Floor Statements

Let me thank the gentleman from Florida. He has certainly awakened a number of issues and Members on his important discussion, and I wanted to join in his commentary.

Mr. Speaker, we will be leaving shortly, and I'm glad that we will be returning on Monday for very serious business. Many of us have been in meetings today, engaging in solutions rather than distractions as relates to the business of the American people. None of us have experienced, I believe, the attention to the issue of the budget as much as we've had that attention now from our constituents on, will the debt ceiling be raised? There has not been a time in these past couple of weeks that I've gone home when businesspersons, students, seniors, working families have not asked the question: Will we get it done? I am an optimist, and I've said to them, Yes, I expect that.

In fact, I've already gotten it done.

I voted on the clean debt ceiling raise, or lift, some many weeks ago, and that was the right thing to do. The reason is that, over the last couple of decades, we have had 60-plus increases in the debt ceiling, starting with Ronald Reagan, including Bush I and Bush II, President Clinton, and President Carter. It's interesting that, for some reason, the tension in this discussion has really gone beyond understanding.

Let me be very clear. We have had such an intense couple of months that we have not had the opportunity, really, to engage as Members of Congress. Our committees have been fairly tense and rapid. Our schedules have been such that we've been here one week and gone the next. I know that there are new Members of the 87 members of the Republican Conference with whom I would have some things to agree on, and I would appreciate having that opportunity, but this is a time now, without the opportunity to get to know all of the members of the Republican Conference who are new, when we have to

get to know each other around solving America's problem.

As I indicated, when a clean debt ceiling was put on the floor of the House, many Democrats voted for it. Democrats and Republicans were on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles committee. At one point in the discussion with President Obama, the leadership of the Republican House agreed to do the larger package of $4 trillion as relates to the debt ceiling: revenues and cuts. It makes sense, doesn't it? That's what households do. They look at where they can bring down their budgets, but they also say, Now what can we do to increase that revenue? People who are unemployed want to increase revenue by getting a job, and so I don't fully comprehend why it is such a complicated process to participate in.

What makes it difficult is we have leadership in the other body--that is Republican--that says their main job is to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. I didn't hear that discussion from Democrats during my fellow Texan's tenure as President, George Bush. There were policies that we disagreed with, including the Iraq war, but there was no concentrated, continuous effort and statement, ``My main job here is to bring down President Bush.'' That was not the language that we used.

So how did we get the leader of the minority in the Senate suggesting that his main job is to bring down the President of the United States?

That's what Mr. and Mrs. Jones--mom and pop--all over America don't understand. They don't understand it. We all take a pledge of oath, and we all have the same Constitution in our hands. We know that this body of lawmakers is looked upon as the most powerful lawmaking body in the world. We don't walk around with a lot of big shoulders, but that is how we are perceived.

I happen to have been at the European Union, discussing the conditions in Greece and Portugal. They are far different from that in the United States. First of all, economists will tell us this country is not broke, that it has the ability to fix itself. Let us not cast out despair and desperation and frustration to the American people. We are Americans--not arrogant, but we are patriots. We can get this done.

Why is there such a devastating attitude from my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is the end of the world--the death knell? Those people who are looking forward to job creation and jobs are listening to this rancor, this discourse, and are saying to themselves, There is no hope.

There is no hope. I agree with that. There has to be hope for the children of this country. There has to be hope for the young men and women that are on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan and places around the world. There has to be hope. The reason why I know that there is hope is because my own industry, the energy industry, just created a program called Veterans to Jobs through the energy industry. I'm asking them to create one for those who are 18 to 35.

Businesses are still alive and well. The financial services or the banking entity must be involved in providing access to credit for our smaller businesses who are creating jobs, but we are alive and well.

And so I believe what we should do is to go forward with a package that is reasonable, that lifts the debt ceiling, as we did for everyone else. I would vote for a clean debt ceiling, lift it up, and then begin to, with great common sense, plan our budget and our cuts. Mark Zandi has said that, an economist that has worked for a number of Republicans such as John McCain, former Presidential candidate.

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? All economists will say you don't make immediate cuts in this fiscal year; you project them out. Just like a budget in households, they move out. They do what they're going to do for the month of June and then for the month of July and then for the month of August. But, no.

I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this President, only this one, only this one has received the kind of attacks and disagreements and inability to work, only this one. Read between the lines. What is different about this President that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills--something required by both statute and the 14th Amendment? Why isn't it addressed in the manner?

It's all right to disagree or agree on the balanced budget amendment. It's all right to talk about how we're going to appropriate. In fact, in this House, the Republicans are getting their way, gutting and cutting everything that we can find. It's all right to have that disagreement. That is the give-and-take of democracy. When you win, you're the majority; and if we can't find a way to agree together, then the majority wins. I understand that, but I do not understand what I think is the maligning and the maliciousness of this President. Why is he different?

In my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community, that is the question that is being raised: Why is this President being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why does the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the President down, to make sure he is unelected? It's 2011. It's not 2012. You need to play those politics in 2012, not now. And so we can move forward.

You may disagree with me. I believe it's important to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, lifelines for our community. And many of us believe that that will not dash the hopes and dreams of Americans to make sure that seniors and the disabled and those who are retired and those who need these resources, children who need Medicaid, it's not unseemly to protect them in the course of our discussion on budget cuts. It's not unseemly to protect military families. It's not unseemly to be able to provide an increase in salaries for the young, if you will, enlisted man or woman who, on some occasions, have been on food stamps.

So I am prepared to do the hard things that we did in 1997 when we had a budget resolution crafted by a divided government, if you will, and we produced a Children's Health Insurance Program and a balanced budget without a balanced budget amendment. There are some fixes that we are still living with, such as the physician reimbursement that came about. As what happens when you do that, something has to be fixed. We're still suffering with the physician reimbursement which came about through the 1997 balanced budget. So balancing the budget on a balanced budget amendment is not all peaches and cream. It can truly be destructive.

But I am willing, in the long range, with common sense, coming from Texas, to look seriously at how we can work together for cuts, but revenue enhancers.

