Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for yielding to me this morning.

I wanted to share with my colleagues an important challenge that we have. And I think some would say how obvious with 9 percent unemployment, which I think we should be honest with ourselves and realize that it has been an accident that has been long in coming. Almost as if one slowed down on a rainy day and looked as if one was following the prudent rules of the road and decided to, in a moment's notice, not only speed but speed through a stop sign, an accident waiting to happen. We have of course, had spending without accountability in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, preceding this administration; and, of course, tax cuts for the top 1 percent of the population, many of whom acknowledge that where there is opportunity and benefit, there must be sacrifice and contribution.

And if we were to engage them in a reasoned discussion, we would find out, of course, that they would be willing to invest in America. I don't call it taxation. None of us enjoy getting that bill that deals with taxes, but we do understand the value of investing in America.

Yesterday, we debated three trade bills. All of them are my friends. I have had the opportunity to engage with the communities represented by South Korea, Panama, and Colombia. Let me say in particular on Panama, my grandfather worked on the Panama Canal. The evidence is not his words to me, since he died before I was born, but it is the evidence of his name being printed in the annals of the Panamanian history of the canal right there at the canal site that I have visited on many occasions. What an emotional moment to see his name arise as one who helped construct and build in the 1900s amongst all the devastation, the mosquitoes, and disease. He survived and helped build the Panama Canal. So we have a longstanding relationship with them. We have a longstanding relationship with the canal.

But the trade bills, for me, should answer one question--and I respect those who voted for it: Will it have an infusion of opportunity for those who have lost their jobs? Unlike some comments by Presidential candidates running for this job, I don't believe if you're unemployed and if you are not rich, it is your fault. There are college graduates who are unemployed today. There are skilled artisans and those who are in the trades who are unemployed today. There are returning veterans--young men and women--who led almost multinational companies in terms of the jobs that they had in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do I know? Because I have visited them and seen them in operation. If you are over the logistics of moving equipment and moving men and women, and you're 25 years old, I can assure you that you know how to work in a large corporation.

There's no evidence that these bills being passed at this time will in fact bring down the unemployment. I believe our chief responsibility is to find work for the American people.

One of the challenges of the language of the trade bill is the question of protecting our intellectual property. Intellectual property creates jobs. It protects the genius of America. Of course, all of us through our history books have known about the origins of the telephone and we know the origins of the lightbulb and some of the geniuses that we've known in our early history. Many of us have heard of George Washington Carver, who did a lot with the peanut.

America knows how to invent. We know how to do research. I have the privilege of having in my jurisdiction and surrounding areas the Texas Medical Center, where some of the most outstanding research is being done on cancer, which seems to be an epidemic in this country.

So I argue we did not have sufficient protections for intellectual property. But here is the key. In addition to not having a direct correlation and an oversight on the passage of these bills which passed in the Senate last night and the creation of jobs that our population, our citizens, those that we are here to protect, those who we're here to create a pathway of economic opportunity for--a nexus of jobs, that's what you need to prove to me. And so I believe that we are missing a manufacturing strategy. It is interesting that we consider that old stuff and how proud we were of the Model T.

I believe that we cannot go forward on trade bills, Mr. Speaker, until we focus on manufacturing in America, make it in America, and putting people back to work at all levels of education. That's going to be my cause for now and forever and ever. I want America back to work. It's a great Nation. It's the greatest country in the world. Let us focus on our folks getting jobs and getting our folks back to manufacturing, making things, selling things, and America continues to serve this world as the greatest democracy and the greatest country in the world.

It's unfortunate that we have to come to the floor of the House to discuss the personal decisions that a woman has to make. And I can assure you that the question of choice, the question of abortion, the question of what a woman does to her body is not one that a woman takes lightly. On many occasions, there is the necessity for a doctor and his female patient to make decisions to save the life or health of the mother.

Just as the federal courts have ruled unconstitutional and rejected the Texas law that requires a doctor to talk first to a woman seeking an abortion and to allow or force them both to listen to sounds that might discourage this needed action, this is going to be held unconstitutional. This is not a law that can pass. You can not tell a woman her insurance company can not provide her all the benefits of that coverage. It goes way beyond the pale.

I would ask my colleagues to vote against this rule and protect the right of a woman to choose and the dignity of all people in this Nation to make their own decisions over their lives, through consultation with her family, faith leader and doctor. I am saddened that we're here today discussing such an issue. Please vote no on this rule and for a woman's right to choose.

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. The only ``no'' that is being said is ``no'' to the vulnerable women who are traveling in emergency ambulances to the hospital, desiring emergency treatment, dying, and not being able to be treated, needing to correct a problem that has, in fact, damaged their health and not being able to be treated.

Not only is this bill unconstitutional, but the Affordable Care Act does not promote abortion. Frankly, Federal funds are not being utilized for abortion as it will complicate the insurance process for all women in America.

All you can hear is the siren going around and around and around-- that woman lying on a gurney--and that hospital being able to say ``no'' and ``yes.'' The only ``no'' is that she will not live because this bill is passed.

I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. Vote for life. Vote against this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act. This bill will have a detrimental impact on women's

health, and moreover, attacks a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. It will restrict Access to health care services. It would effectively shut down the private insurance market for allowing women to get complete health care coverage. Once again instead of focusing on JOBS we are again focusing on issues that will not help to feed American families.

