Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem, and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and not for 1 year. With that in mind, however, it's important to note that we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to the opportunity for Members of this Congress to, in fact, review closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may have on the constitutional rights of our citizens.

Yesterday in a markup, I offered an amendment to affirm that the legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the

Democratic Members who were there and present voted ``yes,'' and all the Republicans voted ``no.'' I think adhering to the Constitution and ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important concept. In this instance, we have not had the chance for a full hearing. And I am very glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the 111th Congress, we did; but unfortunately, even the amendments that were passed in that Congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this initiative that was passed by the House.

I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section 215, where library records could be in question, if you read certain books. And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our Constitution.

As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress, as I indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the Patriot Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I, as well, am very, very convinced that we do need to secure our homeland; but human intelligence is a very large part of that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the care that it deserves.

In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time have been included in this legislation.

None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I'm deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people without so much as a hearing. Therefore, I would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same faults. And I simply say that the Fourth Amendment does say that it is the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this and begin our work as quickly as we can. But even with this provision passing, as I expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the American people, both in terms of homeland security and their constitutional right of privacy.

I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, ``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.''

This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It also grants government access to business records relating to a terrorist investigation.

While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect our nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the democratic principles that make this country the crown jewel of democracy. The bill before us today, however, does not do that. In fact, even the manner by which are even considering this bill, only days after introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, circumvents the process we have in place to allow for improvements and amendments to be made.

The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution.

The first provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs a foul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire.

The second provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe wiretap,'' allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Like the first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target.

The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf'' provision, which permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be allowed to expire.

Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, specifically, those issues relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. I repeat, even if that person is NOT suspected of unlawful behavior.

The three provisions I have just mentions, as well as the issues surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past Congresses, because they were in dire need of improvements to protect the rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in the past, and without amendments, I am still against them today.

Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was introduced. In 2005, the Patriot was examined in the Judiciary Committee. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only addressed the three provisions in H.R. 514, but also National Security Letters and the lax standards of intent.

Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), another piece of law used in conjunction with the PATRIOT Act and essential to combating the war on terror, but one that was in need of improvements to protect Americans' Constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. On that day, I said that, ``we must ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans,'' and I stand firmly behind that notion today.

When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans.

I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our constitution. I stand here today urging my colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other legislative body.

Furthermore, this very bill was considered last year in the 111th Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties.

In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues who were on the Judiciary Committee at that time, are included in this legislation.

None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people, without so much as a hearing.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However, as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national security.

To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills Of Rights guarantee certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient.

As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in the PATRIOT Act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress not included in the bill?

Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms that will better protect private communications from overbroad government surveillance.

There is nothing more important than providing the United States of America, especially our military and national security personnel, the right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure America while preserving our way of life.

Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.

I move to strike the last word.

Let me do as my good friend from New York did, Mr. Serrano, and not mention any President's name. And I just ask my colleagues, how do you--again, I explain to all of us and hopefully those who are listening, this CR stops work in the middle of its tracks. This is a cutoff of functioning work as we speak, and there is functioning work.

Just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to refund to the damaged, the worn and the torn of the BP oil spill, czars, or names that you would call, them are working.

And I am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term that Presidents use to get tasks done that ultimately may be valuable enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a particular agency.

Now, we still call the drug czar the ``drug czar.'' And I am reminded of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective. And the reason for the czar term for the President is to emphasize how important the issue was or is to the American people.

Why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally, if you will, in a broad-based amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who are in the course of their work impacting for the American people, whether it's the TARP, whether it's the BP oil spill? They are in fact helping get through a difficult problem. The very nature of the term, a difficult problem.

