Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act. As a founding Member of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am greatly concerned with the impact that autism has on children and their families.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that Autism Spectrum Disorders impact an average of 1 in 110 American children, and 1 in 70 boys. We can all benefit from learning about this disease; autism occurs in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Continuing research on treating this disease is essential for children's health. Thousands of children with autism disorders have already shown significant improvement and increased independence resulting from early detection and new treatments.

Currently, there are between 1 and 1.5 million Americans living with a form of autism. If current diagnostic rates remain the same or increase, more children will be diagnosed with autism this year than AIDS, diabetes and cancer combined. Autism is the fastest growing serious developmental disability in the country. In my home state of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, there are 1 out of every 163 public students who are eight years old has a form of autism.

As many parents can attest, autism is an extremely costly disability; the average annual medical expenditures for individuals with autism are between 4 and 6 times greater than those without autism. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) places the average lifetime care cost for an autism patient at 3.2 million dollars. This legislation provides funding for services to assist individuals with autism and their families, and allocates vital dollars toward research to improve care and treatment.

The Combating Autism Act of 2006 was a landmark piece of legislation that raised awareness of autism spectrum disorders, and organized an aggressive federal response to autism. Reauthorizing this bill continues funding at current levels, $693 million dollars over 3 years for biomedical and treatment research, and services for those living with autism and their families.

In 2006, the Combating Autism Act established the disease as a national health priority, increased awareness, and highlighted the need for swift and urgent action to address autism. Since that time, promising developments and innovations have helped individuals living with autism lead more independent lives. Improvements in detection and treatment have led to increased independence in teenagers and adults with autism.

The Combating Autism Reauthorization Act is a shining example of how government can do more than issue Social Security checks and debate debt reduction. This legislation clearly demonstrates that our government can be a force for good, and a mechanism for change. New science and new technology have presented an unparalleled moment of possibility; this legislation has the power to make real differences in the lives of those affected by autism.

Mr. Speaker, we all have constituents living with autism. We all have constituents whose child, sibling, cousin, or friend is living with a form of autism. This disability affects Americans of all races and backgrounds, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2005, the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1852, ``The Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' would amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize payments to children's hospitals operating training programs that provide graduate medical education. These payments would be made to hospitals for both direct and indirect costs related to graduate medical education.

Americans across our nation need care, and the Children's Hospital GME (CHGME) program has been utilized by hospitals across our country to train doctors who can provide that care. I represent the 18th District which is home to the Methodist Hospital System, one of the largest medical institutions in the world. In 2010, the Methodist Hospital System graduated sixty-nine doctors from the resident CHGME program. That is 69 additional doctors who will meet our growing health care needs. H.R. 1852 will allow Houston to continue to recruit and train so many talented doctors.

Overall, freestanding children's hospitals have increased their medical resident training programs by 35 percent since 1999. If CHGME is allowed to expire we will lose the gains we have made in this field. There is no reasonable argument for allowing this program to expire as it provides a great benefit at a marginal cost. For this fiscal year, the program has spent .0085 percent of the federal budget. This small expenditure allows children's hospitals to train more than 5,600 full- time equivalent residents--more than one third of our nation's pediatricians.

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the nation could face a shortage of as many as 150,000 doctors in the next 15 years. The funds generated from this legislation will help train the medical professionals we desperately need. In a time when there are growing health disparities within our nation. It is important to address the needs of underserved urban areas. The more medicinal professionals we train there is an increase likelihood that these underserved communities will have access to proper medical care.

The program supports 56 hospitals nationwide and trains more than 5,000 medical residents each year. It started 12 years ago as an effort to provide children's hospitals with funding for residencies and fellowships. There are other federal programs to assist residency funding exist; however, the CHGME program caters to pediatrics, while others are open to all teaching hospitals.

This funding is vital as it will help to cover the cost of 5,600 pediatric residencies at more than 50 children's hospitals across the United States. Forty percent of the nation's pediatricians and 43 percent of pediatric subspecialists receive training from the program. We must train the very professionals who will one day save the life of a child.

The CHGME pays for the salaries of medical students and compensate hospitals for patient care costs that are often higher in teaching hospitals than non-teaching hospitals. We should provide the funds necessary to train students in a profession that will benefit society.