As a strong advocate for women's health, I cannot stand by and watch as those who do not support the rights of women to determine their health care options find different and often insidious ways to take away their ability to have full health care coverage.

We are asking women to give up their right to privacy. These decisions need to be between a woman and her doctor. She has the right to determine who, if anyone else she would like to inform of her health care choices. In addition to rendering it nearly impossible for women to get insurance coverage for abortion care in the new state health exchanges, H.R. 358 allows public hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even in situations when the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life.

This has been a long and hard fight. Thirty-eight years ago, the American people learned of the Supreme Court's momentous ruling in Roe versus Wade--the case which established constitutional restrictions on the State's ability to regulate or restrict a woman's decision to have an abortion. In the year 1973, the Supreme Court asserted that the 14th amendment protects a woman's right to choose for herself whether to have an abortion.

Many women in 1973 must have viewed the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe versus Wade as an encouraging turning point in the way our courts recognize the rights of women under the Constitution. The Roe versus Wade decision at last offered a choice to many women who had been victims of rape or incest, but had been denied abortion as a legal option. Roe versus Wade offered a choice to many women whose lives would have been threatened by going through childbirth, but had been denied abortion as a legal option. And Roe versus Wade offered a choice to women who, for a variety of personal reasons, would prefer not to carry a pregnancy to term, but had earlier been denied abortion as a legal option.

Indeed, it is my hope that the Supreme Court will continue to protect women against any State erosion of a woman's individual rights. Let us not undermine the breakthrough made for women by the Supreme Court in 1973. Let us not jeopardize the right of a woman to choose whether she will bear children. Let us not place a woman's right to personal privacy at risk. Instead, let us reaffirm those rights and give consistent support not only to those who choose to have children, but also to those who do not.

Since Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to choose has been systematically eroded by anti-choice legislators. In fact, more than 450 anti-choice measures have been enacted in the states since 1995, essentially rolling back this fundamental right for many women. Women in 19 states could face sweeping bans on abortion if the Supreme Court reverses Roe and allows states to re-criminalize abortion, menacing doctors and their patients with the threat of criminal investigation, prosecution, and even imprisonment.

The argument has been over and over that tax payer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. This argument is an extreme overreach. The Affordable Care Act already includes a provision that prohibits any U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding abortions. As this is the case the purpose of this bill seems to only be to rattle people's cages by attacking women and failing to address the job crisis in this country. We should focus on creating jobs. This bill seems to be a red herring. Instead of focusing on jobs, the economy, rebuilding America, we are instead focusing on an issue that everyone knows is divisive.

Women would no longer be able to have full health care coverage without disclosing very personal information. They must predict in advance whether or not they are going to use a service that is legal in this country. It is the law, and the law should be upheld. Women would be required to buy separate coverage specifically for abortions. There is no such policy for any health procedure that a man may be required to undergo. This is an issue of privacy, this is an issue of fairness, and this is an issue of gender equality. A woman like a man has the right to make private, personal choices about her health. She should not be punished by not having access to adequate health care. This is about a constitutional right!

There are many times that we come to the floor to address our current plight. I do wish to say to the American people that we're well aware of the importance of jobs and the focus of creating

those jobs, and I would offer to you that most economists will say that job creation is a public and private partnership. That is a very important issue.

I rise today, however, as, again, those who seek the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States will come before the American people this evening. They will present a number of issues. This time it will be jobs. I hope they will present themselves in a manner that acknowledges that anyone who has the privilege of serving serves on behalf of the American people. And the American people come from all backgrounds, and I respect that.

In particular, I'm going to ask the Governor of the State of Texas, in his good vices and his beliefs in the equality of all, to reflect upon a decision that is about to be made in the State of Texas, and that is a decision in 2011 to issue a Confederate license plate. Confederate--the same group of individuals who opted to secede from the Union.

I am here as someone who applauds and appreciates the sacrifice that any person in uniform makes. I will not step away from the idea that much blood was shed in the Civil War. But what I am offering to say is that in 2011 it would be a disgrace, it would be outrageous, to uplift the Confederacy on a license plate in the State of Texas. Let me tell you why.

First of all, one of the most heinous tragedies of this great country's history was the holding of slaves. More importantly, millions of slaves destined for the United States and the Americas died in that dark passage before they even got to this soil. The brutality of slavery is without doubt and without question. The State of Texas continued slavery for 2 years longer than any other place in the United States because we did not get notice for 2 years after President Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation. Who wants to ignite and remind you of that kind of devastating history?

And so, as the Texas Motor Vehicle Department makes a decision, I beg of their members to recognize that this is not a uniting action but a dividing action, because the action will be a State-issued plate that would affirm the brutality against African Americans, against slaves, against the ancestors who paid with their life to build this country. There was no debt ever paid for the 400 years of slavery, for the dividing of families, the brutality against children, the hanging and brutality that continued even into Jim Crow.

And as we look to the honoring of the monument of Dr. Martin Luther King this coming week, I beg of my fellow Texans on this board to recognize that this is a national issue. It is a national issue of prominence because to issue a Confederate license plate is to go and do what many States have undone--the removing of the symbols of the Confederacy, the taking away of the ``Rebel'' name for the University of Texas. Why? Because they believe in moving America forward and focusing on such things as bringing our troops home and honoring them, focusing on such things as creating jobs. And how heinous would it be for the State of Texas, one of the largest States in the Nation, to have its young men who are of African American heritage on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan to come home and have to look at a Confederate license plate.

This is not free speech. This is not freedom of speech. Because anyone who desires to promote that particular life and legacy, they are so allowed to do so. They may print anything in the privacy of their home, wear anything, put anything on their front yard, their back yard, but not a State-issued plate with Texas dollars embedded inside of that particular symbol. America is greater than that.

I love this country. All of us are patriots because we love this Nation no matter what side of the aisle. And I might remind you, Madam Speaker, that a Republican state senator--I want to thank him--has indicated that we should not have this kind of symbol in Texas.

I beg you, Mr. Perry, tonight to speak to your higher angels and talk about bringing us together. Do not issue a confederate license plate in the State of Texas for God's sake. And God bless America.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. Chairman, as I listened today, I listened to some enormously bipartisan commentary about jobs. As Mr. Waxman knows, our ranking member, we have been working on creating jobs for a very long time. Democrats are hoping for a vote in the other body on the President's American Jobs Act.

In the last Congress, although we documented 3 million jobs, I can assure you that our stimulus package created millions of jobs unrecorded because it was emergency funding that did not require that recording.

My amendment speaks to clarity, and it is not conflicting with jobs. For those of you who are listening to this debate, it's about the industrial boiler industry. They do have jobs. And I, frankly, believe that the regulations that they have lived with do not impair their ability to promote jobs.

What most people don't know is there is an indefinite language, or allows an indefinite time frame for noncompliance. There's no time line for the industry to comply with clean air rules impacting our children, just like this little one being seen by a nurse, suffering from any number of respiratory illnesses.

So the bill, in its current form, also gives the EPA discretion to go beyond 5 years. You know how long that is? That may be job-killing time, because when businesses look to move to areas, even if they're older industry, they want to know that there is an effort made to create a better quality of life.

This amendment will help the industry. It indicates that the time for compliance is 3 years. And, yes, there may be discretion to expand, but 3 years. I believe this is a fair approach because, in actuality, the rule that the EPA has passed has resulted in 1.7 million tons of reduction in air pollution per year.

That's a good thing for job creation. And so this amendment is a simple approach to indicating that outdoor air pollution is damaging. Small particles and ground level ozone come from car exhaust, smoke, road dust, and factory emissions. Why wouldn't we want to improve the quality of life? I can only say to you that out of those polluting elements come chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, sneezing, shortness of breath, and a number of other ailments.

So my amendment is a good thing, to be able to talk about jobs, clarity, knowing when you must comply, and preventing premature deaths and protecting our children. But let me say what else this bill does. This bill causes an extra $1 million in new discretionary spending by the EPA to comply. We're supposed to be in a budget-tight atmosphere. We're supposed to be budget cutting. But, my friends, that is not what we're doing here.

So I would simply say that even though my good friend indicates that 200,000 jobs would be saved with this particular bill, I don't know where the documentation is, but I will assure you that areas where the boiler industry is that have a defined clarity on what the timeframe is for making sure that you're in compliance, I can assure you that that creates jobs, and that creates a clean atmosphere, quality of life, and clean air for more industry to come into your States for you to diversify.

So I ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment that ensures that the compliance is for 3 years, clarifying that to the industry, giving them a time certain to comply, and also giving discretion to the EPA to help America grow jobs. I hope we all will join in growing jobs in voting for the American Jobs Act, and right now I hope that we'll vote for the Jackson Lee amendment that gives clarity in timeframe for compliance, and again, saves lives, like this little one's, that we all want to protect.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2250, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the industrial boiler industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized.

Currently, the bill requires the industrial boiler industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set for industry compliance. The bill, in its current form, also gives the EPA the discretion to extend the 5 year deadline for compliance. The EPA would have the authority to extend a three year deadline as well; the three year deadline I proposed can be extended by the EPA, while setting a goal that shows our firm commitment to saving lives.

I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the industrial boiler industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued clean air rules targeting 170 different types of facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for both the industrial boiler industry and cement kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, prior to their promulgation.

As the Representative for Houston, the country's energy capital, I am committed to creating an environment in which the energy industry and regulating agencies can work together.

For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air.

Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.

When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.

The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the

needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. Providing a time for individuals to support or oppose any regulations is a meaningful first step. This bill is a step in the wrong direction.

The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, this rule would prevent the following:

9,000 premature deaths

5,500 heart attacks

58,000 asthma attacks

6,000 hospital and emergency room visits

6,000 cases of bronchitis

440,000 missed work days

This legislation not only presents a threat to public health, it also blatantly violates the Cut-Go spending provision. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act requires the EPA to select a regulatory option that is least burdensome to the industrial boiler industry, regardless of alternate options that may be more feasible or cost effective. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will result in $1 million dollars in new discretionary spending by the EPA, and the bill does not offset the authorization.

I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and we must not strip the agency of that right.

My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you that this Act is going to save more than 200,000 American jobs, but what about the lives we will lose? We do not want to hinder economic prosperity and robust job creation, but let us strive toward an economic climate where jobs can be created by implementing technology to reduce dangerous toxic emissions and protect the American people. It does not have to be one way or the other; in a country of vast innovation surely we can forge a path forward in which we do not have to choose between creating jobs and saving lives.

Lest we forget, since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.

Mr. Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, and there are times when we exist as a single Nation with national need. One state did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a Nation, and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By ensuring the industrial boiler industry must comply with finalized EPA regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

For a clarification, I did not argue that regulation creates jobs. I do believe that you can produce the kind of regulatory climate that will. But my point was that clean air and a better quality of life encourages businesses to move into areas and grow jobs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, there is something about having a heart and a philosophy that Americans who are not working want to work; Americans who are not rich simply want an opportunity to provide for their families.

I want to congratulate the President today for acknowledging that this economic downfall is not attributable to his actions as a President that happens to be a Democrat. I thank him for mentioning the calamity in China, dealing with the manipulation of currency. It is something we have to address. It is something that has not benefited the United States.

I believe as individuals run for the Presidency, they have every right to do so; but every time they make a statement of insult to the American people, I'm going to address it.

Mr. Cain seems to want to continue, rather than to talk constructively about how we can bring people together, today he announced that those who are on rallies around this country--some in my district, as we speak--he told them, if you are not employed and you are not rich, it's your fault.

Mr. Cain, you need to understand what the common people and person is going through. Understand the common man and stop being high and mighty. I don't know how you can represent all of the people. You need to get a grip and understand what America is all about.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Thank you so very much, Congresswoman Sewell, for allowing us to come to the floor of the House and be joyful even though someone has passed. I thank my previous speakers.

John Lewis, we salute you always for continuing to be our chronicler, our voice, our steady, if you will, encyclopedia of today, yesterday and tomorrow, what we should be aiming toward as a Nation and as a people but also what we came through.

And to stand next to this picture, thank you for allowing me to stand next to such a symbolic statement about who I would like to call Reverend Dr. Fred L. Shuttlesworth. Can I just stand here and say that I knew him? And as well can I say that I had the privilege of following way behind John Lewis's footsteps, Congresswoman Sewell, in working in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference at the time that Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy was alive, that Hosea Williams was alive, that James Orange was alive, and certainly Fred Shuttlesworth was still on the battlefield in places around the Nation.

So I want to say to his children and his wife and all of his great legacy in Alabama that he has given birth to much. This picture depicts a monumental statement, both of his status as an American and a patriot, both of what he created. Whether it was a young Senator to be President, President Barack Obama, pushing this icon's wheelchair as we commemorated the legacy of John Lewis, and that is the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the time when those who spoke loudly on behalf of those who could not speak were brutalized and beaten to unconsciousness simply for the right to vote. Fred Shuttlesworth was known as a man that did not run away from danger. Fred Shuttlesworth joined Dr. Ralph David Abernathy and Martin Luther King and himself in pushing, shoving and pushing the movement in Alabama and around the Nation.

At his side as a young man, a President who served this country for 8 years, a Southerner, William Jefferson Clinton, who acknowledges that part of his great legacy or great opportunity was not only the meeting of President John F. Kennedy, but during his lifetime or his Presidency to correct many of the ills that occurred to African Americans and people of the slave history in this Nation, from the establishment of the African American Museum, to the honoring of so many, such as the Tuskegee Airmen, in terms of generating that as he spoke, to the honoring of civil rights leaders, to the bestowing of recognition on Rosa Parks.

There are so many things that this President, President Clinton, attempted to do because he got to know and he could understand the walk and the talk of Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. I am grateful that we have the first African American woman Congressperson from Alabama, and I know that she told you of her family's legacy but also of the salt of the Earth that they are, Alabamans who knew of Reverend Fred L. Shuttlesworth's work.

What I am most moved by is the fact that he acknowledges that his beginnings were on a farm, that he was raised by his stepfather and his mother. He came first to be a truck driver, and then got the word that he should go to a school, to the Cedar Grove Academy--a local Bible college--and begin the seeding of understanding in the Scriptures of much of what we who happen to be Christian believe in--but it can be found in so many faiths, from Judaism, to Islam, to Buddhism, and to many other faiths--this whole charitable role that you must take: that it is better to give to others than it is to give to yourself.

Even though Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth was a feisty man, he would tell it to you. Don't get fooled by a wheelchair. He was a feisty man. He didn't take much to being offended. As John Lewis has taught us over the years, as we've traveled back to commemorate Bloody Sunday and how entrenched the movement was of nonviolence, Fred Shuttlesworth was willing to, in essence, concede his feistiness to be part of the movement he established first, the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, and of course then to overcome its declaring of being unconstitutional and moving on to other creative ways to create and continue the movement.

What I like most since John Lewis told us of the Freedom Rides--and that is an emotional experience, an emotional set of words to listen to because of the loss of life that attended to those college students and the others who got on buses from Ohio to Illinois, New York--places far from the South. They got on because they were driven by the rightness of the morality of those who were standing for the empowerment of those who had been brutalized. They came from far and wide. I don't know how one could stand by and watch buses be burned to a crisp or could watch those innocent Americans--young and with a great deal of hope--come to the Deep South and be bloodied and be attacked and spit upon.

