Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, what I like about the University of Houston is, one, many of their campuses are in the 18th Congressional District, but they believe that a university, as they seek tier one status, is best when they support academic excellence and, of course, athletic excellence.

So I am very pleased today to show this picture of UH students standing in line for the championship game, that the Cougars have managed to have a 12-0 season and now are the Conference USA West Division champions and will play their championship game at Robertson Stadium with one of their opponents.

We're excited about Cougars. We're Cougar Red. And we thank Coach Kevin Sumlin for not being interested about where he goes next year but is focused on the kids and the championship.

Coach Kevin, you are the best.

To the leadership and academic leadership of the University of Houston, to all of the students, I want to say to you on the floor of the House, go Cougars. We're all red about this. We're excited in the city of Houston for a fine academic institution that cares about their students, that believes in the integrity of the athletic department, and is ready to have outreach to young people. They are going to play on Saturday.

Go Cougars. It's going to be a great day.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

It is a delight to have been here with the gentlelady from Ohio. We have worked together closely, as I have with the gentleman from New York. I always want to ask him how his fair constituents are dealing. They have some serious mountains to climb, if you will, with their recent hurricane, a very unusual set of circumstances. We joined together to allow those communities to come back. Wouldn't that be a perfect investment of rebuilding infrastructure.

Mr. Garamendi, let me thank you for your long-standing history of putting things back together. I'm not going to call you the Humpty- Dumpty man, but recognizing that we can put America back together and make it in America. Let me share some anecdotal uniqueness to this whole question of make it in America. I hope everybody had a wonderful Thanksgiving. It's a special holiday where we find time to say thanks. I heard that the gentleman from New York might have been giving away a ham, made in America. And I know the people who received the ham were grateful for it.

I had the opportunity to work with those, we had over 800 turkeys-- made in America--to be able to give to seniors and families. The joy was, of course, that it was in the giving. But more importantly, it was a product that we made from start to finish. Yes, it's food. As we went down the aisles of many grocery stores, since the highlight of that season is eating, people were buying goods in most instances that were made in America. And they bought them.

And then, of course, that famous Friday that we can now tout to be the best Friday over a number of years, certainly 2010; $52 billion was spent by Americans in many instances on the electronic goods that were made in America. Steve Jobs is no longer with us, but he created that infrastructure of technology and software and the sophistication of pretty things that many Americans went to buy, some $7 billion over 2010. And the studies indicated that--and that's all right to my good friends out there--that Americans were buying first for themselves those electronic items that they wanted to have for this holiday season.

As I begin to look at legislation to talk about jobs, I'm going to try to make the energy industry a little bit more friendly. And we'll be introducing legislation that talks about creating jobs in that industry, but working in the environmental aspect of it--fixing the coastline, for example.

As you well know, we have suffered through Hurricanes Rita, Katrina, Ike and the deterioration of the coastline, so if somebody wants to stop us from going down the drain, I want to stop us from a disappearing coastline. I want you to have the beautiful beaches, whether it is in Alabama and Louisiana and Texas, Florida. Those coastlines have been deteriorating. We can find work. Individuals can have work in fixing the beautiful coastlines. Even in South Carolina, I know that the gentleman wants the coastline to be fixed. So there is not a lack of opportunity-to-fix work.

I just heard my good friend from Massachusetts in the Rules Committee indicate that there are bridges in the State of Massachusetts--my good friend, Mr. McGovern--that are older than some States and that they need to be fixed. And that would be a sharing of the wealth to many, many different districts and States if we were to engage, as the President wanted us to do, to look at how we do the infrastructure.

But making it in America is happening. Right now, in the Carolinas, a young lady is bringing her company back from Sri Lanka, and she is using the textile industries--I don't have its full name, but it begins with ``Mic''--using the textile industry to now make her product.

So I came today to say that I have hope. I'm an optimist, and many of the economists that we've been listening to--Jeffrey Sachs, for example, and Mr. Spence, who I think I heard in the last couple of days, has indicated that we worry too much about the deficit and the debt, not to ignore it but we really should be worrying about investing in America, rebuilding, make it in America, investing in infrastructure, creating jobs. And Americans will do what they did on last Friday, November 25, and they went out and they bought goods, by and large, made in America.

Let's do more of that. Let's have the incentives that they need. And, by the way, let's add the small business component to it. We had the buy from a small business on Saturday. These small businesses are in America. And if you support a small business, you support one or two or three or four employees.

So I am grateful, as I said. I'm going to do this coastline bill. I can see just persons for eons being put to work. I can see moneys going in to reduce the deficit. We'll join that with the drain, if you will, or the infrastructure for our sewage and wastewater. It comes under homeland security, by the way. We have to protect that. The infrastructure of security provides jobs as well.

I want to close on this note, which sound as if it's not tied in, but it is. It really is tied in. We have, in the Thanksgiving backdrop, was the acknowledgment--I'm not going to call it failure--by the supercommittee that they could not complete their task. Let me, on the record--I have said it in public settings--thank the colleagues that accepted the challenge. But I want to say to my colleagues, let us not be nonoptimistic. Let us not be unhappy or disappointed or sad. Frankly, the job of the Congress is to formulate the vision going forward on behalf of the American people.

Let me tell you why I see we have been given an opportunity. Some people only talk about defense. I talk about 46 million Americans that are on SNAP. Here's our chance. We can take the works of a Jeffrey Sachs. We can take the works of Mr. Spence, who talks about infrastructure investment. We can find these long-term cuts of a trillion dollars, leaving out Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, and we can find them in a way that talks about Bush tax cuts but has a thoughtful way of looking at tax reform, and then we can put our vision forward that includes making it in America.

My friends, we make defense products in America. I don't want to be a war promoter--I want our troops home--but I believe in military preparedness. Those are jobs. We have a year to do it. We can throw off the shackles of partisanship and thoughtfully put forward a legislative initiative which the President will not veto if there is a plan that includes deficit reduction. Don't be afraid of doing it on jobs.

So I'm willing to say we have been given an opportunity, just like my Cougars are being given an opportunity for a championship this coming weekend at the University of Houston, which will, by the way, create a lot of revenue with folks coming in from all over.

But we have been given an opportunity. And I am glad that we're here on the floor to point out that it is not the end, but it is the beginning. I simply ask there be friends on the other side of the aisle that will join us in revenue, job creation, deficit reduction, revenue, job creation. We can pass these bills. We can join the Senate. We can do the payroll tax relief for a little bit and the unemployment, but we can create jobs.

I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate with you. I'm excited about the legislation that my colleagues have. I know I have worked with Mr. Tonko for all that he has done in the legislative initiative and, also, you. Thank you so very much.

Would the gentleman pause for just a moment.

You're saying something that is just so inspirational, and I just want to add these two points: one, we are still the greatest and largest economic engine in the world in spite of China, in spite of Russia and in spite of India, our good friends. We're the largest, still percolating along.

Second, when we've had our difficulties in the past, there have been recessions in the fifties, post-World War II, on into our good friends both former Presidents Ford and Carter, as you well know for those who read the history books we had some moments, but the reason why we are in troubling waters that people can't seem to comprehend, they just need to read, we never had a euro.

We never had Europe in the state that it is presently in. And when the markets were troubled on Monday--it was Monday, even post--I think Monday they percolated, but when they were troubled, they were looking at Europe. And so if we get obsessed with other than what you're saying about how we can get back in the game at the peak that we want to be, we don't take in the great picture. And that great picture is our markets are not necessarily troubled about how we're percolating on.

We need to do better. We need to create jobs. But they're international markets, and they're troubled by the euro, which I never agreed with. I would just say, let's understand that so we can do our business here in the United States and focus on the American people, tend to the markets, but go ahead and invest and realize that the markets are interrelated. We can overcome that by doing exactly what the gentleman from New York has said, make it in America.

For fear of offending the training that my mother gave me, I will again say that I stand here unaddicted and recognize that there are those who are addicted to throwing the vulnerable on the trash heap of life. Time and time again, in those budgets that my good friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) voted against, I assume that he refused to throw the vulnerable on the trash heap of life.

We come again to a time when we want to abdicate our responsibility under the Constitution. But, my friends, I want to remind you that time and time again the Republicans came back to that tired old formula, balanced budget amendment; and time and time again they were rejected.

This Constitution is sacred. It has nothing in it about the balanced budget. Twenty-six amendments, and they have been rejected. Why? Because they don't want to do the job that the people of the United States have sent us to do. The job that says give and take on how we fund this government.

Someone wants to talk about State governments. Yes, 49 States have a balanced budget amendment; but it is on the operations budget, not on the capital budget. The United States of America is responsible for disasters when they hit New York, Missouri, and Texas. The United States is responsible for lifting a military and providing for our sons and daughters on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan, World Wars I and II, Korea, and, of course, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and many other places. Our States are not responsible for that.

Balanced budget amendment, maybe we want to be able to follow the good work of our dear friends on the supercommittee. I have great respect for them. The headline says: ``Supercommittee Well Short of a Deal,'' because this is not the way we run a country.

And I refuse to be called ``addicted'' without the explanation that my mother would want me to give. I am addicted to saving lives. I'm addicted to making sure that Social Security is not violently cut by the balanced budget amendment, Medicare being cut by

nearly $750 billion if this resolution were to pass, Social Security almost $1.2 trillion, veterans benefits $85 billion through 2021.

So my argument is to be able to analyze what we're doing here, my friends. The Constitution gives this House the power of the purse strings; yet it will take a two-thirds vote in the middle of a crisis, a war, a disaster, the need to invest in our young people--numbers that Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said that we need for a legitimate apprentice program that leads young people from college or training into a job.

Creating jobs invests in America. Would you understand that we have the lowest number of white males going to college, the lowest number of African Americans going to college, the lowest number of Latinos.

I thank the distinguished gentleman.

We need investment in human resources. And all we're doing today is denouncing and ridding ourselves of the obligatory responsibility that we have when we take an oath to this Constitution every 2 years.