I support this legislation because it will increase the quality of medical training in the United States. I believe that H.R. 1852 improves upon a system that sets the bar for medical care internationally. Through government funding, the program has succeeded in bolstering research potential at these institutions as well as helping to cure a problem that supersedes political boundaries: children's illness. This bill creates positive effects that cross party lines, and I urge my distinguished colleagues to vote a resounding and unified ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the 64 percent of Americans--and growing--who say, ``Pass the jobs bill.''

I rise on behalf of those who have sought to get work time and time again. I rise on behalf of the citizens of the State of Texas, for the 8.3 percent--and growing--unemployed individuals in our own State, which has been represented to be a State that has no unemployment. We are resilient, yes. But in working with the United States, it is important to note that we must do something to restore the opportunities for people to work and to restore human dignity.

As the President said, we should have one purpose in this House. It should be to work for the American people. We can balance this budget, we can reduce the deficit, but we really can put people to work: firefighters and teachers and police officers. We can invest in this economy, we can provide education, and we can put Americans back to work.

Let's not make ourselves number one. Let's make the American people number one. Pass the jobs bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This legislation does absolutely nothing to protect jobs; in fact, it puts them at risk. A more accurate title for this bill would be the Outsourcer's Bill of Rights.

This legislation is an assault on working Americans. H.R. 2587 guts the National Labor Relations Act, renders the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) powerless and undoes decades' worth of improvements for worker's rights.

The National Labor Relations Act provides workers with essential protections; protections that have resulted in a strong middle class. This law prevents companies from retaliating against workers who exercise their rights, such as the right to strike, petition for better pay, demand safer working conditions, and form a union.

It is the National Labor Relations Act that prevents companies from outsourcing or transferring, subcontracting or relocating jobs for discriminatory reasons. The Act protects jobs by prohibiting employers from taking work away from anyone--union or non-union--because they have exercised their rights. Current law does not dictate where companies can and cannot run their businesses; it merely ensures that companies are not permitted to relocate to another state or to another country in order to pay workers lower wages.

The National Labor Relations Acts protects the rights of American workers, and keeps American jobs from being shipped overseas, so long as the Act has an effective enforcement mechanism. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act strips that mechanism, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of its ability to enforce the law by ensuring jobs that are unlawfully outsourced are returned to America. The NLRB, for example, was able to order jobs back to America from Mexico in 2000, when the jobs were relocated overseas to prevent workers from unionizing.

H.R. 2587 would not only prevent the NLRB from protecting jobs from illegal outsourcing, it would also allow companies to subcontract work away from unionized workers, and eliminate jobs done by pro-union employees.

This legislation undermines American workers by eliminating laws that prevent employers from discriminating against workers that exercise their rights to competitive wages, benefits, and safe working environments.

I am extremely disappointed that my Republican friends are willing to create an atmosphere that forces hard working Americans to compete for jobs based on who will accept the lowest wages, worst benefits, and harshest working conditions. This bill creates a race to the bottom that is simply not worthy of a great nation, and certainly not worthy of America.

Time after time, throughout the 20th century, the nation turned to the labor community to build infrastructure, supply the Armed Forces, and manufacture the materials that constructed our great American cities, and time after time, hard working Americans answered the call and made this country great.

It appears that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to repay the American workforce by forcing them to choose between their rights and their jobs. The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act protects nothing but special interest and corporate profits by undermining the law that prevents discrimination against Americans who simply want to exercise their rights.

This bill forces Americans to compete for lower wages instead of strengthening the middle class by providing employees with competitive wages, fair benefits and safe working conditions. I will fight, as I have throughout my tenure in Congress, to protect the middle class by protecting American jobs.

My Republican friends have not passed a single bill to create jobs, and the Protecting

Jobs from Government Interference Act is no exception. In fact, this reckless legislation threatens American jobs and undermines workers' rights while safeguarding special interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation, and instead focus our efforts on a bipartisan jobs bill that will foster a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2867, ``United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Reform and Reauthorization Act of 2011.'' This legislation mandates the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (Commission) compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, restricts the Commissioner to two consecutive terms, and requires the Commissioner to attend 75 percent of Commission meetings. H.R. 2867, extends the Commission's sunset date by two years, and appropriates $4.29 million for FY12 and FY13. In addition, H.R. 2867 requires study to determine the Commission's effectiveness to ensure that the act is being implemented properly.

As a senior Member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I understand the importance of protecting the religious rights of men, women, and children throughout the world. By advocating for religious stability, we in turn decrease the likelihood of religious extremism and advance the growth of healthy nations. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom serves as an essential fact finder and impartial advisor on these matters.

