Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I, along with fellow Members of the Texas and Harris County delegation, stand together to honor and recognize the sacrifice of four fallen firefighters who died last Friday, May 31, 2013, in the city of Houston serving in the line of duty.

We offer our heartfelt sympathy to the families and fellow firefighters of those who died and those who were injured.

We are united with the city of Houston in grief over the deaths of Captain EMT Matthew Renaud, Engineer Operator EMT Robert Bebee, Firefighter EMT Robert Garner, and Probationary Firefighter Anne Sullivan, who died last Friday while searching a blazing hotel and restaurant for possible trapped victims.

In the 118-year history of the Houston City Fire Department, this was the greatest loss of life of their members while on duty. Their heroism will not be soon forgotten nor their sacrifice dimmed by time.

In the Firemen's Creed, these words are heard loudly:

But, above all, our proudest endeavor is to save lives of

men, the work of God, Himself.

We ask that our colleagues join us now in a moment of silence in their memory.

Mr. Speaker, we wish all firefighters injured last Friday a speedy recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I along with fellow members of the Harris County Delegation stand together to honor and recognize the sacrifice of four fallen Firefighters who died last Friday, May 31, 2013 in the City of Houston, Texas serving in the line of duty.

We offer our heartfelt sympathy to the families and fellow firefighters of those who died.

We are united with the City of Houston in grief over the deaths of Captain EMT Matthew Renaud, Engineer Operator EMT Robert Bebee, Firefighter EMT Robert Garner and Probationary Firefighter Anne Sullivan who died on Friday, while searching a blazing hotel and restaurant for possible trapped victims.

In the 118 year history of the Houston City Fire Department this was the greatest loss of life of their members while on duty. Their heroism will not be soon forgotten nor their sacrifice dimmed by time.

Excerpts from the Firemen's Creed

I have no ambition in this world but one and that is to be

a fireman . . . We strive to preserve from destruction the

wealth of the world . . . We are the defenders from fire . .

. But, above all, our proudest endeavor is to save lives of

men, the work of GOD himself.

We ask that our colleagues join us in a moment of silence in their memory.

We wish a speedy recovery for all those firefighters injured during Friday's tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. Con. Res. 16, which authorizes the use of Emancipation Hall for the unveiling of a statute of Frederick Douglass. It is fitting and proper that Emancipation Hall is the venue for the dedication of a memorial to one of this nation's greatest abolitionists and orators, and one of the closest friends and advisors of the Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln.

Frederick Douglass was born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey near Easton, Maryland, on February 18, 1818, and lived the first 20 years of his life as a slave before escaping to freedom in 1838 through the Underground Railroad. With the assistance of abolitionists, he resettled in New Bedford, Massachusetts and changed his name to avoid recapture by fugitive slave bounty hunters.

Frederick Douglass had no formal education but he recognized the power of education and taught himself to read and write. He would go on to become the publisher of ``The North Star,'' a leading abolitionist newspaper, whose motto was ``Right is of no Sex--Truth is of no Color-- God is the Father of us all, and we are all brethren.''

Frederick Douglass also authored one of the seminal works in American history, the influential autobiography ``Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,'' which explained with unsurpassed eloquence how slavery corrupts the human spirit and robs both master and slave of their freedom.

Frederick Douglass devoted his life to the struggle for freedom, human dignity, and the full measure of civil and human rights for all men and women, famously observing that ``where there is no struggle, there is no progress; power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will.''

Frederick Douglass was also one of America's greatest orators. He was the only African American to attend the first women's rights convention in 1848 at Seneca Falls, New York, where he spoke powerfully and forcefully in favor of women's suffrage. In his moving address, he said that he could not accept the right to vote as a black man if women could not also claim that right and suggested that the world would be a better place if women were involved in the political sphere:

In this denial of the right to participate in government,

not merely the degradation of woman and the perpetuation of a

great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of

one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the

government of the world.

On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass delivered the address for which he is perhaps best known. The theme of that address to the Ladies of the Rochester Anti-Slavery Sewing Society was ``What to the slave is the 4th of July?'' In that speech, he described in stark and vivid detail the gap between America's principles and practices, its aspirations and the actual condition of people's lives, especially those persons of African descent. In answering the question, ``What to the slave is your 4th of July,'' he said:

[A] day that reveals to him, more than all other days in

the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the

constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your

boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness,

swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and

heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted

impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow

mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and

thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity,

are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and

hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would

disgrace a nation of savages.

But Frederick Douglass was not bitter at America, he was determined to make her better. And he did through his writings, lectures, speeches, and civic activism. Most of all, the bond of friendship he forged with President Lincoln helped the nation summon the will to accept civil war as the price to be paid to abolish American slavery and emancipate from bondage millions of slaves and their descendants.

On April 14, 1876, the eleventh anniversary of the Lincoln's assassination, Frederick Douglass was the keynote speaker at the dedication of the Freedmen's Monument in Memory of Abraham Lincoln in the City of Washington, in which the Great Abolitionist spoke for all former slaves in paying tribute to the Great Emancipator:

Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; we saw him .

. . in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in

view of that divinity which shapes our ends, . . . we came to

the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption

had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. [He] was at

the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest

sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things,

must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever

abolished in the United States.

After the Civil War, Frederick served as U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia and later as the first African American Recorder of Deeds. In 1888 at the Republican National Convention, he became the first African-American to receive a vote for nomination as president of the United States by one of the major parties. From 1889 to 1891, Frederick Douglass served his country as Minister-Resident and Consul- General to Haiti. He died in Washington, D.C. on February 20, 1895, at the age of 77.

Mr. Speaker, the life of Frederick Douglass affirms what is great about our country. Here was a man who overcame the conditions of his birth and the disadvantages of his race to become one of the towering figures of his age. His life proves that Margaret Mead was right when she said:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed

citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing

that ever has.

With the unveiling of the statute in memory of Frederick Douglass, fittingly located in Emancipation Hall of the U.S. Capitol, the story of this great man who led such a consequential life will be made known to all who visit for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1412, the ``Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013.'' There are over 800,000 veterans unemployed, or unable to find work in the United States, and the number is rising every year. If our brave men and women are to serve at home and abroad, it is our moral obligation to help ensure they can successfully transition into the workforce. For this reason I support the legislation before us.

H.R. 1412 would extend for one month an expiring provision of law that limits pensions paid to certain veterans who are receiving Medicaid coverage in Medicaid-approved nursing homes. The bill also would modify the conditions for veterans to receive education benefit payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for participating in on-the-job training and require VA to enter into agreements with other federal agencies to promote on-the-job training opportunities for veterans.

The Improving Job Opportunities for Veterans Act will reduce the final OJT/Apprenticeship salary requirements that employers pay of the normal wage from 85% to 75% to encourage employers to offer more OJT/ Apprenticeship training for an additional 4 years. The bill also requires other Federal agencies to enter into agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs to hire veterans using the OJT/ Apprenticeship benefit and extends reduced pension benefits for certain veterans in Medicaid funded nursing homes.

If enacted, CBO estimates that, on net, the bill would decrease direct spending by $14 million over the next five years and by $12 million over the next ten years. Because the bill would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting H.R. 1412 would not affect revenues. In addition, implementing H.R. 1412 would have an insignificant effect on discretionary spending.

Mr. Speaker, instead of returning home to their loving families, friends, and loved ones, 12 percent of veterans--about 1 in 8--are returning home to find unemployment lines. We owe it to these men and women who selflessly served our nation to help them change their condition for the better. The legislation before us, H.R. 1412, is a step in the right direction for veterans across the country and for many of the 35,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars who live in the Houston metropolitan area.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join in me in supporting H.R. 1412, the ``Job Opportunities for Veterans Act of 2013.''

I thank the gentlelady from New York and the gentlelady from North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from New York for her persistent leadership on this issue.

I rise today to first ask the question how you can have legislation that sounds positive, but in actuality literally puts the education system of America upside down.

First, let me tell you how frustrated Americans are as they see the drip, drip, dripping of the sequester; and I join the gentlelady in her frustration on why we have not gone to budget reconciliation. I just want to mention the pathway of education so we can see that families are being pounded upon. Sequestration is causing 70,000 children to lose Head Start and Early Head Start. And, unfortunately, 950,000 military children will lose teachers. I live in a State where we have a lot of military bases.

So when I rise today to oppose H.R. 1911, I rise with a high degree of overwhelming frustration for the people who live in my State. I am sorry that this rule did not accept an amendment that I had that would have submitted a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering loan forgiveness for those who put businesses in economically depressed areas. That truly provides for jobs.

But then the real thing is to cap the interest rates at 4 percent. As was indicated by my colleague, Mr. Holt, he indicated how the numbers would go up for the students. Well, let me talk to you about Parent PLUS. Now, you can really see the oppression on parents who are trying to help their children go to school. In addition to the $100 billion of debt that students are carrying, we now eliminate the feasibility of Parent PLUS loans. Right now in current law, they're $27,956. But if we go into this bill, they'll go up to almost $36,000. Imagine a parent with four children.

I've spoken in the last couple of weeks at the University of Houston- Downtown, the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College. I've spoken at Lone Star colleges, all of these colleges in our districts, St. Thomas.

All of this does not answer the question when this bill will be passed. I ask my colleagues to oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bill. Cap this. This is not the President's message. The President had an extended life to be able to provide for parents and students. All you have to do is look at the red--$36,000 is what this bill is going to cost parents, and that means that we're going to close the door of opportunity for women, for minorities, and for Americans to get a higher education.

This is not the way in graduation season to say thank you to our children for being successful and graduating from college. Let's oppose this bill and do the right thing for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would cause financial hardship for students seeking a higher education.

The Rule for H.R. 1911 did not fix the underlying legislation. In fact, the Rule we are debating accepted no amendments that were offered by Members of the Congress. I offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #1 that would have capped student interest at 4 percent. This would have removed the threat of the cost of education doubling at the beginning of July.

I also offered the Jackson Lee Amendment #2, which directed the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of offering student loan forgiveness to those who start businesses in economically depressed areas such as HUBZones.

This amendment would have encouraged young people from low income areas who get college degrees to return home to start businesses. This would establish economic opportunities for young graduates as an option for employment and at the same time bring businesses and job opportunities to target areas.

Students who are graduating across the nation are departing colleges and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans distributed every year. In total, student loan debt adds up to $1 trillion. As a direct consequence of a weak economy, more than ever students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.

The American family has been under financial pressure for twenty years resulting in longer hours, less pay and more debt. The only reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn more. During difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going back to school. Parents who want a better life for their children will take on college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.

In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

On July 1, 2013 the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent. As Members of the Congress we know what this will mean for students in our districts and what it will mean for colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.

Some may try to tell you this bill does what President Obama proposed to do, but it does not. The President's proposal would have fixed the rate on student loans based on the actual Department of the Treasury's cost of borrowing. The Administration's plan would set the repayment costs for the entire life of the student loan, which would have created certainty for the borrower. The President's plan would tie student loan repayments to what graduates were earning after starting their careers. This would have supported a student's dream to become a teacher, social worker, artist, lawyer, doctor or engineer.

Finally, President Obama would extend these favorable loan options to those already in the workforce who still have student loan debt. Paying a reasonable rate that is fixed over the life of the loan and would be based on what you can afford to pay--that is what the President proposed, but this is not what this bill does.

The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national priority, not an afterthought. This is a bad bill that will not solve the problem of out of control student loan debt. For all of these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule for H.R. 1911, and the underlying legislation.

American Association of

University Women,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.

Re Oppose the Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911)

Dear Representative: On behalf of the over 150,000

bipartisan members and supporters of the American Association

of University Women (AAUVV), I urge you to vote against the

Smarter Solutions for Students Act (H.R. 1911). While AAUW

supports preventing the doubling of interest rates on

subsidized Stafford loans, scheduled to occur on July 1st,

the Smarter Solutions for Students Act fails to provide

stability in borrowing for students, and would not ensure

that rates stay low in the foreseeable future.

With changes in the workforce over the century, higher

education is becoming less of a luxury and more of a

necessity. At current rates, the U.S. will add over 16

million jobs by the year 2020 that require at least some

postsecondary education. Moreover, the number of jobs

requiring a graduate degree is estimated to grow by at least

2.5 million by that same year. Since many students cannot pay

for their degrees out-of-pocket, student loans are an

important option and a worthwhile investment. College

graduates have fared better in the recent recession and

current recovery, and have higher wages and better job

prospects overall. Students rely on Stafford loans as a part

of the financial aid they use to finance higher education.

Subsidized Stafford loans are only offered to students with

demonstrated need. Specifically, about 30 percent of

undergraduates in 2007-08 received a subsidized Stafford

loan, and a majority of those recipients were women.

Many graduates struggle to repay their loans. Loan

repayment is an even more significant burden for women, who

earn less on average over the course of their lives than

their male counterparts. AAUW's research report, Graduating

to a Pay Gap: The Earnings of Women and Men One Year after

College Graduation, found that the median student loan debt

burden was slightly higher in 2009 for women than men. In

addition, among full-time workers who were repaying their

loans in 2009, nearly half (47 percent) of women one year

after college graduation were paying more than 8 percent of

their earnings toward student loan debt. Only 39 percent of

men were in the same position. Furthermore, just over half of

women (53 percent) and 39 percent of men, were paying a

greater percentage of their income toward student loan debt

than AAUW estimates a typical woman or man could afford.

Keeping interest rates low on student loans is important

and the Smarter Solutions for Students Act would fail to do

so. At the current interest rate of 3.4 percent the

government earns almost 12.5 cents per each dollar loaned in

the subsidized Stafford loan program. This underscores that

there is no reason rates should increase at all for students.

Under the Smarter Solutions for Students Act, over the next 3

years interest rates are projected to rise to as much at 7.36

percent. Not only would Fixed rates ensure that when students

borrow, they know upfront what their monthly repayment amount

will be, as the rate is consistent through repayment. AAUW

knows that this is a key component of ensuring students are

smart borrowers when it comes to financing their higher

education. If they must take out a loan, knowing the

repayment schedule of that loan is necessary for their

planning purposes.

Allowing the interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans to

double on July 1 would have a real impact on students. The

interest rate increase could mean as much as $1,000 in

additional debt. But, the Smarter Solutions

for Students Act is not a real solution. Under this proposal

interest rates would be projected to increase, and students

and graduates would be faced with annual uncertainty as their

rates at origination and during repayment would vary based on

the market. I urge you to vote against the Smarter Solutions

for Students Act (H.R. 1911). Votes associated with this

legislation may be scored in the AAUW Action Fund

Congressional Voting Record for the 113th Congress. If you

have any questions or need additional information, feel free

to contact me or Anne Hedgepeth, government relations

manager.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Maatz,

Director,

Public Policy and Government Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1911, the Smarter Solutions for Students Act because this bill becoming law would be worse than allowing student loan interest rates to double on July 1, 2013.

If Congress does nothing the student loan interest rate will rise from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1st. As Members of the Congress, we know what this will mean for students in our states and what it will mean for colleges and universities in our Congressional Districts.

The bill H.R. 1911 does not fix the problem of higher interest rates for student loans, but places a greater financial burden on young professionals just starting out in life. The Treasury 10 year rate over the last several years is abnormally low due to the weak economy, but in years when the economy was strong the rate was consistently above 6 percent or more. This is the rate that H.R. 1911 would use to calculate student loan repayment not over the life of the loan, but each time funds were provided.

I have a strong interest in how student loan repayment plans impact graduates. During the last Congress, I introduced the College Literacy in Finance and Economics Act of 2011 or College LIFE Act to address the challenges faced by African American and Hispanic students who sign loan agreements, but may not have the financial literacy to comprehend the significance of taking on long-term debt.

My bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive their loan.

Literacy counseling under the College LIFE Act would require: a minimum of two 4-hour counseling sessions, the first when a student receives a loan payment, and the second when student's complete their study.

The focus of financial literacy education under the College LIFE Act was to make sure students knew through counseling what they were agreeing to in signing up for and receiving a student loan.

Counseling would provide information on student education financial options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on loan management and the basics of personal financial management.

The bill would have also provided financial education that taught students how to: make a budget, prioritize financial decision making related to how to balance income, expenses and personal spending, develop realistic goals based on income, and manage credit and debt.

Students would have learned how to understand credit scores, credit cards, and investing so that they could become better financial consumers.

The College LIFE Act would have benefited thousands of graduating students. In the City of Houston, this spring I have participated in commencement exercises for the University of Houston, Texas Southern University, Houston Community College and Lone Star College North Harris. There are thousands of new graduates just in the City of Houston alone who are ready to pursue their dreams, but who will wake up to the reality of tens of thousands of dollars in debt.

I am proud to call Texas Southern University a constituent of the 18th Congressional District of Houston Texas. Texas Southern University is the third largest Historically Black College and University in the Nation. I joined Texas Southern University's current president Dr. John Rudley at the school's commencement. Texas Southern University has a long proud history of success in the students it has sent forth.

The school was founded in September of 1927 with a loan from the Houston Public School Board. This was not a loan intended to saddle the school with a debt too great to survive. For this reason, along with hard work and the dedication of faculty, students and the Houston Community, the University will celebrate its 86th anniversary this year.

Texas Southern University's loan statistics for the 9700 students attending the school tells us why financial aid is important:

Eighty-one percent of the students attending the school receive some form of student financial assistance.

Texas Southern University received $85 million in student financial aid revenue for graduate and undergraduate students.

Due to a change in how the Department of Education determines eligibility for parent student loans, there are over 400 fewer students attending Texas Southern University this year.

Changes to student loan rules--no matter how minor--can result in major consequences for a young person's prospects for a college or university degree. A college degree can open up a world of opportunities that would otherwise not be available.

I spoke at Texas Southern University's commencement exercise and was pleased to be joined by Michael Strahan, a Texas Southern University Alum who is a co-host of Live with Kelly and Michael.

Not all Texas Southern University graduates are as famous as Michael Strahan, but many

of them pursue careers that lead to personal and professional success. The goal of attending a university should and ought not to be gaining fame and fortune.

The outcome of our work in Congress should not result in crushing financial debt, because that will end the dreams of college for otherwise college-ready students.

In 2008, 62 percent of students who graduated with a baccalaureate degree left college with more than knowledge--they were burdened with debt. Students of every race, ethnicity, and gender struggle with loans.

According to 2008 statistics: 92 percent of African-American students, 85 percent of Hispanic students, 85 percent of Native American students, 82 percent of multiracial students, 80 percent of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Island students, 77 percent of white students, and 68 percent of Asian students received financial aid.

Education is the surest path out of poverty. However, if the changes proposed by H.R. 1911, that would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 are allowed to become law, the cost of education will become more uncertain and much more costly.

The reason, I introduced the College LIFE Act was to deal with the issue of personal financial education that has to proceed or come as a requirement when students take on college education debt.

The bill directed that eligible institutions provide financial literacy counseling to borrowers within 45 days after students receive their loan.

The focus of the financial literacy education under the College LIFE Act was to make sure students knew what they were agreeing to in signing up for and receiving a student loan.

Counseling would provide information on student education financial options that went beyond loans and included scholarships. Student financial literacy programs can provide insight into information on loan management and the basics of personal financial management, such as how to make a budget, prioritizing income, expenses and personal spending, as well as how to develop realistic goals based on income.

These students would have also learned about credit and debt management by understanding the importance of credit scores. Counseling would make sure that students understood credit cards and investing.

The need for education from cradle to grave should be a national priority, not an afterthought. We know that the United States is behind in a wide array of areas related to Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics known as STEM education. The Republican leadership must make the national interest for STEM education a top priority.

Students who are graduating across the Nation are departing colleges and universities this spring with immense debt. Student borrowing is widespread with more than $100 billion in federal education loans distributed every year. In total student loan debt adds up to $1 trillion dollars. As a direct consequence of a weak economy more than ever, students and parents must rely upon loans to pay for higher education.

The only reliable way in today's economy to earn more is to learn more. During difficult economic times adults seek new careers by going back to school. Parents who want a better life for their children will take on college loan debt because the cost of education requires it.

This is a bad bill that will not solve the problem of out-of-control student loan debt. For the reasons stated, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, as we leave here today, many of us will anxiously return to our constituency to be able to celebrate and pay tribute to soldiers, those who have fallen, and of course those who are now veterans.

As I look out--and will look out--into the vast audience at the Houston veterans cemetery, I can tell you that I will see an array of America; families who have come to say thank you to the fallen. Those who have no relatives at that particular site are just being Americans. And as we, as Members of Congress, are sent to the podium to say thank you and to talk about the work we have done, the beautiful sunshine will shine on those faces, and we will feel that America is a country that really understands the love and affection for our soldiers and those who are on the battlefield.

I want to thank the city of Jacinto City, which will be placing flags to honor our soldiers. And I want to thank the community of Heights, where I will go later and place flags at the World War II memorial and draw the community together.

It is a day when we bond together as Americans because we are not of any party, of any region, of any political persuasion. We are simply Americans saying thank you to the soldiers, God bless you to America. For those who have fallen, we will never, never forget you, never any day of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, again let me offer my deepest concern and sympathy for our fellow Americans in Oklahoma--what an enormous tragedy and devastation--and also our friends in north Texas. America is embracing them, as we should.

But I rise today to acknowledge, as we look toward this coming weekend, and honor those who have fallen in battle, and to be able to celebrate the experience that Members of Congress, women Members of Congress had this morning in commemorating the war memorial for women, and to salute Brigadier General Wilma Vaught, who was the founder and originator, along with Members of Congress, of this historic memorial.

Today, we ascended to Arlington National Cemetery where we placed a wreath in honor of those women. 154 women have fallen in Afghanistan and Iraq. We had the privilege of honoring five women from the five military branches and to, again, pay tribute to those who are willing to sacrifice.

Men and women sacrifice. They are parents. Mothers leave behind their children and families. Families depend upon women in many different ways, and it is greatly an honor to be able to honor those women and to say as well that we will never, ever forget those men and women who have fallen in battle. And we will be there on Memorial Day, as I will be in my Heights location doing a flag ceremony and at the Veterans Cemetery, because this is what America does. We never forget those who fell in battle for us.

Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his leadership, and I hope that we will continue this debate with my good friends on the other side of the aisle on this issue.

It is just very challenging to have a structure of legislation that deems approval and does not do what I think all of us want it to do, which is to get moving to provide these jobs and to do what America is uniquely noted for--that we cross the T's and dot the I's, that we make sure that the environmental concerns are answered. I rise on this rule to make several points.

Mr. Rush and I offered an amendment to strike section 4. In this bill, it does not allow for judicial review. It allows for people in Kentucky or in Arizona or in Texas to come to the District of Columbia to file their cases in the Court of Appeals. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I raised concerns about that. My bill struck the provision that eliminated judicial review so that some burdened individual citizen couldn't just go into his Federal district court.

I had another amendment that is very near and dear to me that wants to give new life to the jobs and businesses in the energy industry, which is to create a report to ensure that women, small businesses, minority-owned businesses get their fair shake and that we have an overall commitment to hiring the new young graduates who are coming out, many of them from the diverse community, which we see the energy industry is still seeking to outreach because there is a great need for increased diversity in many of these fields. Amendment No. 2 would have added a nonseverability clause so that, if anything were found to be unconstitutional, we would go back to the drawing board for this entire bill.

Again, to have a major initiative be deemed approved, the Secretary of State authority deemed approved, the Presidential authority deemed approved, this is something that, my colleagues, we should work together on.