I don't want to be a spoilsport today. I believe we should tighten our belt. There are many ways of doing so, looking at the financial transactions on Wall Street or the Chicago commodities. Many ways to do it. But this is a stranglehold on our neck. I refuse to cut seniors, children, Social Security because you won't do your job. This is a bad amendment. I will not vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 2, ``Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'' While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

This bill would put our national security at risk. If our nation is under attack or needs to respond to an imminent threat, the last person I would consider contacting is an accountant. I would expect that this body would act swiftly and this mandate takes away that ability.

We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated, ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''

national security--veterans and military families

I am outraged to find that revisions to this legislation include a provision that will hurt our veterans and military families and seriously compromise our ability to combat terrorism. As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am deeply concerned about any measure that undermines the men and women of the Armed Forces or the safety and security of the American people.

The Department of Defense (DOD) has already agreed to cut its budget by $450 billion over the next ten years. The Center for Strategic and International Studies predicts that further budget reductions, including those that would stem from a balanced budget amendment, will cause substantive modification to our defense strategy, capabilities and force structure.

Enacting a balanced budget requirement would severely limit the ability of the Armed Forces to procure the equipment necessary to keep our troops safe, and prepare them for potential combat. A balanced budget amendment would dramatically constrain discretionary budgets, so much so that procurement, research and development, and the acquisition of new technologies would have to be zeroed out of the DOD budget.

These deep cuts to research and development and procurement would threaten the safety of the men and women of the Armed Forces. For example, the constraints caused by a balanced budget amendment would seriously endanger the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey program, as well as the intended order of 340 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. The effects of a balanced budget amendment would hinder the Navy's planned expansion from 287 to 320 ships.

This bill will deeply impact the Defense Industrial Base (DIB), a group of companies and contractors that supply equipment and technology to the Armed Forces. The budget reductions caused by a balanced budget amendment would deeply impact modernization and procurement. In fact, Army Secretary John McHugh recently said that to facilitate any further budget cuts, ``you'd probably have to take some 50% out of modernization.''

The DIB has resulted in the development of the most advanced military force the world has ever seen. However, large cuts in procurement funding would seriously compromise our ability to develop some essential future capabilities. Moreover, the downsizing that a balanced budget requires would leave a large number of highly skilled and professional workers unemployed in an economy unlikely to absorb them for quite some time.

Passing this legislation will not, as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle believe, result in a more stable budget. An amendment requiring a balanced budget will render discretionary budgets, particularly the DOD and national security budgets, much less predictable. The Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security will have to compete for their shares of the national security budget, and furthermore, a likely response to a balanced budget amendment will be an increased reliance on emergency, ad hoc appropriations.

A provision of H.J. Res. 2 requires legislation to spend money that will take the budget out of balance due to a military conflict or national security need. As it stands, this bill will require a Joint Resolution from both houses of Congress with the specific dollar amount being spent.

In order to spend more than has been appropriated, agencies tasked with defense and national security will need approval from Congress. This increased reliance on emergency appropriations will have detrimental effects on the sound functioning of our defense and national security institutions. The more these institutions are forced to rely on emergency funding, the more unpredictable their budgets will become.

This legislation would allow a military conflict or threat to national security to take the budget out of balance. However, in order to authorize additional funds for military engagement or threats to national security that require action, Congress would need to pass legislation citing a specific dollar amount.

As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I know that the threats against the nation are constantly changing and ever present. We cannot ask those responsible for protecting this nation to ask Congress for a specific amount of money every time there is a threat to our national security that requires action. Should we ever experience another attack on American soil, we cannot expect out first responders to wait for authorization before intervening.

Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly disheartened to see my colleagues on the other side of the aisle champion this legislation, legislation that has so many negative impacts on our veterans and military families. The permanent budget cuts necessitated by a balance budget amendment would require the DOD to drastically curtail the number of active duty service members, retirement benefits, and healthcare benefits for veterans and military families.

There are currently 22.6 million veterans living in the United States, and all of them deserve the retirement and healthcare benefits that were promised to them. In my home State of Texas we have nearly 1.7 million veterans, and 18th District is home to 32,000 of them. Of the 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan. We should not compromise the benefits for one of these patriotic Americans with this harmful legislation.

There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. Debate of this balanced budget amendment is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences!

As I mentioned, a balanced budget is not something that should be mandated in our Constitution, nor something that should be automatically required every year. In particular, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending. And in fact, the cost of many government benefit programs is designed to automatically increase when the economy is down--for example, costs for food stamps (SNAP) and Medicaid increase when more people need to rely upon them.

These countercyclical measures lessen the impact of job losses and economic hardship associated with economic downturns. The resulting temporary increases in spending could cause deficits that would trigger the balanced budget requirements at the worst possible moment.

A constitutional amendment requiring Congress to cut spending to match revenue every year would both limit Congress's ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance.

H.J. Res. 2 would amend the Constitution to require Congress to balance the budget each year. It would also impose new procedural hurdles to raising the debt ceiling, and require the President to submit a balanced budget each year.

The thresholds proposed in H.J. Res. 2 are completely unrealistic. Even during Ronald Reagan's presidency--before the baby boomers had reached retirement age, swelling the population eligible for Social Security and Medicare, when health care costs were much lower--federal spending averaged 22 percent of GDP. This would impose arbitrary limits on government actions to respond to an economic slowdown or recession.

Cutting spending during a recession could make the recession worse by increasing the number of unemployed, decreasing business investment, and withholding services needed to jump-start the economy. As written, this bill would render Social Security unconstitutional in its current form. By Capping future spending below Reagan-era levels would force devastating cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Head Start, child care, Pell grants, and many other critical programs.

Only five years in the last fifty has the federal government posted an annual budget surplus; all other years the government has been in deficit. Even the House-passed Republican budget resolution, which requires immediate and sustained drastic spending cuts, never reaches balance in the ten-year window required by H.J. Res. 2--indeed, it is not projected to be balanced for several decades, only reaching balance by 2040.

Because this proposal makes it so much harder for Congress to increase revenues than to cut spending, it in essence forces the President to match those same restrictions in his budget. In other words, H.J. Res. 2 is a political ploy designed to force the President to submit a budget that reflects the Republican priorities of ending the Medicare guarantee while cutting taxes for millionaires.

social security & medicare

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, H.J. Res. 2's balanced budget requirement could result in Medicare being cut by nearly $750 billion, Social Security almost $1.2 trillion, and veterans' benefits $85 billion, through 2021 assuming that the spending cuts would be distributed evenly across the government. These cuts would devastate millions of seniors, veterans, children and the disabled.

These cuts would have a devastating effect on the millions of aged, disabled, veterans, children, and others who depend on Social Security. The BBA would have the foreseeable effect of plunging millions of Social Security beneficiaries into poverty and making for a very bleak future for most others. Over two-thirds of seniors and 70 percent of people with disabilities depend on Social Security for half or more of their income. Close to half--47 percent--of all single (i.e., widowed, divorced, or never-married) women over age 65 rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.

Seniors are spending more on their health care costs, and Americans in general are making less. The face of poverty is a child's face. If a private employer attempted to do what is being asked of us here today, which would be to use their pension plans in a manner that H.J. Res. 2 would deal with Social Security that would be against the law.

Furthermore, the need to raise the debt ceiling has no correlation to whether future budgets are balanced; increases in the debt ceiling reflect past decisions on fiscal policy. And as demonstrated by this year's current disagreement about whether and when to raise the debt ceiling, Congress does not need to impose further barriers to its consideration. Treasury has warned that failing to raise the debt ceiling and the resulting government default, which would be unprecedented, could have catastrophic impacts on the economy. Interest rates would rise, increasing costs for the government and potentially on American businesses and families.

Any cuts made to accommodate a mandated balanced budget would fall most heavily on domestic discretionary programs; the immediate result of a balanced budget amendment would be devastating cuts in education, homeland security, public safety, health care and research, transportation and other vital services.

The Founders purposely made the Constitutional amendment process a long and arduous one. Having a Constitutional balanced budget amendment is not a novel idea. Balanced budget amendments have made it to a floor vote in the Senate five times, and in the House four times, according to CRS. The Senate barely passed a version in 1982, but it failed to gain the necessary two-thirds majority in the House. The House passed a version in 1995, but it failed in the Senate.

Do my Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice; an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may have?

By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it.

Potential Impact on Medicare

Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances. Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes. While many beneficiaries enjoy good health, 25% or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments.

Today, 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12% are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest- growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030.

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that I rose to the floor of the House to oppose the balanced budget amendment--and I hope the American people and our colleagues can see the value of the vigorous debate, and I applaud the Rules Committee for allowing us the time to deliberate on the issue of the balanced budget amendment--is for the very good reason that my good friend and colleague just spoke about: our young people and opportunities for jobs.

I join him in finding pathways for young people to be transitioned into jobs and others into jobs, along with a college education.

The North Forest Independent School District, a small school district in Texas designated to be closed by Governor Perry's Texas Education Agency, is trying to do just that, to have job training, to have partnerships with the Houston Community College, and I congratulate Mr. Ivory Mayhorn for getting some 7,000-plus signatures to oppose the closing of this school district, a high school that is on the verge of training individuals in the trades and the skills of manufacturing and then bridging them on to community college and then on to college.

We've got to recognize that we've got to build the human resource-- and a balanced budget amendment ignores the need to protect Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid--investing in our children, providing them with the opportunity and the bridge to move on.

So I look forward to working, Mr. Speaker, with the North Forest Independent School District and working with this Congress to invest in human resources.

I thank the gentlelady from New York for her kindness in yielding. I thank the hard work of the Appropriations Committee. I thank the gentlelady from Virginia for managing. And I thank Mr. Dicks as well for accepting the challenge in these very difficult times.

It's not a happy time to come to the floor and indicate that this is what we have to do, but it's important to acknowledge some challenges that we still have. And those challenges are: the many food programs that have to be capped in spite of the numbers of people who are hungry in this country; the dumbing down of food resources, in particular, as my colleague from Colorado mentioned, listing tomato paste and french fries as vegetables; and then an issue that I hope that I will be able to continue to work on with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and that is food deserts, where there are pockets in rural and urban centers where we have no food access, good healthy food, vegetables.

