Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues that we must address in this august body, but it is tragic to note that we have been here for 24 weeks since the GOP took responsibility and control of this House and we have done nothing to create jobs. In fact, the majority leader has indicated the Republicans have no plans to do anything on jobs through this summer.

Why does this pose a crisis? Because in the midst of all of this, a number of mergers are coming into fruition, in particular the United- Continental merger. We have already had an announcement that Houston will lose 1,500 jobs, and no response from United or Continental. In addition, United had a recent collapse of its database, or its system, which caused massive shutdowns and clogging of the system, where passengers were stuck in airports because they couldn't get their planes off the ground.

When we have mergers with no restraint and no oversight, we have a problem. So jobs are necessary to be created, and there needs to be oversight over mergers like Continental and United so that communities like Houston and elsewhere won't be losing jobs with no response.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning as someone who has opposed the Iraq war and consistently opposed the Afghanistan war under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I think it is important to stop the politics this morning and recognize that mistakes were made by Presidents of all political parties.

The War Powers Resolution that is now being debated as being unconstitutional by my Republican friends has a very strong purpose. It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States and ensure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly going to occur. Now we have Republicans suggesting that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. What do they want? This is a political game.

I voted for Mr. Kucinich's resolution, and the Republicans had the opportunity to also vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution. This is to embarrass the President.

I agree with the underlying sentiment that this was handled badly and that there should have been consultation. Now there is an opportunity for authorization. We need to debate this not whether it is President Obama but whether or not there is a collaborative effort between NATO and the Arab League to address this hostile situation in Libya. And, frankly, I don't like the politics of this. The politics says, it's okay if it's a Republican President but not okay if it's Mr. Obama.

I am interested in preserving the integrity of this Constitution and have consistently voted that Congress has a right to declare war. But we are now engaged in a consultation process, and I hope Members will engage in the debate on the basis of the right decision to make. I am against war. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. End the war in Iraq. But right now, this should not be Republicans against Democrats on the question of whether or not we are in a collaborative effort with NATO on this issue of Libya. We are attempting to save lives; take the politics out of it.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady.

I went to the Libyan Embassy at the very start of this horrific crisis and stood with the Libyan ambassador that resigned and called for the resignation of General Qadhafi. Today I continue to call for the cessation of the violence and abuse against the Libyan people. But we have to address this question away from the cloud, as I indicated, of politics.

We must adhere to the Constitution, Congress' right to declare war, but I can't understand this now backside debate about the War Powers Resolution being constitutional. For some of us, we believe that the contents of it insist that it is.

So my point to my colleagues is, the Kucinich resolution was on the floor, and every Republican had the opportunity to vote for it. Why we are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had, I believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this administration and President Obama.

I thank the distinguished Speaker, and to the distinguished Members that are on this floor, what a heck of a position to be in.

Let me make it very clear this is a set of circumstances that frames itself around the Constitution, the War Powers resolution, that indicates that Congress must be consulted. But I am in the middle of my actions that took place months ago or many weeks ago as the crisis and the murderous acts of Colonel Qadhafi began to seize his people. And we went to the Libyan Embassy to ask for Colonel Qadhafi to step down, and we joined with the then-Ambassador in his courageous act. Colonel Qadhafi is known to oppress his people; to deny rights of freedom of press and speech, as well as association; to train dictators in oppression and intelligence; and the murderous acts still go on.

But it is a crisis when we have an administration, unfortunately, that has not seen fit to undertake the consultation that is necessary. Yet I believe that we should finish the task, and it is different from Iraq and it is different from Afghanistan. We have a time certain and, as well, we have the Arab League that has asked us to stand with them against the oppression of one of its members.

This is a door opener to say to the people that we have asked to be with us to go against terrorist acts to stand for democracy. So this is a devastating position to put the Members of Congress in, but we must do our duty today, and I believe that it is good to say that the Hastings amendment is the framework, though I would prefer 6 months, and I hope there is an opportunity to address this for a limited time.

Let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for his leadership and for characterizing where we are today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture.

I'm looking at the vote count, and it looks as if 225 Republicans voted against a time certain to get out of Libya. If you read the bill H.R. 2278--and I am looking at it over and over again--there really is no print as to a time certain. There is a nebulous statement about limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational planning. That can go on ad infinitum. We can take the American people's money forever and ever and continue in this effort.

I don't like where we are today. Constitutionally, it is true, it is Congress' right to declare war. And the War Powers resolution--which my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on its constitutionality, and of course they've used it in the past--does indicate that it was done in order to track the Constitution and allow congressional consultation. There was a letter sent by the President. There has been a report sent. But there's no doubt that this was not handled right.

But in the Iraq war, an unnecessary war, no Arab League States asked us to join with them. There was no defined threat to the United States in the Iraq war, as we've said. We left the Afghanistan war to dillydally in Iraq and lose 4,000 soldiers. So where is the hypocrisy here?

Right now, the Arab League has asked us to join them. Right now, our NATO allies are engaged in trying to get rid of an oppressive abuser and a person who has killed his own people. Where is the dignity on this place? It's nothing but politics. And I respect my colleagues who want to make choices about which direction they want to go. But I will tell you, I would much rather vote for something that is time certain, ending in 1 year or before. And if there is not a definitive end, then I will offer a privileged resolution to get out of Libya.

But I don't want to abandon my friends in the Arab States who are now struggling for democracy. Why is Syria different? Why is Yemen different? Why is Bahrain different? You are absolutely right. Because other forces are engaged in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. And the Arab States are attempting to negotiate.

So I am not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds of wars. I'm not interested in going to Syria or Yemen or Bahrain. But I am interested in being consistent.

We now have an operation, and we can tell that there is movement by those who are rebels. And I would like my friends to document for me, if they have got a documented presence of al Qaeda, then they can tell us that. But right now, we have an obligation, and we can't play politics. And this bill is nothing but politics because it does not end when we're supposed to get out. It does it ad infinitum.

It is a continuous, unending obligation to be in Libya. I would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we have no more than a year. And I would offer to the White House that we would like reports sooner than that, and some of us may wish to go forward with another resolution to move us out.

But I will not be supporting politics today. I have to support those who are fighting for justice in Libya.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to express my disappointment with the Administration's decision not to consult with the Congress over the important and critical actions taken in Libya. Our government operates based upon a constitutionally protected system of checks and balances. It does not matter whether or not the Administration is Democrat or Republican. What is important is ensuring the role of Congress when determinations are made to engage in military actions in foreign countries. The War Powers Resolution was intended to ensure that any action taken by an Administration which utilizes military forces would require the involvement of this body.

As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United States. The issue before us raises the debate on how to apply the War Powers Resolution. As this resolution has not been declared unconstitutional it is important to follow our laws as written. This is a reminder to the American people that we must firmly hold true to our constitutional duties. We have the power to ensure the Executive does not overstep its bounds. As Members of Congress, we can exercise our power through appropriation, the appointment process, exercising oversight over the Executive, enactment legislation, or even establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse of power by the Administration.

The War Power resolution is an integral part of our process. The actions that have taken place in Libya raise the debate on how the War Power Resolution should be applied.

Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers have long argued about which branch of government has the power to decide whether the nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches has not always taken place. In 1973, The War Powers resolution was passed over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities.

Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. . . .'' The policy behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander in Chief, to deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised only pursuant to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' Pursuant to this authority, the President ``in every possible instance'' shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed Forces, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in hostile situations.

As we consider this Joint Resolution, we must also consider facts surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya, and the consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan people. I value the importance of a fair, just, and balanced approach. We must always act in compliance with our nation's constitution.

Prior to this conflict, since assuming power, Colonel Qaddafi has ignored the needs of the Libyan people; choosing instead to train other oppressive leaders in intelligence and weaponry. Qaddafi had given money to dictators such as Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor, and intervened in foreign wars instead of investing in education and infrastructure for the betterment of his own people.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently reported the lack of free press and free speech in Libya. The State controls the media and speaking out against Qaddafi or his government is not only illegal, it is also deadly. Qaddafi and his army executed activists who opposed the government and broadcasted their deaths on television.

Qaddafi was particularly intolerant of women and other minorities. He established ``social rehabilitation'' centers, where women who were designated financially or morally vulnerable were detained indefinitely. Homosexuality

was deemed criminal, and punished with up to five years in jail.

Now, the people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for democracy. This current conflict in Libya began four months ago, when Colonel Qadahfi failed to do what was right for his country and its people. Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt the painful consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil liberties were infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of all, many Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed under the command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a conflict with a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were authorized by the hand of the Libyan leader himself.

I applaud efforts to come to the aid of the Libyan people. I condemn Colonel Qadahfi's despicable and inhuman actions, and support the President in our national policy--and the World's policy--of removing this tyrant from power. The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated and continues to be encouraged by the very man charged with protecting the Libyan people. The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside assistance; the question is no longer whether or not Libya is in a critical condition. I call on my fellow Members of Congress to continue to condemn the violence taking place in Libya.

We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life. Colonel Muammar Qadahfi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. When faced with the shadow of oppression, the suppression of liberties, and the constant threat of brutality, history has shown that humanity will always rise up in protest, and if necessary, in armed resistance.

Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of Libyan citizens, Qadahfi chose to remain steadfast to the status quo-- to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake and lust for power. The reality of the situation is this: it was Qadahfi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that has led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we continue to deliberate the role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people. Colonel Qadahfi has proved himself to be, by the standards of any free nation, an illegitimate leader of the Libyan people. He has utilized snipers, helicopters gunships, mercenaries and gangs of hired thugs to harm his own people throughout the course of the protests. Rebels taking to the streets demanding free elections were injured and killed.

No leader should remain in power after committing the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of their own citizens; no leader should remain in power after ordering soldiers to fire upon crowds of defenseless, peaceful protesters; no leader should remain in power after executing hundreds of soldiers who bravely refused to carry out orders to shoot their fellow citizens in cold blood.

My message to Qadahfi is clear: stop the slaughter, stop the killing, and stop murdering your own people. I demand you step down from power! I implore you to consider and value the lives of your people. Stop the violence. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United Nations, the African Union, and other world groups to stop the slaughter and violence against the people of Libya.

As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Colonel Qaddafi.

For over four months, NATO-led air strikes in Libya have inflicted serious damage upon the Qaddafi regime's war machine, yet loyalist forces continue to demonstrate cohesiveness and operational superiority over besieged rebel forces. Still, some analysts suggest the stalemate is now yielding to a war of attrition favoring the rebels. Rebel combat skills have improved, as has their arsenal, which now reportedly includes vehicle-mounted antiaircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and mortars.

As rebels consolidate recent gains, NATO has proven to be the equalizing force. The African Union continues to press for a peace deal that was accepted by Qaddafi but rejected by the opposition because it would leave Qaddafi in power. With the support of the United States, United Nations, and NATO we must continue to push for the support of the African Union resolution. Turkey also has proposed a roadmap to establish an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, secure humanitarian aid corridors, and advance a political process for a transition. However, Turkey has not yet provided an implementation strategy other than making it clear that Qaddafi must go.

After the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, engaged in peace talks with Qadahfi most of the world believed the bloodshed would end. Today, it is clear that Qadahfi is going to continue to fight to stay in power.

We cannot stand by and watch as the people of Libya suffer. We need and must provide humanitarian aid. Americans have always come to aid of their neighbors in times of crisis.

We must continue to remember the context upon which we are currently operating in the world today. The Middle East is finally awaking to democracy and freedom. Advancing these objectives also advances our nation's security. The evidence is clear of an Arab Spring. The evidence is compelling all we need to do is look at Egypt, Byrahn, Yemen, Syria, and Libya to watch the effects of voices that are calling for democracy.

The Founders distributed the decision to go to war between the two political branches to assure that the decision would be made carefully. The founding generation experienced the hardship of several wars and they knew war's human and financial costs. They understood that a strong executive who is already given the title ``Commander in Chief,'' might flex the country's military strength injudiciously. Giving Congress the essential power to declare war allows heads to cool, alternatives to be considered, and makes certain there is consensus if the country is called to fight.

I continue to support the premise that Congress has the right to declare war, and our current debate must reflect this imperative. Congress has a right to assert its authority; however, the situation in Libya gives me great pause.

H.J. RES 68, ``Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya,''

Authorizes the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Arab League.

This bill will terminate such authorization one year after the date of enactment of this joint resolution. Further, H.J. Res. 68 states that consistent with the policy and statements of the President, Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of U.S. government officials (including diplomatic representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger. It requires the President to consult frequently with Congress regarding U.S. efforts in Libya, including by providing regular briefings and reports. Includes as elements in such briefings and reports:

(1) an updated description of U.S. national security interests and policy objectives in Libya;

(2) an updated list of U.S. Armed Forces activities in Libya;

(3) an updated assessment of the opposition groups in Libya, including potential successor governments; and

(4) an updated explanation of the President's legal and constitutional rationale for conducting military operations in Libya consistent with the War Powers Resolution.

H.R. 2278, ``To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya unless otherwise specifically authorized by law,'' this bill prevents the use of funds to pay for United States participation in any aspect of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort except intelligence, surveillance, search-and-rescue and other ``non-hostile'' support activities. I am for peace and not war, however I am not for politics of the Republicans that vote against Democratic Presidents but for Republican Presidents. This war is an effort for humanitarian assistance in Libya. The Libyan people were being attacked and were dying by their own leader.

Although, I am again disappointed by the continuing actions of the Administration that are taking place without the consultation of Congress. This should not cause us to ignore the plight of the Libyan people. We must continue to insist on providing the technical assistance and weapons necessary to defeat this regime. I will vote against H.R. 2278 because it is a political game and does not have a time certain to leave Libya.

The resolution cuts off funds just to embarrass President Obama. I want peace to come to Libya in the right way. Efforts to support action by the African Union, European Union, NATO and other U.S. allies only advance our call for democracy that is now being heard and is spreading throughout the Middle East. This can be done while complying with the War Powers Resolution, that is why I will support H.J. Res. 68 for now which sets a time of before one (1) year this war should end. I want the conflict to end sooner, I therefore reserve the right to offer a resolution on the floor to end this war.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, as I rise to offer my amendment, I take just a moment of personal privilege to say that, whatever side Members are on on this issue, I know that Members want to protect the genius of America.

I would like to thank my ranking member, Mr. Conyers, for that commitment, as he comes from one of the original genius proponents, and that is the auto industry that propelled America into the job creation of the century, and to the chairperson of the committee, Mr. Smith, who ventured out in efforts to provide opportunities for protecting, again, the opportunities for invention and genius.

My amendment speaks, I think, in particular to the vast population of startups and small businesses that are impacted by this legislation. In particular, it is a reinforcement of Congress' position that indicates that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory

behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.

We recognize that small and minority businesses and women-owned businesses, which dominate the landscape of America, are really major job creators. Small business is thriving in my own home State of Texas, as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the State's employers and 46.8 of its private sector employment. We know that there are a large number of women-owned businesses and as well growing African American and Latino. But we need more growth--with Asian businesses, small businesses, Hispanic, Native American, African American--all forms of businesses that are part of growing this economy.

Small business makes up a large portion of our employer network. It is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform. In this first-to-file, for example, small businesses may in fact be concerned about trying to get investors. As they get investors, they may have to disclose. This sense of Congress will put us on notice that we need to be careful that we allow at least the opportunity for these investors, and that we continue to look at the bill to ensure that it responds to that opportunity. We must recognize again, as I said, that small businesses create jobs. And the number of new jobs that they have created are 64 percent of net jobs over the past 15 years. My amendment, again, reinforces the idea that small businesses can survive in this climate.

I did offer an amendment which provided for a transitional review program for 5 years or add for that to be sunsetted. It was all about trying to protect our small businesses. But I believe this amendment, with its firm statement, gathers Congress around the idea that nothing in this bill will inhibit small businesses from being creative. We can as well recognize all of the growth that has come about from the ideas of small businesses.

I think my amendment also reinforces that we do not wish to engage in any undue taking of property because we indicate that we want to see the innovativeness of American businesses continue. I believe this is an important statement, because the bill is about innovation, genius, creation, job creation, and it should be about small businesses. Small businesses should be as comfortable with going to the Patent Office as our large businesses. In years to come, because of this major reform, we should see small businesses creating opportunity for growth as they develop not into small-and medium-sized but huge international companies.

So I am asking my colleagues to support this amendment, and as well I am recognizing that we do have the opportunity to turn the corner and to put a stamp of new job creation on America.

I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1249, the ``America Invents Act.'' My amendment adds a section to the end of the bill expressing the sense of Congress that ``the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.''

We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property. Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as businesses which employ less than 500 employees.

According to the Department of Commerce in 2006 there were 6 million small employers representing around 99.7% of the nation's employers and 50.2% of its private-sector employment.

In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28% while black owned was around 5%. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5% while the number for men went down 1.5%.

Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7% of the state's employers and 46.8% of its private-sector employment.

In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses compared to over 1 million owned by men.

88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are Hispanic, and 16,000 are Native Americans.

Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform.

Given the current state of the economy, we cannot afford to overlook the opportunities for job growth that small businesses create.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between the 1992 and 2005, small businesses accounted for 65% of quarterly net employment growth in the private sector.

Even in unsteady economic times, small businesses can be counted on for job creation. Between 1992 and 2004, the net job creation rate was the highest at the smallest establishments.

Small Businesses Create Jobs. It is a fact. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses:

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).

Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Many successful business owners will credit at least part of their success to the ability to innovate--in technologies, in strategies, and in business models. A huge part of this innovation comes from the ability to create and patent ideas.

According to a study conducted by Business Week, half of all business innovation resources are dedicated to creating new products or services.

Patents are the driving force behind this product innovation, and without strong patent protection, businesses will lack the incentive to attract customers and contribute to economic growth.

While I am happy to be here debating this all important amendment to this bill, it is unfortunate that some of my other amendments supporting small businesses and acknowledging the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution were not accepted. In yesterday's Rules Committee meeting, I offered a number of amendments:

I offered amendments that ensure the inclusion of minority and women owned businesses in the definition of ``small entities'' to ensure they receive the benefits of reduced user fees.

I also offered an amendment ensuring the inclusion of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions amongst entities that receive fee discounts.

Another pro-small business amendment I offered would have extended the grace period for small businesses from one year to 18 months, enabling them enough time to secure financial support and develop their invention in order to bring it to market.

Section 18 of the bill, which creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has raised concerns about the potential to create situations which could run afoul of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution. To address these concerns, I offered a number of amendments:

One of my amendments would have shortened the sunset on Section 18 from 10 years to 5 years.

I also introduced an amendment that would have required the Director of the USPTO to make a determination of whether or not a condition causing an unlawful taking is created by this section.

Lastly, I introduced a sense of Congress amendment that affirms that no provisions in this bill should create a unconstitutional taking.

Despite my concerns with certain provisions in this bill, overall, I believe H.R. 1249 will usher in the reforms needed to improve the patent system, making it more effective and efficient, and therefore encouraging innovation and job creation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, because of the graciousness of the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, and the chairman, Mr. Smith, of agreeing to my amendment, Jackson Lee No. 5 that was just debated, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a record vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 672 ``Election Support Consolidation and Efficiency Act.'' This bill seeks to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to terminate the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the EAC Standards Board, and the EAC Board of Advisors 61 days after enactment of this Act. It also requires that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) perform EAC functions with respect to certain existing contracts and agreements during the transition period for finishing EAC affairs.

I oppose this bill because it undermines the intent behind the Help America Vote Act. Let me remind those who have forgotten of the chaos in the days following the election of 2000. Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002 which helped create the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC was created to help state and local election officials use current technology and best practices when overseeing elections.

The EAC oversees voting-system testing and certification. The EAC tests and certifies voting machines for use in elections to safeguard against the problems of 2000 election in Florida; and creates voluntary voting guidelines for states, instilling confidence in the democratic process of this country for all voters.

The Commission also develops and fosters the training and organization of more than 8,000 election administrators throughout the nation.

The EAC's certification program is helping state and local governments save money by using its oversight role to coordinate with manufacturers and local election officials to ensure that the existing equipment meets its durability and longevity potential. This saves state and local governments from the unnecessary expense of new voting equipment.

The Commission plays a major role in collecting accurate and comparable election data.

Living in a nation guided by the spirit of democracy and by which the American people are the voices for change, I do not see how H.R. 672 can continue this legacy. Without the EAC, there would be no federal agency focused on improving the quality of elections. With this, the American people will lose faith in our democracy and, to tell you the truth so will I.

The American people have not forgotten the chaos of the 2000, and let us ensure that this Congress remembers those troubling days as well. We must never forget the feeling of fear and uncertainty as the fabric of our democracy and our faithful constitution was put to test. I feel for scores of votes in Florida, whose voices were not heard as fraud and corruption consumed polling stations. As a representative of Texas, a state of over 20 million people, I refuse to have any voice of Texas' constituents, or mine of the 18th district, be stifled by those who think otherwise.

In the society we live in, it is often those who cannot defend themselves or those with limited political power whose voices are often overshadowed. Among this group are oftentimes the poor, women, the uneducated, the inept, and the elderly. The EAC has worked tirelessly to end this trend. Through research, grant-making and the development of voting guidelines, the Election Assistance Commission is helping many groups gain their Constitutional right to vote, including racial and ethnic minorities, members of the Armed Services (especially those serving overseas), disabled Americans and senior citizens.

The EAC has worked to improve the accessibility of more than 37 million disabled voters with disabilities.

It also has worked to create electronic voting systems for our brave men and women in uniform fighting overseas so that they are able to vote abroad.

Considering my belief that the termination of the EAC would untangle progress our democracy has made in bringing uniformity and equality among states in the voting process, I strongly urge opposition to this bill. If the EAC is terminated, it is very likely we will see many more elections like the election of 2000. If we care about the legacy of our democracy and our constitution, I urge opposition to H.R. 672.

I thank the Speaker and thank the gentleman, and I appreciate the generosity of the Rules chairman on the number of occasions that I have sought to both represent my constituents at the Rules Committee and to represent issues that are of concern to America.

Let me just say that I believe in efficiency of time, but I am struck by a rule that has two major legislative initiatives that require the deliberation and the thoughtfulness of Members of Congress. I believe the rule is not necessarily a place to express one's opposition or support, but I do believe it's important procedurally to discuss a number of issues.

The legislation that deals with the EPA, H.R. 2021, in and of itself would warrant an opportunity for full discussion, and I offered a number of amendments that I thought were quite productive, and those amendments would have provided some reasonable thought about the EAB. It would have provided a review period, and one in particular that the gentleman mentioned was the opportunity to file your cases in local courts.

I'm glad that we'll have the general discussion on the floor. Far be it from me to suggest that is not a good thing, but I do want to say that I had a very strong amendment that was not included in the Rule; the Amendment was originally withdrawn but resubmitted so we did have an opportunity to correct a letter that we had sent, but I'm glad for the debate in the form of another amendment just like mine regarding local federal courts being allowed to hear these matters.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Well, reclaiming my time, whatever the reason was, we both agree we needed to have more time for the rules debate.

And I will now move to the patent bill. And as I said, I will not discuss the pros and cons of this legislation, but I will say to you-- and I see the gentleman rising over here maybe trying to correct something that was said. There's no reason to correct anything other than the fact that we had a number of amendments that we offered and we would hope that we would have had an open rule.

Thank you very much.

On the patent bill in particular, two amendments that would have been vital were to announce that this was not an undue taking of property, to indicate to those who are concerned about this issue, because I think the bill does have the ability to create jobs, and lastly is the point of being able to give small businesses an 18-month period for disclosure when many small businesses have to secure funding from other places and the secret of their invention is exposed.

This Amendment would have added protection to small businesses and improved the debate, nevertheless I look forward to the debate, but I hope we will not have this kind of rule in the future.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss Amendments I offered, I would like to note my support for the first to file system in H.R. 1249. I believe it to be a positive step toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of our IP system. However, I am not deaf to some of the criticisms that it has received from various interests, and I believe it is imperative that this bill be a real jobs creator for small and large inventors and businesses.

The amendments I am offering today are not controversial. They simply tighten up the language of the existing provisions of the bill, and add checks to ensure that the bill, if it becomes law, is fulfilling its intended purposes.

Amendments Concerning Small Businesses, Minority-and Woman-Owned

Businesses, and, HBCU'S

Amendment #26 and #22--Inclusion of minority-and woman-owned businesses

H.R. 1249, the ``American Invents Act,'' addresses one of the concerns with the current patent system--the high fees associated with filing patent applications and the burden they impose on small businesses and not-for-profit entities wishing to secure patent protection.

It addresses this concern by giving a 50 percent discount on all USPTO fees to ``small entities'' and ``micro entities.''

My first amendment (Amendment #26) amends the definition of ``small entities'' for the purposes of receiving the fee discount to include language that ensures that minority-owned and woman-owned businesses are included.

My second amendment (Amendment #22), much like my first amendment, includes minority-owned and woman-owned businesses in the definition of ``micro entity'' for purposes of receiving the fee discounts afforded to these types of entities.

While I am sure it was the intent behind this section to extend protection for all small businesses, my amendments simply reassure inclusion of minority-owned and woman-owned businesses.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as a business which employs less than 500 employees. According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers-- representing around 99.7 percent of the nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment. The proposed patent reform will ensure that small businesses are not treated at a disadvantage. It has great potential to create job growth, and in turn spur economic development for our country.

There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private- sector employment. Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform.

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

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

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

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

Amendment #29--HBCU's and Hispanic Serving Institutions

One of the positive attributes of this bill is that it extends fee discounts to colleges and universities that engage in research and seek patent protection of their work.

H.R. 1249 does this by giving fee discounts to ``public institutions of higher education.''

For purposes of this section, my amendment includes in the definition of ``small entities'' Historically Black Colleges and Universities, HBCU's.

Generally speaking, HBCU's should be considered ``public institutions of higher education,'' however, in a few instances where schools receive alternative means of funding, there is a risk that minority serving institutions could be overlooked.

My amendment simply ensures that the intended goal of the language in this bill is actually achieved--that ALL colleges and universities, including Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic Serving Institutions, receive fee discounts to keep the patent system accessible.

Our Nation's colleges and universities are responsible for a vast amount of valuable research.

HBCUs are a source of accomplishment and great pride for the African American community as well as the entire Nation. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, defines an HBCU as: ``. . . any historically black college or university that was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Secretary [of Education] to be a reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation.'' HBCUs offer all students, regardless of race, an opportunity to develop their skills and talents.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said, ``HBCUs play an essential role in helping our Nation boost college completion rates and achieve the President's goal for America to again have the highest percentage of college graduates in the world by 2020.''

At present, HBCUs award just over 36,000 undergraduate degrees a year. More than 80 percent of those degrees, about 31,500 degrees, are baccalaureate degrees.

HBCUs currently award about 15 percent of all undergraduate degrees nationwide for African-American students.

The completion gap in high-demand fields in science, technology, engineering and math is particularly troubling. Nationwide, nearly 70 percent of white students in STEM fields complete their degrees, compared with just 42 percent of African-American students.

Amendment #27--Sense of Congress protecting rights of small businesses

and inventors

We must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property.

Therefore, I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the patent system should promote industries to continue to develop new technologies that spur growth and create jobs across the country, which includes protecting the rights of small businesses and inventors from predatory behavior that could result in the cutting off of innovation.

The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance.

Several studies, including those by the National Academy of Sciences and the Federal Trade Commission, recommended reform of the patent system to address what they thought were deficiencies in how patents are currently issued.

The U.S. Department of Commerce defines small businesses as businesses which employ less than 500 employees.

According to the Department of Commerce, in 2006 there were 6 million small employers representing around 99.7 percent of the Nation's employers and 50.2 percent of its private-sector employment.

In 2002 the percentage of women who owned their business was 28 percent while black owned was around 5 percent. Between 2007 and 2008 the percent change for black females who were self employed went down 2.5 percent while the number for men went down 1.5 percent.

Small business is thriving in my home state of Texas as well. There were 386,422 small employers in Texas in 2006, accounting for 98.7 percent of the state's employers and 46.8 percent of its private-sector employment.

In 2009, there were about 468,000 small women-owned small businesses compared to over 1 million owned by men.

88,000 small business owners are black, 77,000 are Asian, 319,000 are Hispanic, 16,000 are Native Americans.

Since small businesses make up such a large portion of our employer network, it is important to understand how they will be impacted as a result of patent reform.

Amendment #23--Extension of the disclosure period for small businesses

My amendment addresses the section of this bill which deals with the disclosure period, also known as the grace period. In its current state, H.R. 1249 includes a one-year grace period for inventors who make disclosures about their inventions before they apply for an actual patent.

My amendment extends that grace period for small business from one year to eighteen months.

When small businesses are attempting to develop an invention, oftentimes it is necessary for them to make disclosures to outside entities because, due to a lack of resources, they need to outsource the effort needed to bring an invention to market.

For small businesses outsourcing their development, the one-year grace period may not be an adequate amount of time.

Whenever an inventor makes the first public disclosure of an invention, then--as to whatever the inventor disclosed publicly--the disclosing inventor is guaranteed the right to patent the invention if a patent is sought during the 1-year ``grace period'' after the first public disclosure, even if during this ``grace period'' someone else (e.g., another inventor) either publishes its own independent work on the invention or seeks its own patent on the invention based on its independent work.

Prior art is created when a disclosure is made available to the public. However, the ``grace period'' operates so that an inventor's own disclosure (or the disclosure by someone else that represents nothing more than the inventor's own work itself) is excluded as prior art to the extent of any of these inventor-originated disclosures made one year or less before the inventor seeks a patent. In short, inventors have one year from when they make their work public to seek patents.

Amendments Addressing Section 18 (Transitional Review Process for

Business Method Patents)

Amendment #25--Sunset of Business Method Patents Review Program

Though I am generally supportive of this bill, Section 18, which creates a transitional review program for business method patents, has come under criticism.

There has been a lot of inconsistency in the status of the law surrounding business method patents over the years.

Historically, business methods and systems to implement those methods were not patentable, but in the 1998 State Street v. Signature Financial Group ruling, that all changed.

After that ruling, there was an explosion of applications for business method patents, and many were issued. However, many of these patents are of poor quality.

Many business methods are facially obvious, whereas patentable inventions are supposed to be novel and non-obvious.

They also lack prior art. It is very difficult to determine which business methods are simply common practice in different industries, but simply have been properly documented.

The difficulties associated with issuing business method patents coupled with the lack of resources within the USPTO lead to issuance of many weak business method patents, some of which probably should not have been awards. Thus, a slew of litigation followed.

This section, though controversial because it targets a specific type of patent, is intended to iron out the inconsistency in issuance of these types of patents and the many different rulings that flowed from mountains of litigation.

While I believe it is important to achieve to consistency, I also think the necessity of this process is finite. Currently, the provision sunsets in 10 years, however, that period is too long in my opinion.

Given the concerns associated with this section and the limited relevance of this provision, I have proposed an amendment that would make this provision sunset in 5 years.

Amendment #24--Requiring Departmental determination that there is no

``unlawful taking of property''

As I mentioned previously, Section 18 of this bill has been subject to criticisms, most notably the fact that the transitional review program is creates may cause some patents to be taken away, which may lead to a potential violation of the ``takings clause'' in the U.S. Constitution.

Patents, though intangible, are considered property and they are valuable--some extremely valuable and a source of great wealth to their owners. A process that could strip a patent owner of their property without just

compensation comes dangerously close to an unlawful taking, in my opinion.

This is of great concern to me, and therefore I am offering an amendment to address the constitutionality issue of this provision.

My amendment requires the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, within a year of enactment of this bill, to make a determination of whether the provisions of this section could create a condition that could be considered an unlawful taking of property under the ``takings clause'' found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Director would need to report to Congress the underlying reasoning for his determination.

While there may be a valid intent and purpose behind the provisions in section 18 of this bill, no purpose is so great that it warrants a violation of the Constitution.

My amendment will help ensure that the Constitution is upheld and adhered to, a goal that we all, regardless of party affiliation, should wholly support.

Amendment #28--Sense of Congress--no violation of the takings clause

The Constitution is the law of land, a body of law that we as lawmakers respect, and that the American people value as the cornerstone of democracy.

Because some of the opponents of this bill have raised Constitutional concerns with specific provisions in the bill, I am offering an amendment that reaffirms our commitment to the Constitution.

My amendment is simple. It states that it is the sense of Congress that none of the provisions of this bill should constitute an unconstitutional taking of property under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

I thank the distinguished Member from California.

To my colleagues on the floor, this has to be, could have been or hopefully can be one of the greatest opportunities for bipartisanship that we have seen in any number of years. That was the process that was proceeded under on the Judiciary Committee, though obviously there are always disagreements; but the whole idea of our debate and the support of the present underlying legislation without the manager's amendment was to, in fact, create jobs.

In the committee, a number of my amendments were accepted, but in particular, the focus of converting from a first-inventor-to-use system to a first-inventor-to-file was thought to promote the progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the exclusive right for their discoveries and to provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights.

Further, this new system was to be, or should be, able to harmonize the United States patent registration system with similar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the United States conducts trade. This was to shine the light and open the door on American genius.

In addition, so many of us have waited so long to be able to give the resources to the PTO in order for it to do its job. We were aghast in hearings to hear that there is a 7,000-application backlog, so I rise as well to express enormous concern with the manager's amendment, which, as the PTO director has indicated, Dave Kappos, every time we do not process a PTO, or a patent, for some genius here in the United States, for some hardworking inventor, every patent that sits on the shelf at the PTO office is taking away an American job, and that job is not being created. As well, it is denying a product from going to the market, and it is someone's life that is not being saved, and our country ceases to grow.

We need jobs in this country. We need a Patent Office that is going to expedite and move forward. We don't need discussions about lawyers fighting lawyers or trial lawyers. This is not a case of anti-lawyer legislation. We hope that some of the small businesses and large companies have their lawyers fighting to preserve and protect their patents. This bill will give them the opportunity to have that protection, but I am disappointed that all of a sudden the manager's amendment changed around and took an enormous amount of those fees and invested them elsewhere instead of helping our small businesses. I am also disappointed that we don't recognize that a bill that helps big businesses can help small businesses as well, so I had offered an amendment that would extend the grace period while the small business is working to fund its patent.

The period is now a year--I'd indicated 18 months--because small businesses have to reach to others to help fund their inventions, and they let their secrets out of the bag. Eighteen months protects their disclosures for a period of time for them to be able to move forward.

Lastly, I had a sunset provision that would help small businesses as well as relates to the sunset of the business method patents review.

This could be a good bill. I hope that we can correct it, and I ask my colleagues to consider correcting this bill.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1249, ``America Invents Act.'' However I am concerned over the drastic fee charges that were made in the new Manager's Amendment completely contrary to our agreement in the House Judiciary markup--it takes enormous amounts of money from the work of the PTO. As a Senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, I am proud to support this legislation because in many ways the current patent system is flawed, outdated, and in need of modernization.

The Judiciary Committee labored long and hard to produce legislation that reforms the American patent system so that it continues to foster innovation and be the jet fuel of the American economy and remains the envy of the world. This legislation incorporates amendments that I offered during the full committee markup as it recognizes the importance of converting from a first-inventor-to-use system to a first-inventor-to file will promote the progress of science by securing for a limited time to inventors the exclusive rights to their discoveries and provide inventors with greater certainty regarding the scope of protections granted by these exclusive rights. Further, this new system will harmonize the United States patent registration system with similar systems used by nearly all other countries with whom the United States conducts trade. This legislation will continue to ensure that the United States is at the helm of innovation.

Our Nation's Founders recognized the integral role the patent system would play in the

growth of our nation. Within our Constitution, they explicitly granted Congress with the power to issue patents. The Founders were supporting a fundamental part of the American dream which is to live in a free land where ideas can be shared thereby leading to the individual ingenuity, invention, and innovation.

Madam Chair, Article I, Section 8, clause 8 of the Constitution confers upon the Congress the power:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

In order to fulfill the Constitution's mandate, we must examine the patent system periodically. The legislation before us represents the first comprehensive review of the patent system in more than a generation. It is right and good and necessary that the Congress now reexamine the patent system to determine whether there may be flaws in its operation that may hamper innovation, including the problems described as decreased patent quality, prevalence of subjective elements in patent practice, patent abuse, and lack of meaningful alternatives to the patent litigation process.

On the other hand, we must always be mindful of the importance of ensuring that small companies have the same opportunities to innovate and have their inventions patented and that the laws will continue to protect their valuable intellectual property.

The role of venture capital is very important in the patent debate, as is preserving the collaboration that now occurs between small firms and universities. We must ensure that whatever improvements we make to the patent laws are not done so at the expense of innovators and to innovation. The legislation before us, while not perfect, does a surprisingly good job at striking the right balance.

From small towns to big cities, our country is filled with talent and genius. As it stands, the United States has four times as many patent applications filed here per year than in Europe. The United States Patent and Trademark office must have the tools to meet this demand. Failing to change the patent system as we know it will deny the men and women from around our nation fair and equal access to a streamlined and effective patent system.

The current system has a backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents, nearly 700,000 applications are waiting to be reviewed. The USPTO is currently reviewing applications from 2007/2008, and using the fees received from the most recent patent applications to do so due to limitations in the current system under which the USPTO is funded. This has caused inventors and business creators to wait on average three years prior to receiving a determination on whether or not their patents are valid.

Without that determination it is nearly impossible for a small business to receive the necessary venture capital. That's a three-year waiting period for struggling small businesses; this is a three-year gap filled with financial uncertainty which leads to a three-year delay in job creation. Only 4 out of ten applications, or 42 percent, of patent applications are approved. It is vital to have approval prior to attaining financing because there is a 58 percent chance that a patent will not be approved. Given our current economic environment, a three year backlog is too long for any individual to wait to build a business which will create new jobs, especially at a time when jobs are sourly needed by many right now. Patent reform is the key to economic change that could lead to untapped job growth.

Since the creation of the USPTO in 1790 it has issued 7,752,677 patents and many of those patents have resulted in the creation of new jobs. In 2010, 121,179 patents granted by the USPTO originated in the United States of those granted 8,027 went to applicants in Texas. Imagine how many jobs could be created if there were not a 700,000 patent application backlog.

Our current system is outdated and the backlog makes it evident that our system is in serious need of change. Patent reform must reflect the major advances in our society over the last 50 years. Since the last major patent reform how we live has been transformed by a variety of inventions such as the home computer, ATM, video games, cellular phones and mobile devices, and life saving technologies like the artificial heart, all of which have been invented since any major reform of our patent system.

Madam Chair, patent reform is a complex issue but one thing is clear the innovation ecosystem we create and sustain today will produce tomorrow's technological breakthroughs. That ecosystem is comprised of many different operating models. It is for that reason that we evaluated competing patent reform proposals thoroughly to ensure that sweeping changes in one part of the system do not result in unintended consequences to other important parts.

Let me discuss briefly some of the more significant features of this legislation, which I will urge all members to support. H.R. 1249 converts the U.S. patent system from a first-to-invent system to a first inventor-to-file system. The U.S. is alone in granting priority to the first inventor as opposed to the first inventor to file a patent. H.R. 1249 will inject needed clarity and certainty into the system. While cognizant of the enormity of the change that a ``first inventor-to-file'' system may have on many small inventors and universities, a study regarding first-to-file will be conducted by the Small Business Administration and the United States Patent Office to identify any negative impact this change may have on these inventors.

Furthermore, H.R. 1249 adjusts the fee structure which funds the USPTO, giving them greater control over the fees they collect for patent services and enabling the USPTO to improve its efficiency and review more patents at a greater speed. Currently, the USPTO is funded solely by the fees its receives from it's users. However, not all the fees collected are available for use by the USPTO because Congress appropriates a specific amount, and any fees above the appropriated amount are used for other non-USPTO purposes. Under H.R. 1249, the USPTO will have greater control over the use of the fees it receives, giving them greater flexibility to make necessary improvements to the patent system.

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that we are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election fairness. I would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking up the Voting Rights Act, the one of 1965, in the dark of night.

We can speak lightly about this, but I will tell you that every election time someone is denied the right to vote in the United States. I hope Americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even though it is represented that the change and eliminating the particular agency that deals with the questions of fairness, the Election Assistance Commission, we're actually not saving money, and passing the responsibilities off to the Federal Elections Commission.

Why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), who said let's do it right. Let's have a general accountable study and know what we're doing and if we're taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote.

I will tell you that the purging of voters that occurs in Texas and other places around the Nation, and in particular in Harris County, is not a minor issue. The distraction of African American male voters in Florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction.

And so the question is, even if this deals with interactive data, let me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local government because without this particular commission, those resources or those responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local governments. So now we're doing unfunded mandates.

I would simply say that it was painful to pass the health bill.

This legislation, Mr. Speaker, was passed in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism.

I am not here to point fingers, but I lived through that emotional time. It is history, my colleagues know that it is, but they know how painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who was turned away from the voting booth--and also the discrepancies on how we count our votes in America, the most sophisticated Nation in the world, the Nation that others look to and say, how do we promote democracy?

Why would we stand on the floor of the House at 8 o'clock tonight and deny democracy? I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to stand for democracy and fairness.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the Chairman, and I thank the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee for their kindness and their deliberateness in this very long evening and as well the ranking member along with the chairman.

This is a simple amendment about food and about helping more Americans get healthy food. There is not one of us that does not understand how dry and difficult a desert is. This amendment is simply about food deserts in rural and urban areas.

This amendment provides a $5 million increase to the Office of the Secretary to allow assistance to provide relief to those who are suffering from the lack of access to food quality.

This is a healthy child, we would hope. That healthy child needs to have good food. These funds will increase the availability of affordable healthy food in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

Fast-food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low- income neighborhoods, offering few if any healthy options. In rural areas, there may be no access at all. This particularly impacts African American and Hispanic communities and, as I indicated, rural communities.

This climate in the difficult times that we have requires us to be able to

allow families to have access to good food. We also have the issues of obesity and as well nutrition. Food deserts impact many districts, and I will say to you that Texas in particular has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas face a nutrition issue. Targeting assistance to food desert areas will provide healthy food to affected areas, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

Farmers markets are a good idea, but farmers markets sometimes are difficult to find in our communities. Again, let me emphasize, this is about rural and urban areas. This initiative will provide for the availability of healthy food alternatives to some 23 million people living in food deserts.

Let me just suggest to you that these families that we care for, families, young families of the military, many of you have heard stories where the military families are on food stamps. Many of them live in areas beyond their bases, and some of their families are back home in rural and urban areas. This amendment, which will provide an $8 million gift back to the government, will give a mere $5 million to provide the opportunity for those food desert loopholes, if you will-- rural places in our Nation where there are big gaps with access to food, and as well urban areas--to have access to the opportunity for good and healthy food.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that addresses the question of helping those who need healthy food.

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, which will reach back into the bill to increase the funding for the Office of the Secretary by $5 million dollars. This increase, provided for by reducing the funding for operations and maintenance of Buildings and Facilities in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative, HFFI. Supporting this amendment will not only fund an important pilot program, but save the government $8 million.

Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any healthy options.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities.

Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families.

The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

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

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering affect food deserts have on the health of low income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food.

Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout, or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods.

This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way.

First of all, let me thank Mr. Farr and Mr. Kingston. I had hoped my friend from Georgia could see in his heart that this is a very small microcosm for a very large issue, and that is that food deserts do exist and the families that are impacted, number of families that include those who are members of the United States military from the very youngest child.

I have been fiscally responsible, if that is the case, to narrow this very well, and I have no quarrel with individual chains engaging in marketing outreach. But I'm talking about hard-to-serve areas that include urban and rural areas where there are no food chains to engage in any benevolent assistance.

I'm also suggesting to you that if you look at the landscape of districts across the Nation, just take for example my district is number 32 in regards to food insecurity, but there are 31 above me. The people have limited access to food.

I enjoy the point that Mr. Farr made about Ms. Kaptur's farmers markets. This will infuse energy into the farmers markets. This will create jobs for a limited amount of pilot resources. This is the right thing to do. This is to take a great land like America and say we want everybody to minimally have access to good, healthy, nutritious food.

So I would ask for the humanitarian consideration of my friends on the other side of the aisle. I thank the gentleman from California for his instructiveness and the work of the members of this Appropriations Committee, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment. It fills the gaping hole of the lack of food by providing resources to cure the problem of food deserts.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the last word.

The opportunities for Members to have amendments is a privilege that should not be denied. And I respect my colleague from Iowa for his right to offer an amendment. But it is tragic and disappointing that my friend from Iowa, who served with me on the Judiciary Committee, would take this time to demean the tragic lives that black farmers, Native Americans farmers, and others impacted have experienced over several decades; to raise the name of Shirley Sherrod, whose eloquent story and painful story of the loss of her father in the segregated South, who was murdered, and the family had to survive after his tragic murder because of his color--to my knowledge, a farmer, man of the Earth.

I sat on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years, and this legislation proceeded through the Judiciary Committee. I join the gentleman in wanting to ensure the adequacy of the implementation of this settlement. I want to stand alongside a transparent system. But this was a lawsuit that many of the litigants died before they even got to the settlement. This is the American way--a battle in the courts, a settlement--had it not been for the good will of Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, members of the Congressional Black Caucus who joined with members of the Democratic Caucus, Republicans, past Presidents, who were concerned and interested in the devastation tragedy of the segregated South and a segregated Department who treated black farmers in a disparate way from others. Individuals who went bankrupt, who lost farms because they could not get the same access to agricultural loans that others could. And in the wisdom of the court system and the wisdom of this body and the wisdom of a settlement, relief was brought not before many had died and their heirs, trembling, limited, scattered, few, were able to come together and receive the funding.

I'm sorry Mr. King was not at the signing of that final settlement and to see those historic families, patriots, who expressed nothing but love for this country. What a tragedy to come and interfere with an existing settlement. I don't even know how he can put this amendment up on the floor. It's late. We're losing our voices here. But I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize that there's nothing wrong with ensuring that the Agriculture Department and the surrounding entities that are dealing with the distribution of these funds be transparent and without fraud.

But it would be absurd for any Member to join and to vote to interfere with the legitimate settlement of legitimate claims that have evidenced the pain and devastation and disregard and disparate treatment and discrimination and unconstitutional treatment of farmers who we claim on this floor today to love. Farming is part of the American fabric. And if there's any

body of people who understands farms, it is the ex-slaves who worked for 400 years without payment in the cotton fields of the South.

I ask my colleagues to consider opposing this amendment, and I rise respectfully to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the value of emphasizing the importance of urban gardening. My amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

Forty-seven million American families live in poverty that restricts their access to healthy food. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country. Seventeen million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop in a country so full of resources. It is unconscionable that millions of children do not have enough to eat. We cannot consider proposals that would contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security, such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

In my home State of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, 17.4 percent of all households struggle with food security. Community Food Projects Competitive Grants are a vital aspect of the Food and Nutrition Act and must be preserved. Community Food Projects Grants have helped thousands of people in low-income communities combat food insecurity by developing community food projects that encourage healthy habits and self-sufficiency. These grants increase the self- reliance of low-income communities that have historically encountered difficulties in providing foods. Programs funded by Community Food Projects Grants have been successful in cities and towns. And, in fact, more than 550,000 Harris County residents relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to buy food.

But one of the important aspects of this is the urban garden. The People's Garden School Pilot Program will develop and run gardens in high-poverty schools. Teaching students about health and nutrition and increasing access to healthy foods are invaluable benefits of schools where more than 50 percent of the student body qualifies for free or reduced-cost lunches.

I rise to encourage support for this particular part of the bill so that we can continue to support urban gardening. And I want to salute Veggie Pals, a gardening program that does just that. It finds patches of land wherever it might be, and it makes sure that we provide healthy food.

This amendment would ensure that nothing in this legislation, nothing in this appropriation would prohibit the growth and continued expansion of this very important concept of urban gardening. The number of Americans who suffer from poverty and hunger is unacceptable.

Reducing or redirecting funding meant to increase food security and nutrition is simply not an option. Join me in recognizing the value of urban gardens. And thank you to the Veggie Pals gardening program that has educated how many thousands of children and emphasized the value of good and healthy food.

This program, Veggie Pals, urban gardening, educating people about nutrition, meal preparation, physical activities, cookbooks, Olympics and others, promotes healthy behavior.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues today to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, ``Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would prohibit any of the funds made available by the appropriations from being used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

47 million American families live in poverty that restricts their access to healthy food. The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 supports numerous programs aimed at reducing hunger throughout the country.

17 million children struggle with hunger every day, affecting their ability to learn and develop. In a country so full of resources, it is unconscionable that millions of children do not

have enough to eat. We cannot consider proposals that would contradict existing legislation aimed at improving food security, such as the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008.

In my home state of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, 17.4 percent of all households struggle with food security. Community Food Project Competitive Grants are a vital aspect of the Food and Nutrition Act that must be preserved.

Community Food Project grants have helped thousands of people in low- income communities combat food insecurity by developing community food projects that encourage healthy habits and self-sufficiency.

These grants increase the self reliance of low income communities that have historically encountered difficulties in providing for their own food needs. Programs funded by community food project grants have been successful in cities and towns across America, and would certainly make a difference in the 18th Congressional District. In December of 2010, more than 550,000 Harris County residents relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program to buy food.

Hunger and food insecurity have grave impacts on children. Students do not have the opportunity to succeed if they are hungry. The People's Garden School Pilot program will develop and run gardens at high poverty schools. Teaching students about health and nutrition and increasing access to healthy foods are invaluable benefits at schools where more than 50 percent of the student body qualifies for free or reduced cost lunches.

Community food project grants and other initiatives such as the People's Garden Project represent practical and long term solutions to ending food insecurity in America. We must be committed to funding programs that encourage self-sufficient food sources, highlight the importance of nutrition, and reach children at an early age.

The number of Americans who suffer from poverty and hunger is unacceptable. Reducing or redirecting funding meant to increase food security and nutrition is simply not an option. We must continue to fund programs like the community food project grants and the People's Garden.

It is the responsibility of each and every Member in this chamber to work for the well-being of our constituents and to ensure that the basic needs of constituents are met. I urge my colleagues to think of those who are affected by hunger in their districts and support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

As I discuss my amendment, I want to indicate to my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the life of me, I can't understand why you would oppose an amendment that costs no funds and only emphasizes the importance of urban gardening. There lies the ludicrousness of

the lack of collaboration and understanding when there are amendments that would help all of us. So I do express my great disappointment that you didn't understand the amendment and, rather than ask what the amendment meant, you voted loudly ``no.'' That's unfortunate for the American people. We do that all the time.

But I rise today to emphasize the importance of making sure that we implement the judgment that has already previously been discussed that helps the unfortunate farmers that experienced proven discrimination at the Department of Agriculture and to credit Members on both sides of the aisle for recognizing it and recognizing the importance of not infringing upon a judicial decision, a settlement that could help a number of farmers in all categories that were acknowledged by many Members of this body.

I thank a number of my colleagues who worked on these issues for a number of years. They worked on it with great sincerity and, as well, they recognized that it is important for us to continue to produce food, but, as well, we need to ensure that all farmers, small farmers and certainly minority farmers, have the opportunity to engage in their trade.

My amendment would ensure that the agricultural appropriations are effectively and promptly made available as necessary through this process and, as well, to work with cooperatives supporting small socially disadvantaged producers.

The amendment would make the allocation of funds to cooperatives supporting the work of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers as provided in section 310(b)(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act a priority.

Again, this particular amendment requires no money. It just indicates that we should follow through on the provisions. However, this funding is vital to support the many farmers and their families that work tirelessly to make sure that other hardworking families have food to eat. It would be hard to deny the vital role that American farmers play in our society.

It is also important that this significant group of American farmers not be overlooked, not be marginalized. And I would, frankly, say that we support their continued existence. They have a long history, and I believe it is important to do so.

As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I remember the long journey we took in order to ensure that African American, Latino and Native American farmers would not be shortchanged of grants, loans, and programs. This amendment simply seeks to reinforce that.

Finally, I would make the point that I hope that we would have the opportunity to find the necessary collaboration again to settle claims of discrimination from those farmers who had not yet come under the particular recent settlement. The President had requested some $40 million to provide settlements for discrimination claims filed under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

It is unfortunate that those resources apparently were not able to be included.

The USDA anticipates that 600 claims will need to be settled under this action. The estimate of funding needed to settle these 600 cases is based on the average settlement cost for claimants under other civil rights class action law suits, most notably the already settled Pigford discrimination lawsuit.

This request was only of $20 million. It is not in this bill. This amendment does not address the fact that it's not in this bill; it simply says we are fair when we understand the issue. I hope that we will have the opportunity to understand the issue. The more farmers we can have producing the good food that has made America great--the bread basket of America--is the better way to go.

So I hope my colleagues will support this amendment that simply reinforces the importance of creating equal access to resources so that we can produce the food necessary for the American people. I showed just a moment ago that of a healthy child and a military family. We need to make sure that all Americans have access to food, and we should extinguish the concept of food insecurity. We can do that by helping the many different farmers and small farmers that rely upon these very important programs to help them produce the food for America.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues today to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2112, ``Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would ensure that agricultural appropriations are effectively and promptly made available to minority farmers and cooperatives supporting small, socially disadvantaged producers.

This amendment would make the allocation of funds to cooperatives supporting the work of minority and socially disadvantaged farmers as provided in Section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act a priority. I believe by considering cooperative development grants for farmers for the fiscal year 2012, we as a Congressional body have already taken a step in the right direction. This funding is vital to support the many farmers and their families that work tirelessly to make sure that other hardworking American families have food to eat. It would be hard to deny the vital role that American farmers play in our society. The benefits of their labors are immediately visible in our schools' cafeterias, our local grocery stores, and even on our dining room tables. American farmers and farming programs should be appreciated, supported, and funded.

However, in this significant group of American farmers, it is important that we not overlook the too often marginalized population of minority farmers. As many of you may know, the history of minority farmers and government programs is a long and tumultuous one. Minority farmers have faced years of institutionalized discrimination when applying for Federal Government funding. This is a fact that is discouraging for many minority farmers, and quite frankly embarrassing for many government institutions.

As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have been actively involved in the fight to ensure that minority farmers receive justice for the many discriminations that they have faced and a fair chance at achieving the American Dream. Too often African American, Latino, and Native American farmers have been shortchanged on agricultural grants, loans, and programs. This injustice has prevented minority farmers from being as successful as they could be. It has also prevented American society in general from reaping the benefits of their labor. It is with this very saddening fact in mind that I propose the immediate distribution of funding designated for cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide assistance to small, socially disadvantaged producers.

By accelerating the disbursement of this funding, minority farmers and cooperatives supporting minority farmers will have earlier access to the resources that they need and deserve. The results of this funding--technological advances and agricultural sector growth--will benefit not only farmers, but American society as a whole. The benefits will be evident on our local farms, in our neighborhood supermarkets, and in our national economy. If we want our agricultural sector to grow, thrive, and compete, we must consider this amendment to make the distribution of these funds urgent and effective.

The time has come for the United States to take a proactive role in upholding the standards of equality and fairness in the agricultural sector. I believe it is of the utmost importance that we make use of every available opportunity to acknowledge the work of all Americans whose labor contributes to the health and welfare of society. All agricultural workers, minority farmers in particular, should be provided the necessary assistance to ensure that the fruits of their labor can continue to fuel our daily work. This is not just because the government has historically done such a poor job providing equal and fair support to minority farmers, but because it is the right thing to do. With this in mind I urge the adaptation of my proposed amendment to H.R. 2112. Thank you for your time and consideration in this imperative matter.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, if I mentioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, there would be a lot of glazed-over eyes. But if I mentioned high gasoline prices and food prices that are going through the roof, the American public would understand that. So let me tell you that our Republican friends, who want a sea of deregulation so that consumers won't be protected, are attacking the body that regulates speculation on gasoline prices and food. What does that mean? It means that every time you go to the grocery store as a working, middle class family, all you can see is the price of food going up, up, up. Yes, we have had storms, and we have had droughts. But the reason is, the speculators are gambling on food prices. They are gambling on gasoline prices. So the hardworking Americans that are working are getting the short end of the stick.

Can you imagine, here we go with Republicans again, defeating the consumer. Democrats are ready to fight for jobs. We're ready to get rid of those speculators and fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that deals with protecting consumers. Is there no shame? Is there no shame? Protect the consumers and fund the CFTC.

Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership on this very important issue. To my colleague, the distinguished Congresswoman who is managing for my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are probably many of us who have lived the American story and began life on the rocky side of the mountain.

I rise because I happen to come from a district where my predecessor died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain. It's a far, far place away from Houston. My predecessor was Congressman Mickey Leland. He was so driven by the vastness of hunger, he was so much a soldier of Robert Kennedy's message that he didn't allow danger to thwart him from trying to help people who were literally dying. And so he was carrying grain. And he had colleagues who were not on that flight, Tony Hall and Congressman Emerson. And I would say to you that it really gets me in my heart, what we're doing today, because my predecessor, a Member of Congress, and we're described by many terms, but he felt that hunger was so severe that he helped found the Select Committee on Hunger. We have the Mickey Leland Hunger Center because hunger was prevailing in America and around the world.

So you can understand why I stand here today and tell you that it's not good enough to feed 85 percent of the hungry children so that 15 percent of them don't get breakfasts and don't get lunches. That's not something to give you a halo for or to give you an accolade. Because so many of us understand

how stretching that peanut butter or stretching that soup or stretching minimal food, so many of us have either heard those stories or experienced it.

And in this bill, $2 billion is cut from food stamps. Do you realize that our soldiers and their families, young recruits, are on food stamps? Does anyone know the population that is on food stamps? Now, we've tried to make it better for them, but many of them are on food stamps. To cut the WIC program, you're impacting children who are innocent. And then, of course, Food for Peace is not a throwaway. It is to simply stop the folks who are simply dying in deserts around the world.

And $35 million has been cut from trying to increase the number of grocery stores in urban centers and rural areas, to a certain extent, where there are no grocery stores where people can actually get fresh food. Try coming to my district and shopping for groceries in the local, down-the-street 2 by 4 store, where food dates, which I have actually seen for myself, are years old and sitting on the counter where people who only have foot transportation have to go and buy beans that are dated a year before or tuna that is dated a year before.

I tried to buy tuna as a test case, and I had to put it back on the shelf of a little 2 by 4 in neighborhoods where people walk.

Be reminded that Calvin Coolidge, a Republican President, followed in the 1920s the same pattern, which is: give to the rich and let the poor die on the vine. He didn't run again because he knew there was a collapse coming. His fellow Republican elected said, Give to the rich. And we had the 1928 collapse. We're talking about where consumers and businesses are not buying or having business, we the government must invest. And I believe, in the name of Mickey Leland, we've got to do a better job of feeding the hungry.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I know this is a very, very tough state of affairs and time frame that we are in. I also know this is a time when America calls upon all of us to stand not for our individual selfish interests but to look at the country as a united team that believes in lifting the boats of all people.

I want to thank my friends who have struggled on this committee to deal with the bare necessities of life, of food. That is why I come today, unfortunately, to oppose this legislation, because it does not take into account that without sustenance and nutrition that people die.

It is plain and simple. We are not talking about knicknacks or trains, buses, highways, bridges, all very important and job creators, and in fact efforts that the Democrats have made very clear that they are the job creating caucus for the press and push that we have made or are making in America. We have asked our colleagues to join us. But today we talk about feeding people.

I rose earlier today to say that it is in the DNA of the 18th Congressional District, because one of my predecessors, Mickey Leland, actually died delivering food to starving people around the world. He thought so much of hunger in America that he organized the Select Committee on Hunger, joined by Tony Hall and Congressman Emerson; and his legacy was that we cannot do without substance.

So it makes no sense to cut $3 billion from WIC; a WIC program that indicates that WIC moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeding than low-income non-WIC moms. Middle- to high-income moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeding than both WIC and low- income non-WIC. One in five children do not drink water easily. WIC children were more likely to drink juice daily than children not on WIC. Ninety-three percent of children drink milk daily. About one- quarter of all children had drunk seven or more sugar-sweetened beverages in the previous week. These are without the ability to have nutritious meals. This is in my own State of Texas, which indicates that food does not matter in terms of how wealthy a State may be.

So I can't imagine why, as my colleagues have said, we can't find $3 billion from the $10 billion a month that is being spent in Afghanistan and the moneys that have been stolen in Iraq, where we don't even know where it is. It is all about priorities.

So I rise today to express great consternation over the cut in WIC and to indicate that WIC is about growing, it is about providing nutrition so that children can think, so that they can be able to be strong leaders. It is to grow children healthy, it is to stop disease, it is to provide the kind of immune system that thwarts disease.

In a State like Texas, the 18th Congressional District which I represent has a strong work ethic. I am so proud of them. But they also have a rate of poverty that is frightening. Food insecurity in my district ranks number 32 in the Nation. That means that there are only 31 districts ahead that have that degree of food insecurity. And yet I am going to have to go home and tell them that the priorities of this Congress were something other than feeding children and providing mothers, prenatal and prenatal condition and after birth, the kind of resources to provide for a healthy child.

That means my pre-K little babies will be going to school hungry. That means they will come home to a non-dinner. And that means that we as a country have failed in our natural value that we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is shocking to be able to stand here today and know they are cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and now they add insult to injury that they are cutting food stamps and the WIC program. So I guess our soldiers, who themselves, young soldiers, young families on food stamps, will suffer as well.

But the WIC program, that has gotten blamed for everything but what is right, and that is the Women, Infants and Children program provides nutrition for healthy children, and to stand here today to have to look Americans in the face and those in the 18th Congressional District who are 32nd in food insecurity and say that we do not have the money.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to go back to the drawing board. Don't put this bill on the floor. Take it off, because you are now handing to the children of this Nation a ticket that says no food at the end, no food at this table, no food.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentlelady from Connecticut's amendment and thank her for her vision.

I thank my good friend from Georgia who is the chairman of this committee, and I thank the manager who has represented our good friends very well tonight. I thank them for their courtesies. And I thank our ranking member, Mr. Farr, for his passion about ensuring that every person in America has an opportunity for good and healthy food. The Agriculture Department and the work that the Agriculture Department does is both domestic and international.

But today we rise because there is an inequity and an unfairness. It is complicated to discuss something called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. What is that and how does that have an impact on making sure that Americans have a quality of life that they are deserving of, hardworking, everyday Americans that get up at the sign of dawn and carpool their children and go to work and return at the end and attempt to be able to provide for their families? The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is that arbiter. It's the entity that will implement the consumer protection and armor that was given during the Dodd-Frank legislation.