I would finally suggest that I hope my colleagues will support my amendment on extending to 1 year the period for filing. Let's work together and make sure we've got something that will create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Chairman Sessions and the Members of the Rules Committee for making in order my amendment that extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the Act from 60 days to 1 year.

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL Pipeline project raises several issues important to every Member of this House:

Energy production and independence.

Environmental protection and preservation.

Job creation.

Separation of powers and checks and balances.

Given the importance of these issues, I believe the House would have benefitted from a rule that provided for even more extensive and wide- ranging debate and that made more amendments in order.

For example, an amendment I offered jointly with Congressman Rush, Jackson Lee Amendment #4, would have struck Section 4 of the bill and restored the right to full judicial review to aggrieved parties.

Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment #3, would have required the Secretary of Transportation to submit within 90 days of enactment a report to Congress identifying the procedures and policies adopted to ensure that women and minority business enterprises are afforded the opportunity to participate on an equitable basis in the construction and operation of the Keystone equitable basis in the construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. Had this amendment been made in order and adopted Congress would have been provided with helpful information needed to conduct appropriate oversight.

Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment #2 Amendment, would have added a non-severability clause to the bill, which states that: ``if any provision or application of the legislation is held to be invalid, the entire act shall be rendered void.''

This non-severability clause simply would have made explicit that the component parts of this bill all fit together, in pari materia, so to speak, such that removing any one part would defeat the intended purpose of the bill.

My amendment would make very clear the Congressional intent that this bill is so delicately crafted, that it is ``all or nothing.''

Each of these provisions would be rendered meaningless if any of the remaining parts is invalidated.

This has been a long standing principle of statutory construction, going back at least to 1936, when the Supreme Court stated in Carter. v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 312 (1936):

``[T]he presumption is that the Legislature intends an act

to be effective as an entirety--that is to say, the rule is

against the mutilation of a statute; and if any provision be

unconstitutional, the presumption is that the remaining

provisions fall with it.

This presumption becomes conclusive when Congress makes its intention clear, see Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. at 312, by including a non-severability clause in the statute.

My amendment would have done just that.

For these reasons, I am opposed to the rule and cannot support it.

We can do better to create jobs, build the pipeline, and protect the environment. I will consider how to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk. It is Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1.

I thank the Members of the Rules Committee for making the amendment in order.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. It extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the Act from 60 days to 1 year after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim.

This amendment is especially needed because H.R. 3, the underlying bill, vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising under the Act in a single court--the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Think about that. The Keystone Pipeline is proposed to run from Alberta, Canada through the great States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and my State of Texas all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

And the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of any resident of any of these States who seeks justice for a legally cognizable injury is located more than 1,000 miles away from their homes.

This will impose undue hardship and financial burdens on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead, the bill requires them to find and retain a high-priced D.C. lawyer that they don't know and may have never met to represent their interests in a court in a far away land.

Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claim from 60 days to 1 year is because by lodging jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the burden of proof and persuasion is shifted from the governmental and corporate actors involved to the homeowners, small businesses, and individuals bringing the legal action.

This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is very steep. To challenge factual and evidentiary determinations made in an Environmental Impact Statement, for example, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they are ``not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.''

To meet that standard, plaintiffs will have to retain experts, locate and prepare witnesses, and gather and review documentary materials.

That takes time. And that is why my amendment is necessary.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I rise to speak about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the legislation before us, H.R. 3.

Mr. Chair, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the positive economic impact it is expected to have on the economy.

Let me just take one State's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston area, providing $48 million in State and local taxes, increase the gross State product by $1.9 billion.

Although I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL Pipeline project however, the legislation contains several provisions that are of great concern to me.

First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable State laws and permitting requirements.

To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest.

Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.

The bill declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska even though the project crosses an international border. This is unprecedented.

Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Interior Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are deemed to have granted all the necessary permits for the pipeline to proceed, including permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact. I believe we should determine whether, under the Constitution, this alters the power of the office of the President.

Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and requires claims regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of the action that gives rise to the claim. My amendment would have extended the time to one year.

It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to Washington, D.C. to vindicate their legal rights.

Mr. Chair, I also believe the bill before could have been improved had more amendments been made in order.

For example, an amendment I offered jointly with Congressman Rush, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, would have struck Section 4 of the bill and restored the right to full judicial review to aggrieved parties.

Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3, would have required the Secretary of Transportation to submit within 90 days of enactment a report to Congress identifying the procedures and policies adopted to ensure that women and minority business enterprises are afforded the opportunity to participate on an equitable basis in the construction and operation of the Keystone Pipeline. Had this amendment been made in order and adopted Congress would have been provided with helpful information needed to conduct appropriate oversight.

Another amendment I offered, Jackson Lee amendment No. 2, would have added a non-severability clause to the bill, which states that: ``if any provision or application of the legislation is held to be invalid, the entire act shall be rendered void.''

This non-severability clause simply would have made explicit that the component parts of this bill all fit together, in pari materia, so to speak, such that removing any one part would defeat the intended purpose of the bill.

My amendment would make very clear the congressional intent that this bill is so delicately crafted, that it is ``all or nothing.''

Each of these provisions would be rendered meaningless if any of the remaining parts is invalidated.

This has been a long standing principle of statutory construction, going back at least to 1936, when the Supreme Court stated in Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 312 (1936):

[T]he presumption is that the Legislature intends an act to

be effective as an entirety--that is to say, the rule is

against the mutilation of a statute; and if any provision be

unconstitutional, the presumption is that the remaining

provisions fall with it.

This presumption becomes conclusive when Congress makes its intention clear, see Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. at 312, by including a non-severability clause in the statute.

My amendment would have done just that.

Had these amendments been made in order and approved, the bill before would be improved markedly. It is my hope that there will be additional opportunities to improve this legislation as it moves forward. The Keystone Pipeline should be built following all the necessary rules and laws that protect the American people.

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

I thank the respective authors of this legislation because I know that their intent is a purposeful intent.

I have made public statements that I believe that moving forward with the right approach, ensuring that the necessary protections are in place, the necessary environmental protections are in place and the permitting is in place, will create an enormous number of jobs. In fact, I opposed the rule because I've offered amendments that would provide opportunities for minority contractors, women-owned contractors, opportunities for the recruitment of a new generation of workers in the energy industry, which I thought would be a contributing factor to this legislation.

I offer a very simple amendment that has nothing to do with stopping any aspect of the construction. I would hope, however, that the regular order would proceed with the State Department's permitting process and the President's approval, but my amendment does not speak to that. My amendment is an amendment that seeks to simply be fair, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is simple and straightforward.

It extends the time period for filing a claim arising under the act from 60 days to 1 year after the date of the decision or action giving rise to the claim. This amendment is especially needed because H.R. 3, the underlying bill, vests exclusive jurisdiction over any and all claims arising under the act in a single court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is thousands of miles from many of those who may be impacted.

Think about that. The Keystone pipeline is proposed to run from Alberta, Canada, through the great States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and my State of Texas, all the way to the gulf. Maybe there is some collateral impact as well, but the only court in the country authorized to hear the claims of the residents of any of these States who seek justice for a legally cognizable claim or injury is located more than 1,000 miles away from their homes.

Mr. Chairman, they cannot go to a district court. They cannot go to the southern district. This will impose an undue hardship and a financial burden on ordinary Americans seeking justice. Instead, the bill requires them to find and retain a high-priced D.C. lawyer whom they don't know and may have never met to represent their interests in a court far, far away.

Another reason for extending the time period in which to file a claim--remember, this is after the passage and construction of this particular entity--from 60 days to 1 year is that, by lodging jurisdiction in the D.C. Court of Appeals, the burden of proof and persuasion is shifted from the governmental and corporate actors involved to the homeowners, small businesses, and individuals bringing legal rights. Grandma and Grandpa and all of those individuals will have to travel 1,000 miles.

This is because the burden that must be shouldered by a plaintiff is very steep. To challenge factual evidentiary determinations made in an Environmental Impact Statement, for example, a plaintiff must demonstrate that

they're not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole. To meet the standard, plaintiffs will have to retain experts, locate and prepare witnesses, and gather and review documentary materials.

I hope in a bipartisan way we can get to where all of us would like to be, ensuring that we have a constructive project for all Americans.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, I would have hoped, having worked with the gentleman from Nebraska, the proponent of this legislation, that we would continue to work on a bipartisan pathway.

This amendment is to relieve the burden on some of the very people many of us represent, and that is, of course, those individual claimants who happen to be in faraway places who now have to go to the D.C. Court of Appeals and to actually bear the burden of responsibility dealing with the fact that when you challenge the factual evidentiary determinations made in an EIS statement, an Environmental Impact Statement, for example, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they're not supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.

That's an extreme burden that will have to be carried by plaintiffs. They'll have to secure lawyers here in the D.C. area. They'll have to travel here, bear extra expenses. It will be necessary to get experts, locate and prepare witnesses, relocate themselves, and gather and review documentary materials. I would suggest that it is obviously a stress and a burden.

In section 4, this bill has no right to judicial review. So in essence, it means that you have one track to go in for a number of issues that might come forward. I am concerned that that would be the case. And for that reason I think that our amendment has the strength of purpose that is necessary.

Let me also add again, as I want to be very clear, why should we burden the individual plaintiffs, Mr. Chairman, with financial burdens that are excessive? My amendment gives them a fair amount of time to get a response and to participate in this process.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to be able to come to the floor today as we approach the week that we memorialize those fallen heroes and as well, at the same time, acknowledge those who yet live who have served and who are wounded. Even today, as we stand on the floor in the backdrop of enormous tragedies among our civilian population in Oklahoma over the last couple of days and in Texas and elsewhere, this is a very important legislative initiative.

As the former ranking member and chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1344, the Helping Heroes Fly Act of 2013.

I congratulate my new colleague for this outstanding legislation, Ms. Gabbard from Hawaii; and to the manager, thank you very much. It is important, and I am glad we are standing here together in a bipartisan manner.

I support this legislation because it eases and facilitates the expedited passenger screening at airports for servicemembers who are severely injured or disabled, along with their families. Of course, the thoughtfulness in introducing this legislation is appreciated because it is necessary legislation. I thank you for indicating that, even as the TSA, of which we have oversight, is formulating policies, it's good to codify it, to make it law, because these heroes deserve their law.

The Helping Heroes Fly Act requires the Transportation Security Administration to maintain an operations center to provide support and to facilitate the movement of these disabled servicemembers and veterans, and it requires the TSA to publish protocol so disabled servicemembers and veterans and their families will be able to contact the operations center and request expedited screening. The bill also requires that these protocols be integrated into the training of TSA agents.

Now, I know that there are many home ports, if you will, for our returning heroes. I happen to know that Texas has had a very large number of our men and women go to Iraq and Afghanistan and to places beyond. I've been to Hawaii and know the transition there of many who are on R&R, coming from places around the world, and I know that it is a place where many come home because it was their home, and, yes, they come home disabled, with prostheses and other wounds, that require their privacy. I am glad that this bill acknowledges, not only that they are heroes, but that they are desirous and deserving of the respect--why don't I say an admiration and commendation and respect again--of those who would expedite their going into a secured area.

Mr. Speaker, more than 2.2 million veterans--one in 10--have been disabled or seriously wounded in the service of our Nation; and disabled veterans typically find it much harder, by some estimates twice as hard, to readjust to civilian life. The least we can do for these heroes is to make it a little less burdensome and difficult to navigate the obstacles, barriers, and checkpoints that have been erected in the aftermath of 9/11 to enhance the security of air travel--and rightly so.

Most of these inconveniences are necessary but are no less burdensome to those who have suffered physical disabilities in defending the Nation from those who would make air travel dangerous and deadly. Let's give them respect for what they have done to secure the homeland and to make us safer. The legislation before us strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests.

I have seen the operation of TSA and TSO officers and some of what they call these ``specialty officers.'' Allow me to thank you publicly for the work you have already done and for the sensitivity you've had.

I've seen these soldiers, these heroes, coming home at DCA and at Dulles. I've certainly seen them in the airports in Texas. I've seen them in their uniforms. I've seen them, as I said, disabled, and I've seen them with families. I saw one young man who was wandering in my airport. He was, obviously, in uniform, but had not a good day. I don't know what might have been impacting him, but we stopped, and I hailed an officer in uniform, a TSO officer, and said, You won't be alone now. We're going to find out where you need to go.

One of the factors of this particular legislative initiative that is good is that, wherever you land, sometimes it may not be your home airport--every airport is different--and I think they work themselves up to make sure that they make it exciting and confusing.

Thank you for the Helping Heroes Fly Act to help improve airport security screening processes for wounded and severely disabled servicemembers, but also thank you for giving them a helping hand. You are helping the veterans as well. This authorizes a Wounded Warrior Screening program and requires the TSA to maintain an operations center. These improvements will facilitate and expedite air travel for our disabled veterans and servicemembers. More importantly, they will help our Nation's heroes to be shown the respect, as I said earlier, and the appreciation of a Nation that is so grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for the Helping Heroes Fly Act of 2013. I am glad to be back in the well again in this week of honoring our soldiers and those who have fallen, and I am delighted for the leadership of my colleague on the Homeland Security Committee and of the manager on this great bill, and I hope that we have a very strong vote.

Mr. Speaker, as a member and former chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, and a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1344, the ``Helping Heroes Fly Act of 2013.'' I support this legislation because it eases and facilitates expedited passenger screening at airports for service members who are severely injured or disabled, along with their families. I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Gabbard of Hawaii, for introducing this thoughtful and necessary legislation.

The Helping Heroes Fly Act requires Transportation Security Administration to maintain an operations center to provide support and facilitate the movement of these disabled service members and veterans, and it requires TSA to publish protocols so disabled service members and veterans, and their families, will be able to contact the operations center and request expedited screening. The bill also requires that these protocols be integrated into the training of TSA agents.

Mr. Speaker, more than 2.2 million Veterans, one in ten, have been disabled or seriously wounded in the service of our nation. And disabled veterans typically find it much harder, by some estimates twice as hard, to readjust to civilian life. The least we can do for these heroes is to make it a little less burdensome and difficult to navigate the obstacles, barriers, and checkpoints that have been erected in the aftermath of 9/11 to enhance the security of air travel. Most of these inconveniences are necessary but no less burdensome to those who suffered physical disabilities defending the nation from those who would make air travel dangerous and deadly. The legislation before us strikes an appropriate balance between these competing interests.

The Helping Heroes Fly Act improves airport security screening processes for wounded and severely disabled service members and veterans; authorizes a Wounded Warrior Screening Program and requires TSA to maintain an Operations Center. These improvements will facilitate and expedite air travel for our disabled veterans and service members. More importantly, they help that our nation's heroes are shown the respect and appreciation of a grateful nation.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1344, and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for the Helping Heroes Fly Act of 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of our colleagues in the tornado corridor are not here today. I want to offer my deepest concern and prayers as the recovery begins, and pray for those who've lost their lives, some, of course, in north Texas, and of course now in the area in Oklahoma.

This is a devastating time with these enormous tornados, as evidenced by a quote by Bill Bunting of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Storm Prediction Center, who told CNN, our worst fears are becoming realized this afternoon.

I hope that we will be able to find all of those who have been harmed safely, and all of those who are missing.

But, Mr. Speaker, the most important part is that the Nation needs to stand up and be of help. This is time, frankly, for bipartisanship to take the highest level, and partisanship to end. It's time to end this sequester. There's too much need in this country.

And I hope that we will be able to serve all of those who are now suffering from across America because that is what this Congress needs to do.

Allow me to thank both of my very good friends, the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Nevada, for really answering the call of the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but I think the most important part of speech is information. Thank you for the opportunity to share with our colleagues and share with America the pending crisis.

If I might just quote from an article in the Houston Chronicle by a writer in the early part of February, Mike Tolson, that said:

Like a hurricane churning across the Gulf of Mexico, the

looming Federal sequestration threatens everything in its

path. If the deep and automatic Federal budget cuts actually

take place, there will be damage somewhere--perhaps a lot of

somewheres.

So today we're standing on the floor of the House embracing some of the historic comments as relates to the African American community and other minority communities about the value of education. How many of us have been told by our parents that it was the door, the key, to opportunities? How many of us recognized it by listening to the words of Dr. Benjamin Mays, who was a leading voice at Morehouse and an educator, who always spoke of the slaves rising from the ashes, to be educated, to do good? And the debate between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. It was a question of The Talented Tenth, but it was also a question of those who could pull their buckets up where they stand, to be artisans, carpenters, painters, and others. But it was to learn something, to be educated.

Today I stand sadly on this floor, Mr. Jeffries, and acknowledge that as I speak, one of my boards is having a meeting. They are a school district, not higher education as we talk about tonight, but it plays into this because there is a siege upon education in America. That board and that community, the North Forest Independent School District, is fighting with every breath in their body to keep from closing after they've succeeded in reaching all of the goals that were given to them by the Texas education agency. But our Governor, Governor Rick Perry, is opposed to their survival. Our commissioner, Commissioner Michael Williams, is opposed to their survival. And as well, what a contrast, when just a few days ago he saved another school district, not African American, with the same proposal North Forest has.

So I stand on the floor today to join you and acknowledge: is the siege continuing? It seems to be, because right now our friends, our Republican friends, this House, refuses to have a conference on the budget. A conference on the budget might put us in a better position than what we will be doing today, H.R. 1911. It might put us in a better position than what the Department of Education, unfortunately, has had to do with the reconfiguration on the parent PLUS loans.

I ask why the budget conference has not been called? Why are we on the backs of people who are suffering and who want to get an education? Why are we on the backs of those, like in north Texas, who are suffering from tornadoes or the disaster today, where we don't know how many lives have been lost? Why are we suffering? Why don't we have a budget conference? Why are we suffering when we recognize how much education provides? I thank you, Mr. Horsford, for this initiative to show what it means to get an education. This is what our parents told us.

Less than a high school diploma, weekly earnings $451; high school diploma or GED--and I spoke to a group that got a GED, $638, congratulations to them. A bachelor's degree, $1,053. And a professional degree, $1,655.

This is a 2012 document, and I just want to call out these numbers of unemployment. They're higher when you don't have a high school education, almost 15 percent and growing; 10 percent for a high school education; and of course the numbers go down.

So it is of great concern that we now are facing legislation that is going to take the fat--oh, let me just stop and say that. Somebody says fat, they say: Oh, yeah, we want to take the fat out. That is going to go to the bone of individuals who are simply trying to get an education.

Sequestration is cutting NASA. It is cutting education programs. I just met some people on an airplane who said that all my programs from Rice University in science have been wiped out because of sequestration. Now my friends want to bring H.R. 1911, rather than listening to what we can do here today.

I introduced H.R. 900 with John Conyers and a number of other Members who said, let's end sequestration. If we end sequestration, we wouldn't have to bring up H.R. 1911.

Let me just say these few words as I discuss these boards very quickly. Right now it is noted that student borrowing is widespread, and more than $100 billion in Federal education loans are distributed every year. What that means is that is the debt we are putting on the children of America. A historically black college like Texas Southern University in Houston, 81 percent of the students receive some form of student assistance. They received $85 million in student financial aid. In terms of student loan debt, 92 percent of those students are African Americans; 85 percent are Hispanic students--this is overall--and 85 percent are Native Americans students; 82 percent are multiracial students; and 77 percent are white students.

Last year I introduced the College Literacy Finance and Economics Act of 2011 to help our students manage their debt; but now we find ourselves facing an uphill battle, and that is the introduction of this legislation that I believe is probably the worst that we could ever have. Let me explain it to you and see what H.R. 1911 does.

We're right now at 3.4 percent. That looks like it's reasonable. If this bill passes this week, by July 1, we will be up to 6.8 percent-- excuse me. By July 1, if we don't do anything, we'll be 6.8 percent, $8,880 in interest to be paid. But if we pass H.R. 1911, we'll be at $10,109 in interest. Isn't this a disgrace, a shame on a Nation that encourages our young people, whether they go in business or not, to get an education?

And then as Mr. Jeffries mentioned, the Congressional Black Caucus has taken on the burden of a horrific burden that has been put on our parents, something called Parent Plus. In fact, I was looking at the numbers from Texas Southern University, who said they lost 450 students--and they don't know if they've got all the numbers--because the Parent Plus loan program caused students to drop out by the thousands across America. By the thousands.

I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus and our chairwoman, Chairwoman Fudge, for waking up this issue, along with our members on the Education Committee from the Congressional Black Caucus, because this is what is happening under the Parent Plus program.

Already bad under current law, in terms of the interest paid, $27,956. But look what will happen under H.R. 1911. It would force parents to pay 28 percent more on their loan, $35,848.

A debt on parents is a debt on the children. If the parents got ill, if the parents lost their jobs, if the parents had other children to take care of, and that one student that they invested in and they loved, trying to get the others to come up behind them, parents meaning well, doing well, and you're going to burden them with this burden on top of that, the student that is trying to increase their income.

So I would simply say that we're facing tragedy in our country with bad weather, but we're facing a tsunami of disaster on the floor of the House with the lack of a budget, with a sequester that is now getting into the seams of our life by causing enormous debt and legislative initiatives that are unwise and devastating.

And so I'd ask today that we move on the budget conference. And I ask the Speaker to bring up H.R. 900, a simple sentence. It says: to remove the sequestration from the 2011 Budget Act and go back to regular order.

Many of us are looking at amendments offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), whose legislation we supported last year. But we want anything but this devastating bill that is going to snatch the opportunity and the dignity of education from those who are trying.

I close on the remarks of President Obama as he spoke to the historic Morehouse College this past Sunday, thank him for visiting with those young men. And he talked about a young man who had a rough upbringing, a difficult upbringing, and he congratulated that young man because that young man had now graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Morehouse College and is going on to Harvard Law School.

I can assure you that that young man had his own sticktoitiveness, but also that the young men in those colleges like Morehouse have loans and depend upon financial aid, generally speaking.

And so what Mr. Obama conveyed to those young men, that the sky is the limit, that there should be no obstacles in front of you; don't blame anyone else; keep climbing up the ladder.

And we stand here on the floor this week to snatch the very promise of education out of the hands of those students, no matter what race they are, snatch it out of their hands with a devastating, crafty, expensive, trickery such as H.R. 1911.

I pray, as I go to my seat, I pray that wisdom will take charge, and that Members of Congress will come together and defeat H.R. 1911 and put on the floor of the House the legislation that has been offered by many on this side of the aisle, to be able to ensure that those individuals, parents and children, continue to claim the American Dream no matter where you walk from, no matter what story you have to tell, no matter what your racial or ethnic background is.

I'm glad that the CBC is standing here today to tell our story and to speak for America. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 384, the ``Homes for Heroes Act of 2013.'' I support this bill because it provides much needed assistance to more than 62,000 veterans who can be found homeless on any given night. I support this bill because it will help the 12,700 homeless veterans who were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I support this legislation because it is unacceptable that anyone who served this nation honorably in times of war should be without a home in times of peace.

The Homes for Heroes Act creates the position of Special Assistant for Veterans Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and charges him or her with the responsibility of ensuring that veterans have fair access to housing and homeless assistance programs at HUD in addition to coordinating HUD programs and activities of the Department relating to veterans; serving as a liaison with the Department of Veterans Affairs; serving as HUD liaison to the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and State, and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations concerned with veterans.

The Special Assistant also will provide veterans information and advice regarding special housing programs for veterans and assisting them in obtaining housing or homeless assistance under programs administered by the Department.