The 18th District of Texas is home to many different faiths and religious backgrounds and welcomes a variety of views on religion. This reflects the principles of freedom of religion upon which our nation was founded. The founding fathers understood the importance of freedom of religion and the perils of religious persecution. Respect for the religious practices of others is woven into the very fabric of the United States.

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom is an independent, bipartisan commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the President and Congress. The Commission's core mission is to review international violations of religion freedom and make policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and Congress. These recommendations impact the lives of millions of people of faith around the world. I believe in the importance of protecting those who are being persecuted based upon their religious beliefs.

According to a Pew Research Study released in December 2009, 198 countries, containing 70 percent of the world's population, severely restrict religious freedom. The study found that 101 governments used force against religious groups or individuals. Christians and Muslims, who make up more than half of the world's population, were harassed in more countries than other religions, although the study does not reflect the intensity of the persecution. This study was conducted prior to the Arab Spring. Many of the nations with increasing religious restrictions are the very nations that have seen popular uprisings and subsequent crackdowns--among them Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Libya, a clear indication that we need this Commission more than ever.

I firmly believe that the Commission has a positive impact on the lives of millions of people of faith throughout the world, especially at a time when many governments continue to repress religious freedom and persecute persons on the basis of their religion. Such repression only stands to marginalize vulnerable populations, emboldens extremists, fuels sectarian tensions, and robs societies of the moral and charitable contributions of faith communities.

Repression of religious freedom runs contrary to shared universal values and undermines genuine stability. In the words of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton ``Religious freedom provides a cornerstone for every healthy society. It empowers faith-based service. It fosters tolerance and respect among different communities. And it allows nations that uphold it to become more stable, secure, and prosperous.

The Commission monitors religious freedom through the lens of international human rights standards, such as those found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Forty-five years ago the nations of the world signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which codified in international law the right to religious freedom. The ICCPR affirmed under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that ``everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.''

The Commission is not a tool to advance religious beliefs or any specific values. It is focused on addressing the religious climate in each country based upon the ICCPR. By relying on international human rights standards as specified in ICCPR, The Commission guards against any attempts to impose American values on other nations, but rather examines the actions of foreign governments against these universal standards and by their freely undertaken international commitments. This Commission is a vital resource in learning to address conflicts between religious groups, especially in the wake of the Arab Spring.

As the Commission serves to address the violations of religious freedom abroad, Congress is charged with ensuring the Commission itself is in compliance with laws that protect the rights of workers and those they serve. H.R. 2867 reflects the principle that discrimination has no place within our government and will ensure that the commission itself complies with all federal anti-discrimination laws. This is an essential distinction from the current law, which lacks these robust discrimination protections. This legislation further underscores the importance of this Commission by expending the sunset date of the Commission by 2 years to September 30, 2013. Lastly, the amount of appropriations allotted for the Commission would be amended by striking $3,000,000 for the fiscal year 2003, to $4,291,000 for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

I firmly believe that H.R. 2867 will allow the Commission to continue to address international religious persecution, provide much needed discrimination protections, and will garner the appropriate amount of oversight to ensure that the Commission operates as effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already set the parameters for this discussion. We can see by the throngs that are on the floor of the House how keenly important this is to the American people. The reason why I say that is because important discussions draw Members even away from their duties elsewhere. But we know that the reason why we are speaking to empty seats is, one, because the other body has resoundingly denounced and voted this particular provision down because we have reached a compromise, a respectable compromise that we realize we have to pay our bills.

But of course those who believe that they are not in the people's House, they can put this resolution on the floor because if they look to what the people want, 46 percent of the American people believe that jobs are more important than reducing the deficit. More than 65 percent believe we should be doing a jobs bill. We have the greatest poverty among children of all sectors in all areas of the country right now as I speak. And the new population of the impoverished are those recent college graduates. All of the stars in the eyes and excited parents who've paid large amounts of dollars to ensure that their young ones have an opportunity for a college education, there are no jobs.

Now, I don't concede to the fact that the only initiative that should come about should be from the government, but we are the umbrella on a rainy day. This is a small measure that the President has offered, a small, constructive measure, his jobs bill. It is balanced across the board. It provides relief for small businesses. It provides the jobs that they will create. It gives incentives to hire someone. It works with our larger companies as well. And, of course, it puts back to work what has been a devastating phenomenon in our communities, taking away firefighters, police and teachers. You're going to feel the pinch when your young children are in classes that are 50 and 60 persons. So this is realistic.

