Floor Statements

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 80: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 81: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I move to strike the last word.

There is no doubt, Mr. Young, that you are the renowned expert on Alaska. So I don't rise to counter that. And in fact, I come from the other open, wild State that likes their own self- determination, and they just associated you with the State of Texas.

I remind my colleagues that there is water in Virginia, there's water in Massachusetts, and there's water all along. But I rise to support the gentleman's amendment because frankly, the last time I talked to the very important Coast Guard, they're short on money. Frankly, I want the Coast Guard to be in the port of Houston doing their job as it relates to protecting the coastline of America from terrorists. They are involved in that. They are not, in essence, an agency that can just expand its resources.

I would just raise the question. I think the gentleman from Washington was very engaging and cooperative by saying how can we work this out.

My interpretation is, in opposing the language that's in the bill and supporting Mr. Dicks, is that we have, in essence, a legislative earmark, and that means that all of us can rise up and try to solve our problems in that way.

I would like to get back to regular order.

And I cite for all of you just another example. We've got a legislative earmark when one of our Republican colleagues has decided to shut down the FAA. That's an example.

And lost in the doing of that is $2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 American construction jobs, 3,000 FAA aviation engineers furloughed, safety analysts, career professionals in 35 States and in my own city of Houston. I want to get on the floor and put an amendment on the floor to get that Member out of the business of stopping the FAA from doing its work--$200 million per week is being lost.

Nobody is saying anything because we're also not doing regular order by fooling around with the debt ceiling. Nobody can come together and act like adults and say, Let's just raise the debt ceiling so the American people can go on with their business.

Now we've got a Member that says ``my way or the highway'' and shutting down the FAA. You can't run the government like this.

And I think the message of the amendment that is on the floor is not that we don't respect Members' personal knowledge of their States, it's

just that we can't go willy nilly and change laws just for isolated incidences.

And I apologize to Mr. Wild, but you can see I'm pretty agitated about a situation where we're quietly allowing the FAA not to work. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, who knows what danger is around because the FAA is not functioning? Who knows what jeopardy we're putting for seniors and students and families and people trying to buy a home because we're fooling around with the debt ceiling?

So I just think we're in a pattern here. Do what you want to do and forget the heck of the American people and forget that we live in a big country and that we should be for all of the people. And if we need safety on our waterways, we need to find a way to work through our issues. I don't like the way individuals were handled. I agree on that issue.

But I certainly don't like the way we're handling our business with the debt ceiling when we are literally putting ourselves under jeopardy. And I encourage the President to do anything he needs to do to save the American people and to be able to move forward so that we don't lose all of our resources and opportunities for the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients of America. And I hope he stands up and recognizes this is a ridiculous position to be in when the FAA is not even functioning.

And my Bush Intercontinental Airport can't even continue doing its construction work, and the people who need the work are thrown out on the streets because they can't work because one lone Member wants to get up and talk about the FAA and foolishness about not protecting small airports and not allowing our airport employees or our employees such as air traffic controllers and others to be able to confer about the quality of work issues.

So I would just suggest that you might be able to find a solution, Mr. Young. I know you know all of the issues about that. We have a lot of water from where I come from. I think Mr. Dicks has put forth a perfect question and then an answer to the idea of whether or not your amendment or language would have a far-reaching impact beyond Mr. Wild and the unfortunate behavior of two individuals that I understand may not be here.

Let's look at this holistically, as we need to look at this Nation. Let's come together as adults representing the American people.

I thank the gentleman for the time. I ask support for Mr. Dicks' amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Speaker, my good friends have come to the floor of the House. My good friend just came and offered some solutions, and I would say that it's important for Members to have ideas and to be able to engage on behalf of the American people.

Every time we stand in this well, we should be rising to make the lives of the American people, those who have entrusted us to be the holders of the values of this great country, we should be moving on on their behalf. So this morning, I'm asking that we get on with it. It's important to be discussing tax reform. But as many of us know, that is a long, protracted process of give-and-take. And many Americans will understand what the payroll tax is all about when they look in the faces of their seniors and themselves and they know that part of that is Social Security. We know for a fact that Social Security has been a lifeline for millions

of Americans, and it is solvent, and it's important to know that America is not broke.

But the good work of the Ways and Means Committee and the good work of the Judiciary Committee, which is meeting right now--and I'll be heading on to that committee to talk about preventing corruption in business and making sure the American people get their fair share. It is important that we move on. And how do we move on? We do something that Americans have said by and large that they want us to do together, and that is to get past this debt ceiling, do something that has been done time after time after time.

Yes, we have grown as a Nation, and the reason is because in World War II we were not 300 million-plus people. We didn't have all the assets and responsibilities. In fact, the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan were longer than World War II, and all of those moneys were spent under the last administration. Tax cuts that for individuals who, by and large, have said, No, thank you, because they want to invest in America.

So I'm prepared to join with my many friends to work on moving this country forward, but let's move on. Let's move on beyond the impossible proposal given by Speaker Boehner that focuses on a two vote process for the debt ceiling increase and vote once then come back and fight it out again in 6 months. That is not the consistency and the evenness that is necessary for all of those who are seeking employment or all of those businesses or all of those in the arena of money making. They need an even pathway, they need consistency for the markets.

We need to get on with the ordinary business so that we can begin to talk about the growth of this country, education for the young people, making sure the doors of businesses stay open, talk about how do we fix a tax system where we all can benefit. But as long as we are wallowing in the ordinary work, the work that should just go on, we will never reach the point of sanity, which is to sit down at the table of reconciliation and compromise. I know we have it in us. We like each other. But it appears to the American people that we may not like them.