But I am glad that the New Starts, under the transportation bill, includes the north and southeast lines for the city of Houston, creating jobs, putting people to work, and improving mobility, some $94,616,000.

I am also delighted that TIGER grants are in at $500 million, but disappointed in the community planning, that we have lost some $830 million for community block grants, $1.6 billion below the President. That's where we help rebuild communities and jobs.

The Legal Services Corporation that I've been a supporter of and actively was on our local board, board of directors, now has been reduced by $348 million; but it has been reduced, which creates what we call the justice gap.

I also am concerned about providing more developmental training for our law enforcement that covers our Federal sectors. In particular, I am concerned about the police in the Supreme Court and the Chief of Police there, and the concern for the lack of professionalism and the need for training.

I believe that in the Capitol Police scenario, there is an orderly process of the Chief, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and we work wonderfully together with these outstanding men and women. It's a shame for those who have to protect the other body of government, the Supreme Court, to have individuals who do not recognize IDs, are not professional in their handling of their business. And I will be raising this issue with the Department of Justice and relating it to the funding which I think is necessary to either provide them with more funding or to put more stringent guidelines in their hiring policies and the way they train people.

So I rise today to say that I am glad that we will have the government open, and that we have funded agriculture programs, not at the best; we've funded infrastructure. But we can do more. And I believe we should not adhere to any cuts going forward, and I hope the

supercommittee will not do that. I ask for support of the underlying bill.

I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution has to do with a balanced budget amendment, which most Americans might say ``yea'' to, but this is a deja vu because we debated this so many years ago, and it was found that a balanced budget amendment for the Federal Government will not work with all of the restraints and necessities of serving the American people.

But Mr. Critz's bill and the idea of correcting the currency manipulation of China will work. It will create jobs. The World Trade Organization cannot help. All the negotiations with China will not help. I would love for them to stand up and be counted in the world family so that we can continue to churn the economy, which all of us would benefit from. But as the euro crumbles and possibly the dollar will step in--I opposed the euro many years ago--we've got to get a currency that responds to all of us. Decent pay for a decent day's work--that does not happen when you have a manipulation of product cost so that some products are so much cheaper than the ones made by Americans.

We are not envious, and we are not jealous, but this resolution or Mr. Critz's bipartisan effort can move forward if we vote ``no'' on the previous question, and then we can begin to help create jobs. And we might say to the supercommittee that we thank you for your service, but we can go into 2012 deliberatively and thoughtfully looking at a plan that raises revenue and cuts the areas that do not leave the vulnerable along the highway of despair.

I support Mr. Critz's effort. I want to move beyond the supercommittee and fund this government and create jobs in the way that the people elected us to do.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the conference report on H.R. 2112, containing FY 2012 appropriations. This bill will fund the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, as well as NASA Additionally, the bill funds the government through December 16, 2011.

I am pleased to see the conferees were able to restore essential funding for jobs, innovation, food safety, and vital investments in infrastructure. Moreover, the bill has come back from conference free of controversial policy riders that put special interest above the interests of the American people.

The conference report contains key investments in infrastructure that will put Americans back to work. Funding for high ay and transit programs has been set at $39.8 billion for the federaI aid highway program, and $10.5 billion for transit programs, allowing for 400,000 more jobs than the House version of the bill.

I am extremely pleased that the conference agreement includes funding for METRO rail in the Houston, Texas North Corridor ($94,616,000) and Southeast Corridor ($94,616,000) for a total of $189,232. This funding is critical for the regional mobility of the citizens in and around the 18th Congressional District. At a time when cities around the country are struggling with a backlog of transportation projects amidst high unemployment, this funding is critical to improving transportation infrastructure while creating jobs.

Houston, in particular, needs this infrastructure to relieve congestion and provide adequate public transportation. Furthermore, this investment in the city's New Start Transit Project will create jobs for Houstonians who want to work to support their families and improve their communities.

As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I understand the vital importance of ensuring the nation has a developed transit system. Houston has been working for over 20 years to bring these New Start Projects to fruition. I have worked tirelessly to secure the necessary funding to complete the METRO RAIL New Start Projects, and I am very pleased this project was included in the conference report.

This legislation also contains $2.3 billion dollars in funding for disaster relief. Adequate funding for disaster relief is imperative to our nation's emergency preparedness. As a Representative from Texas, I have seen firsthand the necessity for disaster relief funding. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility.

Emergency preparedness is only one part of keeping our communities safe. We also need to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to uphold law and order at all times. The Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Program for state and local law enforcement will receive $198.5 million dollars in this legislation, including $166 million dollars for COPS hiring to put more police officers on the streets, keeping our citizens safe. As a senior Member of the Homeland Security, I know that strong state and local law enforcement agencies are vital to our national security.

I am also pleased to see funding for the Office of Violence Against Women. The conference agreement includes $412.5 million dollars for programs to prevent violence against women, and assist victims of violent crime. Across the country there are non profits, community based organizations, and religious groups that are diligently working to address all the issues that arise from domestic violence. One such organization is in my hometown of Houston, TX, the Houston Area Women's Center. Programs such as the Houston

Area Women's Center will benefit from the grants made available through this funding.

Throughout the budget and appropriations process, I have been concerned about the adverse effects of spending cuts on minority and underserved populations. I am extremely pleased to see that the Minority Business Resource Center program received $922,000 dollars in funding to provide loans and capital to invest in minority owned businesses. The conference report also allocates $3.06 million dollars for minority business outreach. These efforts show a commitment to revitalizing small business and giving everyone the opportunity to make it in America.

This bill represents an investment in America's future by allocating $4.5 million dollars for the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In the report, the conferees state their support for improvements to the federal Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, STEM, education. STEM education is absolutely imperative for Americans to compete in the increasingly globalized economy. A commitment to improving STEM education is a commitment to our children and our students.

H.R. 2112 also takes steps to further our economic recovery after the 2008 financial crisis. In the wake of the housing crisis, many responsible, hard working Americans lost their homes, not because they neglected to pay their mortgage, but because their rates went up unexpectedly, or because they lost their jobs. In an effort to prevent more families from losing their homes, this bill provides $45 million dollars for non-profits to advise families on foreclosure prevention.

While I support this measure, I also have some reservations. While I am glad to see the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, nutrition program funded at $6.6 billion, $570 million above the House level, and $36 million above the Senate level, I am concerned that the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, and child nutrition have been funded at $98.6 billion, $2 billion below President Obama's request. Moreover, the decision to render tomato paste and tomato sauce as adequate servings of vegetables undermines efforts to teach children healthy eating habits at a young age.

While the funding levels for SNAP allow all individuals and families that meet the program's criteria for aid to receive benefits, there is nothing in the conference report that addresses the very serious problem of urban food deserts, communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options. Food deserts disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options.

Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, and citizens throughout the state of Texas. Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other state. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, identified 92 food desert census tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low income residents, with 33 percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store.

I am also concerned about the decrease in funding for NASA found in this report. While I am very pleased that NASA's budget does include $138 million dollars for education, including the Minority University Research and Education Program, I wholeheartedly believe we need to further the space program. The Johnson Space Center in Houston attracts the best and brightest minds in the nation, and we must give them the resources they need. There is no blueprint for great achievement, but allowing for continued exploration of the universe can lead to great discovery.

Despite these reservations, I am pleased to support this measure, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank the ranking member of this committee.

Many of us could spend a lot of time on educating the public on just what is occurring. We cherish this little book that has lasted in this Nation for some--more than centuries that we can count. As this document was written, the question was going to ask--or was asked whether it could last. And today, we cite the United States as the longest democracy holding on to a Constitution that provides us with the opportunity to even be here.

But it is important to note that in order to amend the Constitution, the Founding Fathers were so serious about how important an action this would be that they indicated that there should be two-thirds votes from both the House and the Senate and three-quarters of our States. The people of the United States must likewise answer the call.

Frankly, let me make a pronouncement. The American people will not answer this foolish call. They will recognize that whether it's supercommittees or Tea Parties and others that want to detract away from the reasonable approach to budgeting, which is revenue enhancement and serious reform, they know that the way they do their budget is thoughtfulness and not rushing to judgement.

A headline on the markup of our bill in committee, though I know this is not, said: Sheila Jackson Lee Can't Slow Down Republican Balanced Budget Amendment Freight Train. That train keeps coming, and in the midst of it, there are bloody bodies left along the wayside.

Our Chairman of the Federal Reserve said we really don't want to just cut, cut, cut. Chairman Bernanke said you need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in every near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude, in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.

I thank the gentleman.

So for us to go this route, it means that even in a war, it is a complicated process of a majority vote, even beside the declaration of war; even in an emergency when our soldiers are needing more resources, we have to come to this body and stop and wait for our soldiers to get what their resources are. We have to stop and wait for our veterans to get the resources that they need.

While veterans hospitals are closing, while centers for posttraumatic stress disorder are closing, we will be fiddling around and the freight train of the balanced budget amendment will drive over the veterans, the soldiers, the President who is trying to save this Nation, Homeland Security resources that are needed, because we wanted to be a political grandstanding for a balanced budget amendment.

We balanced a budget in 1993; some suffered politically. We got the budget balanced in 1997; some suffered politically. But the Democrats knew how to do it. Let's come together. Balance the budget and ignore a complicated, ludicrous process that the Founding Fathers said, stop, wait, do the right thing; do your job, not an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule for H.J. Res. 2, a ``Proposing A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'' While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

This bill would put our national security at risk. If our nation is under attack or needs to respond to an imminent threat, the last person I would consider contacting is an accountant. I would expect that this body would act swiftly and this mandate takes away that ability.

We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.''

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to allow members of the Progressive Caucus to continue this discussion and as well to continue to educate the American public.

It is worth noting that part of the discussion that occurred on the floor of the House is that we have come to this point, if I might say, through a peculiar process. Some might call it hostage-taking, but certainly it is a process that has skewed, if you will, the regular order of this Congress.