I just had a meeting with industry representatives this morning--one of the industries that happens to be in the eye of the storm--and there was a consensus saying we are prepared to look broadly at tax reform. We would like to give our ideas. I said, You deserve to give your ideas, as you deserve to let everyone know that we're in the business of creating jobs. But we cannot do this in the background of the hostility, of the inappropriate treatment and behavior around President Barack Obama.

So what are we prepared to support? I believe, again, that we can come together around a reasoned response, and that reasoned response, again, are revenues and cuts. And I believe that we can move this before August 2. We only have to be able to convince the new Members and the leadership--the point man for the Republicans--that it is better to stand as a whole Nation than to bring us down.

There are those who believe this is what will happen before August 2. And, frankly, it is a challenge. We have already lost $150 billion right now. Our colleagues need to know that. By all of this fooling around, we're losing in the markets $150 billion to $200 billion.

You want to know where the unemployment came from? We've been creating jobs in the private sector, but it's our States that have been laying off hundreds and hundreds of thousands upon thousands of public workers--fire fighters, police, sanitation, teachers that we will never get back for our children. When they enter the fall classes, 35, 40, maybe 50 will be in a class. What kind of America is this?

And what kind of an America would lay off the public sector employees-- which, by the way, were the doors and opportunities that were opened to minority Americans. Large numbers of minorities are public sector employees. You are literally killing our community with the high number of unemployed. We are at double digits in the African American community.

I frankly believe that, as an American, I should look out for all interests, and that's why I believe we should stop the tomfoolery and come together as Americans. And yes, I will have to make sacrifices. We have laid out our parameters--mine are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--but what can we do together? And what can we do where the pain is distributed? And what can we do with the respect given to everyone--Speaker, Majority Leader, minority leader, whip, leadership in the other body? How can we come as those entities, respect the bodies that they represent, and we who are Members of Congress represent our constituents in that respectful manner, and most of all, respect the Office of the Presidency and, as well, to respect this President, President Barack Obama.

I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate, but historically it seems to be nothing more. And I simply close in accounting for that attitude is the very visible debate, and in my memory, of the Affordable Care Act. And I have never seen the level of depicting of a President of the United States by Americans as I have seen during that debate; never seen it. I did not adhere to the burning in effigy of any President during the Iraq war--at that point it was President Bush. The shoe throwing, I spoke vigorously against that. You do not disrespect our President. You agree or you disagree, but not in the way that I have seen.

I simply close this afternoon by saying that it gives me a great sense of affection--I'd say pride, for lack of a better word--in what this country stands for.

I believe that America can solve any problem that she puts her mind to. The tumultuous sixties is part of my history, a segregated America is part of my history, and during that time one felt, could we ever come through this? The bloodshed, the hanging, the brutality. But isn't it wonderful that a man by the name of Martin King rose along with others, too many to name, and carried the mantle of peace, the drum major for peace, and he came through all of the contentiousness and all of the conflict and raised his voice and said, ``America can do better.''

And a President who I am most proud of by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson used his political astuteness and crossed very difficult lines, the Dixiecrats and others in the United States Congress who couldn't imagine supporting any manner of civil rights legislation. Isn't that a miracle? What we thought we could not do. And that President, who I owe such a great debt of gratitude, that master of the political process, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the creator of the Great Society of which many of us now benefit from, Pell Grants and Medicare and housing, that person we call the President at that time orchestrated groups that possibly would never speak to each other and voted to change and move America forward.

And so I ask the question: What makes President Obama different? I cannot imagine coming this far in my life and that of my children's life and that of others to come to a point where we would use the uniqueness and the difference of this President to treat him differently. If that is not getting in our way, then there is no reason that we cannot come together and solve this problem. As some would say, this is not rocket science. It is voting for the right approach, and that approach is revenue and cuts.

I will go home to my district and engage with anyone who desires to engage in these discussions--we see each other as we walk about and go about our duties--and give them the sense of optimism that I have. As I do that, I will be in a meeting discussing why the North Forest Independent School District, one of the last remaining districts with a 70 percent plus African American population, has been closed by Governor Perry and the Texas Education Agency. Why? Seven thousand students and parents now looking as to what is their next step. Why is it closed? Is it because you underfunded them and didn't provide them with the resources? Is it because we have no interest in getting our hands into the mix and trying to help bring up the scores with teachers and salaries that can meet the needs of students who are in a property poor area?

I'll go home and deal with that. In the course of dealing with that, I'll talk to those parents about hope, about the greatness of this Nation, and about the fact that we're going to do our job. And, as well, I'll talk to them about the sense of pride and respect we have for the President that this Nation elected has come out of the history that I am very well aware of. We would hope that the same respect that was given to the first Irish Catholic President, the same respect and interest that has been given from any President that brings to bear a unique and valuable perspective, would be given to President of the United States, the American President, our President. He is no different from any other President that has served. I beg this House and I beg this Congress to treat him with the dignity that the office deserves. Get on with our work, get on with solving the problems for the American people, a vastly diverse and richly multicultural Nation. I am grateful for that.

God bless this Congress. God bless this President. God bless the United States of America. We can do this job.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I thank the chairman, and I really do want to thank our appropriators. This is a tough, tough business. I certainly want to thank the ranking member whom I've had the privilege of working with and thank the chairman as well, because this is a tough dilemma that we are facing.

I think I come with a unique perspective. I live in hurricane and flood country. Houston is the site and was the recipient of hundreds of thousands of Katrina survivors coming in from New Orleans. We have faced our own ups and downs, most recently with Hurricane Ike, and I walked the beach with both former President Clinton and former President Bush when we went down to Galveston and looked at the amazing devastation.

So many of us were concerned about the tragedy in Joplin, Missouri, and other places, and then the constant flooding. I have talked to Members of Congress where there is flooding going on in their district as we speak. But here is the dilemma that we have and the reason that I rise to raise the question of the recapturing of already designated funds and to realize that these are not funds that were just sitting in a pile unused. These funds are not only already designated--I would like to say appropriated--high-speed rail dollars but, as well, these funds will generate thousands of jobs.

As I read the amounts of moneys that were designated, $450 million were going to be utilized for necessary repairs in New Jersey. That means that my friends on the floor of the House have made a sacrifice, and I appreciate that, but high-speed rail is a valuable and necessary investment in America's future.

I truly believe that there could have been a compromise, where resources could have been used for the flooding problems in the area that my colleagues have spoken about, the needy areas, and still leave an amount that would have been shared for high-speed rail. Let's create jobs together. That is the restoration of those flood areas, and I would almost ask the question without knowing as a member of the authorizing committee for Homeland Security, what other opportunities might have been in place to be able to utilize those dollars for the disaster that has occurred.

But I will tell you, it is no doubt as you go across Europe and see the value of high-speed rail, new technology, that America is far behind with its high-speed rail investment, the new technology, the new science, the new kinds of cars that are being produced that will create jobs, in essence putting the cars together, manufacturing the cars but then the assembling of the cars now being placed in cities around America. Those are real jobs, long-term jobs.

The decision that the administration made was a thoughtful decision. Let me thank Secretary LaHood for understanding the value of high-speed rail, and I would suggest that the proposal that we have for Texas does impact rural Texas. It is a proposal for high-speed rail from Houston to Dallas, going through our rural communities, creating the opportunities for jobs but creating the opportunities for investment in the purchase of land and the growth of business. All of that has an impact in creating jobs.

That's what we are all here for. We are here to be the rainy day umbrella for Americans who are in trouble, and as well we're here to create jobs, which Americans are so desperately in need of.

So I am disappointed that we didn't find the happy balance, and I believe that we could; that we couldn't measure the amount of resources that might have been able to be utilized for our friends that have just experienced a disaster and not completely gut monies that are already designated, appropriated. It's almost as if we came in and said there's a pile of cash, and I'm not going to bother to identify what it's supposed to be used for.

I would hope that there would be a method of reconsideration. These are fair gentlemen on the floor of the House. I've worked with all of my colleagues here. And I would just raise the question of why would we, in essence, zero out high-speed rail, not only for our urban centers but for our midwestern areas that are desperately in need of jobs, and for the southern areas that now are looking to the future for high-speed rail to create jobs and to create the quality, excellent, superior mobility system that Americans deserve--not the country of America, but the people of America deserve.

I would argue vigorously for a reconsideration of the funding and the restructuring of the funding to ensure that we have high-speed rail, create jobs, and deal with our friends who are in need.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of funding for high speed rail, and the importance of ensuring that money designated for high speed rail by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is utilized to build high speed railways.

I must express my concerns about the offset in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. There is no doubt that recent flooding in the Midwest has devastated communities and greatly impacted the region's economy.

The Army Corps of Engineers must have the resources to address the damage wrought by the flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, but I urge my colleagues to consider the source of this funding.

The funding allocated for high speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will do more than update our Nation's transportation system; high speed rail creates jobs, increases tourism and is environmentally sustainable.

The Department of Transportation recently awarded $15 million for a high speed rail project in Texas. The funding was awarded for engineering and environmental work to develop a high-speed rail corridor linking Dallas and Houston, where I represent the 18th Congressional District.

The demand for high speed rail in the state of Texas is significant. The second most populous state in the Nation, Texas' population is forecasted to grow by an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over projected 2010 levels.

Additionally, the population growth is not going to be spread evenly across the state. According to the Texas State Data Center, 92 percent of the 2010-2035 population growth will occur in the existing metropolitan counties. High speed rail is an investment in the future of the state.

Receiving this funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a tremendous opportunity for Houston, and the entire state of Texas. The award will allow our state to make critical investments in infrastructure that will increase mobility and allow for better commercial and private growth of our cities.

A long time supporter of high speed rail, I supported the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, and secured $150 million dollars for the metro solutions light rail project because high-speed rail projects and other transportation investments represent the potential to create hundreds of jobs, enhanced mobility, and future economic development for Texas, and the entire Nation.

I commend the Chairman for recognizing the need for emergency funding in flood stricken areas. However, there are plenty of places from which my colleagues can offset funding. I cannot support an amendment that offsets funding from critical infrastructure projects that create jobs. I urge my colleagues in the Majority to explain why they would rather take funding from projects that create middle class jobs than raise taxes for billionaires.

We must repair the damage done by flooding, but we must also invest in the future of America. Other nations around the world have shown us that the future is high speed rail. It

is our responsibility to make critical investments in infrastructure projects, like high speed rail.

I urge my colleagues to think about the consequences of continuing to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of middle class jobs and improvements to our Nation's infrastructure. Offsetting funding for high speed rail for emergency disaster relief is not a responsible course of action.

My Republican colleagues constantly talk about creating jobs, yet time and time again, they turn away from opportunities to do so. The time for rhetoric has passed; what the country needs, what our constituents need is action. Offsetting funding for high speed rail, slashing funds that will create jobs is the wrong action, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member for the courtesies extended to me.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect funds provided for science under title 3 of the Department of Energy's energy programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, known as STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.

Let me, first of all, say I consider this a jobs bill. I'm excited when we talk about jobs here on the floor of the House and recognize that America has changed. As a former member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and a member of the Aviation subcommittee and Space subcommittee dealing with NASA's commitment and mission in human exploration, I believe that America's future is not only today but in front of her and focused on science and technology. The importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce is crucial.

Over the last 50 years there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. Now let me be very clear. I'm a member of the Manufacturing Caucus, and I believe that we should restore manufacturing in this country. We are so well placed to be multitasked, boosting our manufacturing and then, as well, moving forward to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, it is important that we recognize that our valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained.

I believe my amendment focuses on that very program and focus. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future, we're investing in job creation, and we're investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. It is important to note that under this legislation, workforce development for teachers in science has taken a hit. But I believe what we should do is make sure that we emphasize that those resources be kept in and at some point add to those resources. And the reason I say that is, workforce development programs for teachers and scientists provide funding to graduate fellowship programs that help train the Nation's top scientists, a crucial, crucial effort.

The United States faces a critical shortage of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers. We will need an additional 283,000 teachers in secondary schools setting up by 2015 to meet the needs of our Nation's students. This qualified teacher shortage is particularly pronounced in low-income districts. So in order to move forward, let us protect the scientific aspect of the work of this government.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 30 percent of fourth-graders and 20 percent of eighth-graders cannot perform basic mathematical computation. So I have long recognized the need to improve the participation performance of America's students in science, technology, engineering, and math. I worked with one of our corporate leaders to ensure that private funding was given to one of our inner city school districts to establish a program without comparison in its excellence focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman very much. And as I conclude with that generous offer, let me mention in 2006 only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in engineering compared to 25 percent in South Korea and 33 percent in China.

So let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we have had programs that have been very effective, such as the Harmony Science Academy in Houston, that devotes an impressive amount of time and resources educating the city's youth, minority youth in math and science and even doing research in cancer.

Finally, I want to thank Dr. Reagan Flowers, who has implemented a dynamic program on STEM technology in the Houston area and a national program. I would like to congratulate Mae Jemison, one of our astronauts, the first African American woman to go into space, who likewise has an outstanding program, and the Ron McNair Program, one of our astronauts who lost his life sacrificing for the American people, challenging us and challenging our capacity. His program run by his family is another excellent program.

In conclusion, from Ben Franklin to NASA to Silicon Valley, the success of the competitiveness of America has always depended on the knowledge and skills in the STEM field. This amendment will help us focus on expanding that for all Americans.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Appropriations Development Bill. My amendment will protect funds provided for science under Title III of the Department of Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.

As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. The economic base has built upon the base of manufacturing of durable goods and added the processing and analyzing of information. In the 21st century we can manufacture goods and expand information technology--both create jobs. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens.

The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation . . . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap between our Nation's workforce and those of our international counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that purpose.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 84: Page 62, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act for

``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be

used in contravention of the Department of Energy

Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).

Madam Speaker, I wish to raise concerns this morning that are international and domestic.

I rise today to ask the question, when will Dr. Assad, the President of Syria, begin to act in a manner that respects the human dignity of the people of Syria. It is a tragedy to watch as the Arab Spring continues in many countries that I have visited and to see one country that one had hoped would realize that a civilized government respects the dignity of its people.

Syrian Americans are crying out and reaching out to Members of Congress and leaders across the Nation to attack this horrific violence that is occurring in Syria: The mutilation of a 13-year-old boy; the slaughter of individuals in the street; and, seemingly, the absolute arrogance of the President of this Nation. Many of us have thought that Dr. Assad, the son of the former president, would recognize that the 21st century does not in any way tolerate the kind of abusive and oppressive leadership that has occurred in the past and that it is high time for the leadership to be vested in the people.

Now, we know that there has been a constant tension and brutality as it relates to Israel and the border and Hezbollah, something that has to be addressed, and I have cried out over and over that the dominance of Hezbollah and Syria must cease as well for any entity that does not recognize the existence of any other State, no matter what the State, and in this instance--Israel, it is an absolute abomination.

But now, in American vernacular, they have added insult to injury, killing their people, blood in the streets, ignoring the international calls. So I am gratified for the stance that we have taken, and I want it to be a stronger stance, a stronger position.

How dare you attack the United States Embassy. How dare you violate international law that allows sovereign nations to exist peacefully among themselves. How dare you confront the United States flag by means of the United States military. How dare you violate the human dignity of your people.

And so I'm calling upon world leaders, the United Nations and all of those who have the responsibility of protecting the human rights of all people to denounce the actions of President Assad, denounce the actions of those violent and abusive people in the streets who are killing their own people, and listen to Syrian Americans who have asked for a peaceful resolution. No, we are not calling for war despite the tragedies in Yemen where the president refuses to step down, the conflicts in Libya where the president refuses to step down, the difficulties in Egypt and on and on and on.

But as for the people of that region, we should take heart in America that they have attempted to create a democratic community and a nation of states. The Arab League needs to speak. And we need to denounce the President of Syria and ask him to step down.

That leads me to America's role, Madam Speaker, in this crisis that has now been made by our Republican friends. To my colleagues, America is not broke. We're not in the same posture as some of our European friends. But we are in a ridiculous posture because there's no way in the world that families who are trying to make ends meet don't also attempt to seek revenues--a new job or a raise or multiple jobs. How many of our families are doing that?

No, we are not raising taxes on the middle class. We are, in fact, trying to establish a quality of life for the middle class in protecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Don't laugh at those. Those are infrastructures that have allowed senior citizens to live. It has allowed our hospitals to stay open and our doctors to work.

And yet we have, in the other body, an individual who has a ludicrous and absolutely absurd proposal that's not going to give anybody relief--let the President of the United States sign off on the debt ceiling. We haven't even tested whether that is constitutional. In fact, we don't know if the debt ceiling itself is constitutional. And so I'm arguing and begging for leaders of consciousness to sit down and work on behalf of the American people, raise the debt ceiling and stop the foolishness.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand this morning and simply ask the question, where are the jobs, and why have we been here for some 27 weeks and we have not been able to say to the American people we are on your side?

Let me deviate for a moment and say the debt ceiling that has consumed us is a procedural matter that has occurred over the years and decades of Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. And so let's not castigate President Obama and say a deal would not be made because he is here. Let's look at ways of finding jobs.

The energy industry, for example, has a program that says veterans to jobs, energy jobs. Let's have youth to jobs, 18-35, energy jobs, and begin to create the jobs that Democrats have been fighting for, putting on the floor of the House, job creation.

Let's have the energy industry broadly look at a tax structure that is responsible and invests back in America. And let's realize that the vulnerable cannot be the brunt of our confusion about the debt ceiling. This is not a fight that we need on behalf of the American people.

What we need to do is to say to the American people here is a job, and we are staying on this floor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to create jobs.

Now is the time for jobs.

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

Let me thank the chairman very much.

I definitely support cooperation between the Federal Government and the State government. That is absolutely the best partnership and one that I encourage.

Having been a member of the local city council of my own city of Houston, I also know that unfunded mandates are very much difficult to overcome. But I argue vigorously against the underlying legislation because it does equate to undermining the health of Americans. We need clean water, not dirty water.

So this amendment strikes the entire legislation that causes us to ignore a partnership that has been established between the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is a State system. And to my count, some 47 States have initially gotten into the system and have worked to ensure that they have clean water.

Why do I suggest that this is a very challenging approach to take that the underlying legislation has? Because it prevents the EPA from taking actions to revise outdated State water quality standards. It makes a State the final arbiter of whether an NPDES permit, a license for better water quality, is in fact to be implemented so that one State may do something that impacts negatively on another State.

These are the people we're concerned about: a working nurse and a healthy baby, or we are concerned about a gentleman by the name of Mr. Caldario, who is a resident of Crestwood, who indicated some years ago that he was worried about the water he drank for years without knowing what it was contaminated with--``Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood,'' which I will submit for the Record. His final sentence states, ``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something to do with the water.''

My amendment is straightforward. It strikes the language of this bill. It says let's go back to the drawing table. I want to be able to help Members, but if you have 47 States that have been engaged in this process, let's find a way that we can come together and have clean water and not dirty water.

This is a straightforward amendment that says that this is overreaching. The EPA would be prohibited from resolving conflicting State decisions on protecting water quality. Join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the good intentions of the gentleman,

but I am concerned by the interpretation.

Let me just share with you very briefly my own State. In my own State, I'm aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

We are the protectors of America's assets, its waterways, its drinking water, the ability to have the opportunity for clean water for our fish and fishing. I ask you, let's go back to the drawing board. If we have States that are already participating, let's demand, in an administrative process, for EPA to restrain itself, but let's not take away the underlying power that is going to allow us to have clean drinking water and for someone who lives in Crestwood to be able to be possibly cancer free.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.'' My amendment restores the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with state governments to establish standards ensuring all Americans have access to clean and safe water.

My amendment strikes the entire bill. The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed to encourage collaboration between state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to develop acceptable standards for maintaining the safety of our nation's bodies of water. The EPA was created in 1970 to ensure that our air, land, and water receive adequate protection from pollution and we must allow them to do so for the benefit of all Americans.

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is absolutely not the way to protect our nation's water bodies. The EPA has the expertise and resources for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems.

Seeking to limit the extent to which the EPA can oversee the safety of our water supply threatens the health of American citizens across the country. The EPA has not only the right, but the responsibility to update state water pollution regulations and permit procedures if they discover new threats to health or the environment.

The EPA must remain involved in regulating water pollution to ensure a cohesive policy that protects all states from pollution. Should the authority to regulate water pollution levels be given solely to the states, there would be no way to regulate waterways that pass through multiple states.

As a Representative from Texas, a Gulf Coast state, I am aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently, there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones.

My Republican colleagues feel we must pass this bill urgently. They will tell their constituents, and all of the American people that the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is necessary to issue permits and avoid backlog in mining facilities, factories, agriculture, and other businesses. What my friends on the other side of the aisle will not tell you is that this legislation is helping business at the risk of our nation's health.

Those who support this bill will not mention that EPA regulation prevents toxic chemicals and biological agents from entering our surface water bodies and groundwater. Apparently, those championing this legislation do not feel the American people deserve to know the serious health risks that can result from drinking or bathing in polluted water. Breathing the vapors of a polluted water source, consuming meat or vegetables affected by polluted water, and consuming fish that have been exposed to polluted water are all potentially harmful.

Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to strike the entire Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act to protect not only my constituents in the 18th district of Texas, but Americans across the nation from the diseases that result from water pollution. Diseases such as typhoid, hepatitis, encephalitis, and others caused by pathogens in water.

Surely the EPA, the states, and the industries involved can work together to prevent pollution levels in surface and groundwater from causing cancer, or serious damage to the liver, kidneys, nervous system, reproductive system, or endocrine system. Surely, we are not willing to sacrifice the health of this nation to pass a bill to benefit industry.

A study conducted by Cornell University concluded that water pollution accounts for 80% of infectious diseases, and 5 million deaths per year. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle to consider the enormous gamble this Congress is taking by reducing regulations to keep our water safe.

Supporting my amendment will strike the dangerous Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, and provide an opportunity for new legislation that fosters compromise between the EPA, the states, and stakeholders, without compromising water quality and endangering the health of American citizens.

[From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

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

I thank the distinguished chairman, and again I thank my friends on the floor of the House, and I did not acknowledge my friend the ranking member.

I offer myself as a person who seeks to collaborate and fix problems. So my second amendment says let's work together, but there are times when the heart of the matter has to be addressed.

My amendment strikes the language that really is the heart of the matter. It strikes the language in the bill, ensuring that the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways can still exist. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

My amendment strikes the language that allows States, 50 States, to conflict against each other and one-upmanship--I'm going to do this; no, you're going to do this. This standardizes the issue of clean water. This stands up for people like those in Crestwood, Illinois, that wonder whether the water caused cancer, kidney cancer, in a 30- year-old.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I thank the gentleman.

Is it my right to close, Mr. Chairman?

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me refer my colleagues again to basic facts.

Forty-seven States have entered into agreements with the EPA because they have decided, in spite of the challenges that we all have on making sure that we do the right thing, that it is the right thing to do, that clean water is our priority. And I would offer as a viable picture a recollection of Americans who had to live through histories when water was not clean. We did have that era in our lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of many. I would argue that that is not the life we would like to go back to.

This particular section is protecting us against pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities coming from a vast variety of chemicals, industry, and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe drinking water.

Do you want a jobs bill? Then you create the companies that are going to help us keep our waterways clean. Put people to work cleaning water. Put people to work complying with the right thing to do to ensure that we have clean drinking water, to ensure that babies and working moms and families can turn on that faucet, and to ensure that they can drink that clean water.

We want to work with industry. We want to be able to come halfway, but we don't want to return America to a time when you would dip down. You find in developing nations the enormous number of diseases that children have because they do not have clean water. Go to some of our developing nations. See what they're washing themselves in. See what they're drinking.

That's not America.

We have the opportunity to be the kind of nation that works with our businesses but also the kind that fights for our children and provides the opportunity for clean water. I ask my

colleagues to stand with us and to strike section 2 to allow us, one, to go for a compromise if we can, but also to stand for those who would welcome clean water. Let's end diseases that can be caused in this reckless manner.

I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to support clean water in America.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which ensures the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to have authority to oversee issues related to the standards for and issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

My amendment will strike section 2 of the bill, ensuring the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree.

The EPA is a unifying body, issuing regulations that ensure all States have standards that they must follow. Bodies of water cross State lines, and the water quality standards of one State are very likely to impact neighboring States.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all wastewater discharges to surface water receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 47 States, including Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, are currently authorized to issue NPDES permits. Texas has been authorized to issue these permits since September 14, 1998.

The pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities, come from a vast variety of chemicals, industry and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe water bodies.

It is important that the EPA be able to set a universal standard that all States follow. States may lack the resources and funding to adequately implement the NPDES program and properly regulate sources of water contaminants. Additionally, States may not have the resources or expertise needed to continually evaluate regulations in order to ensure that water remains safe.

Preventing the EPA from regulating the levels of pollutants in bodies of water may give jurisdiction over the issuance of permits to the States, but it certainly will not allow States to set their own standards for water quality. If the EPA is not able to set universal standards, downstream States will be subject to the water quality of upstream States. Contaminated groundwater will spread beyond State borders, impacting the lakes, reservoirs, and agriculture of nearby States, putting the people and the economy of its neighbors at risk.

In 1906, Missouri sued Illinois for discharging sewage into a tributary of the Mississippi River that ultimately rendered drinking water unsafe in Missouri. Restricting the EPA from holding all States to the same standards will inevitably lead to many suits of this nature.

I believe this bill sends us in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting our nation's bodies of water. This bill leaves a false impression that the EPA is an organization that arbitrarily picks and chooses what chemicals States can and cannot permit to enter our precious waters. Rather, 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, including an important standard for clean water.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge opposition to this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I was on official business on last Friday, July 8, with the privilege of seeing the last shuttle launch in Florida, the Atlantis, a very important issue for my congressional district and, I might say, a mighty, magnificent expression of American genius.

Because of that, I missed the following roll call votes on Thursday, July 7, which I would like to submit into the Record. I will read them very briefly. For roll call vote No. 521--and these were under the Defense appropriations bill--I would have voted ``yes.'' For roll call vote 522, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 523, I

would have voted ``yes.'' For roll call vote 524, ``Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.''

For Friday, July 8, when I, as well, missed votes for that reason, official business, for roll call vote No. 525, I would have voted ``no.'' For roll call vote 526, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 527, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 528, which interferes with the chaplain's duties in the United States military, I would have voted a resounding ``no.'' For roll call vote 529, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 530, I would have voted ``no.'' And for roll call vote 533, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 515-524 on Thursday, July 7, 2011.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 515-524 because I was on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 521, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Welch of Vermont, ``An amendment to limit the use of funds to not more than $200,000,000, provided by title IX under the heading `Operation and Maintenance, Army,' may be available for the Commander's Emergency Response Program. Also, the amount otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by $200,000,000,'' I would have voted yes.

For rollcall vote 522, on agreeing to Amendment No. 4 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Cole of Oklahoma, ``An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds be used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order regarding the disclosure of political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of enactment of the this Act,'' I would have voted nay.

For rollcall vote 523, on agreeing to Amendment No. 97 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Frank, ``An Amendment to add a section at the end of the bill which reduces the total amount of appropriations by $8,500,000,000 not to be derived from amounts of appropriations made available by title I (``Military Personnel''), under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' in title VI, or by title IX (``Overseas Contingency Operations''),'' I would have voted aye.

For rollcall vote 524, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended in H. Res. 268, ``Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted aye.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 525-533 on Friday, July 8, 2011.

I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 525-533 because I was on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present.

For rollcall vote 525, on agreeing to Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce funds made available by this Act for `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' by $250,000,000,'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 526, on agreeing to Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce the amounts made available in sundry sections of title IV,'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 527, on agreeing to Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce the amounts made available in sundry sections of title IV,'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 528, on agreeing to Amendment No. 77 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Huelskamp of Kansas, ``An amendment numbered 77 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement the curriculum of the Chaplain Corps Tier 1 DATD repeal training dated April 11, 2011'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 529, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Polis of Colorado, ``An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to maintain an end strength level of troops in Europe to more than 30,000 and to reduce military personnel accounts accordingly'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 530, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Kucinich of Ohio, ``An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in or against Libya except under a declaration of war against Libya pursuant to clause 11 in section 8 of article I of the Constitution'' I would have voted ``nay.''

For rollcall vote 533, on agreeing to a resolution H. Res. 340 to ``Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program'' I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points that I would just like to bring really to the attention of my colleagues and to indicate that I hope we can do better. That's my message: I hope we can do better.

I hope we can do better than having two Presidential candidates in the Republican Party sign a pledge that would suggest that children of slaves were much better off than the children of African American parents today. We know that we have a high number of single parents throughout the United States raising children. But just read the slave narratives and the biography of Frederick Douglass to know that there were no marriages among slaves--it was not allowed--and that children were torn away from their parents. And husbands or wives or those who had given birth or created children were torn away from each other. Slavery was a destructive part of this country, and never compare it with the life that we have today.

I would also suggest that if we are negotiating the debt ceiling, we should not have leaders in the room that make the statement that we'll have no resolution because President Barack Obama is President. I'm insulted, offended, and it is not becoming as adults.

I am so glad to have the opportunity to join the gentleman from New York and to specifically focus on his leadership, along with my colleague from Maryland, who, as we were developing the Affordable Care Act, worked so hard on some of these finite issues ensuring that we had the oversight over insurance rates.

We tried to do everything that we could to produce legislation that embraced the concept of Medicare, for example, recognizing and respecting Medicare and then broadening the concept to ensuring that all people had access to health care. But isn't it interesting just a few months later we are standing in the well of the House and we are literally having to hang on to the commonsense program of Medicare.

If I could, I would like to frame the discussion in this manner. You have articulated a very commonsense approach that in any debt ceiling-- by the way, let me give my editorial comment. I have voted for a clean debt ceiling just simply to pay America's bills. Unfortunately, that didn't carry the weight of the day.

But what I will say is that the discussions that are being crafted in the media, or at least have been perceived in the media that our Republican friends want to provide to the American people, is that we are broke, is that we have no way of doing anything.

I want to be very clear, I am aware that Americans are out of work. I am aware that we have had 6 months without a jobs bill and that Democrats are trying to put one on the floor.

But I want everyone to know that we have had a significant recovery because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So we are moving forward except for the fact that we have got to get jobs. We have had seven consecutive quarters where the GDP has grown.

So to make our seniors the brunt of what we have made up in terms of saying we have no money, we cannot think any other way, we have to hit someone who has paid their dues, if you will, is simply wrong and unfair.

As I have said, we are not where we want to be, but the sacrifices that Democrats have made in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act have put us forward. In addition, we have seen growth.

Now we have a budget. First of all, we started off in 2011 with a budget, a Ryan budget, that then suggested that we were so broke we had to voucher Medicare. Frankly, vouchering Medicare is extinguishing Medicare. It's eliminating Medicare as we know it. It is telling a senior that you need a dollar's worth of health care, we can give you a quarter. We are going to give a senior who has invested in America, who has worked all of his or her life, who, as my colleague has said, maybe has fallen on difficult times with a 401(k) and certainly that is because

markets have gone up and markets have gone down, and you are going to say now you are going to get a quarter.

Now bring us forward. That bill, of course, was passed by the House, predominantly Republican, with any number of Members who believe there is nothing wrong with that. It has gone nowhere in the Senate. Now we are at a crucial point where the President has asked for us all to be adults, to sit around the table and talk about how can we work this together.

Can we do it with the airplanes and jets? Can we let the Bush tax cuts expire? Can we call upon our friends in the energy industry that is leaps and bounds in profits to craft or to understand a way that we can recraft those particular provisions to bring that money here into the Federal Government?

And I would say to my good friends in business, where it might be, the climate of the United States allows you to thrive. You are doing better because you live in a democracy, you live in a place where we respect property, where we don't run into a corporation and say, you know what, I think I am going to take about, you know, half a trillion dollars from you if you have that much. Just send that check over to the United States Treasury.

We don't do that.

So I want the point to be made tonight that we are on the side of the angels, because it is absolutely ludicrous to not see the difference in life span pre-1965, before Lyndon Baines Johnson, a fellow Texan, announced his desire in the Great Society to find a way to, in essence, respect the senior citizens, the elderly. And at that time he was probably looking at individuals in their 60s because of the wear and tear and the lack of health care to be able to give them an extra lifeline.

To say that he was right and to make sure, I just want to add these points as I come to a close, to be able to suggest that the millions of seniors who now have access to guaranteed benefits are in jeopardy because of the games that are being played about the debt ceiling, a simple, procedural vote, if you will, that allows the debt ceiling to be raised so that we can pay our bills, something that we have done, if I may put in the Record, some 74 times since 1962 with no quarrel whatsoever.

Finally, I would argue this: many of those on Medicare are families of veterans, themselves, obviously, may have served, even though I know that they have veterans benefits. But they are people who are willing to sacrifice to build this country. They are seniors.

For us to take away this lifeline is unspeakable. And I hope that as Democrats we will draw a few friends, a few reasonable friends to know that there should be no tying of raising the debt ceiling to Medicare. There should be a tie to raising revenue. That's the commonsense approach to take.

I thank you for your passion. What you're saying makes me think what we're doing even to the younger generation because you just made a point that it's lasted for over half a century, if I could use that term, over 50 years. And it is a framework that can be in place for those who are young. And if we take it apart, we will not have this structure that has been helpful. There is no reason to ignore modernizing. We're not against that, looking at ways to improve Medicare. But that's not what our Republican friends are saying. They're talking about ending it as we know it, vouchering it.

And there's a story about the running of the bulls. And frankly, I have this image of a voucher plan, or the plan that will come about through cuts in guaranteed benefits, of the running of the bulls, the running of seniors running toward, trying to get that last voucher that is being handed out, trampling each other because they're seeking that one lifeline that they need.

In addition, we need to be very real about Medicare. Medicare is the infrastructure of our hospital system. You cut into Medicare, you're talking about closing hospitals, you're talking about eliminating physicians, and you're talking about ending care as we know it. Is there any understanding to the fact that we need to be adults and sit down?

When I left my city of Houston, I spoke to my constituents on Sunday. I held a press conference to indicate my commitment to helping to preserve Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The idea was that this will impact our city. You will see jobs lost. We have the Texas Medical Center. It will see businesses close and people have the inability to care for themselves or their senior family members.

So this simple issue of a debt ceiling speaks, I think, very eloquently to the need for common sense. And you have laid out very clearly we've had it for this period of time, we've been able to keep a structure that has helped to save lives, it has this amount of life, it can have a longer life as we continue to improve it and to ensure that there is no waste, fraud, and abuse. And for me, I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine a picture of seniors trampling each other to get that last voucher or having to be told by their government, a country that they've served and worked for and raised their children in, there is no room at the inn for you, there's no opportunity for your health care, there's no more Medicare; by the way, we had to pay tax cuts or we had to give the billionaires and rich folk the long period of time of tax holidays, and we just didn't have any opportunity for you.

That is unacceptable. It is un-American. And I think we can do better. And we need to fight to protect Medicare as we are doing as Democrats. And I would encourage and welcome my friends, my Republican friends, to join us in doing the right thing.

Thank you very much for leading us in this discussion.

The message should be albeit we have some concerns, we are not broke. We need to fix jobs and investment and we need to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They have not contributed to our debt, and we cannot allow seniors to run like bulls to seek medical care in this great and wonderful country. I, for one, will not stand for it.

Thank you.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 61: None of the funds made available in this

Act may be used to contravene the comprehensive plan

authorized in section 4091 of the Water Resources Development

Act of 2007.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Young, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, and to Mr. Dicks, who is the ranking member, for their long years of service.

To my colleagues, good news today: the announcement came that the President of the United States would send the same sympathy letter to families of those soldiers who committed suicide in battle as of those who had fallen in different ways in battle. The reason that is good news is, in a sentence I am reminded of, the President and his office indicated that they did not want to stigmatize the mental health concerns of our soldiers.

I want to pay tribute to the Defense appropriations committee for its work on post-traumatic stress disorder and

to make note of our late friend, Congressman John Murtha, who worked with Houston on establishing a new post-traumatic stress disorder center. I am grateful for that because, as in all of our States, many of us are facing a large numbers of returning soldiers from both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I ask for my amendment to be supported to increase research and development funding for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, which affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's armed services. My amendment would increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000. It will be offset by reducing general operations and maintenance and activities of the Department of Defense.

I believe this is critical in ensuring our country's military strength as we move toward the 21st century.

We obviously were aware of post-traumatic stress for those who follow the military in all of our wars. We've seen it every day by our Vietnam soldiers, those who came home without welcome. We see it in the numbers of homeless soldiers, many of them Vietnam vets.

Over the years, members of the military and veterans have seen a drastic increase in the number of cases of PTSD and TBI. PTSD cases in the military have risen from 1,614 total cases in 2000 to 88,719 total cases in 2010. Additionally, it is reported that 17 percent of all active duty soldiers, 25 percent of reserve soldiers, and 19 percent of Vietnam veterans suffer from PTSD. Traumatic brain injuries in the military have increased from 10,963 total cases in 2000 to 178,876 total cases in 2010.

We know that the kinds of explosives that are now used in war cause greater damage, or more damage, or damage of this kind to our soldiers. Also, in May of this year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate it is unconstitutional. We are grateful for the work that has been done, but this court said many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care. This is simply unacceptable. The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IED attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States.

I was listening to a soldier on the television speak about his injuries and then he mentioned the fact that a soldier in front of him, his comrade, his friend, stepped on the IED, but the vast damage was to all of those who were around him. And so we know the collateral damage is as severe as it might be in any other form of mass war.

We see the loss of life, but we see the injuries remaining. We must in turn care for them, and when they return home we must make it a priority--as I know this committee has done--to increase the resources. Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts, however we must not allow these debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. I believe in Congress and its wisdom, and I believe it is committed to taking care of our warriors.

As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they come without the desire for glory or appreciation. But whenever you talk to a vet, they are looking to make sure that they have the care that they need. Increasing the amount of resources, however small this amendment offers, helps in finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI, and is the first step that Congress can add to the work that is already being done. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in areas that are outside of some of our largest centers are less likely to be diagnosed.

We should not wait. I believe we are of good mind and good will when it comes to our soldiers. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, today I rise to ask for support of my amendment to increase research and development funding for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, that affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's Armed Services. My amendment will increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense. I believe this is critical to ensuring our country's military strength as we move forward into the 21st century.

Also in May of this year, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate, it is unconstitutional. The decision said, ``many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care.''

This is simply unacceptable.

The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IEDs, attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States, and we must, in turn, care for them when they return home. We must make this a priority and increase the resources available to help prevent and treat PTSD and TBI.

Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts. However, we must not allow those debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. Congress must separate the war from the warrior, and Congress should never fail to care for our warriors.

As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they do not come home seeking glory or appreciation, but no soldier should have to come home to inadequate treatment or care for the injuries they sustained protecting the freedom of all Americans.

Increasing the amount of resources specializing finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI is the first step Congress can take to providing veterans with the services they need. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

America shouldn't wait until soldiers with these injuries are discharged to begin treatment. The Department of Defense needs to spend more resources on how to detect and treat PTSD and TBI earlier.

These soldiers need to be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment to ensure no solider is left behind.

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

I want to take a moment, since I have just followed my amendment, to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks for seeing an expanded category of individuals suffering from PTSD and accepting my amendment and working with us. I want to thank Dr. Broun for his service and for his direct view of what happens to great Americans, soldiers who have sacrificed and they cannot function because of PTSD. So I am grateful for that.

And the reason why I say that, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, is because many people don't realize the work that the Defense Appropriations and the Pentagon does on a number of health issues. One of them happens to be cancer. I have heard in coffee clutches or around dinner tables that cancer is an epidemic. It seems appropriate for the Defense Department, which has been at the cutting edge of technology over the years, such as the Internet--can be in the lead.

So I intend to offer an amendment that I would like to discuss with Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks, but I intend to withdraw. But it is very important. This amendment would increase funding under title 6, Defense Health Programs, by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenance and activities at the Department of Defense.

I am hoping my colleagues will work with me on this, and I hope they will be reminded of a young woman by the name of Yolanda Evette Williams, who was an outstanding medical professional who fought against this triple-negative strain of cancer and left behind a husband, a mother, and two children. It is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.''

I offer this amendment to increase funding for research, not to take away moneys from others, but I would certainly like to, out of this discussion, have this kind of cancer looked upon as we are doing our research to develop a targeted treatment for the triple-negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods such as hormone- and gene-based strains have higher survival rates than the triple-negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Just to say a word about Yolanda, she was a dedicated member of the Good Hope Baptist Church. She was a graduate of Texas Southern University. She received a number of degrees. She was a member of the Jack and Jill. Her mother was a medical professional, Dr. Lois Moore. She was a chief clinical officer for the Atrium Medical Center Hospital in Stafford, Texas, having a long history, even though she was very young, of her commitment as a nurse to medical care. This young woman did not have a chance because of this enormous strain that does not have a high survival rate. It is treatment, is hormone- and gene-based strains, and it has, as I said, a difficult time of survival.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I appreciate it.

Let me just say, breast cancer accounts for one in four cancer diagnoses among women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and another 6,000 will die. This impacts all women, of all backgrounds, and my interest is to make sure that every subset has a seat at the table, Chairman Young, so that no matter what ethnic background you come from, you will not, in essence, suffer the opportunity for full research.

My amendment was $500,000. It is in tribute to the honor and the leadership and the life of Yolanda Williams. I would like to ask my colleagues here on the Appropriations Committee to allow me to engage with you and to possibly modify, as we go forward, language to just say that this money will be available for difficult strains of cancer so that her life will be honored and that we would be able to move forward.

In conclusion, I would indicate that I had the privilege and honor of paying tribute to Ms. Williams at her home-going service. I want to offer to her family again, her husband, her children, her mother and all her family members, my deepest sympathy for this valiant American woman. With that, I know that we will work together.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #67 to H.R. 2219, the ``FY2012 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.'' My amendment would increase funding under Title VI Defense Health Programs by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense.

Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I offer this amendment to increase funding for research in order to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment.

Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease.

Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups. African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer. More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Mr. Chairman, last month, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was only 44 years old.

This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple negative strain.

I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 67: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $600,000)''.

Page 33, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000)''.

Page 34, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 68: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $350,000)''.

Page 33, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $250,000)''.

Page 34, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $250,000)''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 69: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $650,000)''.

Page 33, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000)''.

Page 34, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $500,000)''.