So I will just ask, we're nearing the resolution of the debt ceiling, again, to pay the bills that were built up between 2000 and 2008, billions of dollars spent in Afghanistan, billions lost in untoward contracts. We don't even know where the moneys have gone--Iraq, moneys lost; a war that was, in essence, a detour.

And let me just say, every time I say that, I always thank our soldiers and their families because they are not a detour. They accepted the call to duty, and we owe them a great deal of appreciation.

But the policymakers sent them into wars that are going on and on and on, and it caused this country to pay for these wars. At the same time, there are drastic draconian cuts in the revenue coming into the United States bank account.

So here we are, President Clinton having left in 2000 with $500 billion of surplus; we came out of 2008 in enormous debt. So what are we doing today? The debt ceiling is simply saying pay America's bills. And it's also saying to the many countries around the world--which we appreciate buying our Treasury notes. That is of value to the United States. The dollar has been stronger than any other currency, except the manipulation that goes on in China. But it's stronger than the euro.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is important to pass the debt ceiling, get past this frivolity of doing it twice. It is time to pass and move forward the Reid proposal which can bring all of us together. And that's what we should do, begin to do, and look at it on behalf of the American people. America should pay its bills.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am glad I'm able to rise and speak about legislation that involves one of our closest allies, Canada, and because this is a relationship with Canada, and because it is an international issue, I'm assured that in the process, we will have significant oversight that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General who will have to comment on this application before the conclusion and the final decision. That is good news.

I also think it's important, as we discuss what the potential of this relationship is and the opportunity for oil coming from a friendly neighbor, to be reminded that many of us have said over and over again that we must cease to rely upon foreign oil.

In fact, in a Senate hearing when Egypt was beginning to, in essence, explode, Members said, watch Egypt, and we must lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously Egypt is not one of our major sources of energy, but they were beginning to see the ripple effect in the Mideast of what has been called the Arab Spring. For many of us, we realize that it is a long, long winter as our friends in the Mideast seek peace. So this is an important statement about our commitment to creating jobs, but also it is an important statement on relieving or ceasing the dependence of the United States on foreign oil.

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

But I don't choose to be selfish in my amendment, and my amendment is a sense of Congress that says that it is the sense of Congress that the United States must decrease its dependence on oil from countries that are hostile to the interests of the United States and that Canada has been a strong trading partner, and increasing access to their energy resources will help create jobs in the United States. If I were to add to that, I would say continue the strong relationship between the United States and Canada.

In addition, I think it is important to note that the President of the United States has indicated that we should decrease our reliance on foreign oil.

In this instance, I believe that we are making an effort toward that. Do I believe that we should, in essence, cross our environmental Ts? Absolutely. So I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

I thank the gentleman very much for his agreement.

Let me give a famous quote: ``Can we all get along?'' I mentioned the different agencies that will have oversight. I have listened to a number of concerns about safety, security, and health. I frankly believe we can do it all. We can increase jobs here up to 300,000 and we can pay attention to the issues of environmental safety and security.

I think it will be important for TransCanada to be able to address the question of spills, important for there to be discussions about protecting against toxic chemicals, important to disarm farmers--when I say disarm them, about fears about the pipeline in their area.

I've worked on pipelines. I know there is a lot of work that goes into construction, a lot of overall State laws that regulate the building. And so putting forward more safety procedures and standards, being concerned about the public health, and making sure that we address the concerns of all Americans is an important step.

But I think we have a bottom line here: the importance of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and as well to be able to ensure that jobs are created here in America. That's what we are sent to Congress to do: to create these jobs, to stand alongside our neighbors and make sure they have a safe environment while they work, and produce an economy that is known only to America, the greatest economy in the world.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment #6 to H.R. 1938 ``North American Made Energy Security Act,'' expressing the sense of Congress that it is imperative that we decrease our dependency on oil from nations hostile to our national interest. Canada has long been a strong trading partner, and increased access to their energy resources will create jobs in the United States.

I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX, our Nation's energy capital. I understand the vital role that the oil and gas industry plays in our economy and will continue to play in the future. Our nation needs a concrete and viable strategy for gaining independence from foreign oil and gas sources. These strategies need balance on the one hand this pipeline will create jobs and on the other we must weigh the costs associated. Upon careful and deliberate considerations of our energy needs, our need for jobs, and our need to protect our national security will result in finding a comprehensive energy strategy that works.

Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation. I understand the need to put the hard- working people of the Gulf region back to work, and I believe it can be done in compromise with The Department of Interior. We have all heard the famous phrase ``can't we all just get along.'' I believe that we can get along.

I have consistently brought attention to our dependence on oil coming from nations in the Middle East who are in turmoil and have shifting views of the United States. I offer this amendment to call attention to the national security implications of our continued dependency on foreign oil imports. I also, offer this amendment to draw attention to the need to create jobs here in the United States.

The United States imports 49% of all the oil we use. In 2010, 16% of oil imports came from OPEC countries in Africa and South America, with another 9% coming from OPEC nations in the Persian Gulf. Relying on oil imports from hostile regions greatly weakens our energy security.

A variety of events have caused increases in the price of oil over the last decade. In 2003, strikes shut down oil production in Venezuela, increasing oil prices of other OPEC nations. A 2004 terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia caused a sudden increase in oil prices, as did militant attacks in Nigeria in 2003, 2007 and 2008.

With the current political unrest brought by the Arab Spring, our oil supply is constantly threatened by hostile nations, and circumstances beyond our control. Oil is an integral part of the U.S. economy. 40% of the nation's total energy requirements are met by oil, including 94% of the energy used in transportation, and 41% of the energy used by the industrial sector.