This little book, the Constitution of the United States, that can fit into a document of this size, even though it is found in law books and many major large-sized books in the Library of Congress, hopefully convinces the American people of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It is noteworthy that they did not include a balanced budget amendment in the first group of amendments called the Bill of Rights. And even as they proceeded, they took the challenge of speaking to any number of issues, the freeing of the slaves in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, giving the right to vote finally in the 15th Amendment, suggesting that there should be no obstacles to voting. They went on to the 24th Amendment to indicate that there should be no poll tax, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. But never did they feel the necessity to talk about a balanced budget amendment.

The reason, I believe, that they cast their lot on the responsible thinking of Members of Congress is because that is what we are supposed to do. We are supposed to be responsible Members of the United States Congress with no intervening body, no layered approach, no handcuffing of our deliberation. And that's what a balanced budget amendment is all about.

You've just listened to a portion of our debate. We will go on into tomorrow, mind you, taking up 5 hours of time that could be dedicated to coming together around job creation.

The underlying premise of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that two-thirds of this body, two-thirds of the other body, and three-quarters of the States must consent to a balanced budget amendment. Thank goodness that our Founding Fathers made amending the Constitution so difficult. And that is because they wanted us to be thoughtful. So when we think of the amendments that are in this book, this little book that starts off with ``We, the people,'' a part of the Declaration of Independence, and then the beginning part of the Constitution says that we have come together ``to form a more perfect union,'' they've made it that challenging so that we could be thoughtful in our moving amendments.

Maybe for those of us who are in certain types of church families, whether it be Baptist or the underlying overriding general Protestant structure, we know that there are pastors, ministers, reverends, board of trustees, a board, or maybe a deacon board, there is some sort of policy board, and then there is a congregation. The reason why I mentioned the faith community is because we can get very sensitive about how our places of worship are run, how the business part of it is run. And you would wonder how many congregations would welcome the overlay of some outside entity--albeit formed by members--that was over the pastor, that was over the board of trustees, that was over the congregation. That's what we have done and forced ourselves to do with the intervening supercommittee that was put together by the concept of needing to raise the debt ceiling and then adding into it another hot pepper pot, and that is, of course, having to be forced to pass a balanced budget amendment.

I want to refer my colleagues again to a headline in a local paper, Sheila Jackson Lee can't slow down the Republican balanced-budget amendment freight train. It's not necessarily because it was my name, but that's just what we have experienced, a freight train.

I have no doubt that there will be a strong vote tomorrow. I am hoping that the debate will generate enough thought to cause many of my colleagues to reflect on whether or not we could, in the regular order, do some of the suggestions that have been made. Taxation of investment transactions, where many who are well vested and who have experienced the bounty of this land would be willing to contribute and to understand how we should move forward. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts, another revenue-generator that would, I believe, increase the opportunities for reducing the debt. Getting rid of the mighty, if you will, bungled opportunity to help seniors, becoming a gigantic handout budgetary fiasco. Medicare part D--ask every senior when you visit them at their senior centers, are they begging for the closing of the doughnut hole? But more importantly, are they trying to get relief from Medicare part D? Give them relief, close the doughnut hole, and you will find a huge amount of money going into the Treasury.

Going back to the Affordable Care Act and implementing the public option and allowing the United States to negotiate the cost of medications, prescription drugs under Medicare--just watch the debt go down, down, down. So I want to recite, as I did on the floor of the House, the words of Chairman Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, who indicated to the Committee on Financial Services, We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut. You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.

Nowhere did he say, Well, why don't you just do a balanced budget amendment with no thinking and not being able to deal with emergencies beyond another vote by the Congress, sometimes a majority, sometimes even longer.

Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment was wrong when our Founding Fathers began to write the Constitution. It was wrong as the Founding Fathers wrote amendment after amendment. It was wrong to think about it in World War II, to think about it in the 1929 financial collapse, to think about it in the conflicts of the 1950s, the Vietnam war or wars thereafter, such as the Persian Gulf, the Iraq war, and, of course, the Afghan war, Kosovo, Bosnia, Albania, Libya, and places where we've been called to act on behalf of the American people in defending our honor and democracy and protecting the vulnerable around the world. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

What the American people who voted for Members of the United States Congress are asking us to do is what the Progressive Caucus is doing: It is finding a way, first of all, to submit a reasoned budget that has seen a responsible approach to addressing the needs of revenue-raising and belt-tightening. What it is also asking is, as the Progressive Caucus is doing, drafting a major omnibus jobs bill that will incorporate a wide range of initiatives, many not costly initiatives, that will bring about jobs in America not only for those languishing 2 and 3 years unemployed but for our wonderful college graduates and others that are coming out of the institutions of higher learning.

But as Dr. Jeffrey Sachs said, We have even more challenges because, although we all point to college graduates and going to institutions of higher learning, maybe I should wake up America and let you know that we have some of the lowest numbers of college graduation rates probably in the history of America: white males at 34 percent, African Americans somewhere under 20, and Hispanics 11 percent.

So the balanced budget amendment is not going to invest in the human resources of America. It's not going to answer the question in our competitive reach as we compete around the world. It's not going to respond to the numbers of Ph.D.s that India is now producing, probably in years to come more so than people in the United States, or the number of masters and Ph.D.s in China.

Our reach in competition is way beyond our borders. But everyone knows that America's marketability is our genius in invention and manufacturing, our genius as it relates to prescription drugs, our genius in medical science and medicine, our genius in Silicon Valley and the little Silicon Valleys that are springing up around America.

Our genius, for example, in the MD Anderson Cancer Center located in Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation, magnificent research occurring in that institution, seeking a viable 21st-century, 22nd-century cure for this devastating disease, but also branching out for creative thinking in the next generation of research. That is the genius of America. We are not broke, and we're certainly not broke in our genius.

Let us be reminded as we debate the balanced budget amendment that our corporations are flush with cash. Our banks are flush with cash, and countries around the world are eager to have us hold their money in the framework of loans that are being made to us. If they wish to loan to anyone, they are eager to loan to the United States. Why? Because they believe their cash is safe.

So it is important that we are thoughtful in the idea of a balanced budget amendment and why now. Why are we doing a balanced budget amendment in the course of the need to do, as Dr. Sachs has said, long- term, systematic changes in how we do business in the United States of America?

So just take a fact sheet on the question of the balanced budget amendment. It came about because we went to the brink of raising the debt ceiling, something that had been done many times since President Eisenhower, going forward to Presidents thereafter, many times under Bush I, the 41st President of the United States; many times under the 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton; many times under the 43rd President of the United States.

And lo and behold, an African American President ascends to the Presidency, voted on by the American people, and the debt ceiling becomes a crisis in the making. And, frankly, the pundits, economists around the world indicated it was not the question of raising the debt ceiling. It was the debacle shown around the world that the Members of Congress were not allowed to get their business in order. They were not allowed to debate this in a reasoned manner. They were strung and strangled by voices that are driven by outside party politics, in this instance the Tea Party and those who adhere to pledges governed by Mr. Norquist.

So it is important that a constitutional debate be separated from the entrenched political views that would disallow a thoughtful discussion. We could have raised the debt ceiling with a thoughtful discussion; but it came with not strings but ladened with heavy steel, bricks tied to our arms and body as we walked slowly and dragged down.

So we have a supercommittee. With great respect for those working, I have the greatest respect for our colleagues and wish them well. We have the requirement of a balanced budget amendment, a constitutional discussion dragged down by the requirement that you're not going to get the debt ceiling raised. You're not going to be able to pay the bills for our seniors and our soldiers on the battlefield if you didn't hang with all of this weight to carry forth an instruction that really is not done thoughtfully.

So here's what we get with the balanced budget amendment. We risk default by the United States by requiring a supermajority to raise the debt limit. It destroys 15 million jobs and doubles unemployment to 18 percent. If enacted in fiscal year 2012, nonpartisan economists with Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, estimate that enactment of a balanced budget amendment would eliminate 15 million jobs, double the unemployment rate to 18 percent, and cause the economy to shrink by 17 percent.

Remember what I said, dragged down by steel anvils tied to our legs and arms, our ankles, around our necks. This is what we will be doing tomorrow. This is what the vote will entail tomorrow.

It harms seniors by cutting Medicare and Social Security and veterans by reducing their benefits, even though Social Security is solvent until 2035, requiring a thoughtful decision of how we go forward. And even though there are ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse from Medicare without cutting providers, we want to go with a balanced budget amendment which could result in Medicare being cut by about $750 billion, Social Security $1.2 trillion, and veterans benefits $85 million through 2021.

How many of us joined our neighbors in celebrating Veterans Day last Friday? I did. We went to the Veterans hospital and shook the hands of bedridden veterans and promised them, by giving them cards of cheer, that we would not in any way cut their benefits. These cuts will result in draconian cuts, worse than the Ryan GOP budget. It opens the doors for courts to intervene--and the gentleman from Illinois may want to comment on this--in Federal budget decisions by placing the balanced budget amendment into the Constitution. It will generate enormous--in fact, there will be a line to

the courthouse on constitutional challenges on cutting Pell Grants and cutting food stamps and cutting housing and cutting veterans benefits, as I said.

And then, of course, more than 270 organizations representing people that are the most vulnerable have begged us to unshackle the steel anvils from our legs and arms and do the people's business.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

The gentleman is eloquent in his analysis. And as an appropriator, the gentleman knows full well the value of regular order. That is that the voices of not only the appropriators, meaning those on the Appropriations Committee, but other Members are able to, in essence, craft the ultimate appropriations, maybe working with a budget, maybe not, based upon the current needs of the American people.

The balanced budget amendment will stand not as a guard at the door of the United States Congress--the doors are to my left. We come in and out. It will literally be a lock and chain on the door because it will say to those who are running for office, in essence, you are powerless. You will either be as other litigants in the courthouse in the third branch of government seeking refuge for your constituents, or you will make at being a Member of Congress and spend most of your time fighting the balanced budget amendment in the courts.

The gentleman is absolutely correct, and I would add to this that, even though they make a way for disasters and wars, even if it is presumed to be under the jurisdiction of the President's executive powers to even expend any dollars, one would have to come to this body to receive a majority vote by this House and a majority vote by the other House.

