Floor Statements

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 30: Page 9, line 5, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $681,750,000'').

Page 44, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $681,750,000'').

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 27: Page 2, line 14, after the dollar figure,

insert ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

Page 5, line 5, after the dollar figure, insert ``(reduced

by $25,000,000)''.

This could be no more a somber debate than what we are doing here today, and I thank the manager, Mr. McGovern, and the gentleman from South Carolina for recognizing, through the leadership of our House, that the American people must be engaged in the constitutional duties that have been set out for the three branches of government.

Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided between Congress and the President, and among other relevant grants, Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support armed forces while the President is the Commander in Chief.

The congressional duties fall under article 1, section 8, and the Commander

in Chief can relate his or her duties to article 2, section 2.

It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed services to repel attacks against the United States. But there has long been a challenge or controversy over whether he or she is constitutionally authorized to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or congressional authorization.

And so here we are today indicating that it is important for the Commander in Chief, no matter how much respect there is, to be able to respond to the call of the Congress. There are now two resolutions that swirl around the violence and horrific acts in Libya. Compounding the problem is a continued violence, an assault on the people of Libya.

So for a moment let me focus on General Qadhafi to ask him the question, is he reasoned, and does he recognize that the slaughter of his people must stop? The President of South Africa engaged in peace talks with General Qadhafi, and many of us thought that the white flag would be raised and that there would be an opportunity for resolution. We see that not coming.

So my message to General Qadhafi is to stop this senseless and violent war, to allow your people to accumulate the privileges of human dignity, that is to be able to live in peace and hopefully to secure democratic rights for themselves. But at the same time we in the United States cannot stand by and watch as violence proceeds. We must have procedure. We must have process.

I believe the Boehner amendment gives at least some tracking as to what you are asking the President for, but I still quarrel with the debate and the question as to whether or not that is enough.

I am supporting this rule so that we can move forward to begin to debate this question of the War Powers Resolution, and it is important that the branches of government understand you cannot roll over the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow us to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions on war. It does not allow us, in essence, to ignore the responsibilities of Congress.

So I rise today to support this debate and to support the premise that Congress must exercise its authority to declare war.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, ``Directing the President, Pursuant to Section (c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces from Libya,'' I support the War Powers Resolution however I cannot support a resolution which requires the President to withdraw all United States Armed forces within 15 days of its adoption.

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. This Concurrent Resolution 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.

Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers had 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 (Public Law 93-148) 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 the War Powers 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 believe in the Constitution and the importance of maintaining the power of Congress in asserting when international conflicts warrant U.S. military involvement. I call upon the President to issue a report detailing the current status of the United States military forces in Libya within the next 30 days.

We must not forget the bloodshed that continues to take place in Libya. The people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for democracy. This conflict began in Libya four months ago when Colonel Gaddafi 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.

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 help. 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 today.

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi 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. The reality of the situation is this: it was Gaddafi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we deliberate the role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people.

We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life.

Gaddafi has a long record of bloodshed and blood continues to run in the streets of Libya. We cannot stand by and do nothing, and America cannot do this alone. 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 Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

I stand with the people of Libya fighting for peace and freedom. It is clear that NATO has taken the Lead in protecting the Libyan People.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

When we finish what sometimes may seem a complicated debate, where both sides can seemingly make sense when we have the time to reflect upon the week's work or the work and philosophies of the different political perspectives in this House, I believe it is very

important to communicate with your colleagues, so let me be as clear as I can be.

As I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle, one after one, claim that the Libyan war was the President's war, well, today, on June 3, 2011, the President of the United States happens to be President Obama. Yet if you look at the Constitution of the United States, which provides provisions for the separation of powers, there is a section that articulates that the Congress, irrespective of any Presidential person in place, declares war.

So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Would they have been as quick to rise to the floor on the Iraq war, which could be called the ``Bush war''? or the continued 10-year plus war in Afghanistan the ``Bush war''?

When we discuss these issues for the American people, we have to be true to ourselves and the Constitution. There was a reason the Founding Fathers separated out the right to declare war. That reason, of course, was to protect you, the American people. When we send men and women into battle, it should be a deliberative process, but we should also have the right to defend ourselves.

The initial attack in Afghanistan--that was the first act--was in response to the heinous and horrific attack of al Qaeda on the soil of the United States. From my perspective, the immediate response of President Bush was legitimate. The question becomes: What came afterwards? The Congress was never given the chance to declare war. Subsequently, there was a statutory discussion and vote that gave unending opportunities and authority for the war to go on and on and on.

Buried in the Afghanistan decision was the authority to go on and on and on. The sad part about it was that we did not go on in Afghanistan. We distracted our troops and went into a war that saw the large numbers of our soldiers lose their lives in a war that had actually never been declared by the United States of America and the United States Congress.

We have something today in 2011 called the Arab Spring. But I don't think Americans understand that, and they, frankly, believe that we cannot promote democracy everywhere in the world. Policymakers understand the crucialness of what is going on in the Arab area as it relates to the geopolitics, the political structure of the world.

But I know what Americans of goodwill do understand: the slaughter of a people. The slaughter and the misuse of power in Bahrain; the misuse of power in Egypt; the gruesome misuse of power to the extent that a mutilated body of a 13-year-old boy can be dumped in their parents' home in Syria; and, yes, the violence in Libya. Americans understand that and I understand it.

So I applaud the President of the United States for going in in Libya to stop the horrific violence. He went in in coalition with our NATO troops. That same action occurred under President Clinton, going in with NATO, taking the lead in this instance, in the slaughter of Muslims in Kosova and the horrible wars in Bosnia.