It also addresses the question of the 46.2 million Americans who are living in poverty. As I indicated, a disproportionate share of those are children.

So what we are doing today goes smack against what the people want, and this is the people's House. I am concerned that we are not only being redundant, but we're saying to the world: smack us as irresponsible. We have the money to pay our bills, but we want the word to go out: we are irresponsible. We're not paying any bills. We're not Greece, we're not Spain, we're not Italy. We are Americans, and we have the know-it-all and the commitment to be the greatest country.

I've never taken seriously the pundits about America's decline; but it is a decline if we get on the floor of the House and ignore the needs of our brothers and sisters, ignore the needs in the Northeast where there's been a devastating hurricane, ignore those in the Southwest where 1,400 homes have been burned to the ground in Texas. Who is going to help those folks besides their private insurance? They need the Federal Government, the rainy day umbrella on a rainy day or when a fire is there, the hose for the fire.

So I ask my colleagues to consider being realistic and rational. Vote this down. Put a jobs bill on the floor and do what the people want, create jobs now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 77, a Resolution of Disapproval intended to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling by $500 billion as he is authorized to do by the debt ceiling agreement reached last month. This resolution will obstruct the federal government from meeting their financial obligations; measures like this one have already failed in the Senate. This is a colossal waste of valuable legislative time. The message has been heard loud and clear, we must address the debt limit; however another message is being muffled--the need to focus on jobs. Here we are once again with another proposal before the House that appears to throw caution to the wind. This joint resolution is gambling on our financial future, if this amendment passes then we will fail to raise our nation's debt limit and will allow our nation to default.

We should have learned a valuable lesson from what happened the last time my colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to suggest that we should allow our nation to default. The stock market reacted immediately and a well known credit company lowered our nation's credit rating. We need to maintain our creditworthiness to meet the needs of the very people we have been sent here to serve. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are more interested in playing political games than creating jobs or improving the economy.

Attempting to prevent the President from raising the debt ceiling to pay for the needs of the country and functions of the government will only lead us to the brink of another crisis. This is a continued effort by my Republican friends to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public.

Instead of working toward a bipartisan job creation bill, congressional Republicans are attempting to constrain the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

There has been a consistent theme this Congress of failing to bring forward measures that will create jobs. My Republicans colleagues have set the agenda. They seem focused on cutting programs that benefit the public and those in need, while making no concrete attempt to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences.

In my district, the Texas 186, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of American living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April

2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state.

In 2010, there were 46.2 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the US Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year.

Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity.

Attempts to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling threaten our ability to keep paying for programs that benefit the least among us, and I for one, will not turn my back on the Americans who are the most in need of compassionate leadership and responsible governing.

Threatening an increase in the debt ceiling threatens our ability to pay for Medicare, which guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010.

Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance.

Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America.

Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era.

To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit.

Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade, and last month, we were able to negotiate another compromise, and keep the country from default. I urge my colleagues not to undermine the agreement that was reached by attempting to block the President's ability to raise the debt ceiling.

Once again, the American economy hangs in the balance as the act of the President raising the debt ceiling becomes an irrelevant spending debate that is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present.

This resolution is a petulant attempt to undermine President Obama. The bill itself says it is a joint resolution ``relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit''. Exercise of authority. It does not say unlawful exercise of authority, or unconstitutional exercise of authority. The language of the bill itself makes it clear the President has the authority to raise the debt ceiling as indicated in the agreement reached on August 2.

Passing this resolution will not decrease spending; it will merely compromise our ability to pay for spending already authorized. This bill does nothing to reduce the deficit, or address the budget, it only risks our economic standing and ability to pay our nation's bills, while simultaneously hurtling the nation toward another debt ceiling crisis.

Instead of spending time on resolutions designed to cast the President in a negative light, it is time for this Congress to come together, and pass meaningful legislation that will benefit the American people. In his address to a joint session of Congress last Thursday, President Obama gave this body a great opportunity to achieve bipartisan, job creating legislation that will invest in small business, help families that have been struggling with chronic unemployment, assist veterans in finding jobs, and invest in our infrastructure.