That means that all branches of government will be under this lock. The President will not be able to act as a President. The Congress will have disagreement as to whether or not it's a war we support or conflict we support or an emergency we support, and, in essence, to the gentleman's very fine point, and as I indicated, we will be clogging the Federal courts on each iota of disagreement dealing with from vast issues of protecting the homeland to the necessity of defending the principles of democracy around the world. And I know there are some probably listening and they are probably applauding because they are saying, I don't want to help anyone anyhow. But some of that help falls back on the safety and security of the American people.

What is going on in Somalia, the frightening devastation of death that we are not acknowledging, might be a cause for the support of the American Government to help in the survival of those people. We will be in a stranglehold from doing that. The crisis in Syria, which I wanted to just make mention of and to ask Dr. Assad, as the Arab League has asked, and as I continue to ask and as my Syrian American neighbors have asked, to step down, which might warrant the United States joining with people of goodwill to help the Syrian people, we will find ourselves in court for each step of our responsibilities. The oath we take, that will be in conflict with the balanced budget amendment as it is presently written by the gentleman from Virginia.

By the way, if it is not passed as it is, a long-winded process will generate, and I assume that it is the same balanced budget amendment on the other body, but this will be a long, protracted process while we continue to languish and not do the people's bidding. I would rather do the people's bidding than I would want to, again, yield to a process that by its very nature is fractured and does not adhere to the Constitution as relates to having control of the pursestrings, being able to raise armies, being able to provide for the general welfare of the American people.

What are we talking about here? Am I going to have to prosecute a case in the Federal courts on the question of the general welfare of the American people when we will be thwarted here on the floor of the House because of the balanced budget amendment?

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

I want to remind the gentleman, I'm looking at a statement that my office brought to my attention that I was on the floor of the House September 22, 2004. Let me say that I wasn't on the floor of the House. I was in a markup on a proposed balanced budget amendment. And I had

in the markup, Mr. Jackson, an amendment called the ``poor children's amendment.'' In achieving a balanced budget, outlays shall not be reduced in a manner that disproportionately affects outlays for education, nutrition and health programs for poor children. That was called the ``poor children's amendment,'' dated November 22, 2004.

We were dealing with an amendment at that time. It seems like we've done it over and over again. But I want to raise that to say you are very right in your analysis. What that means is that those who would be on the side of saying that we have a crisis with poor children, with nutrition, with the SCHIP program, children's health insurance program which is now merged into our Affordable Care Act, any other programs that deal specifically with the poor--let me just cite this: 2008, 15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty. We have the most uninsured.

What it means is that Congresswoman Jackson Lee would battle it out in the courts. I would leave the floor of the House. I couldn't get the amount increased, and I would challenge the constitutionality of the balanced budget amendment. That would be part of my remedy because I couldn't raise up a three-fifths in this body, which is a supermajority, in essence, a supermajority to do the constitutional right that we have for taxation.

The House has the pursestrings, and that's a constitutional task. We've now changed that simple majority that has been written by our Founding Fathers who were building a nation and said, when building a nation, we don't want to be reckless with spending, but let us have a majority that will allow us to tax ourselves and build a nation. We're now arguing that it will be three-fifths.

And as we have made it your point, a constitutional amendment, as you know that we've gone to courts on the Ninth Amendment, the right to privacy. We are presently in the throngs of the amendments dealing with due process; and out of that 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments came the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights Act of 1964. That generates court action. To your point, we will be in court. But I will say this. We will be in court on defense matters as well.

Let me just indicate a point about defense. In order to spend more than has been appropriated, agencies tasked with defense and national security will need approval from Congress. This increased reliance on emergency appropriations will have detrimental effects on the sound functioning of our defense and national security institutions. The more these institutions are forced to rely on emergency funding, the more unpredictable these budgets will become.

This legislation would allow a military conflict or threat to national security to take the budget out of balance. However, in order to authorize additional funds for military engagement or threats to national security that require action, Congress will need to pass legislation citing a specific amount. So the gentleman who was on the floor is very accurate in what the balanced budget amendment will do is kick us off budget if we have an emergency.

Might I just say, as my voice is coming to somewhat of a raspy end, that in addition to being off budget for this Congress, those of us--I see the good speaker, a dear friend from Texas. Those of us who are familiar with State budgets, we know that there is a capital budget, and we don't have one here in the Federal Government. And so we spend, if people would know, monies out of the Federal Government to ensure the infrastructure of America.

Just a few days ago, Texas had articles talking about our water level. Our water is a lifeline for our ranchers, and something has to be done. I expect the legislature will dig deep to address the diminishing water sources and the water shelf that we have to deal with in places where we have to keep our ranchers going.

By the way, ranchers of Texas, I love you; and I am proud to be from Texas where ranching still goes on. You hold on. We have to deal with it; it is a Federal proposition to deal with water all over America. So all of this would be kicked off budget. And I would hope maybe my Texas colleagues would be in the courts with me when they would be denied the right to secure Federal funding to help Texas that is now suffering from enormous deprivation of water because of the drought that we had and some problems that come about through Mother Nature.

May I pause for a moment and ask the Speaker how much time is remaining.

Then let me just add a few more points to my commentary on this.

Let me just say that in my district in Texas, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. And I want to take Mr. Jackson's comments--I will say that he took the words out of our collective mouths in the Congressional Progressive Caucus that this issue of poverty is really unspoken, but is in need of raising the ante. And it's the highest rate in 17 years.

The thresholds proposed in H.J. Res. 2 are completely unrealistic. Even during Ronald Reagan's Presidency, before the baby boomers had reached retirement age, swelling the population eligible for Social Security and Medicare when health care costs were lower, Federal spending averaged 22 percent of GDP. We don't have that low number that was offered in the Judiciary Committee, but it is unrealistic as this country grows.

My friends, the country has gotten larger. We can't have the same percentages that we had under President Eisenhower. Only 5 years in the last 50 has the Federal Government posted an annual budget surplus. All of the years the government has been in a deficit. We must contain it and restrain it. We must raise money. We can do that. We've just got to move the various ghosts of tax pledges and other third-party restraints away from the Halls of Congress and move the blocker of doing intelligent work, and that would be a balanced budget amendment.

So I believe it is crucial, as this debate goes forward, that we understand the Constitution and the American people understand that you pass a balanced budget amendment and you give up the vote that you cherish every 2 years, when you vote for a Member of Congress who is allowed to vote for or against, who will stand on the floor of the House and advocate, under the Constitution of the United States, the authority of this House of Representatives to institute taxes through the discourse of debate and the appropriate use of those taxes to raise up the general welfare of the American Government and people.

With that in mind, I would beseech of you, as I close, to be able to truly understand the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. Allow me to read this into the Record:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more

perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic

tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the

general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to

ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this

Constitution for the United States of America.

I beg of you, my colleagues who will vote tomorrow, have this Constitution in your hand. Posterity can come through the reasonable work. Posterity can come through the thanking of the supercommittee for its work and moving beyond the supercommittee into 2012. Begin to analyze the needs of the American people and vote for revenue and vote for belt-tightening.

Don't take the Constitution and shred it tomorrow, voting for a balanced budget amendment that no Founding Father saw fit to implement, and throwing America's children, veterans, returning soldiers, and seniors into the Federal courthouses of America and depending upon the Federal court system for justice. We can do justice tomorrow. We can join with the Congressional Progressive Caucus long range, but we can do justice tomorrow and reject the balanced budget amendment on behalf of the constitutional rights of the people, and on behalf of the people of the United States of America.

I am happy to yield control of the remaining time to the gentleman from Illinois.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am hoping that there will be no Member that will oppose a commonsense amendment that allows our law enforcement officers to be more protected.

One might think, as I point to this picture of a nurse giving a young man an immunization shot and the young man squinting, that I would be more in tune with this legislation to have a law enforcement officer or a policeman dressed in their uniform.

I put a child here because I wanted to emphasize the fact that, can we have any disagreement that if we put our law enforcement officers in jeopardy, many of them leave behind families. Or I might use as an example this young child is squinting in pain from immunization. That won't harm them, but a person recklessly having stolen maybe someone's gun that comes with the national concealed law, the right-to-carry law, may not have a squinting child but, rather, a dead child.

Let me give you an example of the legislation or the amendment that I have in real time. A North Harris police officer in 2008 had a traffic stop. Before he went to this individual that he was stopping, he dutifully went to a dispatcher, a database to find out who this might be. Tragically, it was not soon enough because a gun was taken and he was shot dead. He leaves behind a wife and two children, albeit the fact that I have a child here, because I'm simply trying to create a simple amendment to this bill that will protect our law enforcement.

What does my amendment do? It ensures that a comprehensive database is created to provide a listing of individuals from each State who possess permits and licenses to carry concealed weapons. This amendment would also require that the concealed-weapons database be available to law enforcement officers in all States 24 hours a day. Thank goodness, because of Federal funding, many of our law enforcement officers have their laptops, many of them even their iPads, and so this database is a simple process.

It is interesting or it should be known that 36 States are especially adversely impacted by this bill because 36 States do not grant any reciprocity. Twenty-seven States recognize concealed-carry permits from only select States. So a 24-hour database, I believe,

would do what Republicans and Democrats say they want to do: protect law enforcement officers.

Failing to implement a national system that would allow law enforcement officials to check the status of individuals who are legally allowed to carry a concealed gun will result in a routine situation, such as a traffic stop, becoming a life-threatening situation. If an officer discovered a gun during a routine traffic stop, the officer might quickly and accurately determine this guy is legal as to whether the driver or lady possesses a valid out-of-state permit.

Oh, yes, we can offer reciprocity, but does the officer on the street walk around and look at the car that's coming across the border of their State and a sign says, We have reciprocity, I am from such and such, I'm okay. It is nearly an impossible task for the officer to verify the validity of 48 different carry permits--are we going to have a national carry permit--in the middle of what could be a tense situation.

Even if that person is legally carrying it based upon the permit from another State, according to the majority's report on this bill, only 18 States maintain an electronic database of concealed-carry permits that are immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. Seven States cannot provide any real-time access to this basic information to out-of-state agencies, and two States do not even maintain a database for their own purposes. This amendment gives our local law enforcement a plausible chance to verify whether out-of-state concealed-carry permits are legitimate.

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

I yield to my ranking member on this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for his kindness.

Who can oppose such a simple amendment, particularly when it is noted that some States do not have this electronic database?

The officer who went to his dispatcher, who was doing the right thing, he lost his life. He left behind children. Do we want squinting children getting an immunization shot or getting shot?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 822, the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.'' My amendment ensures that a comprehensive database is created to provide a listing of individuals from each State who possess permits and licenses to carry concealed weapons. This amendment would also require that the concealed weapons database be available to law enforcement officers in all States 24-hours a day.

Failing to implement a national system that would allow law enforcement officials to check the status of individuals who are legally allowed to carry a concealed gun could result in a routine situation, such as a like traffic stops, becoming life-threatening situation.

If an officer discovered a gun during a routine traffic stop, the officer must quickly and accurately determine whether the driver possesses a valid out-of-state permit. It is a nearly impossible task for the officer to verify the validity of 48 different carry permits, in the middle what could be a tense or dangerous situation.

According to the Majority's report on this bill, only 12 states maintain an electronic database of concealed carry permits that are immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. 7 states cannot provide any real time access to this basic information to out- of-state agencies, and 2 states do not even maintain a database for their own purposes.

This amendment gives state and local law enforcement a plausible chance to verify whether out-of-state concealed carry permits are legitimate

Consider for a moment, a police officer in Houston, Texas has just pulled someone over for speeding. The driver, who is a resident of Missouri, gives the officer a concealed carry permit from Utah, which is a state that grants concealed carry permits to nonresidents. Under our current system it is impossible for the officer in Houston to instantly confirm whether or not the driver from Missouri has a valid right to carry a concealed weapon.

State and local law enforcement should always be aware of who is carrying loaded, hidden guns in their communities. A local sheriff or police chief would benefit from knowing how many people carrying a concealed weapon have entered their jurisdiction from out-of-state, and who those people are.

My amendment would give the officer the ability to garner this information from a comprehensive database; this would allow the officer to have an advantage when approaching a vehicle with a potentially armed driver.

As it stands officers would have to distinguish between real and fake carry permits issued not only by their own state, but by every state. And in many cases, officers would have to determine whether a person is entitled to carry a gun, which would depend on their state of residence and is nearly impossible to verify quickly.

The comprehensive database provides the officer with an information safety net, although my amendment will not address the significant flaws in this legislation; this is an attempt to ensure that law enforcement officers have an additional tool at their disposal.

In addition, state authorities would also have information on whether or not the individuals applying for licenses in their state have ever had a license revoke in a different state.

Under this bill, local law enforcement will have a difficult time verifying out-of-state permits in real time. Pass this amendment to give our local law enforcement officials a fighting chance.

A comprehensive database would save lives, as state officials could use this database to determine whether they would be issuing a permit to an individual, who may have had their permit revoked in another state.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank you for your courtesies, and I am delighted to have seen my good friend engage in a dialogue and a colloquy with my friend from Tennessee. Maybe I might even get the same courtesies because this is a very important issue that also deals with constitutional questions.

I am back with my young man who is getting his immunization shot, with a nurse looking over him, because I want people to know that this is about family, that it's about the fact as to whether or not we make a statement on behalf of protecting law enforcement, of protecting our families, and not fall upon the spear of the Second Amendment and the National Rifle Association.

To my ranking member and dear friend, even the supercommittee is not without ghosts riding through. I understand they had a deal, and then Mr. Norquist comes riding through. Whenever we want to talk about getting together on guns and the Second Amendment, the NRA comes riding through. So we've got the NRA, and we've got Mr. Norquist, and we can't ever get any bipartisanship because the ghosts keep riding through.

My amendment is a very simple one, and it speaks, again, to protecting the lives of our officers, and what it says is having the State have a designated entity, a designated agency, that requires an individual coming into another State with a concealed-carry permit to provide at least 24 hours advance notice to law enforcement agencies of

their intention to carry or possess a concealed handgun in another State. States must retain their ability to know which individuals are allowed under this newly proposed bill to possess and carry a concealed weapon.

Now, my friend did not engage with me in a dialogue, the gentleman, I believe, from South Carolina.

But just imagine a trooper with a traffic stop on, say, for example, I-45 in the State of Texas--it could be I-95 in Maryland--at 3 a.m. The car has a Colorado license plate, and the driver supplies a Colorado driver's license. The State trooper goes back to his car, and he can instantly validate this person is from Colorado with respect to the license plate and the license. Upon returning to the car, the trooper notices that the driver has a concealed weapon on his hip. The driver hands over his Colorado concealed-carry permit. The trooper has no ability to determine the validity of that permit. Therefore, if that person had been required to notify a State agency in Texas or in Maryland, that information might be readily accessible.

I heard a comment about the NLET process. You can go to the NLET. Only 12 States have allowed electronic access to their concealed-carry databases known as NLET. It does not respond, in essence, to the other 38 States.

My friends, we are recklessly passing a bill that we think is sorely needed. It does not in any way have anything to do with jobs. It doesn't have anything to do with protecting innocent children. It has nothing to do with making sure our law enforcement is safe. I am simply adding an amendment that would make it better. When you're coming into our State, let's let our law enforcement know, and let's provide safety to the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm so glad my dear friend rose to speak to the new phenomenon of apples and oranges.

My friends, I am not coddling criminals. We know this is a distinctive bill that is not addressing the question of criminals who come to do us harm. What we are suggesting is that guns kill, and we are suggesting that people use guns to kill.

On that lonely, dark road at 3 a.m., when that trooper identifies your driver's license but can't identify whether or not you have a legitimate concealed-weapon permit to carry, then we are asking for you to have help. We're asking for there to be 24-hour notification. I am sure there will be the possibility of waivers, but don't tell me that a law enforcement entity, once known that they can go to the documentation that has the notification that someone is coming in from another State with a concealed weapon, will not find it useful. In fact, it will help this law enforcement officer tell this individual carrying legally, On your way, sir; On your way, ma'am. Thank you. Or, in essence, we might catch someone who has a concealed weapon and a permit from another State, but that person is rushing across the State to get away from a wife or a husband and has been in a violent domestic abuse or a domestic violence altercation.

So let me just say, for all of the laughers, guns kill, and it is a shame that we allow the ghost of the NRA to ride into this place and just smack down common sense. Save the lives of children because guns kill. Save the lives of law enforcement officers who leave behind children, because guns kill. Don't fool around with the NLET process, which doesn't even work. Let's notify. I ask for the support of my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 8 to H.R. 822, the ``National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.'' My amendment ensures that any person seeking to possess a concealed weapon in a state other than the state that issued the concealed carry permit must provide at least 24 hours advance notice to law enforcement agencies of their intention to carry or possess a concealed handgun in another State.

States must retain their ability to know which individuals are allowed, under this newly proposed bill, to possess and carry concealed weapons within their borders. This measure would require an individual to notify out of state law enforcement, 24 hours in advance, of their intention to possess or carry a concealed weapon into the borders of a State in which those individuals are not licensed.

In its current form, the bill will have a difficult time verifying out of state permits in real time, endangering their lives, and the lives of the public. State and local law enforcement must always be aware of who is carrying loaded, hidden guns. This information will give law enforcement a fighting chance as they protect their communities.

I believe that an amendment requiring prompt and adequate notification to law enforcement officials regarding an out of state individual's intention to carry a concealed weapon is necessary to protect the safety of the public and to protect the safety of the men and women who protect the public.

According to the Majority's report on this bill, only 12 states maintain electronic databases of concealed carry permits that are immediately accessible to other law enforcement agencies. 7 states cannot provide any real time access to this basic information, and 2 states do not even maintain databases.

Currently, there are several states that have implemented time requirements to ensure the safety of their citizens when dealing with a variety of weapons. This amendment will create a standard that is sure to provide law enforcement with the information desperately needed to keep the public safe from unknown harms.

This is a fundamental states rights issue. The measure before us today takes away a state's right to set their own criteria for determining who should be allowed to carry a fire arm within their borders.

Texas has robust handgun concealed carry laws and these laws would only undermine the criteria established by my home state. This measure would bolster the protections that Texas and many other states seek to implement to protect their citizens from gun violence. Texas standard to attain a permit is currently higher than current federal law and the requirements of a number of other states.

As it stands Texas already honors the permits of 39 other states; which only emphasizes that this can be address at the state level. One of my main concerns is that the lives and safety of men and women working in the line of duty will be compromised if we fail

to effectuate this amendment requiring a 24-hour advance notice of out of state individuals carrying concealed weapons.

Law enforcement officers put their lives on the line for us every day. Since 2009 least 122 law enforcement officers have been shot and killed, with an average of one officer killed by gunfire each week. Since the beginning of 2011, guns have killed at least 30 law enforcement officers. It is important that the very men and women who put their lives on the line are the very men and women who have instant access to information on whether on not the individual they are approaching during a routine traffic stop is armed.

In 2009, Houston Police Officer Timothy Abernathy was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. An 11 year Veteran of the Houston Police Department, Officer Abernathy stopped a vehicle for a minor traffic violation. This should have been routine, but the suspect shot Officer Abernathy in the head, killing him. Officer Abernathy was 43 years old.

Gun violence is dangerous to all Americans. In 2010, approximately 8,775 people were killed by firearms. 6,000 of those deaths were caused by handguns. In 2010, 152 of those killed by guns were law enforcement officers. Each year, there are approximately 16,000 assaults on police officers, and many of those attacks utilize firearms.

The facts are quite simple. If we are going to ask state and local law enforcement officials to put their lives on the line every day for the safety of our communities, we owe it to them to know who is carrying a loaded and concealed weapon. Establishing a database of individuals with concealed carry permits could save a life.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 822 in order to ensure that we act fervently to protect the lives of those who risk their lives for the general public on a daily basis. Again, this amendment will strengthen a State's ability to continue its efforts to protect the safety of its citizens and law enforcement officials.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to support H.R. 2838, the ``Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011.'' This legislation authorizes funding for the Coast Guard through fiscal year 2014 and authorizes service strength of 47,000 active duty personnel.

As a Senior Member on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I understand the importance of protecting our maritime borders. In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation.

In 1787, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Paper Number 12 laid the foundation for the modern Coast Guard when he noted that ``[a] few armed vessels, judiciously stationed at the entrances of our ports, might at a small expense, be made useful sentinels of our laws.''

I believe protecting our country by air, land, and sea is critical to our national security interests. As Coast Guard is beneficial to our maritime interests, and consequently, our national security it is imperative that we provide the Coast Guard with the funding they need.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001 the focus of many federal agencies shifted to include an increased emphasis on Homeland Security. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, a number of security missions were assigned to the Coast Guard. Without question the first mission of our Coast Guard has been to protect our ports, waterways and to focus on coastal security. They have completed this mission with honor for centuries.

Across the United States there are currently more than 350 major ports of which 23 are located in my home state of Texas.

I am honored to represent the 18th Congressional District which includes the Port of Houston, one of our nation's busiest ports. More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2010 and it has been ranked as first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year.

The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports located in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are major centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline. All of these ports are protected by the Coast Guard.

As a Representative from Texas, a border state, I am extremely concerned with curtailing the flow of illegal drugs entering into the United States. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency for maritime drug interdiction.

Houston has been classified by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and in a 2009 report, the ONDCP expressed concern that ``the sheer volume of maritime traffic and foreign cargo that passes through the port offers another avenue for drug smuggling.''

The Coast Guard is responsible for and has coordinated with other federal, state, and local agencies and countries within the region to disrupt and deter the flow of illegal drugs into Houston and other ports. This coordinated effort has resulted in a decrease in the supply of illicit substances being transported all over the country.

The Coast Guard protects the interests of American citizens and American commerce abroad. Last year, 73.2 million tons of exports left the Port of Houston to be sold to countries around the world. These exports represented $70.8 billion dollars, and countless American jobs.

The international counter--piracy efforts of the Coast Guard focus on preventing attacks of piracy that threaten American commercial vessels and cargo. The Coast Guard also performs vital counter terrorism measures in ports abroad to ensure the safety of Americans across the globe.

In addition, in Houston the Coast Guard routinely conducts integrated operations with city, county, state and Federal Law Enforcement partners. The joint agency Houston Area Maritime Operations Center is a prime example of the type of coordination efforts directed under a recent Maritime Operations Coordination Plan signed by the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Port of Houston as one of the world's busiest ports is a tremendous responsibility which has been smoothly operated by the Coast Guard. In terms of maritime traffic and cargo, the Port of Houston ranks first in the nation for number of ship arrivals and second in total cargo tonnage. Houston handles over 50 percent of all containerized cargo arriving at Gulf of Mexico ports.

Houston is the Energy capitol of the United States for a reason, more than 50 percent of the gasoline used in the United States is refined in this area. With more than 100 petrochemical waterfront facilities, Houston has the second largest such complex in the world. Major corporations such as Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Saudi ARAMCO, Stolt Nielson, Odfjell USA Inc., Sea River and Kirby Marine have national or international headquarters in Houston.

These operations typically involve the Harris County Sheriff's Office and local city Police

Department marine divisions as well as CBP, ICE, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and other Federal partners. Efforts are underway with The Coast Guard's processes with neighboring sectors to align and streamline their operations across all jurisdictional boundaries. They need funding to continue to serve our country.

The Coast Guard relies on their port partners to act as both their eyes and ears on the water. With an average of 350 daily tow movements in the Houston Ship Channel and more than 100 waterfront facilities with a vigilant security presence, marine industry stakeholders are well positioned to recognize when things are out of the ordinary and serve as a valuable resource by diligently reporting breaches of security and suspicious activity. We also receive reports on fraudulent use of the Transportation Worker Identification Card, and work closely with our local enforcement and legal agencies such as the Harris County District Attorney to ensure these cases are prosecuted.

In recognition of the significance of Houston's shipping activity, the State of Texas formally established the Houston Ship Channel Security District (HSCSD) in 2010.

The HSCSD represents a unique public-private partnership formed to improve security and safety for facilities, employees and communities surrounding the Houston Ship Channel. The Coast Guard played an instrumental role in the formation of the HSCSD, and continues to work closely with the HSCSD to ensure alignment of priorities and unity of effort. As Sector Commander, I am a member of the HSCSD Advisory Council and Sector Port Security specialists attend HSCSD board meetings. The district provides oversight of comprehensive and cost- effective security solutions, leveraging more than $30 million in Federal Port Security grants along with $4 million in annual member assessments to install technology and security infrastructure and provide funds for specific security projects, maintenance and operational services.

The Port of Houston accommodates a large number of tankers carrying crude oil, refined products and chemical cargoes. With approximately 9,600 deep draft ship arrivals each year, the Coast Guard maintains a very extensive Port State Control program in the Houston-Galveston area. The Port State Control program ensures the safe carriage of hazardous materials in bulk. Because over 90 percent of cargo bound for the United States is carried by foreign-flagged ships, this national program prevents operation of substandard foreign ships in U.S. waters.

The Sector also makes excellent use of its robust Vessel Traffic Service (VTS). The VTS's primary role is facilitating safe vessel transits in the waterways and ports along the Houston Ship Channel. The VTS cameras, Automatic Identification System (AIS) feeds, remote radar observation capability, and radio communications, also provide an additional layer of security. In addition to the VTS resources in the Houston Ship Channel, Sector Houston-Galveston has access to feeds from three AIS receivers mounted on offshore oil platforms, which provide heightened awareness of activities in the maritime domain.

With a homeland security mission of this magnitude, it is essential that the Coast Guard be fully funded. This bill will authorize $8.49 billion dollars in 2012, $8.6 billion dollars in 2013, and $8.7 billion in 2014. It is certainly the duty of this Congress and the Administration to ensure the brave men and women who serve in the Coast Guard have the resources necessary to perform the wide range of duties assigned to them.

This measure contains a private-sector mandate as defined in Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA). The bill would require operators to locate a standby vessel within 3 nautical miles of offshore oil and gas facilities when certain activities are being performed and within 12 nautical miles of facilities at all other times. The cost of that mandate would depend on several factors. The bill would allow operators to share one standby vessel among multiple facilities and to use standby vessels for other purposes.

For operators that can use those measures, the cost of the mandate would tend to be lower. At the same time, the bill would authorize the Coast Guard to require standby vessels to be located closer than 3 or 12 nautical miles to offshore facilities if necessary to address delays caused by weather or other conditions. Reducing the minimum distance from facilities would increase the number of vessels necessary for compliance and increase the cost of the mandate for some operators. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the aggregate cost of the mandate would probably exceed the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($142 million in 2011, adjusted annually for inflation).

However, I do have certain reservations about some of the provisions in this legislation. At the request of President Obama's Administration, Congress has appropriated funding to reactivate the USGC Polar Star, a heavy icebreaking vessel. The ship is to be reactivated by December 2012 for 7 to 10 years of service. The Polar Star is deployed to assist researchers throughout the Polar Regions, and is essential to United States icebreaking capabilities. Ice breaking vessels create pathways through which supply ships can travel, facilitating important research. In its current form, the bill decommissions the Polar Star within 3 years, creating a gap in the nation's icebreaking abilities.

As a senior Member on the Homeland Security Committee, I have a deep commitment to creating a stronger and more secure America. I have worked with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to pass legislation that ensures that our nation is receiving the security that our citizens deserve. As the potential threats and vulnerabilities along our coast line may always exist. We rely upon Coast Guard and their active involvement with hundreds of partners who are directly involved with or impacted by the maritime industry in the Houston- Galveston area of responsibility, this Sector is committed to deterring incidents before they happen and is well-prepared to respond to them should they occur. The Coast Guard is vital to the protection of our national security.

Both sides of the aisle have a strong respect for the Coast Guard as well as for the men and women who work on manned stations off of our shores. I understand that Representative Mica has agreed to honor the purpose of an amendment offered by Representative Olson that would have require the Commandant of the Coast Guard in consultation with appropriate representatives of industry to conduct a feasibility study to determine the capability, cost, and benefits of requiring the owner or operator of a manned facility, installation, unit, or vessel to locate a standby vessel nearby. I would have supported this amendment because although a properly designed and equipped standby vessel in the immediate vicinity of manned outer continental shelf facilities may, in some cases, improve safety on the outer continental shelf.

In the event of a major casualty to an offshore installation, the immediate presence of a properly designed and equipped standby vessel, manned by a specially trained crew, might in some cases increase the chances of survival of the installation's crew members. We must not, however, forget the fact that historically the main cause of rig and platform abandonment has been due to severe weather. Unless these standby vessels are designed to withstand those severe conditions, requiring them to remain on scene could place the vessels and their crews in jeopardy. In addition, it is severely risky to board a standby vessel in severe weather conditions. For these reasons I would support a feasibility study to determine the effectiveness of using standby vessels for manned stations.

In addition, I support the amendment offered by Representative Thompson that would add a new section to the end of Title II in the bill to open admissions to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to eligible candidates nominated by Congress.

Specifically, the amendment would require the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that, beginning in academic year 2014, half of the incoming class is composed of eligible candidates nominated by the Vice President or, if there is no Vice President, by the President pro tempore of the Senate; Senators; Representatives; and Delegates to the House of Representatives. This will help to ensure that the Coast Guard has an even more diverse pool of candidate from across the United States.

The Coast Guard is proud of that legacy and their role in our national strategy is vital to keep our homeland secure. The safety and security of our nations and its citizens must be our highest priority, despite difficult economic circumstances. We need to make sure the Coast Guard is fully funded, and have the resources they need.

Before I talk about my topic of protecting our children, I want to acknowledge, first of all, the coming Thanksgiving and the many people who are impoverished in this Nation that we need to pay attention to and, particularly, our children, which is the largest percentage of those impoverished are children in the United States.

For that reason, I think it is important that as we begin this discussion on the supercommittee and its responsibility, that we look at the responsibility to the American people. And if we cannot fairly bring in revenue and balance the cuts on the most vulnerable, we should go to regular order.

Let me also welcome our troops that will be coming home. And I will be initiating in Houston an idea that every single school will have a welcome home troops all over the community, and not one tree will be left undressed, if you will, to make sure that none of our soldiers walk down any block in a lonely way and not know that they are welcomed and loved.

Thirdly, I'd like to say that as they are coming home, are we preparing to use their many talents that they have learned, particularly those who understand homeland security, putting them to work for the Homeland Security Department.

I also want to create jobs. And one of my constituents is ExxonMobil, who has struck a contract with the Kurds dealing with oil and gas in Iraq. Lo and behold, the very country that we've shed blood for, no matter whether you were green energy or for or against fossil fuel, it is about jobs and about work here in the United States.

The audacity of the Iraqi Government to suggest they want to intrude on that contract and to have a say on that contract, well, when lives were lost, American lives were lost, they didn't have too much of a say. Americans were willing to stand up and be counted. And I'd hope the Iraqis would allow a fair contract to go forward.

It seems that every time America's involved in helping the Iraqi people through the Iraqi Government there's always a negative response. Some of us are a little tired of that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise particularly today to talk about our children. As the co-chair and founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I noted already the disaster that children are experiencing. In my own home State, food stamps hit a record in Texas. We know that Governor Perry is running for President, but in his home State we're facing a crisis with the number of people on food stamps.

We're also facing a crisis because the policy agency for education, the Texas Education Agency, is deciding to go throughout the State of Texas and to save money on education by closing school districts, small school districts in particular. They're too fearful of closing the big ones. And I represent many of them, and I love them all and bring money to them and encourage them to educate their children. But there's something about school districts that are too big to fail.

But the North Forest Independent School District, where hundreds of community leaders and children and parents and teachers came out on Sunday to stand up against a so-called revocation notice that would close down this school district that has all the need to survive, 7,500 students, a high school that they are putting together and repairing and getting children to learn, 1,200 students in this high school; middle schools, elementary schools, a preschool that is renowned and respected by all.

But the TEA wants to cut the budget and save its own neck by cutting small school districts. And so my plea to my Governor, Governor Perry, join with me and the many citizens that you represent, and stand against the TEA to close a majority minority school district, the last remaining majority minority school district with great history in the North Forest Independent School District community, taxing themselves to ensure that their children have more resources, and are joined with the Houston Community College System so that their children are getting college preparatory credits.

They want to live. They want to survive. Don't belt tighten and save your necks and your jobs on the backs of our children. Don't disregard and discriminate against small school districts which are all over America on behalf of large school districts.

And Governor Perry, I think we can work together. As we worked together against the Confederate flag license plate, we can work together on this matter.

Let me close by focusing on an issue that has taken this country by storm. And as I read the indictment I don't want to point out one name versus another, the alleged perpetrator in this Penn State fiasco. But I will say that this is a disgrace. I will be introducing legislation to have zero tolerance for sexual abuse of children and to stop any Federal funds going to anyone, any entity, any State that has a situation where children are sexually abused.

Mr. Speaker, it is a disgrace, and the Federal Government must stand up against it. I, for one, am going to do so. Enough is enough. We have to protect our children.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Instead of Republican legislatures across America, Madam Speaker, focusing on creating jobs in their States and working with this Congress to create jobs, we find ourselves shackled by 40 States implementing voter ID laws--laws/provisions that limit voting by requiring the presentation of photo identification that, however, is limited to State-authorized voter ID, which has a negative impact on our seniors, laws that exclude the most common forms of ID-- student IDs and Social Security cards. But they offer no alternate procedures. Changes requiring limitations or the outright elimination of early voting opportunities bury us to first-time voters, such as the elimination of same-day registration.

Madam Speaker, couldn't we do better than to counter the 15th Amendment, which indicates that there should be no laws that would thwart anyone's right to vote, or even the 24th Amendment that indicates that we should not have a poll tax to allow people to vote?

Rather than creating jobs through passing the American Jobs Act or standing up and denouncing the sexual abuse of children, which is a crisis and an outrage, we are stopping people from voting by putting in place voter ID laws. Voter suppression, the Constitution will not tolerate it--the 15th Amendment and the 24th Amendment. Let us open this opportunity for all people and fight the real issues that the American people want us to address.

I thank the gentleman from California and my colleagues from Ohio, Alabama, Minnesota, and New York. I think that is a sufficiently far reach to know that this is a national issue. Mr. Garamendi, we thank you from your perch as an insurer, meaning your experience in insurance, which is also a source of funding sometimes. As the insurance industry invests, you know that America is not broke and that America can, in fact, create jobs and do it by manufacturing.

So I'm delighted to see the Make It In America theme continue over and over again. And let me just share some statistics, because as the supercommittee works, one of the challenges is whether or not they are focusing on creating jobs or just cutting taxes for those who do not need tax relief.

Eighty-two percent of Americans say it is important for Congress to produce legislation this year to reduce the Federal deficit through a balanced plan combining spending cuts and also ensuring that all Americans pay their fair share. In a couple of days, will that occur or will we have the same old same old, which is protecting the rich

and not allowing a fair, equal assessment of one's responsibility?

Eighty-four percent of Americans say it's important for Congress to reach a new Federal spending agreement to create jobs rehabilitating schools, improving needs and public transit and preventing layoffs. And 60 percent of those surveyed think the Federal Government should pursue policies to reduce the gap between the wealthiest few and the less well-off Americans. Well, that is what we're talking about today.

I notice that Mr. Garamendi had a poster on IPOs are down, particularly small IPOs, and that is a source of cash for investing back into small businesses and manufacturing. We did a survey of the manufacturing companies in our district. My friends, you can turn the corner in your neighborhood and find a building that is making something. We do not have to look for the large conglomerates. I'm delighted that we bailed out the auto industry. They are doing well. But you know them. You know they'll go to Detroit. You know they make big things and not little things. But we actually found that our manufacturers were embedded--by the way, our zoning is nonexistent, so we have a little bit more flexibility. But we found these companies embedded in neighborhoods, down the street and around the corner from different neighborhoods. They are right there amongst us.

And the question is are we going to go into the 46th week when our friends on the other side of the aisle do not focus on how to enhance Make It In America? What I would suggest is that the payroll tax relief would help that is in the--pass the jobs bill, and access to credit, making sure that banks give access to credit so that the startups can have the equal playing field.

But also, my friend, these companies want to expand. When I visited small businesses, happened not to be manufacturers, they all said: Can we have money to expand, to create new offices, new services in the doctors' office, new ways of exploring resources for a small energy company?

So I'm here today to challenge the friends on the other side of the aisle, the Speaker, ready to challenge him to say: You come from Ohio, a working family. You get it, Mr. Speaker. Work with our leader, Nancy Pelosi. Work with our leadership, from the chairman of the caucus who has been so eloquent, John Larson, on jobs to the whip that talks about Make It In America, Mr. Hoyer, and, of course, our vice chair and, of course, our assistant leader, Mr. Clyburn, and our vice chair, Mr. Becerra. All of these folks, if I have not left out anyone, have been talking time after time of Make It In America. But more importantly, we are not broke. If we can insist on letting our small businesses and our manufacturers get a leg up and we stop giving giveaways to those who are the beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts and begin some new concepts in funding, I think we can make it.

I want to close by simply saying to my friends in the private sector, you complain when we talk about pass the jobs bill. Frankly, I think it's a commonsense approach--payroll tax relief, hiring the chronically unemployed, putting to work teachers so that class sizes can go down, educating your next workforce, firefighters, police, et cetera. It is well documented that our large companies have a very flush cash flow. It is well documented that our major banks, our multinational banks, are well endowed with resources. My plea is that all of us become patriots, not party belongers, not card-carrying sign wavers as it relates to what party you're in, and begin to invest in America.

Frankly, our President has stabilized--stabilized--the economy. It's not where we want it to be. It's not bleeding. It's not where we want to go, but it's on the surge up. The numbers will show that it can do that.

We need the kind of partnership with the private sector that is long overdue, and we need the support by our government of supporting our manufacturing. We can come back. Before you know it, we will be percolating along and being the leader, if you will, of manufacturing, businesses, job creation, and investment as not arrogantly so but the model for the world in how do you invest in your people. And I'm looking forward to that starting with supporting a number of initiatives that are already suggested and certainly some that I'm introducing.

But I am just delighted that we have the thinkers that realize that investing in America is not the end but the beginning of a greater and greater America.

You're absolutely right.

Just one point about Make It In America and the idea of companies such as Siemens, our colleague from California, indicated, that they are in California, rightly so. And we should be very, very strong in making sure that our Federal dollars--this is not selfish. We are probably more expansive and liberal than many other countries around the world to ensure that if you're using our Federal tax dollars, you build it and make it in America, and you spread it.

There's a company called Caf, and I know that they're located in New York. We want them to spread some of that construction and building work down in Houston, Texas, because they're building a light rail with $900 million, potentially, of Federal dollars.

So we can do this together, make everybody happy, create jobs, and insist upon putting our families, our young people, and America first in job creation, building buildup and making it in America.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I apologize for my raspy voice, but my passion for standing up overrules my voice. I am speechless, combined with outrage and anguish over the little boys that have been sexually abused. It is not a question of football and what is king. It is not a question of what State it is and what great university it is. It is a question of adults and institutions ignoring the pain of these children.

It is documented that it takes 2 years before a child is willing to talk about sexual abuse. And in my own State today, an 18-year-old took her life because she had been sexually abused by a family member, and finally, it was investigated. I don't know how long the law enforcement took to investigate it, but she finally took her life

with the belief that no one would be prosecuted.

So I'll be introducing legislation that will immediately suspend all Federal funds of any institution that is found to have covered up-- employed someone who has been engaged in sexual abuse and no one reported it, including the prosecutor's office, who are now just saying that they will be looking at this in the State of Texas. It will exclude scholarships and Pell Grants. I intend to introduce that legislation and stop the funding now for any institution that thinks that they are above the law and will watch a grown man perform a sexual act on a child and refuse to do something about it. Refuse to do something about it. It is an outrage.