I happened to have been able to go on an initial inaugural mission into Bosnia--the former Yugoslavia--and Croatia, and I walked the streets of Sarajevo and I saw mothers who had not seen their sons for 10 or 12 years and asked us where they were. It was a violent time.

So the Libyan action by the President was an appropriate one. He happens to be a Democratic President. I applaud his action. But the Constitution is not labeled by Democratic or Republican. It has no provisions to exempt if you happen to be a Democrat with a Democratic President. So my values argue for consistency, and that is adhering to the Constitution.

I believe Resolution 292, Mr. Boehner's resolution that was crafted in the last 24 hours, was a nice statement about a report. But I don't vote on actions on the floor out of contempt and dislike for anyone.

Let me be very clear. I applaud President Barack Obama for the courage that he has taken in moving forward to establish America's mark as a believer in democracy and justice and encouraging the people in the Arab States to stand up for their rights and to object and reject the oppressiveness of their regimes, and I hope that NATO becomes strategic in what they're doing so that we can be successful.

But if we are going to be true to the Constitution of the United States that is, in fact, part of the document that we hold true, then we must hold any Commander in Chief to the same standard.

The War Powers Resolution asks that the President of the United States come to the Congress within 60 days. The constitutional provision in article II requires that the Congress declare war. One could argue that we have not declared war on Arab States and we've not declared war on Libya. We're at war. We're at war because al Qaeda declares that they are at war with us. So it is a dicey circumstance.

I, instead, voted for the action to occur under the War Powers Resolution that was just occurring today, a vote that we lost, a vote that I would have voted for under President Bush, under President Reagan, under President Carter, and with the opportunity, under President Clinton, as the wars proceeded to a long extent of time.

However, we are dealing now in the backdrop of a failed resolution. But I voted because it is necessary to be consistent as to whether you believe the Constitution and the authority of the Congress and the separation of three branches is a valid one to protect the rights of the American people. And I believe that.

But my message to General Qadhafi is this: If you have any sense of human dignity left, you will stop the murderous attacks on your people. I am sensitive enough to offer my sympathy to you for the loss of your family members because I believe in the value of human life. War is ugly. But every effort of peace that we have made has been one that you've ignored. Every effort that we have made, every step that we have taken toward peace you have ignored. You have arrogantly insisted on the world stage that you're in charge, while your country is in a state of confusion and disaster. You have opened the doors to the confusion and the violence of terrorist cells, al Qaeda and other ne'er-do-wells who desire no good to you or your people. You've allowed groups to, in essence, begin to spark so that the continued frustration of world leaders in trying to bring resolution continues; but, more importantly, the violence of all falls on the backs of innocent women and children, young boys and families in Libya.

I feel a kinship to the Libyan people, as a human being and as someone whose heritage started on the continent of Africa. But the one good thing about America is that we care about all people no matter what background they come from, no matter what country. I know that because I've had the privilege of representing the United States in South and Central America, in Asia, on the continent of Africa, in the Mideast and Europe and other places maybe not mentioned--because we care.

Mr. Qadhafi, I beg of you, as an African who has met with the President of South Africa, who knows that the African Union would like for you to cease and desist this violent attack on your own people, stand down. And I would ask, as I have asked before, leave the country. Let us find the kind of government that might, in fact, move Libya forward. And if your people decide that you should stay, then you should have a reformation and a change not only of mind but of heart. The violence does not get you anywhere and it is both insane and absurd.

So I would hope that as this vote was taken, that it is not in any way, as was evidenced by the discussion in the debate by the Republicans, it is not Mr. Obama's war. He is the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief, and it was a determination to go in to stop the murderous acts of those who were killing innocent people.

Read your early history. The early Founders of this Nation in the Revolutionary War against Great Britain had other countries come to the aid of this little, tiny, baby series of States that called themselves the United States of America. It has been the world order for centuries that big countries or those who are able will go to the aid of those who are not able. And this vote today should not in any way deny the respect that is owed to the President of

the United States. This is a vote premised on the Constitution and reflecting the desires of the American people, that we do not live in a dictatorship and that if you're a Member of the United States Congress, come here and do your job.

And our job is defined by the Constitution.

I believe that our duty was partly handled today, and I would encourage our President, as he has done over the stages of the Afghan war and now the continued redeploying in Iraq of our soldiers, and I would add that we are in an engagement of discussion that gives us the roadmap for redeploying or moving toward a resolution in Libya.

I would also join in the debate that I've just made on the question of Libya with the need for the immediate review and designation of time for redeployment of our troops out of Afghanistan, and the President has indicated that he expects that that redeployment will begin in July 2011.

My plea to the President is, as we look at these economic times, when America is crying out for jobs, when the middle class feels splashed and unattended to, when others believe our jobs are not creeping offshore and overseas, but fleeting and flying and literally by way of speed that is faster than sound, it is time now to find the mutual courage to say to the people of Afghanistan that we have provided a duly elected government, a parliament. We have laid down our lives. We have built up the Afghan national security forces, which I was introduced to in the many times that I've been into Afghanistan, all parts, including Kabul and Kandahar and places beyond. I know there are good people there.