It is time for a new sense of bipartisanship. It is time for Congress to work together to aggressively take on job creation. It is time to end these divisive tactics and compromise to encourage the rapid job growth the American people deserve. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, to stand up and vote no on this partisan resolution; we can, and we must take this opportunity to declare our intent to do what is right, face what is hard, and achieve what is great.

Instead of attempting to embarrass the President, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to come together, and focus on passing legislation that will help the American people by improving the economy and creating jobs. Now is not the time for partisan malice, now is not the time for H.J. Res 77; now is the time for this Congress to do all it can to usher in a new age of American ingenuity and prosperity. H.J. Res. 77 is simply a way to engage in past battles, and I am voting against it in order to focus on the future.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1059, a bill to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports. This legislation will provide a vital safety measure for judges who have dedicated their lives to serving the public.

As a senior Member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, I have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and integrity of those who are members of the judiciary. The Ethics in Government Act requires judges, like Members of Congress and other high ranking public officials to file annual financial disclosure reports. This requirement serves to bolster the confidence of the public in the professional integrity of individuals who serve their community.

Although the intent of the Act is to bolster public confidence in the judiciary it has an unintended consequence inherent in full public disclosure. Full financial disclosure impacts the personal safety of judges, particularly the safety of judges who sentence criminals. Some of the information contained in financial disclosure reports could reveal information which pertains to the schools, workplaces, and homes of judges and their families. This type of information provides easy access to personal information that could be used by an individual to intimidate or harm a judge or her family. In order to mitigate these risks, section 7 of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 allows the Judicial Conference to redact information found in financial disclosures that would place a judge or their family at risk.

This legislation does not exempt judicial employees and judges from filing financial disclosures. The Judicial Conference's Committee on Financial Disclosures works in coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service to determine the merit of requests for redaction. The Judicial conference reports that between 2007 and 2010, of the 17,658 financial disclosure reports filed, there were only 750 redaction requests, or 4.2 percent of the reports filed. There were 645 redaction requests that were fully granted, and 70 that were partially granted.

This legislation protects judges and their families from those that may seek to harm or intimidate the judge. The majority of redaction requests that were approved contained information that indicated the whereabouts of the filer's family on a regular basis, or the residence at which the filing party lived. H.R. 1059 does not exempt anyone from fulfilling their requirement to file a financial disclosure.

In the 110th Congress, my colleagues and I extended the authorizing section of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act twice to ensure continued protection of our judges and their families. The last extension will expire on December 31, 2011, leaving thousands of dedicated public servants and their loved ones vulnerable to harm or harassment.

I applaud my friend from Michigan, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for introducing this important legislation to protect judges and judicial employees. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2011. This legislation is an appropriate and necessary measure to keep our citizens safe.

Currently the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) does not have statutory authority to assist in the investigation of mass killings or other violent crimes that are carried out in non-federal public places, such as schools and universities. As of now, when the FBI is asked by state and local law enforcement to assist with related investigations, they frequently comply with the request, despite the possibility that in doing so, the responding officers may be found to be acting outside of their jurisdiction.

The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act grants the FBI specific authority to respond when asked for help by state and local law enforcement, without expanding the FBI's jurisdiction. The bill allows the FBI to assist in the investigation of violent crimes or mass killings, only when asked to do so.

In recent history the FBI has lent their resources to several high profile investigations. Last September, when an armed intruder entered the Discovery Communications Building

in Rockville, Maryland; the FBI SWAT team assisted the Montgomery County Police Department, and FBI investigators processed the crime scene. In 2009, the American Civic Center in Binghamton, New York was the site of a mass killing when an armed subject killed 13 people. The FBI was asked to assist, and lent their Evidence Response Team, Victim Assistance program, and Behavioral Analysis unit. The FBI also assisted in the investigation to identify the student who opened fire at Virginia Technical Institute in 2007.

The FBI lent invaluable support to state and local law enforcement officials on several occasions. However, as the law currently holds, there is no specific statutory authority allowing them to do so. The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act specifically authorizes, by statute, that which the FBI is consistently asked and expected to do.

This bill is an important measure aimed at increasing the safety and security of the American people. When faced with a mass killing or other violent crime, our state and local law enforcement officials should have access to every necessary resource in order to mitigate the situation, identify the perpetrators, and bring them to justice. In Houston, Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, the FBI reports 22,491 violent crimes in 2010. I know that my constituents would appreciate knowing that their local law enforcement officials have access to the resources of the FBI, should they need them.

As a senior Member of both the Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, I have worked tirelessly to ensure the safety of the American people, and this legislation does just that. I am pleased at the bipartisan manner in which this bill is being considered, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2076, the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2633, the Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011. This legislation provides an important clarification to the law.

Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the law allows 60 days to file a notice of appeal for civil cases if the United States or a federal officer is a party. However, the legislation fails to disclose whether the 60 day period applies to current and/or former federal employees who are sued in an individual capacity.

The Appeal Time Clarification Act of 2011 performs as a means to clarify the discrepancies created by the initial policy. It essentially amends the federal judicial code requirements concerning the time limits for the filing of appeals to any judgment, order, or decree in a civil action, suit, or proceeding.

According to the Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, as ordered by the House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 2633 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. The CBO estimates that enacting the bill ``would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.''

There are no solid concerns that have been raised in the House regarding this legislation. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee has expressed its observation that the bill's language regarding individual capacity lawsuits

may be read in such a way as to exclude those cases where the individual is represented by the Senate Legal Counsel or the House Office of General Counsel rather than the Department of Justice (for example, in a lawsuit between the legislative and executive branches concerning executive privilege).

Summarily H.R. 2633 extends the 60 day filing deadline to any civil action, suit, or proceeding in which one of the parties is ``a current or former U.S. officer or employee sued in an individual capacity for an act. This amendment provides the government with the time it needs to review the case, determine whether an appeal should be taken, and secure the Solicitor General's approval for that appeal. These same policy reasons apply in a case where the United States--through DOJ or some other federal litigating entity--decides to represent a current or former officer or employee sued in his or her individual capacity.

I applaud my friend from Michigan, Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for introducing this important legislation to protect past and present federal employees. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2887, the Surface and Air Transportation Programs Extension Act of 2011. I am glad to see that a clean authorization could be reached, but there are important issues that must be considered in the future.

Prior to H.R. 658, the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act being sent to the Senate, I offered an amendment to establish a mandate that at the top twenty United States airports, there shall be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times.

We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep, or being locked out of the control tower, or for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times.

I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer.

Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives, and babies. They are American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety we must insist that air traffic controllers are vigilant. To ensure their vigilance we must set reasonable minimum standards.

After 9/11, we discovered the vital importance of protecting our domestic airspace. Air traffic controllers are part of the front line of defense to protect and ensure the safety of our air space. If they lose contact with a plane, they can alert authorities. If an air traffic controller at a major domestic and international airport is asleep at the wheel who will make that call?

It is unfair to put the lives of American passengers at high volume airports at any time in the hands of one individual, who may at some point be incapacitated. Even pilots have co-pilots. What if the controller fell ill? What then? What would you tell those passengers on the plane? Hope for the best? We need to provide the support that air traffic controllers need in addition to the responsibility.

This language I support creates a mandate, that at all times there must be a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation. I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, most airports operate 24 hours a day with two controllers in the tower for the midnight-to-6 a.m. shift. The operative word is ``most''; we must act to create a uniform nationwide standard, verifiable and enforceable by the FAA.

This legislation extends the funding for surface transportation through March, and aviation through January. As we move forward and prepare to consider this legislation in the coming months, it is my hope that my colleagues will consider these important provisions. Increasing the number of air traffic controllers on duty is a simple way to keep the American people safe.

I am pleased to pass a clean extension of funding for our Nation's surface transportation and aviation networks. I will continue to advocate for an increased number of air traffic controllers as Congress returns to this issue in the next session.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, September 12, I was detained in my State on official business.

On rollcall vote 699 on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2076, to amend the United States Code regarding providing of investigatory assistance, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 700 on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2633, to amend the United States Code regarding time limits for appeals, I would have voted ``aye.''

On rollcall vote 701, H.R. 1059, to protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information on financial disclosure reports, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 699-701 on Monday, September 12, 2011.

For rollcall vote, 699, on motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2076, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the statutory authority for the longstanding practice of the Department of Justice of providing investigatory assistance on request of State and local authorities with respect to certain serious violent crimes, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 700, on motion to suspend the rule and agree to H.R. 2633, ``To amend title 28, United States Code, to clarify the time limits for appeals in civil cases to which United States officers or employees are parties,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For rollcall vote 701, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended to H.Res 1316, ``To protect the safety of judges by extending the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact sensitive information contained in their financial disclosure reports, and for other purpose,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

Members fly a lot, Mr. Speaker, and so I am delighted to know that we have moved on saving and coming together around the FAA extension.