So I would say to my friends, as I will be saying later about an amendment that has been offered, but I'm disturbed about denying funding to the Transportation Security Administration. What I would say in cutting their office not recognizing the value of their work, I would likewise say that it is crucial that we allow the Presidents, plural, to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select individuals to complete those tasks. I rise to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I thank the authors of this amendment which I rise to support, the Nadler and Stark and Lee amendment. I believe it is a starting point, for those of us who have consistently raised questions about where we are and making sure we follow and adhere to long-standing commitments to our troops and to their families that have served boldly and ably both in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, how we can orderly bring them home.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago as we continued to feel frustration in Iraq, I raised the question and filed legislation called the Day of Honor in which we would bring our troops home from Iraq and then, subsequently, Afghanistan and honor them throughout the Nation.

In fact, I remember arguing with the Bush administration and raising the issue as to why our fallen soldiers, when they came in to Dover Air Force Base, did not have the honor of public view if agreed to by their families. I believe our troops are owed a debt of gratitude, respect and honor. Those who are fighting now deserve that respect and honor.

This legislation in no way diminishes or dismisses their service or the blood that they have shed. But what it says is that we are now in the midst of a major budget crisis. And as we have seen over the last 24 hours, we are willing to cut children and substance abuse and mental health and teachers and environmental protection, if you will, oversight, literally gut the running of the government. These soldiers want to come home to jobs. We have done nothing about creating jobs.

I frankly believe this is a starting point of astute analysis as to what we are doing going forward. We already know that we are looking forward to bringing troops home and to downsizing, redeploying. We begin redeploying by redeploying money.

And let me give you an example. On the floor just a few hours ago, there was an amendment discussed by the Transportation Committee to almost gut the Transportation Security Administration. Now, I chaired that subcommittee in the last Congress, and I serve as the ranking member in this Congress.

If we had done that, it would have had a double detriment to the security of the homeland. Mr. Chairman, 900 positions would have been lost, impacting 450 airports, governing some 445,000 TSA officers. Maybe some of those officer positions could go to returning soldiers who are looking for work. In addition, it would impact the intelligence gathering and disseminating. It would also impact covert testing that goes on at passenger checkpoints, and also cargo where we have seen that we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no doubt that aviation travel is in the eye of the storm for homeland security and protecting the homeland.

So while we have $100 billion set aside for a war of which we have already been given the direction as downsizing, redeploying, bringing troops home, and yet we have $100 billion.

So I would simply say this is a time when we should come together and determine that we are moving to bring our troops home; that we are going to use smart money and work on diplomacy, getting Afghanistan to invest the moneys it has and building democracy and educating its children. We support that.

I recall one of my early visits to Afghanistan, taking books to schoolchildren and the excitement of the schools way beyond Kabul where they were excited to receive these books, and the students were excited to receive and to be able to be educated. Of course, in leaving Afghanistan and going to Iraq, we have lost a certain momentum that had gathered. School girls can't even go to school. That comes through diplomacy and buying into a sovereign nation that believes in some dignity for all people.

So I applaud the troops that are on the ground, and I applaud their leadership. But if we have amendments that would gut the Transportation Security Administration and keep us from protecting the homeland, then we know that we are going in the wrong direction. Support an amendment that reduces the amount of money to be spent for Afghanistan, to invest in the homeland and the security of that homeland, and promote agencies like the Transportation Security Administration agency that is fighting every day to secure the American people.

I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I don't doubt that the gentleman from Indiana is sincere. We all know him, and we know the longstanding commitment that he has had to this issue. But having served on the Judiciary Committee with the late Chairman Henry Hyde, I know how sincere he was in the work that he did to ensure that no Federal funds could be used for abortion. That is the law of the land.

I also know how committed our colleague from Massachusetts is to his values of pro-life; but he eloquently stood on the floor of the House and gave us a moral compass. This is not about abortion. This is about saving lives. And the Planned Parenthood effort, albeit with ills that any large organization may have--corrected ills, has a valuable and worthy purpose in saving lives. My fear is with the Pence amendment having the potential of passing, that we set the stage for going back 10, 20, 30, 40 years when women had no place to seek counseling. They know well that the adherence to the law that the Planned Parenthood organization must have is that they cannot use Federal funds for abortion.

But this is not about abortion. This is about family planning and counseling services that have long been part of the Planned Parenthood family. And all we'll do by cutting these resources will be, in fact, going back to the dark ages when young women had no place to go. So Planned Parenthood does not equate to abortion. Family planning does not equate to abortion. Title X funds do not equate to abortion because the law of the land is clear. But what we will have are young women who will have no place to go to be able to ask questions.

Yes, the Planned Parenthood facility is in the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas, a heavily diverse but heavily minority district; and I would argue that its efforts are positive in health education, the work it does, in Pap tests for cervical cancer, in STD testing, in menopause and hormone treatment, in urinary tract treatment, in breast exams, and in outreach to the Latino community, all services that would not be there if it was not for these committed workers and the committed Office of Planned Parenthood.

Community health clinics, to be gutted. And as was indicated, all the work that we're doing on the floor of the House, the question has to be, one, are we going forward in helping the American people create jobs? Or even in this amendment, causing thousands of Americans to lose their jobs in a worthy cause of helping those who many times cannot help themselves? What about those who have suffered a violent act of sexual assault? Where do they go? What do we say about a Planned Parenthood who, throughout its existence over the last couple of decades, has received violent threats, bomb threats? I am reminded of the police support that this local chapter had to have because of the constant threats upon their staff.

So this is not all peaches and roses. We are simply standing here and saying, allow them to do their work, which is assisting a young woman by the name of Karen, 28 years old, who was between jobs, newly married, and did not have any health care. She saw the results of a pregnancy test that she got from the drugstore and couldn't believe what it said.

She didn't know where else to go. She was frightened, 28 years old. But she went to Planned Parenthood. And what she said, without any pressure, she had the test and discovered that she was pregnant. And the nurse didn't ask her any indicting question; simply said, what do you want to do? And she thought about it, and she decided to say she wanted to have the baby.

Don't let those stories go untold where women are counseled and they go forth with their plans with the idea that they have someone to help them along, even provide them with services to be able to carry that baby to term.

So I simply want to say, they have suffered enough violence for Planned Parenthood. Let's not have more violence on the floor of the House, and let's vote down this particular amendment to continue them serving the women that need to be served.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, let me thank the former chair of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee and now the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and the manager and the chairman of the subcommittee.

I thought, Madam Chairwoman, that we lived in a country that was a land of the free and the brave. We had a sense of pride in the progress that America has made, and we have always said we would never want to go back, whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women, whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. But I stand on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because it seems as if, with this continuing resolution, that will literally stop in its tracks the functioning of this government. We are really going back.

I rise to support the Lowey amendment because I really can't believe that this CR is eliminating $327 million in family planning. It just baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in jeopardy. It is now being part of turning the clock back. It is amazing that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been saved, lives of young girls have been saved because they've had access to family planning.

As much as we have fought to be able to ensure that around the world where indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing process now have access to good medical care--and yes, family planning--so that they can have live births, now we come here to the soil of the United States, and to take $327 million out of the mouths and the hands of women and children--yes, children who can be born healthy. Children who are part of the health care process that these women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this Nation and in this community.

I am disappointed in the games that are played with Planned Parenthood and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent tapings and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not in the business of helping people. I am disappointed in using those tactics because this is a very serious issue. Mrs. Lowey's amendment addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes that if we were to go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many, many lives that are lost.

We have a Planned Parenthood office in my community. It is mostly focusing its attention on educating the community about healthy births, about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination that is made by their faith leader with their family. They will not be left alone. In fact, family planning and Planned Parenthood extinguishes, I hope for good, the back alley procedures and, as well, the rusty hangers that were used in years past.

Just a day or two ago, we heard of a horrible abortion clinic that saw the lives lost of babies and their mothers because of the dastardly tactics that were being used. That is not what we speak of here today. We speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to accept the good health care of family planning.

We speak of the rights of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that really ensure that we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights, which allows us due process, is what is being denied in this continuing resolution for, as we speak, if that money is eliminated, clinics around America will have their doors closed. Women will be standing outside, banging on

the door and asking for good health care.

So I ask my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, and I truly ask you to not take this Nation back and eliminate $327 million in family planning, benign but healthy and good health care and good policy for America and for America's women and for America's children.

Let us support the Lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination of $327 million in family planning and this continuing resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

I respect the gentleman, but there were individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of Ms. Chu, and I think we are allowed to do that except that the gentleman rose on his point of order and started speaking to it before we could strike the last word.

Will others be allowed to debate before the gentleman pursues his point of order?

A further parliamentary inquiry.

So, if Members are on their feet, you would be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from Montana pursues a point of order, which he has already reserved?

Let me say that I rise to join with the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment and that I now rise to introduce the Jackson Lee amendment, which also addresses the question of the Pell Grant. I would hope that my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. I consider this an emergency, and I will make this point as the gentleman makes his point of order.

Mr. Chair, let me just refer to where we are today because we are needing to be engaged in creating jobs. I am not sure what my colleagues heard in the last election, but what I heard was that we needed jobs.

It is clear--and I hope that we can see this--we have been here for 5 weeks plus, and the number of jobs that have been created by the Republicans is zero. So here we are now with a 15 percent cut on Pell Grants.

What does that mean?

It means that schools all around the Nation will not be able to provide Pell Grants to the individual students who need them. In fact, in my own district, with this 15 percent cut, this 5,550 going down to 4,705 will drastically impact students in my constituency.

For example, the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell Grants in order to finance their education. 5,726 are currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at the University of Houston--16,570 in my district alone. Those from the State of Montana will lose their Pell Grants. Those from the State of Alabama, from the State of Connecticut, and from the State of Wisconsin will lose their Pell Grants. But the real insult is that this will stop the education of thousands upon thousands of students in the middle of their education.

Again, how many jobs have the Republicans created?--zero.

I always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. We are on the rise of creating jobs. In fact, the CBO said that our future is great. It will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million from the Pell Grant program. It is absolutely absurd. For example, let me share with you thoughts from The New York Times:

This CR is ideologically driven. We started with a $74

billion cut, but because the Republicans decided that it is

preferable to abide by polls, they decided to move to a

draconian and ludicrous $100 billion.

That means that $600 million was cut from Pell Grants.

In addition to an amendment that I did not offer, the NIH, we see that those grants that were competitive for fellowships and research have also been drastically cut at Texas Southern University and at the University of Houston, and many State institutions in Texas are impacted by the cuts of the NIH grants.

But this is the greatest sin: In a meeting that I had with my community colleges and my school districts, they were in complete panic about losing Pell Grants that will then impact on the wonderful upsurge of jobs from what we had lost in the last administration.

I would simply ask my colleagues: Why are we going down a pathway that would take away the growth that we have provided?

So I would ask, as we look to the future, that this be restored. My amendment and Ms. Chu's amendment--the one that I joined and the one that I intended to speak on--was, in fact, to restore these dollars.

A new Wall Street Journal survey of economists shows they expect the economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003 but not with these draconian cuts. Why wouldn't they do as the President's budget has done, which is to get rid of the 2 percent tax cuts for the billionaires? We might be able to provide $600 million for students. But no. We want to, I guess, stand with ideological viewpoints and with individuals who say, I was sent here to budget cut.

You were sent here to govern. You were sent here to protect the American people. Students who will create the workforce of the 21st century, you are now telling them they can't get an education.

Let me say this: The Constitution reminds us of what a wonderful country we live in--a country that believes we all are created equal. We don't have the same economic opportunities, meaning the same wealth, but we do have the ability to access education through wonderful programs like the Pell Grant program. Now you're telling poor and low- income students the door is closed; the lights are out; you're not equal, and you don't deserve an education.

I would say that this is an abomination. Support the amendments that will provide for $600 million restored to the Pell Grants. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment.

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

H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, minorities, the elderly, and our nation's university students. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate effect on the low- income and minority portions of our population.

As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms to those Americans who are the most vulnerable and in need of our support the most.

The proposed CR calls for a 15 percent reduction in funding for Pell grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a major hardship on students.

Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that would force them to find and secure additional funds for their schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college.

To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and relies on those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to take time off from their schooling.

In my district in Houston, TX, these cuts will jeopardize the education and future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell grants in order to finance their education--5,726 currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at University of Houston. 16,570 students in one Congressional District alone will be unfairly affected by these cuts.

In the entire state of Texas, 650,790 students currently enrolled in school will be forced to deal with unexpected financial hardships under this provision. In other words, in my state alone, the number of students negatively impacted by this drastic cut to Pell grant funding is more than the entire population of Washington, DC. Nationwide, more than 9 million students would potentially be impacted.

Mr. Chair, these cuts are an unnecessary and unfair hardship that will be forced on college students. These young men and women represent the future labor force of our country, and in these trying economic times, I believe it is extremely appalling for Members of Congress to purposefully jeopardize the educational and economic future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I tried to craft my discussion in the form of an emergency. The loss of thousands upon thousands of

students' access to education, I consider that an emergency.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will.

I consider this an emergency, and I would ask that this point of order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, Mr. Chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the $1,000, $800 they will lose. I'm asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal. I'd ask for a waiver and I'd ask for this amendment to be accepted and the point of order to be waived.

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

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Very briefly, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If it's good, if it has been good, it's time for it to go.

I'm going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from Oregon's amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston, Texas, that compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for learning.

I might add, the National Public Radio, as well, has its challenges. So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is churning, that we will invest in our children, which the National Public Radio represents.

And as my friend from New York said, Big Bird is still alive, and other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for children who are at home, or in home daycare, to give them an exposure to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities.

So let me just say that I'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from investing in education--cutting Pell Grants, cutting NIH fellowships and scholarships,

cutting public broadcast. It looks like we've just said enough is enough with job creation and let's get rid of education as well. And I ask, of course, that this CR be defeated.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, sometimes this is a complex debate when we hear words like ``CR'' to a lot of our voters and others who are paying attention to the work that they have sent us here to do. And a lot of times they try to ensure that we use vernacular that, what does it mean? We're in the budget year of 2012 or budget year 2011 or we're doing a CR. I think the plain and simple of it is we're trying to ensure that what you are getting now if you're on a job, if you're a police officer, that we don't turn the lights out on you. And my concern is to let you know that we have been steadily improving. The private sector has been creating jobs under the Democratic policies under President Obama's guidance and, frankly, under this new budget that we'll debate--that is not what we're debating today--that speaks about competitiveness and speaks about infrastructure rebuild, putting Americans to work.

So my gripe with the CR that my friends on the other side of the aisle have now put forward is that they originally came up with a $60- to $74 billion--maybe a thoughtful analysis of what we could cut. Remember, this is in the middle of you working and all of a sudden somebody comes and gives you a pink slip. But rather than stick with what might have been a thoughtful analysis--and, again, I had not studied it; it had not been introduced--all of a sudden they go by the ``We have to be dominated by voices of which force us, without thought, to now make it a hundred billion dollars.''

I'm as angry about the deficit and want a strong budget, which we're not doing right now, and want to work with my good ranking member, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in the last Congress, Mr. Dicks, on a thoughtful passage going forward, but I want to make sure we stay on a pathway of creating jobs.

There is something to cutting spending. You have my commitment. We came out with a compromise 2 months ago, in December. Some of us agreed; some of us did not. But there were sizable tax cuts. I voted for tax cuts before. But let me tell you why what we're doing today is enormously dangerous: 1,330 cops will be off the street; 2,400 fewer firefighters will be off the street; we will take teachers out of classrooms and lose 25,000 new construction jobs.

There is a provision in the CR that wants to rescind stimulus dollars--sounds like a bad thing--but those dollars are in the pipeline for construction projects where men and women of America are working and feeding their families. Does that make sense, dollars that they pay taxes back to this country?

I don't understand a plan that takes from the working man and woman in this country. I don't understand a plan, for example, that takes $2.5 billion away from high-speed rail, which all over America there has been a sense of inspiration about moving us to more efficient transportation. But the number of jobs to be created cannot be counted. That's an investment in this country. Or do you want to undermine the air traffic control system and begin to trouble America's airways? I sit on the Homeland Security Committee, chair the Transportation Security Committee. I am very hesitant to make a willy-nilly cut to the

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

I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member and, of course, the manager for the majority.

Mr. Chairman, I rise for a very important discussion as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and someone who truly believes that the COPS Program that has been initiated over a long tenure of time has truly brought down the crime statistics across America. Whether you are a rural hamlet or whether or not you happen to be a major city, the COPS Program has been an anchor for security for neighborhoods who cannot afford to pay for their own private police services.

This amendment restores the $600 million that is offered to be taken from the present funding, and it restores or would prevent the taking of 1,330 cops off the street, and as well it will provide the safety net that is necessary.

If I had had command of the floor earlier, I would have also added to this discussion the elimination of salaries that are eliminating the use of resources for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the resources necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the new redistricting plans that will be coming forward.

But it is certainly a shame to take in the middle of municipal budget years a sizable amount of dollars which they had been operating with and depended on. There are local communities in which the COPS Program provides one police officer, two police officers, 20 police officers, 30 police officers, and that is the very existence of that community. In cities around America, cops have been laid off, and that should be a decision of last resort.

When you talk about going forward, my question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is, is the purpose of this legislative initiative job creation, or job elimination? How can you do such damage to members of the municipal workforce that are on the front lines serving local communities?

The COPS Program has been an enormous success. It has survived several administrations, Republican and Democrat. And to suggest that the COPS Program would be obliterated or at least devastated in such an amount would, from my perspective, be the wrong direction to go. COPS academy classes have been put on hold. Mayors have eliminated classes. I have seen that in cities around America, and as members of the House Judiciary Committee, we have had several encounters of eliminating COPS funding.

This amendment simply strikes the elimination or the intent to eliminate a certain amount of funding for the COPS Program. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves the question, do the American people deserve safety and security in a time where we continue to face international and homeland security threats here in the United States? Domestic law enforcement is a key element in providing that kind of safety net.

Training, the opportunity for security, and the opportunity for ensuring that hamlets, towns, cities, and rural communities, counties, do not have to suffer through the crisis of the lack of security.

So I would ask my colleagues to consider a waiver so that we can address this question of the funding of a very important program. And I might add that I look forward to working with the Senate to restore those salaries to the Department of Justice so that we do not have to undermine the enforcement of an enormously important legislative initiative, one that Martin Luther King and our colleague, John Lewis, fought hard for and one that has withstood the test of time--and that is enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. How could we? And I look forward to working with the Senate for allowing that to go forward as well as to be able to enforce the values or the laws, the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, as relates to the 2011 redistricting that will take place in the coming months.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, first of all, the gentleman was mishearing what I said. I indicated that I had an earlier amendment that I decided not to offer because I intend to work with the other body on it. But it would have diminished the ability to enforce the Voting Rights Act. That is not what we're speaking of today.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify that I was not speaking on this amendment. In this amendment I've simply asked for a waiver. Frankly, this is too important an issue to be addressed by the gentleman's point of order. I ask for a waiver. This is denying, if you will, huge amounts of money to many municipalities all across this Nation. And $600 million is absolutely ludicrous. It causes a loss of jobs and a loss of safety for the United States.

I ask for a waiver on the point of order.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise to support the amendment that Mr. Olson has offered, and I am delighted that we have the opportunity to work together collaboratively with the chairman and with Mr. Dicks on this very important issue.

I would like to say publicly that Democrats and Republicans in the State of Texas have worked enthusiastically together on supporting NASA and human space exploration. I'm sorry that I will not have the opportunity to support Mr. Olson's amendment or vote for it. He is absolutely right, human space flight is conducted in exactly one agency, NASA, and the general Houston area and Texas are impacted enormously. We have already lost 4,000 jobs. There will be a decrease of $1 billion going to NASA Johnson. That will impact the transition, if you will, in human space exploration. One very well known member of our community, Captain Mark Kelly, the husband of our dear and beloved Member, Congresswoman Giffords, will have the opportunity to be on one of the final shuttles.

But what most of us are not aware of, because our memory fades, is how much we gained from human space exploration. Research in HIV/AIDS and

stroke and heart disease and weather research, all improving the quality of life for Americans. So I stand solemnly behind continuing to fund human space exploration and join Mr. Olson in the leadership that he has given.

This is a tight budget, but the President talked about investing in competitiveness, creating jobs. NASA creates jobs. It creates jobs for small businesses. It creates jobs for large contractors. It creates thousands upon thousands of jobs. So I hope in this instance that we can speak in a bipartisan manner to speak to the administration on the value of continuing to support NASA. It is difficult when we have a CR that, in fact, is cutting millions from the NASA budget, and I would hope that there would be a recognition that it is important to put $517 million back into NASA, as was offered by this amendment.

I can't imagine a Nation without the ability for young people to aspire to the heights of those who have gone on before, those who have been astronauts, those who have explored the skies, those who have done enormously important research on the various trips that have been taken that have provided the research and as well the space station which has been an enormous asset that has brought international partners together and helped develop science that could not be developed before.

Having traveled to most of the centers that are under the NASA administration, each and every one that I have been to has had the quality of staff that have been doing their job in the name of progress for the American people. So I'm disappointed with this CR that has caused these enormous cuts, and I would hope that we have the opportunity to restore them.

Where are we if we quash the genius of America? Where are we if we extinguish the dreams of young students and scientists around America? Where are we if we quash the jobs that can be created by science? NASA is an asset and a jewel. And I hope together in this Congress, and of course working together with the administration, we can realize it once and for all. Why we have to battle so hard for something that has done so much for the American people baffles me. I look forward to the reinvestment in science and competitiveness. I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I hope we'll be able to work in a bipartisan manner.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I had intended to offer an amendment similar to the gentleman from Tennessee's that strikes the elimination of $75 million. Rather than do that, I am going to join in support of the gentleman from Tennessee's amendment. Mine was striking the full $75 million that was being taken from the Legal Services Corporation.

Earlier today I was on the floor explaining what a continuing resolution is, because I know more than my colleagues are listening. What would actually happen if this cut was to go through is, frankly, that the services to the poor, meaning cases who are now in court, cases that are proceeding, would be suspended in air. Frankly, you would deny justice to those who have begun to get some relief. This cut will impact 136 nonprofit Legal Services offices. It will frankly cut 300 Legal Aid attorneys; 136 offices across America.

This $75 million will stop Mr. and Mrs. Jones in the middle of representation to save their home. This cut will stop Mrs. Smith from being able to get relief from a domestic violence situation, because her lawyer, or that family's lawyer, will be fired. This cut will stop someone who has been defrauded. Some senior citizen who paid a contractor to fix their leaking roof in midstream will lose their lawyer. This is a denial of justice. Having had the privilege today of visiting the construction site of the Martin Luther King Memorial, it was interesting that I read these words: ``Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.'' And for us to cut the very framework of the Constitution that calls for justice, I believe, is something that should halt us on the very floor of this House and we should immediately accept the amendment without the point of order and allow these individuals to have the ability to be served. Frankly, this is beyond the imagination of any of us. The board chairman, John G. Levi, of the Legal Services board said, ``Justice is a hollow promise without the Legal Services Corporation.'' He is absolutely right.

And as I indicated, I, too, wanted to strike the elimination of $75 million from the Legal Services Corporation, but the greater insult is the fact that work that is proceeding as we speak would be eliminated: 300 lawyers, 136 nonprofit offices and how many hundreds upon hundreds and maybe thousands of clients who would not have the opportunity to be served.

So I would ask my colleagues to consider what we do here in this place and to consider what a continuing resolution will do midstream similar to the point I made earlier about resources that could be taken from the section of the Department of Justice that would enforce the Voting Rights Act. It means that you would stop cases dealing with the enforcement of the right to vote. Let us not deny justice tonight. I would ask my colleagues to support the adding back of the $70 million to the Legal Services Corporation.

Point of Order

I respect the chairman and I know that he has, as the gentleman from New York said, has his own commitment.

I consider this an emergency and would only make the point that whether or not a point of order could be waived, in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in essence left without representation either for the client or for the case. I consider it a legal emergency, an emergency dealing with justice questions, and I would ask that the point of order be waived.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Virginia has opposed this; but I just wonder whether or not there's any shame when it comes to literally gutting the Legal Services Corporation some $324 million and practically eliminating any opportunity for justice. I just want to repeat some of the words that were offered: slush fund for special interests, lobbying, and political activities.

We spent some time in the 1990s on the Judiciary Committee looking closely at the Legal Services Corporation and, frankly, gave generous oversight on some of the issues that might have suggested that there were other activities going on. When the Legal Services Corporation non-profits come from around the Nation, you are seeing members of the bar who are from major law firms, major leaders in the community who are on the boards of these particular services, local offices, and they have the highest standard of legal excellence that they try to portray and therefore try to encourage as relates to the representation of poor people. My brother-in-law, to his death, was a legal services lawyer in New York. Not one time did I see him or hear of him doing anything other than attempting to do justice for people who could not achieve such.

I, frankly, believe when you talk about a continuing resolution, make it very clear: it is stopping programs in the middle of operation. It is closing 136 offices in midstream. It is laying off 300 lawyers in the middle of litigation that they are pursuing to keep Mrs. Jones in her home and to keep an elderly person who's been defrauded by an unscrupulous contractor simply trying to fix an old home. She has no other options sometimes than a legal services lawyer. So I hope that we will see less of this.

Might I just say it's interesting that we have a difference of opinion. Frankly, I don't think the President has walked away from any Financial Commission report. The majority in this House has every opportunity to present their cuts to entitlement and to begin the discussion. The President has not indicated he is not interested. But while we recognize that this House is a revenue-generating House and, therefore, with the responsibility now in the hands of Republicans, it is appropriate for the chairman of the Budget Committee and others to present their proposal for such.

The President's budget cuts the debt. The President's budget has strength in going forward; but it has a purpose: competitiveness; morality; and, of course, to rebuild America. I'm waiting on the Republicans to present their proposal, and I'm sure that we will look closely and be able to work in a bipartisan manner. But I would vigorously oppose any cuts of this measure at all to the Legal Services Corporation, which is a mark for justice in this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 472: Page 198, lines 4 through 7, strike

section 1312 which states ``Sec. 1312. Notwithstanding

section 1101, the level for ``Department of Justice, Legal

Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities''

shall be $865,097,000.''

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 473: Page 208, at lines 11 through 15 of

Section 1340 shall be amended to read ``the Legal Services

Corporation'' in division B of Public Law 111-117 in the

manner authorized in Public Law 111-117 for fiscal year 2010,

except that for fiscal year 2011 the amounts specified in

division B of Public Law 111-117 shall be--(1)

``$420,000,000''; and (2) ``394,400,000''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 474: Page 208, lines 21 through 24, strike

section 1342 which rescinds $1,740,000,000 of the funds made

available for ``Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,

Periodic Censuses and Programs''.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 475: Page 245, lines 1 through 3, strike

section 1605 which reduces the level of funding for

``Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Federal

Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding'' to $0.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 476: Page 262, lines 22 through 24 and page

263, lines 1 through 4, strike Section 1649 which rescinds

$106,556,000 of unobligated balances available for

``Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Construction'' for construction projects.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 579: Page 261, lines 22 through 25, and page

262, lines 1 through 4, strike Section 1649 which rescinds

$106,556,000 in unobligated balances available for

``Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border

Protection, Construction'' for construction projects.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 580: Page 245, lines 1 through 3, strike

Section 1605 which reduces the level of funding for

``Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Federal

Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding'' to $0.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 581: Page 358, beginning on line 9, strike

section 3002.

Offered By: Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Amendment No. 582: Page 357, beginning on line 24, strike

section 3001.