So I'd ask the President of the United States to ramp up the redeployment, bring home 50,000, 100,000 troops and begin to let those troops rebuild their lives. Invest in military readiness and preparedness and find a closure to the presence of United States boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

To President Karzai, I ask you to stand up and be counted, to initiate policies that would end the poppy growing and heroin production, to allow girls and boys to go to school, to produce your teachers and lawyers, doctors and scientists, generals, captains and leaders of government. I would ask President Karzai to provide the funding and resources for your Afghan national security forces. I would ask him to weed out the Taliban that is destroying his own people in the mountains of Afghanistan. And, yes, I would ask whether or not it is even possible that all of us could claim the value of peace, and by doing that, it would not be non-courageous to stand up and accept the fact that we have won in Afghanistan and we've won in Iraq, and we thank our soldiers.

And so I'm on the floor today thanking my colleagues because last week we voted 419 votes to declare a National Day of Honor for our returning troops from combat areas, more than we've ever done in any other war, and to celebrate them all over America. So I am not asking for America to leave any battle place with her head held down. Our Vietnam vets, during a very tumultuous time and a war that we disagreed with, should have been welcomed home for their service, for their duty, for the reason that they took up arms--not of their own accord, but because a President called them.

I believe America learned her lesson as she focuses on trying to help our returning combat veterans with jobs and education and health care. We know that we should honor them. So with the amendment that I passed on the floor, 419 votes, I hope the American people will call their Congressperson and thank them, but also ask that that proclamation be declared and that we have a National Day of Honor to welcome our soldiers home from all around the world in combat places.

As we welcome them home, I think it is extremely important to recognize that America has a number of concerns. Those concerns are the tragedies that we face, the horrific loss of life in Joplin, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, all the flooding that has gone on. People in the United States are suffering.

So what does it mean to raise the debt ceiling? What it means to raise the debt ceiling is not what Americans believe--there they go again, spending, spending, spending. What it actually means is that we're saying to working Americans and middle class Americans, we feel deeply about your inability to pay your mortgage, to pay tuition costs. If you have one or two credit cards with those old interest rates of 19, 20, 21 percent that we've been able to bring down somewhat because of legislation we've passed, we understand that. If you don't have a job, if someone in your life doesn't have a job, we understand that. We understand folks that don't have a job, but they don't have a job, a home, a car, a place to live.

The debt ceiling actually is the ability to pay our bills. It is not the ability to spend and find ways to spend money unnecessarily; it is the ability to create the jobs that America is crying out for. The 9 percent is not a reflection so much of the President of the United States not desiring and working hard to create jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that it was Democrats and the President that helped to, in essence, provide a safety net for the automobile industry. A lot of people complained about that. But we were in the middle of the fight not to pay special interests off; we were in the fight to save the auto industry of the United States of America.

It was the right thing to do. Two big reasons: one, the infrastructure of automobile building was car dealerships across America that had thousands, millions of workers selling American cars. You let that industry collapse, and you would let, in essence, some small town in America literally have no economy. It might have been that the car dealership was the largest business in that small area.

I'll add three. The second is we obligated the industry to pay us back, and we have been paid back. We, the United States taxpayers, have been paid back. And you know what else? They have actually brought jobs back to the United States of America. If I wasn't in this very august place, I would say hallelujah, celebrate, applaud: jobs have been brought back to the United States. Ford, of course, did not take those resources. We applaud them. Some of you are buying some new smart cars by GM. Some of you are buying new smart cars by Chrysler--better gas mileage, got a new attitude.

We gave the American innovative genius the opportunity to survive. We allowed inventiveness to thrive. We built on Henry Ford's genius, and we let it spread around. And as well, as we developed jobs for monies that the taxpayers invested, and we put the right kind of restraint for you to be reinvested.

The debt ceiling means that it allows us, the government, to create jobs for you. You turn the economy and invest back. We then provide the protection for you through jobs or maybe unemployment insurance or maybe Social Security or maybe Medicare, or maybe when you're at your lowest end. When you have lost loved ones in a natural disaster that you cannot comprehend, it is the cause of the Federal Government to be able to pay the bills, to be able to come to a place where there is no fire station, no houses of worship, no hospital, no schools, no homes, for us to come and to be of help.

I don't know how we can abdicate our responsibilities. I don't know how we can frivolously play with raising the debt ceiling. I don't know how Republicans can put on the floor of the House a bill under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote, to make a joke of helping the people in Joplin, in Alabama, up and down the Mississippi and whatever other disaster may come. How do you make a joke with that? How in essence do you in the face of the frustration of those who have suffered? I have not experienced a tornado, but I have experienced and walked the streets during hurricanes. I have seen in my own town the pain. I have come up to doors and knocked on persons' doors where someone has laid dying because they have just gone through a process where all the lights are out and they're on oxygen. I've seen seniors in homes that cannot be repaired. I've seen people lose items that can never be replaced. And so that is what your Federal Government does. And do you mean to tell me we would make a mockery of raising the debt ceiling so that America can simply pay her bills?

There is a value to reducing the deficit. And might I just say something with all good intention. It is always the person who has got money in their pocket, who's got a wallet full of credit cards that they can pay for, that can smile when you're talking about Social Security and Medicare and has an uncaring spirit. Because it doesn't matter to them. It is the philosophy that has not made this country great, the philosophy of ``I've got mine, you get yours.''

Young people, I have gotten my college education. I don't care whether you can go to college or not. I don't even care if you get a job. ``I've got mine.'' That's not what this Nation is all about. I will not tell the people of Missouri, Alabama and places around, ``I'm okay in Houston. My house is still functioning, the hurricane season hasn't hit me yet, so I'm not going to worry about your tragedy.'' Is that America? Is that how we built the greatness of this country? Did we ignore our returning troops coming home from World War II? Or did we say to them, ``We're giving you the GI Bill''?

The Democrats gave the second GI Bill. President Truman gave the first. We gave with President Obama the greatest GI Bill in the history of America except the one that was passed by President Truman. We said that we care. We built on the values of a country that always rises to the occasion. And because of that, those people who desire goodness and greatness, they look to the United States of America. I am glad, regardless of whatever faith we believe in, whatever our background is or whoever's our neighbor, that we're a country that cares. And I will tell you just if you follow what your grandmother says, being a good Samaritan will always come back to you. Being kind to someone will always come back to you.

Therefore, I believe that it is imperative that we lift the debt ceiling for America to pay her bills. I am tired of smashing the middle class. I am tired of leaving them on their own. I am tired of them watching jobs go overseas when we have such a brilliant population of innovative, creative, loving people. We overcame some of the hills and valleys in America. We went through the civil rights movement and the era where those who were of a different color suffered under the devastating indignity of segregation. America rose to the occasion. It is not perfect, but we recognize the value of equality of all. You're not relegated to the back of the bus. You're not dismissed from hotels and restaurants. You are open and allowed to travel on America's transportation modes. You even can be accepted into colleges on your own merit and not on quotas. And yes, if you apply for a job, the laws at least protect you, that no matter what your background, that you're given an equal opportunity.

America has traversed some of those difficult valleys. We respect women and a woman's equality. We are able to say that women can be pilots and Presidents and Senators and doctors and heads of organizations and engineers and train conductors and anything a little girl can admire and aspire to be. That's the kind of America that is understanding of the crisis that these people face.

And I'm sorry that the debate on the debt ceiling has been characterized as Democratic and Republican and these are the deficit- cutters and these are the wild-eyed spending-spreers going into the shopping malls of America and grabbing things off shelves. It is important to note that one of the greatest Presidents that we have admired--my little girl used to call him Grandpa--Ronald Reagan asked Congress to lift the debt ceiling in 1983, not because he was a spendthrift but because he understood the responsibility of paying America's bills. And, my friends, I remind you, can we not pay America's bills?

I want to discuss how we do that, how we lift the condition of Americans. We do it like we've done it before. We make it in America. Now I like one part of it that says, We make it in America. Everybody needs to have a chance to make it in America. The young people that are graduating in 2011 should have the right to make it in America. By the way, might I just say, congratulations to all of the graduates across America. From the preschooler that's going to kindergarten, to the elementary child that puts on the robe and is inspired, to the middle school and to the high school graduates of whom I will go home to this weekend and greet any number of high school graduates in my constituency who are making that first leap of faith, to the college graduates who are feeling so empowered to graduate in such a great Nation, to those who are getting graduate degrees, our new lawyers and doctors and business persons, our physicists and chemists and biologists, the geniuses that will go into the laboratories of America.

Congratulations to all of you.

That is why I believe it is important to make it in America. The Democrats have launched a major initiative. I wish we could get our friends to join us in a real jobs bill, of which the President of the United States has committed to introducing a real jobs bill, to make it in America. Many of us in our hearings will ask the witnesses that represent the United States Government, we want you to buy America and make it in America. And I'm not an isolationist. I believe America has been enormously generous in buying goods from other countries, proud of them. We're glad to help developing nations. We're glad to support microcredits and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation that allows investments overseas, but we don't want our jobs to be taken overseas. I don't want to see teenagers with double-digit unemployment, particularly in the African American community. I don't want rural communities to suffer because of the lack of employment. I dread this coming summer when there's no money for summer jobs for young people who are trying to save for going into school in the fall. Sometimes the only resources a family has may be the summer job of a teenager. But we have always encouraged teenagers to learn how to work in the decorum of the workplace. Just look what we're doing now.

For that very reason, can I give a challenge to this Nation, can I give a challenge to the businesses, can I give a challenge to corporate America: Bring some young people, maybe unpaid, to be able to be interns.

City governments, maybe unpaid, bring some young people into your offices. Teach them something else but hanging out on the streets. Let them see an adult role model working. But we might not have to have that kind of plea if we could make it in America again.

In the 18th Congressional District in Texas and all around America, we're going to be honoring the individuals who have manufacturing businesses. I would ask you, colleagues, to go and shake the hand of a manufacturer who's making something, who's struggling to keep the doors open, who's making a widget or a gadget. That's what we're talking about.

Solar panels. Wouldn't it be a shock if we went across America and began to make our own solar panels, our windmills of course, that create wind energy. Unfortunately, I hate to tell you that that equipment, that kind of technology we get from overseas. If I wasn't on the floor of the House, I would hold my head down.

When has America needed to depend on someone else, something that was their idea or that they could make better? Again, as I said, I don't mind being part of the world family, where we share and we buy items and we help develop economies, but not to the point where all our jobs, like I said, are taking wings and flying away. What kind of America is that for our young people that are graduating in 2011?

So I want us to focus on building buses, building submarines, and major aircraft carriers, building bridges, freeways, improving dams, building the rails, or the trains for high-speed rail, of which I am an avid supporter, and requires an investment in this country to be able to be fiscally conservative as well as to ensure that we use our energy resources right.

To have an energy policy as well that speaks about all of the energy resources, to do them effectively, as the President has articulated; and to make sure that if we are using fossil fuels, whether it's oil or gas, that we are doing it here in the United States and that we are in fact doing it safely and securely.

That we appreciate wind and we make the equipment or the kind of technology right here in the United States. Solar, that we make all of our panels. Natural gas, that we do it safely and securely, and that we create jobs that way. That we bring down the cost of energy. That we stop calling upon the American people to take $5 out of their pocket and put a few ounces, if you will, of gas in their car.

That we begin to recognize the pain of America, and the way that we recognize the pain of America is that we begin to go aggressively toward the American people with solutions. And the demagoguery of raising the debt ceiling, and I'm not going to vote on it unless you burden it down with draconian cuts that will end Medicare as we know it on all seniors, eliminate Social Security, destroy Medicaid and throw it to the winds so that disabled children suffering from autism or those who have other diseases cannot be taken care of, that's not the America that has made us so great.

It is one that pulls up our pants and puts on our shoes, pulls up our skirts and gets empowered by the joy of work and helping others. And when we did that, we were able to invest in this Nation.

I will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys Medicare as we know it. And I will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys Social Security, or Medicaid, or violates the premise that this country owes a debt of gratitude to veterans and returning soldiers. That's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the American people, a bill of goods. A bill of goods that the philosophy that is anti to President Reagan, who asked for the increase in the debt ceiling himself, that we cannot count and speak at the same time. I believe America is greater than that.

We can bring down the debt with a very meticulous plan over a period of time, the same way you save for college or plan to bring down your debt, or stop using credit cards. We can do that. But at the same time, we can pay America's bills. And we cannot leave one American alongside of the road, languishing and reaching out for help, and we say there is no room at the inn.

Where is the America that is a Good Samaritan? Where is America that sent young men to war, World War II, and if you talk to any of that generation they say, I didn't know all the facts, but I was glad to be part of what America was standing for, helping those who were languishing alongside the road.

We have had any number of conflicts, and some that I have agreed or disagreed with; but the premise was, whether we had the agreement of the American people on the premise of that conflict, it was to help someone along the road.

I am now calling in a clarion cry for Americans to help America. I am calling on this Congress for this Congress to help America. I am calling on the President, as a friend of the American people, to help America. And to do that, whatever is heard that will now come behind me, and disjangled chords will sound attractive, and it will be about who is going to burden our grandchildren and the long-term debt, but it will not be infused with values by many of our faiths.

Those of us of a Christian faith and many other faiths have an element of the document under which they worship that talks about the Good Samaritan and charity and love. And albeit that you are asking why on the floor of the House, it is because the infusion of those tenets were part of the design of this Nation when we organized around the concept of forming a more perfect Union. And when the Declaration of Independence said that we seek to pursue happiness, we hold these truths self-evident that all of us are created equal, we don't abandon that just because it happens to be June 3, 2011. We are able to keep those values, and those values have kept this country on a straight and productive path.

All the noise that comes sometimes in a confused sound to the ears of the American people, if as Members of Congress we can declare our commitment to helping the American people and keeping the values of the American people in place, and that of our faith, that is to help, to love, and to present charity to those who are in need, there is no limit to the greatness of America. And there is no limit to the restoration of making it in America, both in terms of our success and survival, and then in terms of making things that we need and putting America back to work.

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for being yielded this time by the Speaker of the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to live in a Nation where disagreement does not result, in this century and even in the past century, of taking up arms against each other. I am grateful that maybe in the debate that we have on the floor of the House at some point my colleagues can hear not disjangled sounds of discord and disrespect and dislike, but they can actually hear the chords of reason, my friends, that to pay for our bills as you pay for yours, we must do the right thing: raise the debt ceiling, and to be able to preserve Medicare as we know it, and not to destroy it as it is being destroyed by the budget proposals of the Republican Party.

It is necessary, if you will, to be able to come together and to listen in one voice, finally, that we act to help America.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Rokita amendment (#2) to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' This amendment only hinders future progress in decreasing TSA's current attrition rates.

As you may already know, this February, John Pistole, TSA's Administrator, who has performed 20 years of distinguished service with the FBI, came to the conclusion that allowing the transportation security workforce to collectively bargain would not result in lessening in the quality of security operations.

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, I am keenly aware that over the years, the Committee on Homeland Security has conducted thorough and extensive oversight into the cause for attrition within the TSA workforce. The attrition rate at TSA was high enough that it caught the attention of our committee.

Consistently, TSA personnel who decided to leave the agency criticized the availability of security training and responsiveness of line supervisors to workplace concerns. We must protect the tens of millions of dollars that American taxpayers have invested in hiring, training, and deploying TSA staff.

I strongly believe that Administrator Pistole's decision was the right one and his decision must be supported. TSA can be strengthened by providing their workers with a personnel system that is fair, credible and transparent, and with a voice in the development of workplace quality standards that will make the traveling public even safer.

There are currently a number of examples, throughout the federal government, where the conferring of collective bargaining rights have helped to secure the Nation. From the Customs and Border Protection to the Federal Protective Service, we see that collective bargaining rights can be made available in furtherance of security.

TSA employees have already begun to assert their right to collective bargaining. This amendment comes at the worst time, when TSOs are currently voting on selecting union representation. With our Nation and our transportation, in particular, facing serious and credible terrorist threats, this is not the time to punish our frontline homeland security personnel. We must give them the tools and resources to effectively perform their duties.

The Pistole decision cleared the way for an election and, in April, the Federal Labor Relations Authority tallied the votes. While neither of the competing unions won the vote outright, the message that the 40,000 Transportation Security Officers sent was unequivocal--they want to be unionized. There is a run-off underway.