Increases in the price of oil affect average American consumers as well as industry. Last week, the average price of gas in Houston ranged from $3.57 to $3.85, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's weekly retail gasoline index.

Increasing the amount of oil imported from Canada is beneficial to both our energy security and economy. Canada provides a far more stable source of oil than many of the OPEC countries, and importing Canadian oil often yields investment in U.S. infrastructure.

Additionally, Canada has been a longtime ally of the United States, and an important trading partner. In fact, the U.S. and Canada represent the world's largest two-way trading

relationship, and for every U.S. dollar spent on Canadian products, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the U.S. economy.

In addition to providing a stable and reliable energy source, the Keystone pipeline XL, which we are considering in H.R. 1938, will generate $20 billion of private sector investment in the U.S. economy, as well as $585 million in new taxes for states and communities along the pipeline route.

The American oil and gas industry are inextricably linked to our economy, and we must take steps to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the energy sector. According to an independent review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and its potential economic impact, during the construction period the pipeline will stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy, spur the creation of 118,000 jobs and generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes for the states along the pipeline route. When Keystone XL is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the pipeline, according to the analysis.

However, there are some aspects of the legislation that require further review. I am particularly concerned about the implications of Congress legislating to force a decision of executive authority, as well as the environmental risks that may be associated with the pipeline.

As a Representative of Houston, the nation's energy capital, I certainly understand the importance of the energy industry with regard to our economy. The energy sector creates jobs, and increased energy production is good for the economy, but I do have reservations about the precedent set by this legislation. Ordinarily, we do not require a permit for constructing oil pipelines. However, any pipeline that connects the United States and another country is subject to executive permission, conveyed through a Presidential permit. Historically, any pipeline crossing international borders has required executive permission by way of a Presidential permit. Executive Order 13337 designates the Secretary of State as able to receive applications for Presidential permits. TransCanada submitted its permit applications to the Department of State in September of 2008. Environmental impact review has been underway since January of 2009, and has included public comment periods with extensions for additional input from impacted communities. The State Department is afforded primary jurisdiction over the proposal for the pipeline and expects to make a decision by the end of the year. Forcing the State Department and President Obama to render a decision before completing a thorough review is in no one's interest. Currently several agencies have worked together to determine the feasibility of this pipeline.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be released by the EPA in August, at which time, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, along with the Attorney General, and EPA Administrator will be asked for their views.

It is imperative that we achieve energy independence; we cannot continue to rely on foreign sources of oil from regions of the world which are unstable, and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence.

We must encourage the development of innovative new technologies that create jobs; we must focus on reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, and increasing production of clean and renewable energy sources to truly modernize our infrastructure.

Yet, oil and gas companies provide jobs and serve a valuable need, and must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for achieving energy independence. We need new solutions, but they must strike a balance that will support continued growth in the oil and gas industry.

However, we must also carefully examine any project that impacts the environment to prevent lasting harmful effects to the nation and the planet. Before a decision is rendered on the current Keystone pipeline XL project, it is essential the proposal be thoroughly reviewed, and all environmental impact be evaluated.

We can work together to find a solution to our energy concerns upon which we can all agree. We can take the time to educate farmers who have valid concerns. We can brief environmental groups and seek their input from the planning stages to the implementation of the Process. We must not forget that the Canadian people also have an interest in protecting their environment. Certain parts of Canada are known for their pristine landscapes and nature conservatories. We must be prepared to advance and listen to the environmental concerns raised in the United States and Canada. We must protect both our citizens and the citizens of Canada.

The pipeline considered in this legislation transports tar sands oil, a high polluting fuel that produces high rates of carbon emissions. We must consider the potential for leaks and explosions that will release harmful toxins into the environment.

I am confident that both parties can find ways to work with the energy industry, the Administration, and other stakeholders to forge a compromise that will protect the environment without an adverse impact on the industry or consumers.

Rome was not built in a day; however, it was built on the backs of hard workers. At a time when our citizens seeking employment, many are struggling to live from one check to the next, it is imperative to review opportunities presented to us that will create a significant amount of jobs. We must utilize the technology and the resources we have at hand to advance our understanding of how to effectively process and use energy. We must acknowledge that we need energy. Our need for energy requires a comprehensive energy plan that will create jobs and decrease our dependence on countries that are hostile to our interests and indeed to our national security.

The oil resources currently available in Alberta, Canada are second to those available in Saudi Arabia. No one can argue that against the preference of getting oil from a stable country rather than from countries that are constantly in turmoil.

Canada has been our longest and strongest trading partner. Our countries share a common boarder and a common language. The sky will not fall if we build a pipeline. There is no doubt that we have all learned from the damage that can result by accidents caused by poor oversight.

I have thought about both the pros and the cons. I have carefully studied this issue. I believe that we must use the technology of today to advance the technology of the future. A lot has been made today of the recent pipeline explosion--has anyone asked why it occurred? How to prevent it from happening again?

Today, we are faced with looking at ways to decrease our dependence on oil from nations that are hostile to our interests. I support firmly advancing, if not this pipeline, then access to the oil resources in Canada. We must look at the thousands of jobs that can be created. There is .3 billion in revenue that can be generated. In the greater Houston area which has suffered so much job loss this will add thousands of jobs.

The arguments made have been balanced ones; however, when placed in context, when balanced against the need for working parents to have jobs that will feed their children during a time of economic crisis, then we must consider all options. I have long been and will continue to be a champion of the environment. Groups who have championed the environment are the very watchdogs we need to ensure its safety. At this time, our relationship with Canada merits careful and deliberative consideration.