Just a few weeks ago, I gathered at the airport that I represent, Houston Intercontinental Airport, to listen to the workers and those who secure our Nation's airports. From flight attendants to flight pilots or airline pilots, to machinists, to friends who were supporting them, the seafarers and communication workers, and an array of workers who work every day led by leadership from the AFL-CIO, those who work at the airport, city officials were all saying: I cannot believe that you would allow $90 million to go awry and construction on airports around America to be unutilized.

It is time that we move forward with the FAA authorization. It is also time to appreciate collective bargaining, which is an important element of this, and to recognize and respect the various needs of the

Today we introduced a resolution to honor those whose lives were lost on 9/11. As a Member of Congress, I vividly remember as we rushed from this building and glared at the Pentagon and saw the remains of the plane that had attacked this Nation. From Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C. to New York, our lives were changed as America watched.

Today, as I stand on this floor, I offer my deepest remorse and sympathy to the families who still are in pain, to the first responders whose memories are still glaring in their attempt to find those who were lost and to save what might be left and the pain they have and the health conditions they suffer.

But what I will say to America is that we are still America, strong, patriotic and believing in all that we are, the great diversity that we are. Thank you to the Muslims who are in the Capitol right now providing the gift of life, giving blood. Thank you to the City of Houston that will be honoring those this coming weekend. We will be together because we are America. We will not be deterred.

Before I begin, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but acknowledge that we are just days away from memorializing those lost on 9/11, and I am reminded of that time some 10 years ago and how this body drew together.

I don't know if our leadership has thought of it, but I think it would be more than appropriate if we went to the steps of the Capitol and sang again ``God Bless America.'' I hope we can do that because we did that together.

Tonight, I hope we can be together as the President commands the attention of the American people. I hope we can be together to lift up the concept of Make It in America, rebuild America, put our small businesses and inventors and geniuses back to work. I hope we can come together with the FAA reauthorization so Houston, Texas, won't lose $90 million in airport construction.

I hope that we can come together and recognize that when we do a supplemental to help our friends with the wildfires in Texas, my constituents, others, and Lloyd Doggett's constituents and all in the northeast, that we are coming together to place jobs. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more bipartisan than putting America back to work.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to join with my colleague, first of all, to wish the President well and to work together in a bipartisan manner to put Americans back to work, put them to work now, and keep them working.

I am supportive of the Intelligence authorization bill for a number of reasons dealing with the issue of investing in new positions to select high priority needs as FBI surveillance, so increasing the personnel. I'm concerned about the cuts in personnel. The language is very appropriate. In these days, as we celebrate 9/11, I'm concerned about what is appropriate.

I'm also interested in moving forward on diversity. We should ensure that our intelligence community reflects the diversity of America, from African Americans to Asians, Latinos, Muslims, people speaking different languages, to be more effective to protect this country.

The DNI is going to conduct a review to determine the security implications of moving intelligence systems. I think that is important. I think it is important, as well, to collect information about drug trafficking. And I certainly think it's important to again, as I said, talk about the question of the work force.

I am concerned about the requests that I understand may be in the bill on information about Guantanamo Bay detainees, information that could undermine our security. And I am questioning the value of making the Director of the National Security Agency, a Senate conferee, to juxtapose that person in the midst of controversial politics.

But I am glad, and I thank Mr. Polis for his leadership on charter schools. I'm proud to say that I've been to the Victory Charter School in Texas, in Houston, the Harmony Charter School, the KIPP Charter School, the Yes Charter School, and a school district, a public system that I am working with, and I love public schools, I am a product of public schools. The North Forest Independent School District, it's finding its way to embrace and coalesce with charter schools.

What is the call for that? It is the education of our children with the most important level of education ever, excellence. It is for our children to pass tests, but it is for our children to think and to create and to invent. And I think we can work with charter schools, in particular, who are focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math where there are young people who are actually doing medical center level research, cures by middle schoolers and high schoolers.

So I hope that we will deal with the Intelligence bill. I associate myself with the gentleman from Massachusetts. I'm concerned about the human rights violations in Colombia, the monies that may be going to the DAS, and the killing of trade unionists. It's all right to be a neighbor, but it is horrible to take intelligence funds and be part of the killing of trade unionists.