There are over 304,000 veterans in my city of Houston, and 11,000 homeless men and women, more than 3,600 of which are veterans. These homeless veterans have fallen victim to the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and often faced difficulty entering the civilian workforce where experience in military occupations and training do not easily translate. Because of these and other difficulties, a veteran commits suicide every 65 hours.

These men and women are often single, alone, and with little family connections concentrated in large urban areas where living conditions are more likely to be poor. Forty percent of our homeless veterans are African American or Hispanic despite making up a much smaller percentage of the veteran community.

The welfare of homeless veterans of our nation, who fought in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq, should always be one of our primary concerns. They should not be left to fend for themselves when they encounter difficulties upon returning home. The Homes for Heroes act help will ensure that more have a home to live in when they return home.

The sad reality is that too many of our veterans are homeless or jobless or poor. They grow younger by the year. They need our help and support. We owe it to answer the call for them.

I urge all members of the House to join in me in supporting H.R. 384, the Homes for Heroes Act of 2013.

I thank the gentlelady for her leadership.

I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act. I want you to see the face of those who have been served across America. They are, yes, low-income, some are impoverished, but many are middle income. In fact, there was an article in the Texas newspaper that said, part of what drives the need for health care are Medicaid, expanded Medicaid, which is part of this great bill, the Affordable Care Act, is the fact that people are impoverished.

And so here is what my friends want to do today for the 37th time. They want to take away from 13 million Americans the health insurance that they need, that they were able to secure with rebates from the health insurance companies. They want to take away from 105 million Americans, 71 million Americans in private plans, who have received free preventative services. They want to be able to tell the women who needed mammograms and additional tests for breast cancer that you can't go in and get the preventative care that you need to save lives. Oh, yes. They want to tell 17 million children with preexisting disease you cannot go in anymore and be covered.

The conversation over here is plain foolish. They're only talking about their economics--their economics of wealth. Yes, maybe their districts have not felt the pain of racial disparities which they're going to eliminate if they get rid of this bill. Maybe they are not in one of these States, 10 States like Texas that has 28.4 percent uninsured, along with the Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia and many others, Florida, that have uninsured people who need this. Maybe they'll tell the 6.6 million children that have taken advantage of the law today to obtain health insurance for preexisting disease that they cannot do that, or maybe they'll tell the seniors that you can go back into the doughnut hole again.

I don't know why we're doing this, but I will tell you that I see that lives are saved.

I introduced an amendment to make sure that we didn't lose the federally qualified health clinics. When you repeal this bill, you will dash the hopes of those who have been walking into their neighborhoods, going into federally qualified health clinics and getting the good care that they need.

All this is is spoiled grapes. That's what this is. Drink the wine and leave us alone, and make sure that we keep the Patients' Bill of Rights and Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rule and the underlying legislation because this bill would repeal the Affordable Care Act. The American people have been engaged in a debate over universal healthcare for six generations.

In 1949, Harry Truman became the first sitting President to propose universal healthcare for all Americans as part of the ``Fair Deal.''

On March 23, 2010, with the stroke of President Obama's pen, the American people received this part of the ``Fair Deal.'' This bill did not become law in the dead of night, but in the full process this body affords serious consideration of legislation. There were committee hearings, staff and member meetings, amendments and a final vote in both the House and the Senate before it was sent to the President's desk.

The Affordable Care Act has been affirmed to be law by every means provided by our nation's constitution:

On March 21, 2010, the House passed the Affordable Care Act following Senate Consideration of the bill.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, affirming the constitutionality of the law--leaving intact the majority of the incentives to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Americans.

The Affordable Care Act was a central issue in the Presidential election of 2012. The candidate who signed the Affordable Care Act into law won the election by 51.1 percent of the popular vote and 62 percent of the electoral vote.

Why are we here for the 37th time in three years to again vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act?

It is difficult to recall any series of actions within a short time period that have overcome every hurdle that our system of government has to establish and affirm that a law--is the law of this nation.

I believe Mr. Speaker it is important to remind new members of this body and those who are closely watching this debate that the Affordable Care Act is law. People living in each of the Congressional Districts represented in this body are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

The leadership of this Congress may want to give new members of Congress the opportunity to tell the people back home that they voted to repeal ``Obamacare.'' Unfortunately, they are also toying with the emotions of people who know that without the Affordable Care Act they have no other option for healthcare.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans are already seeing lower costs, better coverage, and patient protections that Republicans want to repeal:

13 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates sent to them from their health insurance companies last year.

105 million Americans have access to free preventive services, including 71 million Americans in private plans and 34 million seniors on Medicare.

Millions of women began receiving free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive services in August 2012.

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

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

6.6 million young adults up to age 26 have health insurance through their parents' plan, half of whom would be uninsured without this coverage.

6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have already 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 employers have already taken advantage of the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit to provide health insurance to 2 million workers.

Because of the Affordable Care Act 3.8 million people in Texas-- including 2.2 million seniors on Medicare now receive preventative care services. Over 7 million Texans no longer have to fear lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. Texas parents of 300,731 young adults can sleep easier at night knowing that their children can remain on their health insurance until age 26.

The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas residents that their insurance companies will spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from their insurance company.

In my state, there are 4,029 people who had no insurance because of pre-existing conditions, but today the Affordable Care Act has provided them with access to coverage. The Affordable Care Act means that many Texans are free of worry about having access to healthcare insurance.

However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not completed. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will become available to our citizens. 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

In 2014, access to affordable healthcare for the self employed or those who decide to purchase their own coverage will be easier because of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. There will be a one stop marketplace where consumers can do what Federal employees have done for decades-- purchase insurance at reasonable rates from an insurer of their choice. This will assure that health care consumers can get the care that they need from the medical professionals they trust.

I do not believe that the healthcare law is perfect--but what is worse--is the imperfection of the House Leadership in allowing this continued rehashing of a debate over a law that is not going away.

Congress should be working to mend the Affordable Care Act where we believe it can be improved, and not end healthcare security for millions of our constituents. Healthcare is the difference between life and death for too many of our constituents. The bill that needs to be amended or rejected is the one before us: H.R. 45.

For this reason, I offered amendments before the Rules Committee to address minority health disparities, medical payments to small physician owned hospitals, and a plan to study the impact of the healthcare law.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 1 would have removed all of the bill text following the enacting clause of the legislation, which would have ended this exercise to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This legislation is so bad it cannot be salvaged and the United States would be better off without it.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 2 would have ensured full Medicare reimbursement to all hospitals including physician owned hospitals with at least 100 beds, provided they could produce reliable records to document their claims for reimbursement.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 3 would have authorized additional funding to establish Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). These centers are the last line of defense provided in the bill to make sure those living on the margins of society--the poorest of the poor had access to reliable healthcare. FQHC programs would be based in clinics, community based health care centers and pro-active outreach programs that target the homeless or marginally housed with information on how to get access to good healthcare.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 4 would have expanded state use of the Medicaid option of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care law when the uninsured rate of qualifying residents of a state exceeds 20 percent. States wishing to opt-out of Medicaid would have the option of submitting a plan to reduce the rate of uninsured to 20 percent or less to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment would have benefited Texas enormously since it leads the nation in uninsured residents at 28.8 percent. In fact Texas has held this number 1 ranking, of the state with the highest number of uninsured residents, for the last five consecutive years.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 5 would have established a program to conduct studies of minority health disparities. The Amendment directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report of findings regarding minority health disparities and make recommendations on how disparities may be reduced.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 6 expressed the Sense of the Congress that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law in the United States of America. The amendment enumerated each step that made it the law including a decision by the United States Supreme Court. The amendment then directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on the impact of the law on those it is intended to help. The Amendment would have not allowed this Congress to revisit repeal until it had research on the impact of the law to guide its further deliberation of repeal.

This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it has work that should be taken up to restore workers, their families and communities to sound economic health.

The healthcare law has many benefits--but I will redouble my efforts to mend the parts that need additional work and educate my constituents so that they can take advantage of the benefits of having access to healthcare.

For all of these reasons, I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the Rule and the underlying legislation.

I thank the gentleman for his time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Patients' Rights Repeal Act.

I simply want to say thanks. My good friend Mr. Crowley indicated that there is no plan on the other side, but look at the list that I can give, and let me just emphasize Texas:

For the gentleman from the business community, 360,000 small businesses

are using the health care tax credit for their workers that is provided by the health insurance under the Affordable Care Act;

There are 17 million children with preexisting conditions in the country who no longer can be denied coverage by insurers;

Then, of course, what we are finding out is those who treat those with cancer are suffering because there are cuts in Medicare and those cuts in Medicare are coming because of my friends on the other side. The Affordable Care Act will provide an umbrella for those who are in need;

Then we find out that Texas, itself, has 3.4 million women and over 1.8 million seniors and people with disabilities who are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

More importantly, we have articles that suggest that the poverty in Texas is going up and that Texas has the highest uninsured people in the Nation. How can people from Texas vote against this? How can they vote against this?

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 45, the 37th attempt by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This bill is as bad as the previous 36 and has no chance of becoming law. And that is a good thing because the Affordable Care Act has and continues to be a life saver for millions of Americans.

The leadership of this Congress may want to give new members of Congress the opportunity to tell the people back home that they voted to repeal ``Obamacare.'' Unfortunately, they are also causing anxiety in people who know that without the Affordable Care Act they have no other option for healthcare.

I believe it is important to remind new members of this body and those who are closely watching this debate that the Affordable Care Act is law. People living in each of the Congressional Districts represented in this body are benefiting from the Affordable Care Act.

Many of those most in need of the healthcare coverage provided by the Affordable Care Act live in the Districts of many of the new members of Congress. Texas, my own state, leads the list of states with the highest percentages of uninsured residents.

Those states with the highest percentage of uninsured are:

Texas with 28.8 percent; Louisiana with 24 percent; Nevada with 23.3 percent; California with 23.2 percent; Florida with 22.8 percent; Georgia with 22.5 percent; Arkansas with 21.9 percent; Mississippi with 21.7 percent, and Oklahoma with 21.4 percent.

The highest concentration of the uninsured is the poor. The Affordable Care Act provides at no or nearly no cost to states an option to enroll those living in or near poverty into their Medicaid program.

This option would help states in three ways--reduce the cost to states for those insured through Medicaid, reduce the numbers of poor persons without healthcare insurance and address the problem associated with the high cost of persons who arrive at local emergency rooms in need of very expensive critical care. Health care costs that result from emergency room ad hoc primary healthcare are unpaid medical expenses passed on to everyone.

The idea of everyone paying something towards their healthcare was a Republican idea that was put into practice in the State of Massachusetts by then Governor Mitt Romney six years ago. Today, Massachusetts has the lowest percentage of uninsured residents' and a model for where every state could be in six years or less.

Just taking advantage of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid option would help reduce the numbers of uninsured persons living in the United States.

Medicaid would provide the much needed support to our nation's most vulnerable by providing early diagnosis and treatment for chronic conditions. In many cases conditions could be caught prior to the onset of disease and allow medical professionals the opportunity to work with patients to avoid the major drivers of health care cost: diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity, which can lead to heart and arterial disease as well as kidney disease.

Many watching today's debate may wonder why this is an issue--money from the federal government that would reduce their state tax burden associated with Medicaid. The issue is governors who reject extending Medicaid coverage to their state's poor. The Governors in the States of Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, Idaho, and South Dakota need to hear from residents who want healthcare cost to be lower and more people covered.

As a resident of Texas and a Member of Congress representing a Congressional District in the state, I sent a letter to Governor Rick Perry in response to his letter of March 14, 2013, in which he re- affirmed his opposition to expanding the Medicaid program in Texas.

For all of the pro-business talk by the Governor over the last few months--his position on this issue will lead to higher local and state sales taxes; unduly burden local governments, and needlessly place the health and safety of millions of Texas children and adults at risk.

The infusion of federal funds associated with the state accessing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid option would increase economic out of Texas by $67.9 billion.

A May 13, 2013, editorial in the Houston Chronicle titled ``Medicaid costs driven by poverty,'' outlined why the Congress should be focused on ending the sequester and creating jobs if we are serious about reducing taxpayer dollars going to Medicaid.

Poverty is the reason for higher Medicaid costs--if we work to reduce poverty then Medicaid costs would decline.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, Americans are already seeing lower costs, better coverage, and patient protections that Republicans want to repeal:

13 million Americans benefited from $1.1 billion in rebates sent to them from their health insurance companies last year.

105 million Americans have access to free preventive services, including 71 million Americans in private plans and 34 million seniors on Medicare.

Millions of women began receiving free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive services in August 2012.

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

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

6.6 million young adults up to age 26 have health insurance through their parents' plan, half of whom would be uninsured without this coverage.

6.3 million Seniors in the `donut hole' have already 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 employers have already taken advantage of the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit to provide health insurance to 2 million workers.

Because of the Affordable Care Act 3.8 million people in Texas-- including 2.2 million seniors on Medicare now receive preventative care services. Over 7 million Texans no longer have to fear lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. Texas parents of 300,731 young adults can sleep easier at night knowing that their children can remain on their health insurance until age 26.

The protection provided by this law is a guarantee to 5 million Texas residents that their insurance companies will spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on healthcare, or customers will get a rebate from their insurance company.

In my State, there are 4,029 people who had no insurance because of pre-existing conditions, but today the Affordable Care Act has provided them with access to coverage. The Affordable Care Act means that many Texans are free of worry about having access to healthcare insurance.

However, the list of benefits from the Affordable Care Act is not completed. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act's final provisions will become available to our citizens. 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; and

Enforcing annual dollar limits on health benefits.

In 2014, access to affordable healthcare for the self-employed or those who decide to purchase their own coverage will be easier because of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. There will be a one stop marketplace where consumers can do what Federal employees have done for decades-- purchase insurance at reasonable rates from an insurer of their choice. This will assure that health care consumers can get the care that they need from the medical professionals they trust.

Another reason why I oppose this bill--I offered six amendments, but none of them were accepted by the Rules Committee. I will explain what my amendments would have done to improve this bill.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 1 would have removed all of the bill text following the enacting clause of the legislation, which would have ended this exercise to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This legislation is so bad it cannot be salvaged and the United States would be better off without it.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 2 would have ensured full Medicare reimbursement to all hospitals including physician-owned hospitals with at least 100 beds, provided they could produce reliable records to document their claims for reimbursement.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 3 would have authorized additional funding to establish

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). These centers are the last line of defense provided in the bill to make sure those living on the margins of society--the poorest of the poor had access to reliable healthcare. FQHC programs would be based in clinics, community-based health care centers and pro-active outreach programs that target the homeless or marginally housed with information on how to get access to good healthcare.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 4 would have expanded state use of the Medicaid option of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care law when the uninsured rate of qualifying residents of a state exceeds 20 percent. States wishing to opt-out of Medicaid would have the option of submitting a plan to reduce the rate of uninsured to 20 percent or less to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This amendment would have benefited Texas enormously since it leads the nation in uninsured residents at 28.8 percent. In fact Texas has held this number 1 ranking, of the State with the highest number of uninsured residents, for the last five consecutive years.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 5 would have established a program to conduct studies of minority health disparities. The amendment directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to submit an annual report of findings regarding minority health disparities and make recommendations on how disparities may be reduced.

Jackson Lee Amendment Number 6 expressed the Sense of the Congress that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law in the United States of America. The amendment enumerated each step that made it the law including a decision by the United States Supreme Court. The amendment then directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report to Congress on the impact of the law on those it is intended to help. The amendment would have not allowed this Congress to revisit repeal until it had research on the impact of the law to guide its further deliberation of repeal.

This Congress has work that needs to be done, and it has work that should be taken up to restore workers, their families and communities to sound economic health.

I urge my Colleagues to join me in voting no on the passage of this bill.