We must consider all of the aspects of this legislation, and I offer this amendment to express the Sense of Congress that, despite how we will individually vote on H.R. 1938, we are committed to reducing our dependency on foreign oil from hostile regions, or those that oppose the interests of the United States.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make very clear to the American people that we are dedicated to finding stable energy sources, reducing fuel costs, and creating jobs.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, we are in some tough times, but I believe it's important to have a structure in this government that provides oversight over the environment of this country. And however one may quarrel with regulations that may seem a little steep, the work of the Environmental Protection Agency is important. And as we stand here today, this legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut in funding for

FY 2011. Thirty-four percent. This is unacceptable.

In order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise, instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget. These cuts purposely limit the EPA's ability to ensure that all Americans have access to drinking water that does not contain harmful pathogens and toxins that expose Americans to serious risk such as typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage.

The assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our drinking water. This bill also takes drastic steps to weaken the Clean Air Act. A rider is attached that will prevent the EPA from implementing the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that was implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 cases of aggregated asthma.

I've never seen an EPA director work as hard as Administrator Lisa Jackson. Although we have had some outstanding administrators, she has worked to work with Members across the aisle.

But these cuts reduce funding for the very programs that keep Americans, our constituents safe. And I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I cannot afford to have these cuts impact the people of Houston and around the Nation.

Since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. And so it is important that we find a way to increase the funding for the EPA. And as this bill makes its way through the floor, I am continuing to work to do so. And I start first with this effort. And I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Let me explain to you about the Old Acres Home Citizens Council. This is a historic African American community located in Houston, Texas. The Council partnered with the University of Texas to conduct a study to assess the community's health risk. It was determined that a local landfill could be the cause for the community's health-related problems, enormous cancer in that area.

As a result of the study, the Council was awarded a $20,000 grant from the EPA Justice Small Grants Program, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund, which, obviously, it was in some years past to conduct tests to detect, assess, and evaluate the risk to human health from hazardous substances. The goal of these Small Grants Program evaluation projects was to investigate whether there were hazardous substances in the runoff from the adjacent landfill. This community needed those resources. The Council used the EPA grant funds to hire an EPA-approved environmental consultant to take soil and water samples from the backyards. The results of the sample analysis revealed high concentrations of toxic substances, many of which are harmful to humans.

Since 2002, the residents of Old Acres homes have observed water and substances seeping from the landfill into their back yards. This runoff collects into pools of standing water. Due to poor drainage, these standing pools became engorged and then flood, thereby increasing exposure of residences to potentially hazardous substances from the landfill.

This was the work of the EPA. It educated a poor community of seniors and others about the conditions of their neighborhood. This funding that takes away from EPA also takes away from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and, of course, impacts communities like that of the Acres Home Community in the 18th Congressional District.

My friends, we cannot gamble with the safety of the American public, the cleanliness of air and water, the quality of the environment for future generations. We need to restore this funding, and I have made this effort to do so. I will continue to do so.

Since the debt limit was put in place, we have always paid America's bills. We fight today to raise the debt ceiling, but at the same time we're cutting away at America's safety and America's need for environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Acres Home Community in Houston, Texas.

With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, I didn't thank both you and the ranking member for a very tough task, and I think my overall intent was the need for increasing the funding in EPA.

As we make our way through this process, does the gentleman see, in the consultation with the other body, any opportunity to restore any of these funds to the EPA?

If the gentleman will yield again, I am going to continue to work on this issue. I know that we're going to take a vote on this. I, as they say, will come back again on the floor, because I think this is a very important issue.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to allow me to again express how important it is that the EPA be funded more fully than it has been.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 53: Page 65, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $5,500,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, my good friend did what many of us did, my neighbor in Louisiana. I went home to Texas, and interacted with so many constituents, many of them asking the question: Why? I believe it's important to ask the question: Why not?

Let me tell you, my friends, that we don't need to politicize the debt ceiling, which has been raised many, many times, but we do need to tell the truth: for if the debt ceiling is not raised, trillions of dollars will be lost, not of those of us who sit on this floor, but from the portfolios and packages for seniors and 401(k)s.

If you want to talk about $1 trillion, talk about what will be lost to our seniors and hardworking Americans in collapsing their 401(k)s. There is no option. There is not an option for the short term. That's a joke. That's politics to start us back again in April or March. Let's go forward with the proposed Reid plan. Let's get a deficit reduction; raise the debt ceiling; cut what we can and go into regular order. That is the responsible, adult way to go.

America is watching. America is looking. I am not going to stand by while trillions of dollars are lost. I ask my Republican friends to join us in a reasoned response to America's concerns.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Colleagues, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just wanted to start by acknowledging the loss of our valiant Capitol Police, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson, who were honored today. I just wanted to acknowledge the men and women of the United States Capitol Police for their service, and my sympathy again to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.

I also wanted to make note of my worshipping with the Norwegian Seamen's Church yesterday in Houston and let the Norwegian people and the people of Norway, of course, know that America stands with them during this very difficult time.

I thought it was appropriate to acknowledge those tragedies because it is a time when we have had to come together. And I also believe that as we look at where we are today, this should be an opportunity for us to be able to come together. So I'm disappointed in this legislation because it really does not seem to call us to do that.

I want to remind America and my colleagues that we are 50 States, but there are times when we act on behalf of our States and districts and there are times when it is important to exist as a single nation.

One single State did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor; we came together. One State on its own or one region did not end segregation and establish civil rights; we did it together.

There are times when the stakes are so high that we simply must unite. And so I raise the question of: Where are we with this bill that seems to attack both clean air and clean water by repealing requirements that prevent pesticides sprayed from chemical companies from entering rivers and streams?

I come from the energy sector, and I believe that the energy sector creates jobs. I also believe that we can be a good neighbor, strong in our domestic development and production, but also concerned about clean air, clean water and the environment.

When you listen to those who have worked in this area for so long, you hear opposition from the Wilderness Society that says this Interior bill is an extreme assault on America's bedrock--environmental protection; the Clean Water Network that says these severe spending and budgetary cuts in this bill include not only cuts but a series of policy riders, really having no place in the appropriations process; and the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, these budget cuts and/or policy riders would impact EPA's ability to do their job.

I don't know if our Members realize that in 2011 we cut 16 percent from the EPA; now we want to cut 18 percent, over $1.5 billion. That cripples the very agency that protects our water and our air, protects our children and our elderly.

What is the response to our responsibility to be the custodians of this wonderful Nation? What a beautiful country we have. And then to hear that another one-third is being cut from the National Landscape and Conservation System that does monuments and trails and our wild rivers. How many families pack up in times that are hard and take those family members on a road trip to travel the beauty of this Nation--the tall mountains, the deep valleys, and the wonderful rivers?

Well, let me tell you what this legislation will do. It will be a bill with a litany of additional cuts, important for programs that cut climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is a program that, in essence, assaults what we're trying to do here in America.

How many friends know that we have been able to prevent 230,000 deaths each year by regulating toxins in the air? We've already heard my colleagues come to the floor of the House and talk about the rising increase in many cities of asthma.

So let me make it very clear: We want to create jobs. I have joined together where we can deregulate and de-entangle the regulations that would keep us from creating jobs. But I also believe that when it comes to protecting the Nation's assets, we join together as Republicans and Democrats.

I remind you that none of this creates jobs. I remind you that we have already engaged in these cuts. Isn't it interesting that in regular order we are now doing, even though there is disagreement, what our friends on the other side of the aisle said they can't do? That's why they're not raising the debt ceiling. But I will tell you that these draconian cuts, along with the draconian debate on the debt ceiling, is what is going to undermine America.

Let's stand as Americans unified to fix this crisis.

First, I would like to thank my friends in the Congressional Progressive Caucus who are here today to stand up for the environment, and the health of our constituents. I am saddened that so many of my Republican friends are willing to sacrifice the quality of the very air we breathe, and water that we drink.

This harmful legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut in funding for FY 2011. This is unacceptable; in order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget.

The cuts to the EPA budget included in the bill reduce funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, grants for state implementation of environmental programs, and restorative funding for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound.

The Administration estimates that cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund will cut off funding for nearly 400 wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, resulting in thousands of lost jobs.

These cuts purposefully limit the EPA's ability to ensure that all Americans have access to drinking water that does not contain harmful pathogens and toxins that expose Americans to serious risks, such as typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage.

This legislation has attached several riders to further undermine the Clean Water Act, by repealing requirements that prevent pesticides sprayed by chemical companies from entering rivers and streams, and stopping the EPA from treating coal ash as hazardous waste.

The assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our drinking water; this bill also takes drastic steps to weaken the Clean Air Act. A rider is attached that will prevent the EPA from implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that was implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthmas.

As a Representative of the 18th District of Houston, I am firmly committed to protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and

the land we need for our survival. 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. Those regulations should be of course fair while doing the job they are intended to do.

But, my friends, the disregard this bill shows for the health of the American people does not stop there. Another rider prohibits the EPA from finalizing regulations to reduce mercury emissions from factories. There is no reason why Energy, jobs creation and the environment cannot work harmoniously.

Not only does this legislation irresponsibly eradicate life saving provisions of the Clean Air and Water Acts, it also cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) budget by 78 percent. The LWCF funds many park and outdoor recreation areas that contribute over $700 billion to the economy and facilitate 6.5 million jobs.

This bill makes a litany of additional cuts to important programs that cut climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is full of perks for special interest, and reduces our ability to facilitate the upkeep of National Parks, protect the Grand Canyon, and add species to the endangered species list.

I am outraged that my friends on the other side of the aisle would consider passing this legislation that compromises our access to healthy air and clean water; that reverses EPA regulations that were implemented to save lives. Public lands, national parks, the air, the water, the wildlife in this nation belongs to everyone, and I cannot support a bill that trades the quality of these precious resources for benefits to big business and special interest groups.

There are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, nation. One single 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. There are times when the stakes are too high, when we must unite as states and act as one.

Our Nation's parks are maintained by the National Park Service. The Park Service is responsible for preserving, restoring, and maintaining our Nation's monuments for the enjoyment of all Americans.

Recently, the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial has joined other historic sites on our Nation's Mall. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his life in the pursuit of a dream. His ``I Have a Dream'' speech has been read and heard by millions of men, women, and children around the world.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial is one of many cherished sites honoring men and women who have advanced the society we know today; historic sites that include Freedman town and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. When the Republicans cut the National Park Service, they cut our ability to maintain and preserve our Nation's monuments.

The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic site is operated by the National Park Service (under U.S. Department of the Interior). This legislation contains $2.5 billion for the NPS, which is $132 million below last year's level. Operation of the National Park System is funded at $2.2 billion, which is $10 million below FY 2011 enacted levels. This funding will allow all National Parks to remain open and NPS activities to continue through next year without furloughs or reductions in full time or seasonal employees. These cuts result in the loss of jobs and the loss of our Nation's cherished and prized history.

The EPA has a broad responsibility, for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems. There has been a systematic effort to tie the hands of the EPA's ability to protect our environment and thereby protect the long term health of our Nation. Cuts to the EPA are just another means to bring down the agency. The EPA can keep our environment safe without hindering job creations. There are many critics out there who despise the EPA because they say that it is a burden to economic growth. I say that this is nonsense, for healthy populations are the foundation for prosperity.

Let us not forget what happened in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 1980s, where numerous families were afflicted with cancer as a result of toxins being placed in the water. It was the work of brilliant lawyers in conjunction with the EPA who proved that the chemical entities involved deliberately placed toxins in the water.

Let us also not forget The Love Canal of the 1970s near Niagara Falls either. In this region, scores of women had miscarriages and many more were contaminated from chemical wastes in the water. Are supporters of this bill encouraging our country to go back to a time when these problems were common?

Because the issues associated with Woburn and the Love Canal are well in the past, supporters of cuts to the EPA must feel that the water people drink is perfectly safe to drink and does not need to be regulated. Just last year in the small town of Crestwood, outside of Chicago, it was discovered that town officials were secretly introducing tainted well water into the town water supply for years. The people were told that the water came from Lake Michigan. When the story broke, the Department of Public Health conducted a survey of disease rates and found that men in the town had high rates of kidney and gastrointestinal cancer. I, for one, will not tolerate this and I know the American people will not tolerate this as well. The American people will not tolerate the fear of turning on their faucets and wondering whether or not the water coming out has lead, plutonium, or wastes from chemical entities.

Protecting the quality of our air and water, protecting the health of each and every one of our constituents, is an example of a time when Congress must consider the implications beyond our districts and our states.

Surely preventing 230,000 deaths each year by regulating toxins in the air, and ensuring that millions will not lose their access to healthy drinking water is not controversial. I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents they represent, and take essential steps to protect the environment. Until that time, I cannot, and will not, support this damaging legislation.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I want to join my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on which I also serve, to note the uniqueness of our times. There's a point that I think is very important about the continuity of existing FBI Director Mueller; and that is that we live not only in dangerous times, but we also live in times where resources are being strained. Questions are being raised about the resources necessary for law enforcement; and certainly a leader who understands the broad needs of the American public and the collaborative needs, collaborating with other law enforcement because of past experiences, is very important.

Mr. Mueller, in his 10 years, has had collaborative efforts with all of the Federal law enforcement agencies and has opened up a dialogue between local and State law enforcement agencies. Just ask New York to tell you how important that is; ask Texas or a number of our other large States with assets that are in the eye of the storm of potential terrorist acts.

So I join with my colleagues and acknowledge the leadership of the President for asking the FBI Director to stay for 2 extra years and that this does not undermine the 10-year term that is by law. I ask colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1103, a bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Director Robert Mueller has shown extraordinary leadership, and made fundamental changes to the FBI for the better protection of the American people.

Director Mueller has a long and distinguished history of public service. After completing college, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Director Mueller served as the Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco, and prosecuted cases of financial fraud, corruption and terrorism as the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, before being named U.S. Attorney in San Francisco.

President Bush nominated Mr. Mueller as the sixth FBI Director on September 4, 2001, just one week prior to the attacks of September 11. Director Mueller has since led the Bureau in modernizing its approach to law enforcement, and developed an intelligence driven organization with a focus on prevention. By centralizing intelligence management, and coordinating intelligence and counterterrorism efforts, Director Mueller has improved the effectiveness of his agency.

Over the last ten years, Director Mueller has overseen the transformation of the FBI, from a reactive investigatory agency, to a far more proactive bureau that uses intelligence to seek out threats before they materialize. His visionary leadership has increased collaboration between the FBI and other intelligence gathering agencies, including foreign partners, established partnerships between the bureau, businesses, private industry stakeholders, and the general public, and greatly increased communication between FBI field offices and state and local law enforcement bodies.

During his tenure leading the agency, Director Mueller has increased resources to combat the threat of terrorism, without neglecting its other duties. Just last week, the FBI arrested 16 individuals for engaging in cyber attacks. Last Thursday, the FBI, along with the Drug Enforcement Agency, and other Federal law enforcement bodies, arrested over 70 individuals connected with La Familia Michoacana, one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. Additionally, in the past week, FBI efforts led to indictments on charges of drug trafficking, international kidnapping and coercion, and human trafficking.

Under Director Mueller's leadership, the FBI has made unprecedented improvements to face the challenges of hatred and global terrorism; the agency has thwarted a plot to detonate a bomb in the Sears Tower, arrested individuals engaged in a massive recruiting effort to attract young people to jihadist groups, and stopped an attack on Fort Dix. Director Mueller and his agency have achieved these, and a litany of other accomplishments, without asking for applause or recognition.

The FBI is America's primary federal agency responsible for investigating and preventing acts of terrorism. Now, more than ever, when we are faced with aggression from an enemy intent on destroying our way of life, the leader of the FBI must be able to meet the challenges ahead. The future of our nation is not entirely of our choosing; we are faced with an assault on our principles and freedoms we did not seek to galvanize, and a confrontation with intolerance and evil we did not expect. With strategic and forward looking leaders like Director Mueller, we will overcome these challenges.

As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I agree with the President's recommendation that extending Director Mueller's term for two additional years will greatly benefit our national security. I am pleased at the bipartisan support that this legislation has received.

I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. And let me thank you for persisting in discussing these issues with our colleagues. You have been determined, and your leadership has caused us to have this, I think, very thoughtful discussion more often than not.