And how in the world can you work on behalf of consumers and Americans if the legislation that is before us obliterates this commission, eliminates 600 positions that would allow these hardworking Americans to gain what they deserve? And what is that? A better quality of life.

I am glad my good friend from New York cited the energy industry as recognizing themselves that the price of oil has gone beyond reason, that the gasoline prices have gone beyond reason. But who is gaining? Speculators whom you cannot see. You couldn't find a speculator if you tried. And that is the purpose of a commodity trading commission, which is to find the individuals that want to cripple the system and make sure that the American public suffers.

Look at this document that I'm holding in my hand. It lists the States and the districts that have the highest degree of poverty, States and districts that, in essence, have individuals who do not eat, for example, who have to borrow from one payment or one bill to take care of another need. So maybe the electric bill goes or the home mortgage or the rent goes so they can actually feed their families. Or they put the car up and cannot get to work because they cannot afford the gasoline.

This is what the underfunding of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will do. It will pile onto people who cannot afford any more pile-on; 600 workers taken away from implementing legislation and laws that protect the consumer from the daggers of high gasoline prices, the daggers from high food prices, and the daggers from a poor quality of life.

There are people in the United States that go hungry. And in talking to seniors while I was home, you cannot understand their life until you talk to them one on one. When they get their benefits that they worked so hard for and they have to parcel out dollars for their needs and they go to the grocery store and the food prices are soaring, that is speculation. That's the speculators raising food prices. So seniors can't eat. Families that are on a single income, disabled persons, single parents, they can't have a nutritious meal; compounding them with the high costs of moving around, gasoline prices, the high cost of rent, and, of course, the difficulty sometimes in finding work.

Let me say this. This administration and Democrats have been working hard to shove jobs out on this economy. And if you listen to the economists, they

believe that as bad as it is and how sympathetic we are and how we know that we can't rest, that we've got to put a jobs bill out here, there is some suggestion that those businesses will be hiring because we've tried to make sure that we study the economy. Do you think they'll be hiring with 600 jobs thrown out of the commodity commission that is supposed to regulate to ensure that consumers can get the best deal; that if you do get a job, you can pay for the gasoline; that if you're in need of a healthy meal, you can go to a grocery store and actually pay for it because the speculators haven't raised the prices of food?

This is what we are talking about when we are arguing against the underlying bill and the elimination of $136 million to devastate this commission so that consumers cannot be protected.

Mr. Chairman, it's time to recognize who's boss. It is the American people. And I like them being a boss. I'm going to stand with my boss, the good boss, and fight for them to be protected. This bill does not do that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the distinguished chairman from Georgia, who I am hoping will be inclined to recognize the importance of this amendment and work with those of us who are interested in healthy food.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fund and seek to have the Secretary of Agriculture focus on the healthy food funding initiative. This initiative would increase the availability of affordable healthy foods in underserved urban and rural areas and, as well, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

We call these ``food deserts.'' And the reason why I am standing next to this tragic picture of the disasters that have hit the American public is to emphasize what Americans go through. In this instance, we see a disaster of unbelievable proportion, from Missouri to Alabama to the flooding that occurred up and down the Mississippi. I can assure you that these individuals are suffering from the lack of access to healthy food. We've got to get them back on their feet.

This idea of food deserts impacts rural and urban areas, but it also impacts the millions of Americans, thousands upon thousands of Americans who have recently been impacted by disaster. Everything is gone. And although they are now probably experiencing the distribution of food from food centers sponsored by FEMA and volunteers, they will come back to a food desert. Particularly in the African American and Hispanic communities, for example, food comes from fast foods and convenience stores. And as I indicated before, those fast foods come from, if you will, the places where the expiration dates are sometimes way over the time of expiration.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight. African American children from low-income families are at a much higher risk for obesity. Why? Because there is no access or limited access to good food. The CDC also estimates that African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12 to 19 are more likely to be overweight at 21 percent and 23 percent, respectively.

This amount of money will allow us to focus on the importance of correcting food deserts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture identified 92 food desert census tracks in Harris County alone, and that is in the 18th Congressional District. These areas are subdivisions of a county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low-income residents, with 33 percent of the people living more than a mile from a grocery store.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering effect food deserts have.

I am asking that we look at the idea of ensuring healthy food. Targeting Federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Finance Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected areas.

We can create jobs, we can help farmers, and we can bolster the development in distressed areas. It is an easy fix, and the fix is to find a way to cooperate, collaborate--not do a handout, not dole out-- to make sure that we provide the incentives to come into our areas to ensure that we have a healthy child.

This is a healthy child, we hope, getting access to health care. But I can assure you that their health is based upon not only health care but the food that this little one will eat.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I represent communities that have the inability to access good food. This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide.

We must be reducing the deficit, I agree, but cutting programs that provide healthy food--and create jobs, because it would certainly create jobs by adding access to healthy food and sites for healthy food, meaning grocery stores, farmer's markets. All of those will be part of this initiative. And it would assist the many, many census tracks in Houston, alone, that are now suffering from the lack of access to good food.

Just a picture of green vegetables inspires us to support this amendment. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2122, which allocates an additional $25 million to the budget of the Office of the Secretary, in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative (HFFI).

Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers.

These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any, healthy options.

Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities.

Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families.

The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

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

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering effect food deserts have on the health of low-income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food.

Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities.

The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods.

This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way.

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

I would, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, let me thank the ranking member, Mr. Farr, as well as his staff for recognizing the importance of food deserts. And let me thank Mr. Kingston. If I might, I would offer, out of your thoughtfulness, I would even ask for the point of order to be waived in the face of 23.5 million individuals who live in food deserts.

I will make the argument, in speaking to the point of order and, particularly, procedurally, of course, that, you know, it was a challenge to be able to frame language that would allow us to address this crisis. So I believe we made every effort to ensure that we were in compliance.

It is my understanding that the language or funding for this initiative was not in this legislation or pulled. We wanted to give the discretion to the Office of the Secretary to not leave places like this, that I just lifted up, disasters, suffering from not having access to food.

I would simply ask the gentleman in this moment when I'm asking for a waiver of the point of order to have the ability to work with this great subcommittee to think of this as a valuable issue and to work on this point that has to do with helping those who live in food deserts.

I yield to the gentleman.

Do you have an interest in working together?

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I heard a very instructive quote. Even as important as this legislation is, in actuality it appears that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply want to zero out this whole appropriation for the important agricultural work that is done in this Nation, just zero it out. Mr. Chaffetz's amendment seeks to zero out a very important program, which includes zeroing out Food for Peace, and it apparently ignores the basic purpose and the crisis that we're facing dealing with food insecurity in the world.

The United Nations World Food Program acknowledges severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of 5 worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all the deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately 1 million children each year, or an average of one every 30 seconds.

This is not the direction we want for the world or the United States. There are priorities. And I ask my colleagues, what are their priorities?

Now, I have a deal for them. Let's make a deal. Let's take the $10 billion that we're spending every month in Afghanistan and spread it out on deficit reduction. I will take up that challenge and accept that challenge. In fact, we will be able to put $1 billion or $2 billion every week for a 4-week timeframe in deficit reduction if we bring the troops home from Afghanistan. And while we do that, we'll have the opportunity to answer the question that I'm asking to my colleagues: Who will stand by while a child dies, one every 30 seconds around the world?

Food for Peace is a program that our farmers have bought into from the perspective of the service and the Good Samaritan that they do by providing the goods of the world's bread basket. The United States is the world's bread basket. We have been blessed with the bounty of topography and weather, in spite of the disasters we've now faced, to be able to feed the world. And Food for Peace is that program.

Just a few hours ago, I stood on the floor of the House and I mentioned my colleague, the Honorable Mickey Leland. Some of my new friends should read about this unselfish man. I know she didn't ask me to call out her husband's name, but those of us who knew Mickey knew that he loved Congressman Emerson and Congressman Hall. They had a passion for finding out how can we stop the devastation of hunger. So they circled around programs that dealt with it, programs like Food for Peace or the Select Committee on Hunger or a number of other programs around the Agriculture appropriations, not to waste money but to partner between the great agricultural agrarian society of the United States, and its ability to grow food, to also be able to provide for those who cannot.

Do I have to say it again? We buy the food from our farmers. Let me make it very clear. In the very places where, as I showed earlier today, the devastation of tornadoes and floods, these people are trying to come back. Some areas did not suffer. They're trying to get their goods to market. It cuts here in the very jobs that we are saying that we want to keep. We're cutting jobs. We're throwing people out of work, the work that farmers love. You try to get a farmer off his land or her land. They don't want to go because they love the soil. They love producing food. They love helping people. Yet my friend wants to come and cut this program that creates jobs, buys the food, and sends it to starving, dying children.

I don't understand. In the legacy of our friends, some of them you did not know, but if you read about them, you will understand their passion and their heart. Mickey Leland used to bring us to tears because he would leave the devastation of Fifth Ward, Houston, where there was poverty, and he'd get on an airplane to deliver food to the dying around the world. He lost his life in the course of delivering food.

My final word, Madam Chairman, is to ask my colleagues not to support this amendment and to support Food for Peace and support the underlying message of providing the jobs and a helping hand.

I have an amendment at the desk.

As the gentleman rises, I ask myself the question and I ask this body, Who will speak for the children? And that's why my amendment attempts to fully fund the Women, Infants, and Children program that provides food for the Nation's children. It provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, nutrition, education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to 5 years old.

We must remember that children have always been the largest category of WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC benefits, each month in fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were children, and 2.2 million were infants. This bill cuts $650 million out of WIC, and I am so glad my good friend from Georgia--and I appreciate his friendship--just got up and said the Agricultural Research Service is pretty darn well funded, $900 million.

I am simply asking to address the question of the staggering devastation of malnutrition in our children. And I have indicated that when you look at worldwide numbers, malnutrition can kill. But here in the United States, there are children that go to bed hungry. There are women that do not eat properly. There are babies that do not get nourishment.

In Texas alone, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped from the WIC program if the funding is not restored; and each and every State in the Union is going to receive that kind of devastating impact. Can you imagine 40,000 women, infants, and children not being able to eat because we won't restore full funding? Texas has three of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates; and in the 18th Congressional District, there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23 percent, and Texas stands 32 in the Nation out of 435 districts. We are 32 in food insecurity.

So, let me just say, alongside of obesity, eating wrong, we have to face the actual question of hunger. Children who are served by the WIC program in Texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to children who are not in this program.

Again, I want you to look at this picture. Healthy children need to eat healthy. And I ask my colleagues why, in fact, would we not want to fully fund the program of women and infant children?

I will say that the impact of not eating healthy is obesity and poor health. This healthy baby, healthy-looking baby has a future that is undetermined when you have an issue of lack of healthy food and access to such.

So $650 million, when we're, in essence, funding research for $900 million, I believe you can share a little, because the WIC program is beneficial in helping the most vulnerable in our country.

I ask the question: Who will speak for the children? It is important that the WIC program, 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics, among this group, 4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women have the ability to be served around the Nation. It's a complementary program, having healthy mothers, healthy pregnant mothers to give birth to healthy babies, to raise healthy children, not obese, nourished and ready to be leaders in this Nation. Who are we if we are not going to speak for our children?

And I ask my colleagues to consider waiving procedural issues to ensure that children are served. I believe that is an important issue. And in my district, in the 18th Congressional District, with 1,000 census tracts of people who are food insecure, I am arguing vigorously for the full funding of the WIC program to help our women, our infants, and their children.

Who will speak for our children? What will their future be, and how will they lead this country if we do not invest with them today?

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2112 ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2112,'' as it restores full funding to the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program.

As the Founder of the Children's Caucus and a Member of the Women's Caucus, I have firmly stood in support of the nutritional needs of our Nation's families. As a country we must protect and safeguard the health and nutrition of our Nation's low-income families. Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to states for supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk. During the final quarter of Fiscal Year 2009, the number of women, infants, and children receiving WIC benefits each month reached approximately 9.3 million. We must remember that children have always been the largest category of WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC benefits each month in Fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were children and 2.22 million were infants.

WIC is essential because it affords many women, especially women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle during pregnancies and after childbirth.

Because of WIC, mothers can afford the nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by malnourishment during pregnancy.

Today, I am proud to support a full restoration of funding to WIC. This program, which is distinctly American, demonstrates that we place a high value on feeding our Nation's children and tending to the needs of our Nation's poor.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed ``with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .'' I believe that it is no coincidence that life is listed first--for without it, the Founders realized, no other rights can be realized. Over many years, the millions of Americans who could not access medical services were denied their right to life--a life with access to quality and affordable health care.

Let me set the record straight, WIC is good for the American people and will go a long way in ensuring access to quality and affordable care to those millions of Americans who will need access to proper nutrition. WIC helps to ensure that our country will not succumb to one of the most staggering causes of death in children around the world: Malnutrition. Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children. It should not be a problem within the United States; that is why we have programs like WIC. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds. This is not the direction we want to take the United States.

Madam Chair, when I stand here today and reflect upon what we are about to embark upon, I cannot help but think of some of the last words that the Great Senator Ted Kennedy shared in his letter to President Obama. The Senator said, ``And so because of your (Obama's) vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will--yes we will--fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.'' Well, Senator, your life's work shall today be proven to not be in vain. I continue to stand by protecting the health needs of low income families. And, yes, this program ensures the health of infants and children will never again depend on the amount of their family's income.

In the words of the great President John F. Kennedy, ``the voters selected us, in short, because they had confidence in our judgment and our ability to exercise that judgment from a position where we could determine what were their own best interests, as a part of the nation's interest.''

Madam Chair, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that

without a cut to WIC this will harm Americans, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is indeed in their best interests:

There are 110 million school-aged children suffering from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. The WIC program provides that leadership and generosity and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for restoring full funding to WIC.

In the words of the great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now.'' We cannot wait. We will not wait to protect the lives of our children. We can not delay in providing the most vulnerable citizens of this great Nation access to proper nutrition.

facts on wic--the 18th congressional district

In Texas, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped from the WIC program if the funding levels are not restored.

Texas has 3 of the top top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates. In the 18th Congressional district there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and ranks 32nd nationally.

WIC Combats Obesity

Let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling with obesity. WIC aims to improve the eating habits of Americans, particularly our children through programs that provide children with healthy food. At its core, H.R. 2112 decreases funding for nutrition programs for children.

Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is important to keep our nation healthy by providing access to high consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great country, our children. By supporting WIC we assure a healthy consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that their families are poor.

Children who are served by the WIC program in Texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to children who are not in the program. These children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals. When children reduce their consumption of less fast food then they drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes, and obesity which could again end up saving billions of dollars in the healthcare system. All the health issues that are currently contributing to health disparities among minorities in this country.

Certain minorities have a higher rates of diabetes-related complications and death, in some instances by as much as 50 percent more than the total population. It is truly an epidemic. Combating obesity in from childhood utilizing programs like WIC is vital to decreasing health disparities.

24% of Texans were obese in 2001, the 3rd highest rate in the nation. Nearly 31% of African American girls in the 4th grade were overweight and 52% were overweight or ``at risk of overweight'' in Texas in 2001. 13% of Houston high school students are overweight and 17% are at risk. Over 71% of African American Texans are overweight or obese.

Over 34% of African American women are obese, compared to 19% of white women.

44% of African American women are projected to be obese by 2020, and 47% by 2040.

Obesity

Although the obesity rates among all Americans are alarming, as Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned about the childhood obesity epidemic among African-Americans. More than 40 percent of African-American teenagers are overweight, and nearly 25 percent are obese.

When ethnicity and income are considered, African-American youngsters from low-income families have a higher risk for obesity than those from higher-income families. Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children. Eighty percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among African-American male adults aged 20-74 years the prevalence of obesity increased from 15.0% in 1980 survey to 32.9% in the 2004.

There were also increases in overweight among children and teens. For children aged 2-5 years, the prevalence of overweight increased from 5.0% to 13.9%; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from 6.5% to 18.8%; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 17.4%.

Government reports indicate that an estimated 17 percent of children and adolescents aged 2-19 are obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

Impact of Obesity on Houston, Texas

The obesity epidemic has also heavily impacted my district in the city of Houston. In 2005, Men's Fitness Magazine ranked Houston the Fattest City in the Nation. In 2006, Houston ranked as number five and in 2007, it was ranked the sixth fattest city in the Nation.

These statistics underscore why we must continue to vigorously identify ways to address the childhood obesity crisis, by starting with programs such as WIC, that provides proper nutrition to low income families.

As the debate over how to address the rising childhood obesity epidemic continues, it is important to continue to target and aid children who are nutritionally at risk.

h.r. 2112 cuts more than $650 million from the wic program

Since this bill seeks to cut more than $650 million from the WIC program, countless scores of women, children, and infants will also no longer have the same access to healthy food. According to the National WIC Association between 200,000-350,000 people will be cut from the program. That is hundreds of thousands of women, infants, and children who will not get the assistance they need. This is not simply about adding and subtracting numbers on a page this is a family tragedy. We cannot ignore the nutritional needs of our children; we should not starve low income families. As our economy awakens from this long, cold, slumber we must ensure that our nation's children are fed. This is a moral question.

As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. This is the time to show our compassion. I urge the full funding of WIC, because it will impact hundreds of thousands of people nationally, but also because it will end up costing billions more in the long run if we will have a nation of unhealthy families. Consider the consequences of children who lack the necessary nutrition as they grow into adults who have high health costs.

the wic program helps families

The WIC program has been beneficial in helping some of the most vulnerable members of our country.

Among the WIC's goals is to improve health care access for low and moderate income women and children at risk of developing health problems which include obesity and type 2 diabetes.

WIC served 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics. Among this group were 4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women.

WIC works with pregnant mothers to help reduce costs of prenatal care. Preterm births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year. As a result of pregnant women getting the services they need, the National WIC Association states that Medicaid costs are reduced on average between $12,000 and $15,000 for every low birth-weight incident prevented. It is also estimated that $3.6 billion would be saved if current U.S. exclusive breastfeeding rates increased to at least 50% at 6 months.

facts on wic cuts

If WIC funds are not fully restored the impact on low income families will be devastating. An estimated 200,000 to 350,000 will be cut from the WIC program. That's 200,000 to 350,000 low income Americans who will be denied access to nutrition.

The cuts in the WIC program touches every state in this country. In my State of Texas between 23,000 and 40,000 people will be left out in the cold. We should be able to provide food to the young children of our country.

Of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates, Texas has 3 of them. In the 18th Congressional district there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and ranks 32d nationally.

In 2005, in Harris County, there were 62 pregnant women who had prenatal care in the first trimester. In the State of Texas there were 64 women. Without the WIC program, many of these women might not have been able to get the services they needed.

WIC children in Texas are less likely to eat fast food over non-WIC children. WIC children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals compared to non-WIC children. Children who eat less fast food drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes, and obesity which could end up saving billions of dollars in the health care system.

As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. Now is the time to show them that we care. I urge opposition to

this bill, not only because it will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people nationally, but also because it will end up costing billions more in the long run. The American people are wondering when their bailout will come years after we saved Wall Street from the brink of destruction. This bill sends them a message that that day is not a priority of the Federal Government.

We must continue to fight for pregnant mothers and low-income families and so I urge for full funding to be restored to the WIC program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

point of order

I would, Madam Chairman.

Well, outlays have to do with the evenhandedness of spending at the same time, which section you take the monies out and which section you put them in.

Again, the point that I want to make to this body is that my focus is on keeping our children in this country from being malnourished and pregnant mothers from not having the access to good healthy food that they need to give birth to a healthy child.

And I've asked the question before, in the instance of speaking for our children and saving our children, a procedural waiver is in order. This is a procedural question. I have actually taken money from a legitimate account, and that is the Agriculture Research Service that my own friend and colleague had said is funded quite well. Now we've added another $2 million to the research program. $902 million.

And I'm simply asking for a measure of that amount to help provide care and nourishment for our children. I believe it is appropriate to eliminate a procedural, if you will, flaw that only speaks to the timing of spending to be able to provide for the children of America. That's what agriculture is all about: our farmers, our families who need to eat good food, our undernourished and impoverished communities which are aplenty.

As I spoke earlier today, those communities that are experiencing disasters and those mothers who are now pregnant and who need access to good food, we need to be able to not cut off in the State of Texas, in my district, 40,000 or so individuals that will not be able to be part of the WIC program because we're talking about a procedural flaw.

And so, Madam Chairperson, I am suggesting that this amendment is in order, and I'd ask my colleagues to consider a waiver. But I'm also asking the Chairwoman to rule in my favor so that the people of America most vulnerable will have access to quality food and a healthy life.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 28: Page 80, after line 2, insert the

following:

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 29: Page 80, after line 2, insert the

following (and make such technical and conforming changes as

may be appropriate):

Sec. 747. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used in contravention of the Food and Nutrition Act of

2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).