I note that tragic moment when they were brutalized so badly as they came into the area of Reverend Shuttlesworth. They were brutalized as a result of a famous name, though a name of great damage--Sheriff Bull Connor--with water cannons and the violence that he evidenced that woke up America.

These brutalized Freedom Riders were, I guess, temporarily taken, John, to a hospital where Reverend Shuttlesworth was concerned about their safety. He didn't concern himself about his safety, but was concerned about theirs. So with a few deacons--and for those of you who understand our church structure, deacons are close to the pastor. They are as men who go with him through fire, storm, rain, and devastation. They went with him to carry these broken bodies out of the hospital, fearful for their lives. He took them to his church where, as many knew in the South, was not a place that was immune to violence, as was evidenced by the Birmingham bombing of a church that killed four little girls in a Sunday school class. But Reverend Shuttlesworth was not fearing his life. He wanted to make sure that those who had come to help them and us could be safe and would not be bombarded in the hospital and be threatened or in fear of their lives.

Reverend Shuttlesworth, I want to thank you for allowing me to know you. I want to thank you for staying alive to be able to see the election of the first African American President of the United States. I am grateful that you stayed alive to see America at her best when, in 2008, she came together and unshackled the devastation of race, the ugliness of race, and began to accept that strength and rightness of anyone who desired to be President.

Reverend Shuttlesworth, as you lay in rest, let me again thank you for giving us courage, for being a friend to John Lewis, a friend to Martin and to Ralph David Abernathy and to James Orange and to many of the Freedom Riders and song singers that I get to see when I go for that commemoration.

What I would say in closure, Dr. Shuttlesworth, is that you wanted us to be engaged in fighting for people who could not speak for themselves. I would imagine that you would want us to pass and vote for the American Jobs Act. I imagine that you would not be accusatory as to why people are unemployed and are not rich. I imagine you would be sympathetic to the people in the streets today, now Thursday, October 6, 2011, and I imagine you would

say, Keep on keeping on. I imagine you would say, Have no fear, because our great friend Dr. Martin Luther King told us of a mountaintop, and he said the pathway to the Promised Land would not be easy. He said in his dying days, or in the last hours toward the end of his life, that he had seen the Promised Land. You still lived at that time, and he told us that he might not get there but that he knew that, as a people, as this Nation, we would get to the Promised Land someday.

Reverend Dr. Shuttlesworth, you have gone on, and we recognize that our people are hurting, and that they're in the streets and that they're all colors and backgrounds and religions in all areas of this country. You realize that we are lucky enough to have Congresswoman Sewell and John Lewis out of Alabama, and now Atlanta. You recognize that you pass your mantle on, but you are hoping that we are not giving up and that we will always stay steadfast and that we'll fight for those who cannot speak and are yet unborn.

For you, Reverend Shuttlesworth, I will be courageous enough to take whatever comes, whatever comes life's way, whatever threatens my life, for it is important to note that there is something greater than life, and it is to make sure that people have an opportunity. I hope someday we'll have the ability to bring this Nation together again and not be wallowing in the divisiveness of Tea Parties and ``No'' parties and people who don't recognize what America is all about.

Reverend Shuttlesworth, you saw only what was right and what was just. I bless you, and will say to you that you are a warrior that has fought a good fight. Thank you for that fight. May you rest in peace.

To your family, God bless you, and God bless this warrior, and God bless the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, thank you for your indulgence.

We were in a Judiciary Committee hearing on the importance of protecting this Nation from weapons of mass destruction and then in a hearing on the Homeland Security Committee, on which I serve, in trying to ensure that we secure this homeland and also respect the privacy of our citizens. I believe that is a very important challenge.

I wanted to come to this floor to call for civility and understanding. Those are two conflicting terms. But as a member of the Judiciary Committee, having the privilege to oversee the Constitution of the United States, I hold very dear the idea of the Bill of Rights, which allows our citizens the right to the First Amendment, the right to association, and the right to freedom of religion.

But sometimes you have to call upon your right to explain or to express your abhorrence with ugly speech.

So I want to say that over the past couple of days, we have had Herman Cain shouting out about brainwashing of a certain population of people, African Americans, who I guess he suggests that we are not educated persons and as different as any other population of Americans. The greatness of Americans is that we are mosaic, we are diverse. Though I may challenge the philosophy of the Tea Party and have great abhorrence of their views, I would never suggest that those individuals didn't thoughtfully think about who they wanted to associate with. So again to Mr. Cain, get your vocabulary straight and understand that we have a brain as well and make choices on our interests.

Then my good friend Hank Williams, who I guess professes to be one of America's great philosophers, when he was posed a question about the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House attempting civility through what a lot of Americans do, playing golf, he chose to use a, what I think was both an unhelpful and disgraceful comparison. Now, I don't know who he was calling what, but he used the phrase that it would be like the Prime Minister of Israel meeting with Hitler.

And one would have to argue, am I defending the Speaker of the House or the President of the United States? I'm defending the idea that ugly speech should be called out any time it is utilized. Mr. Williams, you might stick to the penning of a new hit that you haven't had for a long period of time, although I'm sure you have many fans, for you to characterize any leader as the dastardly and heinous person that Hitler was, the dastardly and heinous and horrific acts that he perpetrated on people who were innocent. From those who happened to be of the Jewish faith to Polish people to people of many different backgrounds that lost their lives in this disgraceful era that was led by Hitler during the time that Germany was led by the Nazis.