I'm also pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Virginia, who has developed tenure on these issues dealing with the budget and has always been helpful, Mr. Scott, on really sort of getting us through the weeds.

And in an hour or two, or approximately an hour and a half maybe, the President will speak to the Nation. And I believe that this President truly appreciates democracy and, frankly, has no problem with coming to the American people in a straightforward and honest manner.

But it really is important I think to educate ourselves, to educate our colleagues, because with all the chatter, it seems as if they've lost their way.

Soon after the President speaks tonight--I believe around 9 o'clock-- Mr. Boehner will come forward. But if our Republican friends come forward, are they coming forward with facts? Will they educate the American people to inform them that the debt ceiling has been raised 100 times before? Will they educate the American people that probably for the first time in 2011 they have actually put ``debt ceiling'' in your vocabulary. Now it's going to be highlighted in Webster's dictionary. Most Americans did not know that terminology, but I think those of us who remember our history and those who studied the Constitution--even those of us who are lawyers remember the importance of studying the Constitution, and will always remember the words the ``full faith and credit of the United States.'' Even in difficult days that keeps the country going. Why? Because the world buys America's Treasury notes. They buy it willingly and openly and excitedly, which means that our dollar is strong and that people are happily holding on to the Treasury note, again, because they believe that America will never default on her debt.

Now if you wanted to get more detailed, I'd refer you to the 14th Amendment, section 4. There's a lot of chatter about what it means, but the clear language says that the public debt shall not be questioned. Of course it lists wars and other issues that occurred in the historical perspective of that amendment, but scholars have not formed opposition to the thought--hardcore opposition--that it also lives today and really means that we must recognize the public debt and pay our bills. So full faith and credit and a constitutional premise for doing what we should do.

So why don't we just move forward so that on August 2, or even before that, we will not have to face our seniors looking for their Social Security check, or maybe even visit a nursing home, as I have done over the last 2 weeks and before, and see seniors who are able to pay their way, but others who are on Medicaid. So I don't think that we should suggest that this is a drama and a dramatization to say that some seniors will be put out on the curb because they depend upon Medicaid. Even those who worked but had jobs that did not allow them to have a 401(k) or long-term care, they depend upon Medicaid.

And as we look at the plan that we will hear tonight, it's been put on the Web site by Speaker Boehner, there is a great deal of fear that Social Security--or apprehension might be the word that we want to use--that really the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security safety net are in the eye of the storm. And so when you look at no tax hikes-- which we have heard a number of people raise their voices on that, and I think it should be noted that the Obama administration and this Democratic leadership in the last Congress gave tax cuts over and over again, and particularly gave tax cuts to the working and middle class. The stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, gave tax cuts. But how do you truly say to the American people that we're trying to do what you do, which is to tighten your belts, that is, looking realistically at the right kinds of cuts--and most economists will tell you that the cuts should be long range. They tell you it makes no sense to talk about cuts overnight. In fact, it's unrealistic. The family sits at the kitchen table trying to balance their books. It is almost impossible for them, in the next 24 hours, to have a total change. They have to, over a measured period of time--maybe someone gets another job, maybe someone finds an increased amount of wages, and then they, over time, cut their budget and begin to pay bills. America has to pay its bills right now. But over the timeframe, we need to look for ways to raise revenue.

So let me just share with you: A friend of ours, a colleague, Congressman Bishop has shared this very potent poster that is very easy to understand. We need to allow those tax cuts for a small percentage of the American public--and this is not a class warfare situation. I believe it is important for people to enjoy their wealth, to create wealth, to create jobs, but this is what we call equal sacrifice, accepting the burden of being an American, rising to the cause when you're called upon to serve. No one can compare to the men and women right now as we stand here that are on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one can compare to families who are welcoming flag- draped coffins home right now because their soldiers died on the battlefield. We can't compare to that. But right now America needs all of us, and she needs us to stand up and be counted.

And so there are wealthy persons like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who for a long period of time indicated that these tax cuts need to expire. Here is the revenue right here. There are 30,000 households that report incomes of more than $1 million. One day of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires expiring gives us $120 million. That may provide the resources for our national parks and wildlife. It may as well shore up hospitals that really depend upon Medicare reimbursement. It might help in a military family's pay increase. Then of course if you take one week of allowing those tax cuts to expire, here is revenue to the Federal Government--here you get $857 million. That is one week. Just a reminder, in terms of moneys that were spent, we created 3 million jobs--and I'll get to that. I think I'm going to hold that point because I want you to see the difference--$857 million comes in for one week. That's Pell grants for our students; that's allowing research at the NIH for cancer, cures for cancer and as well for heart disease, stroke, neurological disease; payments for those suffering from mental health needs.

And then if you just go 1 month of the expiration of the Bush cuts, you have $3.43 billion. Now in the Recovery and Reinvestment, the President, because of the crisis he faced--which was none of the Clinton surplus was left; it was all gone because of two unpaid wars-- he had to come in and save us. So about $800 billion in the Recovery Act put 3 million jobs on the table. It created 3 million jobs. Just imagine what would happen if those tax cuts expired. We would have $3.43 billion, and we would have the opportunity to multiply that, which I think goes in about six times--math on the floor of the House-- a little less than that, four times. It would create 4 times 3 million: 12 million jobs--real quick math here.

So the question is, and let me reverse that math because I see Bobby Scott looking up. I thought it was 343; it's only 3. So I won't do any math on the floor of the House, but I will say that it will create jobs. Because we had $800 billion--I was reading that as $343 billion. So it was $3.43, and then if we do 1 year of Bush cuts, it will be $41 billion. And so we can take a portion of the $800 billion and we can see the jobs that will be created by $3 billion and $41 billion.

What I will say to you, my friends, is that the announcement that is going to be made by the Speaker doesn't give us that flexibility. It truly undermines the safety network of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but it also puts in some elements that clearly undermine the running of this country.

A balanced budget amendment is not realistic for the United States because the Federal Government takes care of 50 States, not just one. And our friends will tell us that these States have balanced budgets. It's okay when you're

taking care of one household, but if you're taking care of 300 million households plus, when that particular State that needs the Federal Government--like Missouri during the horrible tornados, or Alabama, or the floods, or any other manmade or natural disaster--they want us to be able to help them. A balanced budget amendment would not allow that.

And then the caps to control spending do not allow the discretion to be able to make priorities when priorities are necessary.

The last point I want to make about what our Speaker will be announcing tonight to calm the markets is that this is going to be a bifurcated process. Let me say to my colleagues, if you are having fun now, just think about 4 months from now or 6 months. We will have to go through this again. Another debate about the debt ceiling. And I remind you, we have raised it 100 times before. Most Americans have never heard of it because we worked with the Presidents, like President Reagan who in 1983 wrote his own Republican Senate majority leader, Senator Baker, and said you cannot not pass the debt ceiling. It is incalculable to think of America defaulting on her bills.

So here we go with a proposal that would cause us to have to vote twice in a 6-month period. What does that mean? It means that a young couple trying to buy a house sees a surge in their interest rate. It means if you have a credit card, it may be defunct only because you cannot afford to pay the surging interest rate. Fees for you to buy a house might skyrocket. Housing costs might go up. Houses might stop being built.

So I would simply ask my colleagues today: let's be Americans. Let's look at what we can do together. Just allow these tax cuts to expire and allow us to be able to calculate this amount of money. And, again, $3.43 billion and $41 billion makes a difference in the lives of Americans.

So I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for allowing me to share some thoughts and to hopefully dispel some myths, and also some fears. It is $14.3 trillion. It is a big number, but economists will tell you that America is not broke. It's not broken, either. It is at a stage when we need to come together to raise this debt ceiling and go back into regular order.

Whether I agree or disagree with what the House Republicans bring forward in the appropriation process, we can hassle that out on the floor of the House. But we will allow America to pay her bills. And soldiers on the battlefield will not fear that grandparents are not getting their Social Security, or worrying about their family members getting compensation that they are truly due because of the sacrifice that their loved ones are making on behalf this Nation. I believe America is going to stand up and be counted.

Will the gentleman yield?

I think you said playing politics. Is that the same as a schoolyard game of playing chicken? And in the course of what you just said, is there any light for creating jobs in this approach that is being taken, where you have no revenue and you have cuts, with no plan? I see no opportunity for creating jobs.

To add to what my colleague just said, we are also in a climate of fighting against terrorism, and in order to secure the homeland, you have to make choices about how you invest, so I have a different opinion. I think, if you invest money, you get innovation and you get jobs; and none of what has been said by Speaker Boehner says anything about innovation, jobs, and he has no, seemingly, understanding of the importance of securing the homeland.

Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to call upon Congress to pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling so that we can avoid economic disaster and continue to work for the American people in repairing our economy and creating jobs.

While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support any measure that unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles.

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. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be avoided until August 2nd.

Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations.

We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For foreign nations and investors, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing out debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology.

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.

In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well.

The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, some of my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts.

While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised.

This detour into a spending debate 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. Raising the debt limit simply matches the amount the United States is allowed to borrow to the amount it already owes.

Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund.

If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Credit rating agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poors stand ready to downgrade the triple A rating that America currently enjoys.

Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay them back. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors.

Furthermore, any investors who continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on.

Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. With uncertainty still lingering in the markets and in the minds of citizens, we must not allow another wild fluctuation in the markets to occur due to default.

One of the major reasons that the job market continues to remain so stagnant is the fact that the flow of credit to small businesses that enables them to hire and expand has slowed.

Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They knew that the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'' was not a realistic proposal and that it was not going to pass the Senate. They just wanted to waste time.

Mr. Speaker, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, I believe that Congress should increase the debt ceiling to meet the obligations the United States has already promised to undertake. By refusing to do so, it endangers our economy and the recovery of our jobs.

Last week Republicans introduced the ``Cut, Cap and Balance Act'' which I aptly named the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' Because it tap danced around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our nation's debt obligations. That bill would have forced our nation to join a losers club as it would have eliminated important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. The theme for the Republicans seems to be a focus on cutting programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on Job creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children, seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our nation in the future. The ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' was just a distraction and now we have the opportunity to once again get serious about raising our debt. We can not continue to waste a tremendous amount of time. The Deadline is right around the corner. The American people cannot have a government that is the embodiment of living check to check. We must do something NOW!

For a moment think about the American people. Step back and envision the faces of those who will be impacted if we are not successful in finding common ground. They are the faces of the the elderly who will not receive their social security payments. They are the faces of children and infants who will not receive their WIC benefits. They are the faces of hardworking every day Americans, including the multitudes of poor working families who will not be able to receive the benefits they need from government run programs that are keeping them from falling into homelessness. When you think of our future, also see our present. Without raising this debt limit we are putting the present and the future of Americans at risk.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 47: Page 14, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $2,500,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 48: Page 14, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $3,500,000)''.

Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $2,500,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 49: Page 14, line 19, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert

``(decreased by $3,000,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 50: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation