administration account. So I'm focusing on the important work that these colleges can do as it relates to educating our poor, impoverished communities and communities of which they have a direct ability to communicate with.

I will tell you, bringing forth environmental experts out of these jurisdictions--tribal colleges, minority-serving, and Historically Black--is a great asset to improving the quality of life of all Americans. So I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

So mine is one of the references. There are many references where Historically Black Colleges are, but this is specifically dealing with environmental justice.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H.R. 2383, which designates the portion of the new Interstate 70 bridge over the Mississippi River connecting St. Louis and southwestern Illinois as the ``Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge.'' I support this legislation not only because it will ease traffic congestion and make transportation easier across state lines, but also because it honors a great American and one of the most beloved figures in the storied history of St. Louis, Missouri.

Stan ``The Man'' Musial is a prime example of determination as seen through his athletic career and being named as the one of the greatest hitters in baseball history. His athletic achievements show the strength and hard work he put forth in order to achieve the dreams he dreamt of at a young age. He not only is a baseball hero that many remember, but a iconic hero that gave St. Louis one of its historical markers. Today, we can see how the city admires this star leader with his proud history all over the city and the tribute made to him outside of the Cardinals baseball stadium.

Not only was Stan Musial's baseball career an example of his determination, but his willingness to serve the country as seen through his service in the United States Navy reflects his notable character as well. Stan Musial served as a Seaman First Class (E3) and was given the honorable Navy Memorial's Lone Sailor Award which honors Navy veterans who've excelled in civilian life.

With this notable athlete and veteran in our history, it is the least that can be done to name this structure as a memorial and sign of this great individual. This bridge will allow for easier transportation across the Mississippi River and allow for greater access to both Illinois and Missouri. With projects such as this, we will be able to promote growth, sustain national and international trade, as well as ensure that our citizens are able to take advantage of proper infrastructure.

Again, I congratulate the members of the Missouri and Illinois delegation for brokering

the compromise reflected in this legislation. The Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge is strong and sturdy and made of steel, just like Stan Musial and the veterans who risked their lives to keep us free.

Last week, Houston lost a wonderful daughter and a great leader by the name of Doris Marie Jones Hubbard. This morning, we buried her, finally, in the Houston Veterans Cemetery.

I rise today to pay tribute to someone who truly believed in democracy,

who was an advocate for the poor and for people who did not have. She shared her talents, was a pioneer in her own right by integrating and forcing opportunity in the Democratic Party of Texas. Some would think that it's party politics. I would think simply that that is making sure that everyone has an opportunity to participate and to share in the opportunities that this country gives you to have your voice heard. More importantly, she loved her daughter, Kqisha, and she was a valiant champion in the Acres Homes community.

We will sorely miss Doris for she shared, she mentored, she gave, and she believed in America with her husband, Ernest, who served in the United States Marines. She was honored today by being buried in the Houston Veterans Cemetery alongside her beloved late spouse.

Together, I call them American heroes.

Let me thank my classmate, and we certainly owe him a debt of gratitude for the respect that he is allowing us to show on the floor of the House in honor of the Honorable William H. Gray, III. I, too, want to offer my sympathy to his wife, Andrea, to Bill Gray, who we often saw with him, and he would be really at his side. Bill and Andrea and Justin and Andrew, I offer to them enormous concern for the loss of this great, great champion.

I, too, want to lift my voice and say that Bill Gray wore many hats. On behalf of the faith community in Houston, the faith community in Texas, I want the Gray family to know that my pastors recognize and respected Bill Gray. In fact, when we would see each other, and I did not, as Chaka has said, have an opportunity to serve with him, but when we would see each other, he would ask about this pastor or that pastor, and it gave me a sense of friendship but also a sense of connectedness to Bill by saying, oh, they like you, too, or they said hello as well, because Bill was so respected.

If I might say on this floor, Bill Gray was a child of God. Although we are going to say so many things about him, I think it is appropriate to say that he loved his church and his ministry. My pastors across Texas are praying for his family.

I want to cite a few things that I think are so much a part of his DNA and his legacy, to be able to be a son of a mother and father who were premier educators in the life of historically black colleges, to be able to see him carry their leadership and move it to the United Negro College Fund, which is where I first came to know him, having not served with him in his work, but I knew him earlier because he and Mickey Leland were dear friends. And you can be assured that Mickey never

left Washington up here. Whenever he would come home, he would share his stories with us, who looked up and thought these stories of grandeur, of leadership, of good fights to make things better, and we would hear about Bill Gray, his friend.

I remember Mickey leading the Congressional Black Caucus and bringing them to Houston. Bill Gray was there, and they were talking about what a challenge it was to leave Washington, but they were glad to come to then not really the fourth-largest city in the Nation, but to come down South and show what the Congressional Black Caucus represented.

So I want to say that we are grateful for the courage but also the astuteness of his success: 56 years in the United Negro College Fund, $1.6 billion, $1.5 billion, one-half of that was raised under Bill Gray. He was serious about his work.

Sometimes we don't understand, and this is, of course, for the Congressional Record, because my Members do, but first are to be respected. And it should be known that our colleague, Bill Gray, was the first African American to rise to the level of leadership which he did. We say the words ``majority leader,'' we say the words ``chairman of the Budget Committee,'' we say the words ``chair of the Democratic Caucus,'' but he was the first. He will forever be in the annals of history, and I think it is absolutely key that that is the case.

I want to cite the bills, as my colleague from California said, I want to call them out: H.R. 1460, the Anti-Apartheid Action Act of 1985; and the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, H.R. 4868. Those were the guys who came together--we've mentioned Ron Dellums and the whole expanse of Members at that time who stood resolved that this Nation would not diminish its democratic ideals by engaging with South Africa. And I think courageously he took a stand that we are so proud of.

He was, of course, respected in Washington and appointed by the President as an adviser and received a Medal of Honor from the Haitian President Aristide. He took leadership and he took it with a great sense of dignity.

Let me conclude my comments by indicating that Bill Gray always had a smile on his face. He never stopped working. There were many times he came to my office not as a former majority leader but for an issue that he may have had. As I know he went into many Members' offices, particularly members of the Congressional Black Caucus. It was always uplifting, but Bill Gray always had a story of encouragement. He always had a smile and a deep laugh. He was a good man, and I want to leave this floor by saying good men, good people die young. But what we will always remember is that Bill Gray walked in giant steps, not because of his height but because of his service to America, his love of God, his love of people, and his love of his family. He will be forever missed, and he will be forever remembered. God bless him. God bless his family, and God bless his service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of a great American, Congressman William ``Bill'' Gray, who served more than a decade in this great body.

Today, Members of both the House and the Senate and people around this great Nation mourn the passing of a legislator, a politician, a pastor, a teacher, a public servant and most of all a larger-than-life patriot.

The United States, the State of Pennsylvania and Congress have lost a true hero in Congressman Bill Gray. My heart went out to his family, and the constituents he represented upon learning of his passing last week. Congressman Gray was a true patriot and devoted his time here on earth to serving others in his district, state, country, and around the world. His presence with us will be deeply missed, but I know that his legacy will live on for decades to come.

Congressman Bill Gray was born on August 20, 1943 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but he spent most of his childhood in Florida, where his father served as the president of Florida Normal and Industrial College, which later became Florida A8zM University.

Congressman Gray, like his father, was a strong supporter of education and leading advocate for strengthening America's educational systems. He earned several degrees: a bachelor's degree in 1963 from Franklin and Marshall College, a Master's of Divinity in 1966 from Drew Theological Seminary, and another Master's in Church History from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1970. Additionally, he was awarded more than 65 honorary degrees from America's leading colleges and universities.

Born into a family of ministers and educators, Congressman Gray carried on his family traditions until his death. At an early age, he accepted his calling to become a preacher, and from that day, he proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus in the church, in the community, and even in the halls of Congress. His faith was unshakable and undeniable; it was evident that he lived his life based upon what he preached.

Congressman Gray was the pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in Philadelphia for more than 25 years, a church pastored by his father and grandfather. Under his leadership, the congregation grew to more than 5,000 plus members, and the church served tens of thousands citizens in the community.

In addition to his church ministry, Congressman Gray served as a faculty member and professor of history and religion at St. Peter's College, Jersey City State College, Montclair State College, Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Temple University. He spent countless hours outside of the classroom preparing students for success.

Elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1978, Congressman Gray was a persistent voice for equal rights, educational access, and opportunity for all persons, in the United States and abroad. He pushed tirelessly for more economic aid for Africa and was a leading critic of the South African apartheid.

In 1985, Congressman Gray was elected as the first African American Chair of the House Budget Committee where he introduced H.R. 1460, the ``Anti-Apartheid Action Act of 1985'', which prohibited loans and new investment in South Africa and imposed sanctions on imports and exports with South Africa. This bill was an instrumental precursor to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (H.R. 4868). Congressman Gray played a leading role in shaping United States policy toward South Africa, and awakening America to the moral imperative of ending apartheid and other injustices abroad.

In 1989, Congressman Gray was elected to serve as the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and later that year was elected Majority Whip. He was the first African American to hold these positions and his success inspired a generation of African American elected officials.

In 1991, Congressman Gray resigned from Congress to become the president and chief executive officer of the United Negro College Fund, UNCF, America's oldest and most successful black higher education assistance organization. As president, Congressman Gray led the UNCF to new fund-raising records while cutting costs and expanding programs and services. Approximately one-half of the more than $1.6 billion raised in UNCF's history was collected during Congressman Gray's tenure.

During the Clinton Administration, Congressman Gray served as President Clinton's special adviser on Haiti. He assisted President Clinton in developing and carrying out policy to restore democracy to Haiti. As a result of his commitment to Haiti, Congressman Gray and President Clinton received the Medal of Honor from Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Congressman Gray will always be, in a word, a giant--of Philadelphia, of Congress, and of our country. He was a leader and a trailblazer for the people he represented. His mission was to help people live better lives, to do the work of his Christian faith, to advance the moral evolution of humankind, to make public policy that provided education, and to bring justice and joy to all human beings one decent act at a time.

Congressman Gray's strong, powerful, and influential voice will be missed. Philadelphia, the United States and the world have lost a great statesman in Congressman William ``Bill'' Gray. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee

Amendment No. 9: Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Page 49, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $1,000,000)''.