This amendment would recklessly bring all the progress to a halt and unnecessarily damage morale within the TSA when the nation is at a state of ``heightened alert.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ask the President to appoint a Presidential appointee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is law. It is to protect the American people. That nominee so far has been Professor Elizabeth Warren who has acted as an adviser. The CFPB has earned praise from the banking community for working to simplify and improve mortgage foreclosure forms. This consumer protection board will protect the American people from predatory lending, from foreclosures, and from excessive rates on your credit card.

But, yet, Republicans in the Senate, in the other body, want to make ridiculous accusations to hold the hostage position and take this individual into a hostage position and to suggest that

she could not counsel with a State attorney general to help that State attorney general fight against mortgage foreclosures.

When have you forbidden a Federal representative, a Federal representative of the United States Government, from talking to the States to be helpful? What is the purpose of the Federal Government other than to be helpful?

It is time to stop the charade and stand with the American people. Get someone working on that consumer board to protect the American people from reckless and unfair mortgage practices.

I have an amendment at the desk.

I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very challenging process that we are going through. It is challenging because we are addressing homeland security in the backdrop of the crisis in Libya, of the Arab Spring, of the demise and end of Osama bin Laden by the brilliance of the Navy SEALs, of the intelligence community, of President Obama, and of course in the backdrop of domestic disasters: from Texas fires to tornadoes from New England to Alabama to Missouri.

But there is something that we can do.

We can recognize that there was no appointment made for 9/11. No notice was given to us on 9/11. There were indicators of individuals learning to fly or to take off but not landing. So post-9/11 we came up with the enhanced concept of ensuring that we had Federal Air Marshals. I'm glad for that. Yet I think it is important now, in the neighborhood that we're living in, in the climate that we're living in and in the interests of terrorists--lone wolves, franchise terrorists--to attack our mobility or transit systems, which include aviation, for us to focus on ensuring that there is no undermining of the utilization strategically of air marshals to protect the American public. I can just cite, Mr. Chairman, the incidences that have occurred in the backdrop of Libya: individuals domestically charging the pilot door, passengers having to bring down disturbed individuals. The air skyways, if you will, are both exciting and potentially troubling and dangerous.

My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation on that ability. They are one of our first lines of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. As the ranking member on a Transportation subcommittee, I have worked over the years and have sponsored legislation to see that we have enough air marshals and that they will receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft.

Make no mistake, the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous just as it is on our rail system. On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite PETN and destroy a plane over Detroit. We need air marshals. As I indicated, the demise of Osama bin Laden has caused many to rise up and to begin to think: What is their next effort in attack, if you will, on the issue of aviation security?

While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest risks. I also intend to move forward on my FAMs legislation, which will provide training and increased productivity but also personnel. Yet this clearly goes to the heart of the problem: Protect the American public. Protect them as they travel domestically. Protect them as they travel internationally.

If you ever for a moment doubt the potential of havoc, then you just need to look to that Christmas Day--to that unexpected act of the so- called ``underwear bomber,'' or, if you will, of the shoe bomber, of some years past. Then, if you want to bring it closer to home, you go back 3 or 4 weeks ago and see the series of incidences that required passengers and flight attendants to be engaged.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is in the form of a limitation that no funds should be used to limit the enhanced utilization, which will require creative thinking and the ability to use resources effectively. The bill actually says that we should have two FAMs inbound: two undesignated, unnoted individuals who can provide a cover and a buffer from what has to be a very bad climate.

Let me thank the Federal Air Marshals as well for their service. Let me thank those under Homeland Security for their service, including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. They are in a tough, tough neighborhood.

I close by simply saying there will be an amendment on the floor dealing with collective bargaining for TSOs. In my capacity on that committee, let me say that collective bargaining has no impact on the great work of the TSOs. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' Mr. Chair, I am offering a limitation amendment that prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used to interfere with the deployment of federal air marshals.

My amendment would ensure that the federal air marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high-risk by the Department of Homeland Security's risk models.

Mr. Chair, I believe that federal air marshals are the last line of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attack.

As a Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft.

On January 5, 2011, I introduced House Resolution 71, the Federal Air Marshals Augmentation Act of 2011. A measure that directs the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to increase the number of federal air marshals by at least an additional 1,750 above the number of such marshals as of January 31, 2010, to ensure increased transportation security for inbound international flights.

This bill doubles the number of inbound international flights with air marshals onboard, without reducing domestic coverage. Makes criminal investigator training mandatory for all air marshals. Codifies the FAMS Office of the Ombudsman, and directs the Ombudsman to implement personnel policies as previously recommended by the DHS OIG and the GAO. This bill also requires semiannual reports to Congress on this augmentation implementation and on personnel incidents and issues.

Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous.

On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite P-E- T-N and destroy a plane over Detroit.

And following the demise of Osama bin Laden, there were numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt flights.

Are we sufficiently prepared for addressing the terrorist threat to aviation?

While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest-risk flights.

It simply directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk model.

This is an allocation of people issue, not a funding issue, and this amendment is budget neutral.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment 130 to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 77: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, it's important to be able to discuss with my colleagues just what we're doing in this House and what is considered important and urgent and what is the impact on what we're doing.

As my friends, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, are now spending time with the President, I hope they will have visions of President Ronald Reagan, because in 1983 Ronald Reagan begged and asked the Congress at that time to raise the debt limit. This is not a 2011, 21st century phenomenon never to be heard of in the history of this country. Raising the debt limit, my friends, is not evil or sin. It is an actuality that requires us to be responsible adults.

I want you to eye this picture and to continue to keep your eyes on it continuously as I explain to you what we are doing when we ask for the debt limit to be raised.