What a disgraceful statement.

So I would ask that we understand that America is a great country because people view us as being tolerant of so many different things.

And I conclude by suggesting that those who are watching those on Wall Street who have gathered now, 700 of them were arrested, college students may be out of their classes at 12 noon, and I say hurray for people who are standing up and asking the question, where is my country going?

I want to take it back. I do believe in saving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Pell Grants that are on the cutting board. I want a job, and I want banks to be able to give access to credit to small businesses. Of the five that I visited over my time in my district, and more that are coming as I go to many others, I hear over and over again, are we going to respond to the needs of small businesses or are banks going to continue to crush the backs of small businesses by not lending them credit? People have a reason to be upset. But we don't have to use ugly talk.

But don't judge people because they're out in the streets. I disagree with the Tea Party because of the stranglehold that they have on this Congress that doesn't allow us to come together in a civil manner and come together on behalf of the American people. But at the same time I recognize their constitutional rights, recognize the constitutional rights of those that Wall Street and other places have chosen to be arrested because they don't like what is going on in this Nation. They don't like the fact we are in an obstruction form of government, that we would take from those who need us most and we would use them to balance the budget.

I'm going to stand with the people who are out in the streets and say, you are right--and tell Hank Williams to try and write another song that might get him a hit so he doesn't have to talk so much.

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of visiting small businesses that created jobs, anyone from doctors who worked 7 days in their office to companies who could sell anything to anybody to a beauty school that had people who were trying to be independent contractors; they created jobs. And I'm going to talk about them in the weeks to come.

So I'm begging, I'm begging this bipartisan House to put the American Jobs Act on the floor. That's because the GOP, of course, for 39 weeks has put one bill after another. One put off or destroyed 700,000 jobs. That was the spending bill. Another, about the Patient Bill of Rights, destroyed 300,000 jobs.

But 65 percent of Americans say we want jobs. They're at First and Independence right now. They're down at Wall Street. They're on Main Street. They're telling us, we want jobs. We want our teachers back, our firefighters back, we want our police back. We want to rebuild our schools. We need payroll tax relief so our small businesses can hire someone else. We want J-O-B-S. it's a simple point.

Put the American Jobs Act on the floor. Listen to the American people, the people in Wall Street that are arrested, 700 of them are crying out in pain. Let's respond to the American people. That is our job.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I've been to the floor before and I've used these famous words, and I think I've even used them in committee: Can we all get along?

I just can't imagine that if we queried this industry that so many people would want to, if you will, ignore the facts that are impacting not only our community but our children.

First of all, it's important to note that the CBO has established that H.R. 2681 will cost $1 million.

I want jobs to continue. I want jobs to be created. I think the service dealing with our industry is important, but I think lives are important. And I cannot imagine in this particular instance why we would want to block the EPA from finding a way to save lives. And so I rise today to introduce an amendment that would establish the fact that compliance would come by 3 years after the implementation of the resolution by the EPA.

Remember now that every party has an opportunity to participate, but listen to what is happening with the impact of mercury on our children.

If these safeguards are blocked, up to 34,300 premature deaths would be in place. These will be the consequences of it. Over 17,800 more heart attacks; over 180,000 additional asthma attacks; over 3 million more days of missed work or school; and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted treating these preventible accidents--or illnesses, if you will.

In addition, I believe that the idea of jobs should not be a threat to life. Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than 5 years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance. There is no deadline set for the industry compliance. That's an unfair imbalance between jobs and lives, and I know that we can find the right balance.

These industry leaders are citizens in communities. They support Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They support PTOs and school athletic teams. Their very constituents are their workers and their families, some of those very families that will be subject to the conditions where schools are near concrete manufacturing companies. It is happening all over America.

I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the cement industry, as they're required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting this and have resulted in saving--a 1.7 million ton reduction of air pollution per year.

My amendment simply says that to comply with the EPA rules, it should occur no later than 3 years after the rules have finalized.

Let me tell you why this is a good amendment. It gets people to work. It gets you focusing quickly on the remedy. It helps you put the remedy in place, and it helps to save lives.

This is a task that has been given to the EPA for 40 years. In fact, it was given to the EPA under a Republican administration, as I recall, Richard Nixon. We worked together then because we believed that America could be better by creating jobs but also protecting our environment.

There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air, but I believe we can do both. We can work together.

There is pollution; it does exist. Just come to a city like Houston where asthma rates are up because of the pollution that we have.

It is important to find a way to balance the lives of those who are impacted by things like chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation, watery eyes, while keeping our jobs.

How do we do it? We rush toward fixing the problem. We rush toward creating the jobs by having the kind of technology that allows us to cure this problem and keep these jobs.

Colleagues, I believe this is an important approach. It is to find the new technology that allows us to clean the air. It is not to stall and block the EPA. It is to find a way to get quickly to the solution to be able to save lives.

Let me say that I am hopeful that the amendment will be perceived as an amendment that rushes toward helping those who are creating jobs, but it is rushing toward allowing the EPA to save lives. Let us not sacrifice lives for convenience. Let us save lives.

My amendment is a very constructive amendment to allow compliance in 3 years. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2681 the ``Cement Sector Regulator Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the cement industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized.

Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set for industry compliance.

I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the cement industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting 170 different types of facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for the cement kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, prior to their promulgation.

For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air.

Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood.

When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective.

The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities.

The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health.

Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more

do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, this rule would prevent the following:

9,000 premature deaths;

5,500 heart attacks;

58,000 asthma attacks;

6,000 hospital and emergency room visits;

6,000 cases of bronchitis; and

440,000 missed work days.

The EPA has done its due diligence; a comprehensive review of all aspects of these regulations has been done, and the EPA is currently in the process of revising its proposed rules in order to reflect industry concerns. If the EPA is willing to compromise, the cement industry must be as well.

I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and we must not strip the agency of that right.

Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives.

My friends on the other side of the aisle seem much more interested in stripping the EPA of its authority than passing jobs legislation. It has been nearly 10 months since the Republicans took control of the House, promising the American people they would create jobs. As October begins, they have not offered a single jobs bill, nor have they brought President Obama's American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote.

The focus of this Congress must be on passing President Obama's American Jobs Act and other legislation that will create jobs and put the American people back to work. Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit several small businesses at home in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. I was able to roll up my sleeves and get involved with the hard working men and women of Houston.

I visited Dr. German Ramos at the Canal Medical Center, where I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Ramos and his employees. I visited Atlantic Petroleum and Mineral Resources where I met with President and CEO Donald Sheffield, and got to work at De Walt Construction Company, owned by single mother Wanda De Walt, who employs 15 people and wants to hire more. I also had the opportunity to visit floral shops, beauty salons, bakeries and other small businesses throughout Houston.

I spoke with these entrepreneurs and small business owners who represent America's biggest job creators, and their message was clear. These business owners and entrepreneurs encouraged me to work to pass powerful bipartisan, specific proposals to create jobs. It was a privilege to perform the hands on duties these hard working Houstonians do every day. We must engage and support entrepreneurs, innovators and small businesses to create jobs. I will be proposing a bill that will create jobs, and I look forward to bipartisan support.

Madam Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, and there are times when we exist as a single nation with national needs. One state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a nation, and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By ensuring the cement industry must comply with finalized EPA regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman.

I think the very argument that you just made is one that I would like to utilize and suggest that conformity could be 3 or 5. And I'm suggesting conformity should be 3 years, with the EPA doing just as you said, having the discretion to give more time. I think it shows us, as a Congress, being as balanced for jobs--which I know that you're trying to do--as trying to save lives. And there are lives that are impacted by the conditions that these companies generate.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. This amendment has rectified a job killing flaw that was present in the previous version of this bill. Finally, we have a relatively clean continuing resolution that does not contain any of the job killing riders that I alongside my Democratic colleagues fought so hard against.

Mr. Speaker the bill before us today is an attempt to reach a much needed compromise in the nick of time. By passing this bill today we will enable the government to remain open and continuing to serve the needs of the American people. At a time when the central issue before our country should be jobs and the creation of jobs to advance our economy. We keep retuning to measures that result in inaction and today we have done what the American people expect, found common ground. However, we lost a lot of precious time that should have been focused on jobs. Instead, we spent weeks on portions of this measure that were not going to garner support.

The current Continuing Resolution would extend the FY 2011 discretionary funding level at approximately 98.5 percent for agencies and programs through November 18 of this year. This approximate 1.5 percent cut seeks to bring the level of funding in line with the Budget Control Act, which capped FY 2012 discretionary spending at $1.043 trillion. It also contains various anomalies, including: keeping the postal service solvent through Nov. 18; extending flood insurance through Nov. 18; cutting funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (Pakistan, Afghanistan); giving DC access to its local funds; authorizing DHS to work on national special security events; and renewing import restrictions against Burma.

I have consistently implored my colleagues to come to the aid of Americans as they have always done during times of natural disaster. This measure now provides $2.65 billion, a number which OMB Director Jack Lew has said should be sufficient through Nov. 18. Additionally, it requires the Homeland Security Department to provide a full accounting of disaster relief funding requirements for FY 2012 no later than 15 days after the date of enactment, and to provide an account of their requirements to meet the department's needs in FY 2013 in the President's budget request next year. It also extends, through Nov. 18,

parts of the flood insurance program, including the extension of potential new contracts for flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program. Finally we as a body are reflecting the level of compassion that the American people have come to expect. We have stopped using Disaster Relief funding as a political football; and instead addressing the needs of Americans who find themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters.

I hope that this is a reflection that now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is the perfect time to come together for a partisan position that would only have caused more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason.

Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses. Small businesses need access to loans and other lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. They are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are no longer being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs.

At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is finally a measure that would allow small businesses to get the support they need. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks.

As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of clean up and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak.

We must continue to fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The devastating hurricanes we have had in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. Our federal response to those events in the past only demonstrates a need for significant and consistent improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators, forcing 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.

We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of Small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been emergency funding.

Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions.

On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi river region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than l00 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan.

We should not be focused on any measure that would be a job killer, or any measures that would be an affront to growing small businesses or will destroy thousands of jobs.

I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small business loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008.

According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses.

The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time.

A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's.

We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development.

American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country.

Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.

I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses.

There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output.

Women owned businesses have increased 20 percent since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance.

My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses.

According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration, SBA, set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23 percent of contracts to small business, 5 percent to women-owned small businesses, and 3 percent to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.''

Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions

of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them.

Facts: Small businesses are important because they:

(1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, (2) employ just over half of all private sector employees, (3) pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll, (4) generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, (5) create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product, GDP, (6) hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers), (7) are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises, (8) made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007, and (9) produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Republicans appear to be on a mission to cut programs that help families and that will buttress small businesses. At a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach is important to ensuring that small businesses receive the support they need. We have temporarily achieved that balance in this measure.

I stand here once again calling for measures that will advance job growth, create new jobs, and help small business. American families need measures that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 3: Page 6, lines 23 and 24, strike ``not

earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the

regulation'' and insert ``not later than 3 years after the

regulation is promulgated as final''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 4: Page 5, lines 16 and 17, strike ``not

earlier than 5 years after the effective date of the

regulation'' and insert ``not later than 3 years after the

regulation is promulgated as final''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 686, ``Utah National Guard Readiness Act.'' The bill requires the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the training and readiness of the Utah National Guard.

Our National Guard and in some instances combat soldiers of tomorrow must have access to training. Our troops must receive the training they need prior to being deployed in combat zones. By allocating parcels of land for that purpose helps to ensure our nation's security. Camp Williams, located 26 miles south of Salt Lake City, is a professional training environment operated by the Utah Army National Guard. The Utah Training Center consists of 24,000 acres of combat areas resembling the same types of environments encountered by those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those facilities include small arms weapons firing ranges, artillery firing points, demolition, grenade and crew served weapon ranges.

This parcel of land will allow for specialized winter, desert, mountain, and amphibious training. Urban environments include the Mac MOUT Shoot-house, dismounted/mounted maneuver areas and the recently opened FOB. Leadership and individual training is enhanced by utilizing the rappel tower, leadership reaction course and Afghan Village. This facility seems to be well equipped for training the Utah National Guard.

The Utah National Guard has possessed facilities and trained at Camp Williams since 1912. H.R. 686 would convey 420 acres of land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, without consideration. The acreage proposed for conveyance is already withdrawn for military use by the Guard. This land transfer will open access to property along a major transportation corridor with all the utilities and services necessary to support expanded military use. The Utah National Guard already owns and operates several buildings, an air traffic control tower and a tactical airfield on portions of this property. Placing the land in the State's name for use by the National Guard consolidates ownership patterns in the headquarters area and allows the State of Utah to bond for future Guard facilities. Transfer of title to these lands expedites the building and expansion of Camp Williams training facilities and would improve the readiness of the Utah National Guard. Additionally, the bill includes a provision directing that the land revert to federal ownership if it stops being used for National Guard or national defense purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 765, ``The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011,'' which amends the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to require the term and acreage of permits for the operation of ski areas and associated facilities on National Forest System lands to be governed by provisions under the Act relating to such permits and other applicable law. Furthermore, this legislation provides for the issuance of permits for the use and occupancy of suitable lands within the National Forest System for skiing and other snow sports and recreational uses authorized pursuant to this Act.

The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act provides the American public with added ways to use and enjoy federally governed land. It is in a spirit of encouraging increased camaraderie, outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature that I support providing an expanded opportunity for Americans to benefit from the natural resources in their own back yard. It is the responsibility of all Members of Congress to fulfill our moral obligation to promote harmony between Americans and the vast opportunities for outdoor recreation throughout the country. Additionally, this legislation serves to create revenue by allowing for additional permits, bolstering ski and winter recreation industries.

In the State of Texas, we have nearly 675,000 acres of public land that the U.S. Forest Service manages. This land is divided into four National Forests in east Texas and the National Grasslands in northeast Texas. Of the four National Forests, the 18th district is home to the Sam Houston National Forest. The Sam Houston National Forest consists of 161,508 acres with 47,609 acres in Montgomery County, 59,746 acres in San Jacinto County, and 54,153 acres in Walker County. The national forests in Texas were established by an act of the Texas legislature in 1933 that authorized the purchase of lands for the national forest system. These lands are operated under a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. Fishing, trapping, and public hunting of white-tailed deer, feral hog, waterfowl, dove, other migratory game birds, squirrel, quail, rabbits, hares, predators, furbearers, and frogs is permitted. Other outdoor recreation opportunities include camping, hiking, bicycling, and wildlife viewing.

In 1960, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act codified into law the practices that had governed the management of national forests in Texas for 30 years. This act emphasized that resources on public lands would be managed so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the needs of the people, that the benefits obtained will exist indefinitely and that each each natural resource would be managed in balance with other resources to meet present and future public needs.

Management plans outline direction for a forest under the multiple- use concept. However, even the most carefully planned system of management cannot foresee environmental or natural factors which can cause drastic changes in a forest. Fire, storms, insects and disease, for example, can alter the way a forest is managed.

H.R. 765, ``The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011,'' provides for the issuance of permits for the use and occupancy of suitable lands within the National Forest System for skiing and other snow sports and recreational uses, highlighting the climate and recreational opportunities unique to specific regions of the nation. Since our nation's founding, we have marveled with immense pride at our vast natural resources, and this legislation serves to celebrate them.