Does anyone care about our men and women on the front lines? Do we care about their families? Do we care about veterans? Oh, we wave the flag, and many of us emotionally were drawn to commemorate and honor those who had fallen this past Monday. We interrelated with families, some of whom came up to me and asked me why veterans are discriminated against and can't get work or disabled veterans are chastised by their employer. And I made a commitment to them that we will work to have jobs and end the discrimination, and that the soldiers who are coming back to 10 percent unemployment--do you realize that, that there is a 10 percent unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan returning soldiers, soldiers who are in their twenties and thirties or maybe forties, soldiers who may be disabled, who may have come back from a catastrophic injury but they want to work and support their families? These very men and women, do you know what the debt limit not being lifted will do?

And so, yes, this was put on the floor of the House to make a mockery and a joke, but I came here to be a serious legislator and I voted ``yes'' because it was a serious statement on behalf of my constituents and the American people, and I could not, within 24 hours of being around military families, abandon them with the frivolity and the foolishness of putting something up on the floor just to put it in the eye of the President.

Let me tell you why it partly was done as trickery. Listen to the words of a bond dealer: ``I didn't even know they had a vote tonight, to be honest with you,'' a senior government bond strategist at CRT Capital Group in Stamford, Connecticut said. ``The only real event that the market is focused on is the point at which they run out of money and have to shut down the government.''

Well, let me tell you the reason why this was just a joke, since those of us who voted ``yes'' didn't take it as a joke. Because the Secretary of the Treasury has extended the time to August 2. But if we do not raise the debt limit, like Ronald Reagan asked and other Republican Presidents asked with no fanfare, let me tell you what will happen to our soldiers. It will be 20 percent unemployment.

What will happen to Medicare? We won't be making it solvent. We'll just end it and implode it like the Ryan budget wants to do. We will eliminate Medicare for disabled persons and children and seniors in nursing homes.

No, we won't have any veterans benefits, but our cities that now are grappling with disaster, that funding will dry up as well. And we are the rainy day umbrella for the American people.

But you know what else? Summer jobs for our young people who are struggling to get themselves back in school in the fall. In the city of Houston, how--I don't know--unthinking can you be when you close down city pools, the meager opportunity for recreation that a child has in the inner city area or maybe a rural area.

Summer pools totally closed down. And parks. So what are they supposed to do besides having one person that can monitor the pool? You just have them running the streets. What sense does that make?

Or the school districts in the State of Texas now losing $4 billion. HISD, the Houston Independent School District, one of the largest in the Nation, $200 million, or AISD, $30 million.

It's time to wake up and understand that we must recognize the responsibility we have, Mr. Speaker. We can end the war in Afghanistan, bring them home from Iraq, and we can do our job and raise the debt ceiling. This is ridiculous, but I'm not going to be part of it.

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on why I am standing next to the brave and the true of our United States military, let me give a message to Syria and express my outrage over the heinous killing of a 13-year-old boy. President Assad should be held accountable now. And the United Nations needs to voice its opposition. As the Secretary of State has indicated, we need to be standing alongside those seeking freedom in Syria.

And to our allies in Bahrain, where our fleet of Navy personnel are, what a disgrace that they have imploded and blown up mosques because they disagree with their particular faith. This is the Arab Spring, but it will end in devastation if we don't stand for truth and human rights and compassion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, as I stand next to the brave men and women, some who have fallen, and those who now still fight, to ask my Republican friends do you understand that there is a 10 percent unemployment among those who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, troops who are fighting for us and fighting on our behalf. Yet it has been 21 weeks and the Republicans have no jobs agenda. We need jobs. Create jobs! If you believe in these troops, build jobs for the American people.

I thank the distinguished manager of this rule, and I certainly thank Members who are on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the baseball season and you can imagine a throng of teeming audience, and they are watching pitch one, pitch two, pitch three; and it is strike one, strike two and strike three.

The winning side, the Republicans, of course, cheer; but the American people lose. They're out. They're struck out. Medicare is gone as we know it. Let's not fool around. Let's not try to have smoke and mirrors.

This rule ends Medicare as we know it. We don't have to play games. The debt relief that was put on the floor ends Medicare as we know it. And this bill on homeland security is tone deaf to the words of the late Osama bin Laden who said that we're looking at your airports, we're looking at your airlines, and we're looking at your rail. This Homeland Security appropriations bill cuts all of the necessary security that is necessary to protect the American people.

First we throw out the seniors on Medicare; then we don't allow for TSO inspectors. We cut FEMA dollars in the face of Joplin and Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. In my own State, there are fires that are burning right now, and we're telling FEMA that we don't have enough money to provide for you. Did you see the story on the news that indicated that firefighters were left watching a man drown--drown-- because they had to cut the rescue team of that community? People were crying. Firefighters, whose first job is to be a first responder, denied because they don't have the funding to be able to help the people that they serve.

I tell you to vote ``no'' on this rule. Strike out those folks, and let the American people win.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment, and I too recognize the challenges that Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Price faced in the confines of trying to address some difficult times. But as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe it is imperative that we look at the reality of the world in which we live. In an article dated April 24, 2011, out of the State of Texas, reads: hundreds of weary firefighters were racing against the clock on Sunday, pushing back massive brush fires that have destroyed near-record swatches of Texas countryside. Firefighters were hoping to make as much progress as possible before low humidity and strong winds set the stage for more potential flare-ups late Monday and Tuesday.

Fires were still burning in Texas. Firefighters are still being called upon. Cities and States across America are laying off firefighters. And we are reminded of the needs, if you will, that were addressed on 9/11 when firefighters from the City of New York rushed in to save their fellow New Yorkers and others, and many of them, many of them perished.

They are, in fact, first responders. And I believe it is important that we make the sacrifice, we find the adequate offset, and we support this amendment. I'm also reminded of a story that many of you may have heard, the sad story, it aired on local television, where firefighters from some locality watched while a man drowned and could not save him. The reasoning was that the particular team that would have had the skills and the equipment to save this drowning man in what has been called the most powerful Nation in the world, was fired, laid off, eliminated. And, therefore, from the shoreline many looked in horror as this particular man drowned.

Is this what America has come to?

I believe this amendment is extremely important, one, to be able to show appreciation to the firefighters across America who come to the aid of those in need from different States when a crisis or tragedy occurs.

I heard someone mention, it might have been Mr. LaTourette, but who is it that plucks you out of a burning house or rescues, when they do have the resources or the team, out of a predicament where you are stranded in some crisis, whether it is drowning, whether it's a fire, whether it is an emergency health condition or whether or not they are confronting a terrorist act? Firefighters are truly our first responders.

In the City of Houston they are considering closing out or shutting down 600-plus police officers. And firefighters have the same concerns.

So I think it is very important that we own up to our duties. And as I mentioned in a metaphor before, let the American people be winners today. Let the firefighters be present and accounted for. And let us be reminded of their great heroic acts of 9/11. This 10th year anniversary, let us not say thank you in the way that we deny them funding, but let us say thank you in the way that we provide them with the funding that they need.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Homeland Security Committee, tragically, since the formation of the select committee and then ultimately the full committee.

For many of us who were here in the United States Congress and watched the plane attack the Pentagon and ultimately visited Ground Zero in the early stages are well aware of the need to protect America. As the ranking member of the Transportation Security Committee, working with my colleague from Alabama, the chairman, we well recognize the importance of transportation facilities and modes.

For some reason, terrorists are attracted to airlines and freeways and trains. So this amendment is a very simple amendment that I believe provides security to the American public.

It was no doubt that after the killing of Osama bin Laden discovered papers suggested that al Qaeda operatives were considering attacking the U.S. rail system on the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Yes, it was 2010, but if we recall, we were unaware that we were going to be attacked on 9/11. Los Angeles MTA planned security upgrades in response to bin Laden's killing and the discovery of rail attack plans. That is the American public's sensitivity, that we must protect our modes of transportation.

My amendment is a simple amendment that restores $5 million to the Transportation Security account at the President's submitted request by

reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing.

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit system and their riders, our constituents. Now more than ever we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against a terrorist attack. This amendment would increase the surface transportation security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012. In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded. This account funds frontline homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols.

The American public, whether it's Amtrak or long-distance rail, need our involvement. We cannot afford to diminish the protection of our rail lines that grandmothers and grandchildren, college students and commuters use. This is a smart investment at a critical time. Be reminded, we got no notice about 9/11, and we will get no notice about attacks on our rail system.

To fund this increase, my amendment simply reduces $2.5 million from two different accounts. This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as to improve security for passenger and freight rail. Just be the community that would be impacted by a horrific terrorist act. Whether it is through the neighborhoods of Houston, whether it's in Los Angeles or the Midwest, all of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack. From Spain to London, they know the truth, and we must stand vigilant. Providing this increased funding for our surface transportation inspectors is a wise investment on behalf of the American people, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the ranking member.

I think it's important; I listened to the gentleman, Mr. Aderholt, list a lot of numerical and factual points about personnel. Let me be very clear, as Senator Lieberman said, all of our systems need to be on high alert and all of our citizens need to be on high alert as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, that something is awry with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is interested in transportation modes, and they're interested in our rail systems. They have already done Mumbai, they have done London, and they have done Madrid; and therefore, they are looking at the United States. No, we don't have specifics, but we do have the potential of our rail lines crossing America being ripe targets for al Qaeda. This is a very small amount that would allow us to have surface inspectors who are truly crucial to the protection of the Nation's mass transit, freight, and long-distance rail.

Every State is impacted, from New Hampshire to Florida, from the Midwest to the West, Texas. Houston has as its city insignia a rail. Why? Because trains crisscross our community. Therefore, I think it behooves us to be bipartisan and to actually support an amendment that provides a cushion of protection and a cushion and an armor, if you will, against the thoughts and the mindsets of al Qaeda. Yes, they are franchised, they are splintered, but that makes it all the easier for them to find their way here to the United States.

I remind my colleagues that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I ask my colleagues to consider the small investment it would take to be able to secure the Nation's railways. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the authorizing committee, I can assure you that we are seeing these kinds of threats in terms of the vastness of our system, and we need to be able to protect our system.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would increase the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Surface Transportation Security's account by $5 million and restore funding for this account at the President's submitted request, offset by reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC).

Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al- Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit systems and their riders, our constituents.

Now more than ever, we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against terrorist attack.

This amendment would increase the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012.

In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded.

This account funds front line homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols.

Surface inspectors also help disseminate best practices to transit and rail entities across the Nation.

This is a smart investment at a critical time for surface transportation security.

To fund this increase, my amendment reduces $2.5 million from the Transportation Threat and Credentialing program and $2.5 million from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. Both of these programs are well funded--TTAC at $183 million and the Under Secretary's office at $234 million.

This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities address and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as for improving security for passenger and freight rail.

All of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack.

We must be vigilant in recognizing the threat, make wise investment in security, and collaborate with industry stakeholders to secure this transportation mode that is essential to our economy and way of life.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 20: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following: