Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2847, ``Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment. Though this bill aims to create and save many jobs this year, it does not go nearly far enough to get jobs to those communities that are suffering the most. We need to get jobs in the hands of the most vulnerable Americans.

Last Thursday, the House passed emergency legislation that would extend a range of programs that unfortunately expired last weekend. These programs included: unemployment benefits; help with health insurance for the unemployed (COBRA); the highway bill; satellite TV; delay in the cut in Medicare physician payments; flood insurance; and small business loan guarantees. We passed this emergency legislation in the House, but Republican Senator Jim Bunning is single-handedly blocking passage of this emergency measure, despite the critical needs of millions of families across the United States during this economic downturn.

H.R. 2847 proposes to provide:

$77.155 billion of investments in surface transportation projects that will create and save good-paying jobs in our communities;

More than $39 billion in transportation and infrastructure which is projected to create 1,158,204 jobs;

Incentives for hiring and retaining new employees, and extension of these benefits to businesses in U.S. territories and possessions; and

A direct payment option for certain tax credit bond programs enabling State and local governments to increase school construction, complete clean and renewable energy projects, and create green jobs.

Madam Speaker, although this bill proposes to spend billions of dollars for job creation, there is nothing that would create jobs for those who are chronically unemployed and those such as ex-felons, who want to work but are not being afforded the chance. Advocates say there are good reasons for employers and communities to help former felons re-enter the work force. With an estimated 650,000 people released from prison each year nationwide, helping them get jobs can reduce the chances that they will be jailed again or need welfare.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald tells businesses in Chicago that hiring ex-felons is one of the best ways to reduce violent crime because it erases the reason behind many offenses. It can also provide an economic boost to some of the nation's poorest neighborhoods.

Though there is funding in this bill to improve infrastructures in this country, there is nothing in this bill that will provide for the rehabilitation of housing projects in the most vulnerable communities. It is not only a good idea to rebuild certain parts of this country, but it is also necessary to rebuild the areas that have been neglected for so long. Unfortunately, we are missing the perfect opportunity to create jobs in communities of those who need them most.

We need to put jobs in the hands of Americans. Unemployment in the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown region climbed to 5.4 percent in October, according to a recent report from the Texas Workforce Commission. There were 152,300 people without jobs during the month out of a total civilian labor force of about 2.8 million, compared with 144,200 people, or 5.1 percent, unemployed out of a civilian labor force of 2.8 million in September, according to the TWC. The unemployment rate in October was up from 4 percent a year ago.

Madam Speaker, getting all Americans back to work is, and should be, our number one priority. I am happy to know that this bill will provide employers with incentives to hire and retain new employees. I am also pleased to know that in order to encourage employers to hire new employees, the bill would exempt employers from paying the employer share of Social Security employment taxes (6.2 percent of the first $106,800 of wages) for wages paid in 2010 for any new employee hired after February 3, 2010, and before January 1, 2011, if the new employee (1) was previously unemployed and (2) does not replace another employee of the employer.

Madam Speaker, I believe we could have made this bill much better and more effective in attacking the joblessness among the most vulnerable communities, if it had included targeted funding to areas that create jobs for the chronically unemployed and those ex-felons who want to work and are trying to get back on the right path. Without such funding, I cannot support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 747, ``Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on being named by Forbes magazine as America's Best College for 2009,'' brought forth by my esteemed colleague, Representative John Hall of New York.

Forbes Magazine describes the Academy as, ``Marked by an intense work ethic and drive to succeed on all fronts.'' This approach to learning is the representation of what these great United States was founded on and, in the present day, what we make every effort to maintain. The belief system of the United States Military Academy doesn't just prepare a group of students to become soldiers, but it prepares individuals for life and molds them into the moralistic citizens that will help reshape and reform the United States as we embark upon a new era in history. This academy is a leader in development and engineering with the mission to educate, train, and inspire future leaders.

I have always been an advocate for our troops and it just gives me such pride and joy to see that the origins and belief system, upon which all our troops are grounded, are on display as being the prime elements of success in these pressing times. Texas, as many may know, deploys the most soldiers to various parts of the world. So it does my heart a great service to know that the U.S. Military Academy at West Point equips our soliders with the skills needed to protect and advance our nation's interest.

Madam Speaker, it is commendable that this top ranking school stresses among its students the importance of good solid values that seem to have lost their luster over time. For example, its policies include a curfew of 11:30 p.m. and no alcoholic beverages in the dorms; rooms must be meticulously clean; self-pride in students' appearance is a must and being a debtor is not an option--the only debt that is owed upon graduation is the debt of duty to one's country. It is not surprising that this institution is top ranked.

The United States Military Academy at West Point in the state of New York has earned the title of Best College for 2009 because of its attention to detail and its great distinction in proficiency, in addition to their undisputed service to our nation. I can see no better way for this 111th Congress to acknowledge and praise this fine institution of ``life learners,'' for its diligent work in producing well-rounded citizens, leaders, innovators and protectors than to congratulate the institution here on the House floor.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 699--honoring and recognizing the significant service and contribution of the men and women of the 139th Airlift Wing, Air National Guard. I would like to pay tribute to their historic past and mission-essential present.

Citizen-soldiers have played a central role in America's defense since the first English colonists settled in North America during the early 17th century. Subsequently, throughout most of our history, the American people have relied upon the militia and National Guard as well as volunteers to provide the vast bulk of their militia manpower in times of war.

These citizen-soldiers have also aided their states in coping with natural disasters and civil unrest. The dual mission--both state and federal--has served as a source of great pride among guardsmen for generations and has helped maintain the highest retention statistics among reserve components. This close relationship between the Guard and the states has also helped knit the fabric of the United States Armed Forces as one of the most trusted institutions in the federal government. The Air National Guard proudly represents the heritage of the citizen airman.

On 18 September 1947, the Air National Guard was born as an independent reserve component of the Air Force. It retained experienced aviators, maintainers and support personnel from World War II, allowing for a legitimate and ready national defense capability. These sons and daughters of America were prepared to defend their country on the front lines and the home front.

The 139th Airlift Wing, a military organization well worthy of recognition and praise, has a long and glorious history. Originally named the 139th Air Transport Group, it was a derivative of the 180th Bombardment Squadron, one of the first federally recognized Air National Guard units in the nation, and was allotted to the state of Missouri at Rosecrans Air National Guard Base, Saint Joseph, Missouri as a part of the Military Air Transport Service.

It was redesignated as the 139th Military Airlift Group on 1 January 1966 when the Military Air Transport Service was deactivated and superseded by the Military Airlift Command. It was redesignated again as the 139th Air Refueling Group on 6 September 1969 within the Tactical Air Command; it was a major contributor during the Vietnam war.

The 139th as an organization continued to lead the way in defending America as it underwent a series of redesignations, inactivations and mission consolidations until its final designation as the 139th Airlift Wing on 1 October 1995 assigned to the Air Combat Command. Two years later the airlift mission with all C-130 units was changed from Air Combat Command to Air Mobility Command.

The 139th Airlift Wing has a long and outstanding record of getting airmen, soldiers and marines, equipment and supplies to and from the fight. This was clearly demonstrated with the massive troop deployment during Operation Desert Storm which was key in delivering a swift and virtually uncontested victory.

This unit served as the hub while America supported humanitarian operations in Bosnia, Sarajevo, Africa, and Haiti. It delivered tens of thousands of tons of relief support and medical and support personnel.

The 139th Airlift Wing deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan with 215 missions and provided 918 sorties. Additionally, the wing is the host of the world renowned Advanced Airlift Tactics Training Center (AATTC). This center, a Total Force Integration Initiative, is a combination of Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, and Regular Air Force members, and supports NATO air forces training operations.

The civilian airmen of the 139th Airlift Wing played a considerable role in supporting natural disasters and emergencies on the home front as well. They provided disaster relief in response to Hurricane Katrina and the devastating ice storm that struck Northwest Missouri.

The 139th Air Wing is currently supporting Operation Coronet Oak in Puerto Rico and was vital in the rapid relief to Haiti in support of Operation Unified Response. They provided 11 sorties and delivered 23,000 pounds of cargo to mitigate suffering in the middle of the devastated country.

Once again I am very proud of our Armed Services, especially the men and women that make up the 139th Airlift Wing. We pay tribute to our civilian airmen force for their courage, sacrifice and patriotism. We all owe you a debt of gratitude and our undying support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1082, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of the fourth annual America Saves Week'' and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, Representative Johnson.

``America Saves Week'' was established 9 years ago as an annual nationwide campaign that encourages consumers, especially those in lower-income households, to increase their financial literacy, enroll as American Savers, and establish a personal savings goal in an effort to build personal wealth and enhance financial security.

During the 9 years ``America Saves Week'' has been in existence, over 2,000 local, state, and national organizations, including government agencies, financial institutions, and non-profits, have motivated more than 245,000 people to enroll as American Savers through events such as financial literacy classes, financial fairs, free tax preparation assistance programs, and deposit campaigns. Encouraging automatic and habitual savings was a primary focus for the 2010 America Saves Week that began on February 21, 2010 and concluded on February 28, 2010.

The primary focus of ``America Saves Week'' is reflected in the work of Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus, America Saves, and the American Savings Education Council's Choose to Save Campaign. Financial security is one of the most important issues for most Americans, whether it involves saving for a college education, an unforeseen emergency, a house, a new vehicle, or even retirement. Personal savings as a percentage of disposable income has risen from 1.2 percent in the first quarter of 2008 to 4.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The Employment Benefit Research Institute stated that the percentage of workers very confident about having enough money for a comfortable retirement fell to 13 percent in 2009, down from 18 percent in 2008, and more workers expect to work longer to supplement their income in retirement.

Mr. Speaker, encouraging Americans to save has become even more important. Older Americans are more likely to live within 200 percent of poverty than any other age group, and more than 60 percent of the elderly population relies on Social Security for over three-fourths of their annual income, according to the 2009 Employee Benefit Research Institute's Databook and the 2009 Social Security Administration Report. The 2007 Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances findings show that the average savings of retirees remains at $50,000 and recent financial instability has diminished those funds. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Consumer Federation of America for managing the program, and to every local, state, and national organization, including government agencies, financial institutions, and non-profits, that have promoted and supported the goals and ideals of the ``America Saves Week,'' and for taking the time to educate Americans about the importance and impact of financial literacy.

Last year, I sponsored a bill during the 111th Congress (H. Res. 1325 that was referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competiveness) that would have required colleges and universities to provide at least 4 hours of financial counseling to students. Student loan borrowers would have received lessons on how to invest, budget, and manage debt, including credit cards and student loans. I personally felt this was important because many lack sufficient knowledge about financial markets, and I believe that we have a responsibility to equip our young people with the necessary tools.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 812--to honor and recognize the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog, MWD, Program to the United States Armed Services in support of national security.

Throughout the histories of warfare, from the days of the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Persians and the conquests of the Roman Empire to the United Nation's Police Action in

Korea, the war in Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, and more recently during the Overseas Contingency Operations, dogs have undergone active service at the sides of their masters, they have played the role of hero, by showing bravery under fire, saving lives (often by sacrificing their own), and bringing comfort to the injured and infirmed.

The call of modern warfare, as the Gulf Wars and later conflicts have demonstrated, exemplifies our use of the most sophisticated, technologically advanced equipment that the United States could procure to bring swift and decisive victory for a just cause. To this end, the U.S. had in the past expended every available resource to meet the ultimate goal while protecting the lives and resources of those fighting for it. Although the face of war has changed, some fundamental tools and weapons used in combat have not.

Canines or War Dogs were used in warfare throughout history supporting combat operations. Long before the invention of gunpowder, dogs were gathered in columns; many of them clad in armor and spiked collars by the military forces of the Roman Empire. One of the first uses of canines in the United States Armed Services was during the bleakest time in this country's history, the Civil War, where dogs were used as messengers, guards and as mascots.

Noting the overall contribution to the military forces' effectiveness the United States Armed Service made the canine force a formal part of the its military structure with the inception of the first War Dog Reception and Training Center established at Front Royal, Virginia in August of 1942. The completion of this center allowed for the training of 200 men and 500 dogs. But the enormous influx of dogs pushed these numbers up to 400 men and 900 dogs by June of 1943.

Within a year the Armed Forces had procured up 11,000 War Dogs to serve in a variety of capacities--Sentry Dogs, trained to assist in guard duty at arsenals, ammunition dumps, ration depots, and water works; Attack Dogs, early in the canine program these dogs were limited in production but were invaluable in beach patrols or in any situation where trespassers might be at a distance from the sentry; Tactical Dogs, used in combat situations; and Silent Scout Dogs, trained as tactical dogs to give silent warning to their handlers of the presence of enemy troops.

Additionally, there were also Messenger Dogs, trained to deliver messages on the battlefield as they were swift, sure of foot and could find their way in any type of weather. Casualty Dogs were trained to aid the medical corps in finding wounded soldiers on the battlefield and finding injured individuals in debris caused by bombings. The Sledge Dogs were particularly skilled in finding downed Airmen, Soldiers and marines in snowbound regions inaccessible by normal means. Then there were the Pack Dogs, trained to transport loads of up to 40 pounds. They would be able to work with field units in carrying small machine guns, ammunition and food.

During the Gulf War, at least 150 highly trained German Shepherds were used by the United States Armed Services to guard and protect their troops, supplies and aircraft.

Military Working Dog, MWD, teams--dogs and handlers--perform a function vital for force protection. An estimated 2,300 working dogs were serving within the U.S. Department of Defense as late as 2004. These teams, from every military service, are deployed worldwide to support the war on terror, helping to safeguard military bases and activities and to detect bombs and other explosives before they inflict harm.

The MWD teams are an integral part of the U.S. mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, devoting many hours to carrying out all the traditional roles of military dogs. Guard duty is a basic MWD function, but their additional responsibilities include base security, individual and crowd control, tracking, and explosive and narcotic detection. Most dogs are dual-purpose trained: police dogs first, then with a specialty skill such as bomb detection.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, several hundred Military Working Dogs perform their duties in the same hazardous environment as their handlers and other soldiers. They take on small arms fire, are bombed, suffer through the heat and sandstorms and a list of other dangers. However, they serve next to their handlers and soldiers without wavering.

These warrior canines are truly an American treasure and after their patriotic service has expired and they are eventually retired we should all support their immediate adoption into a caring home.

Again, I am an avid supporter of our military in all capacities including the Military Working Dog Program. These highly trained canines and their handlers are on the front lines of our national security and should be commended for years of dedicated and courageous service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 236, to permit the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

It has been over 60 years since the Holocaust. For many of the survivors, the Holocaust remains an everyday reality. Year-round the Jewish people persistently teach and inform others about the horrors of the Holocaust. The Days of Remembrance is one day in the year when special effort is made to remember those that endured, struggled and died. Six million Jews were murdered and many families were completely devastated.

There are many ways in which this day is observed. Generally the Day of Remembrance, or Yom Hashoah, has been observed with candle lighting, speakers, poems, prayers, and singing. Six candles are lighted to represent the six million individuals who lost their lives and Holocaust survivors speak about their experiences or share in the readings.

This Congress established the Days of Remembrance as our nation's annual commemoration of the Holocaust. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is a lasting living memorial to the victims and Congress has authorized that the museum will take the lead in commemorating the Days of Remembrance and also to encourage and sponsor suitable ceremonies throughout the United States.

This concurrent resolution is an affirmation of our continued support as we stand together with our Jewish brothers and sisters. Also, it allows for the Holocaust Memorial Museum to continue the annual commencement of the Days of Remembrance by initiating the week, which starts April 11, this year, with a memorial service in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. The Holocaust Memorial Museum has been organizing and leading the national Days of Remembrance ceremony in the Rotunda since 1982; and it is my desire to maintain this tradition.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today in support of H. Res. 1097, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Engineers Week.''

Let me begin by thanking my colleague Rep. Daniel Lipinski for introducing this resolution, as it is important that we acknowledge and recognize the great influence and importance engineers have had over the last century in the development of our nation.

It is also important that we recognize that Engineers and those involved in emerging research and science hold the keys to the future development of our great nation. That is why it is necessary that we continue to invest not only in the education of our children in the areas of math and science but also in engineering programs at the high school, university and graduate school levels. By increasing our collective body of knowledge in these areas we will help ensure that the United States will continue to grow, develop and create new opportunities and ideas for future generations and maintain our competitive edge globally.

Engineers have played a major role in my district in Houston, Texas. Had it not been for the many fine Texas engineers, scientists and construction workers, many of the large projects that directly benefit Houston and its citizens would not exist today.

One of the largest of such projects is the Port of Houston, which sees over 212 million tons of cargo pass through its gates every year. The Port of Houston and the economic activity generated by the port are also attributable to nearly 785,000 jobs in the State of

Texas alone. These jobs generate over $39 billion in personal income annually.

Madam Speaker, engineers in Houston have also played a vital role in the construction of a new Metro light rail service which runs over approximately 8 miles of track from Downtown Houston to the Texas Medical Center and Reliant Park. This project has greatly helped the people of my district by decreasing both the pollution as well as the amount of traffic on the highways during rush hour, and by creating new affordable travel options for Houstonians.

In the Houston area, engineers have also provided the expertise and know-how over the past several decades in the construction of over 575.5 miles of freeways and expressways in the 10-county Houston metropolitan area. This vast network of highways and expressways has further helped Houston to grow into the international transportation hub that it is today.

Madam Speaker, with the advent of globalization, it is important that we work together with engineers, engineering firms and governments around the globe to foster better relations as well as create reliable infrastructures. Creating a more global and standardized network of reliable infrastructure would seek to improve transnational relations through increased trade, communications and further opportunities for travel and exchange.

Officially establishing the week of February 14, 2010, to February 20, 2010 as ``National Engineers Week'' would seek to increase national awareness of the importance engineers have in improving the lives of our citizens through public works and infrastructure projects. Also, by refocusing our efforts in education to include more engineering, math and science courses and curriculum, we can help to ensure that the United States continues to serve as the model of state-of-the-art engineering to the world.

I urge my colleagues to support engineers and their families across our country and support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I stand before you today in support of H.R. 3695 ``To authorize funding for, and increase accessibility to, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, to facilitate data sharing between such system and the National Crime Information Center database of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to provide incentive grants to help facilitate reporting to such systems, and for other purposes.''

I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Rep. Chris Murphy for introducing this resolution in the House, as it is important that we consistently work towards improving the law enforcement capabilities of our nation and ensure that criminals are brought to justice.

I stand today in support of this legislation because it will assist our nation's law enforcement officials to work together in solving crimes and prosecuting criminals. One of the biggest problems plaguing our nation today is a lack of coordination between various law enforcement and federal agencies in solving crimes and prosecuting criminals.

It is also important that victims of crime and their families are given every opportunity to see that justice is served to criminals. By fostering better communication and interaction between our local, state and federal law enforcement and investigative agencies the American people will be better protected, and dangerous criminals across the nation will be taken off the streets.

This piece of legislation, H.R. 3695 or ``Billy's Law,'' is named after Billy Smolinski of Connecticut, who went missing on August 24, 2004 at the age of 31. In the aftermath of the disappearance of their son, Billy's family experienced many obstacles in searching for their missing son.

One of the largest obstacles the Smolinski family faced in the search for their son was the fact that there was little coordination and interaction between the numerous departments and agencies that oversaw the multi-jurisdictional investigation into Billy Smolinski's disappearance.

While federal law mandates that law enforcement agencies report missing children there is not currently a mandate stating that law enforcement agencies must report missing adults or unidentified bodies. This creates a serious void of good information that could otherwise be used towards the prosecution of violent offenders and in the defense of the American public.

Furthermore, although law enforcement agencies can voluntarily report this information, there is a real lack of resources and knowledge of how the reporting system works. This is an important issue which we must address as it often prevents law enforcement agencies from reporting this vital information. By adopting this legislation, we will ensure that this information is communicated in an effective and timely manner.

Billy's Law would empower families and loved ones of the missing to seek out justice. One way this piece of legislation would help in this effort is by helping to secure funding for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System--the only federal missing persons and unidentified remains database that can be cross-searched, accessed, and added to by the public.

The expansion of the National Missing and Unidentified Persons Database would enable the families and loved ones of the missing to searching for the missing person and add invaluable information to the case profile that only they would know.

H.R. 3695 would also help to create a more efficient reporting process for law enforcement and medical examiners by connecting the FBI's National Crime Information Center and the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System. Connecting these databases makes them more comprehensive and more likely to lead to a missing person or unidentified remains match.

It is important that we continue to examine the criminal justice system in this country to ensure that law enforcement agencies work together for the benefit and protection of the American public. It has been shown that when law enforcement agencies at the local, state, and federal level work together, more information is able to be gathered and analyzed in criminal cases.

I ask my colleagues for their support of this legislation as well as their support for the numerous local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies that keep our country safe every day. I also ask for your continued support of the Smolinski family. I strongly urge you to support this resolution.

I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California, and I rise to thank the Rules Committee. This is a tough business. They had to do their work in the backdrop of Senator Bunning, who didn't care about the unemployed, thousands upon thousands and millions, and held up this bill and the negotiations for this bill for as long as he thought it was relevant. And so here we stand trying to address this question.

I would offer to say, there are some good things: the fact that employers have a $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee that continues to work for 52 weeks; the fact that there is an incentive to hire new employees and to keep them hired; the fact that there is an extension of the small business expensing to allow small businesses, the backbone of America, to be able to write off certain capital expenditures so they can hire new people.

The SAFETEA-LU, the infrastructure bill, is a good thing that deals with the rebuilding of the infrastructure that is so important and, of course, protecting minority-owned business that likewise go into those hard-hit communities and should be hiring people.

Yet we are dealing with a Senate bill. The other body has a different understanding so that some States, for example, are not getting the money that they should--Texas. It raises a lot of concern.

Then I have to rise on this floor to talk about young people and the summer youth program. Why isn't that in the bill? The chronically unemployed whom I see walking the streets of my district over and over again, what are we going to provide for them?

It is key to recognize that there is obstruction in the other body that now pours over into this body. So we had to stymie the unemployment benefits, which all of us should have rallied around to support. My State alone rejected just a couple of months ago $515 million for the unemployed. Where is the compassion there?

Where is the compassion for individuals who have served their time-- who have their families, who are trying to do well in our faith houses, being worked with by faith organizations, and who persistently cannot find jobs?

There is a lot to be desired. The Rules Committee, however, worked with what they had to work with.

My message is that we have to go back to the drawing board, not for what my colleagues are talking about--more tax cuts, more tax cuts, more tax cuts--but to help the people who are walking the streets of America who ask us, Can you put jobs in our hands? They are qualified, and there is nothing in this bill that would suggest that you are putting jobs in their hands.

Let me say this: The infrastructure work is important. If this is going to generate jobs in their hands, then it is important for us to hear that jobs in the hands are going to get to the folk who are walking the streets in the Fifth Ward, in the Fourth Ward, in Acres Homes, and in places around America. Those places are in the 18th Congressional District.

I am fighting for jobs, and I want to make sure that we have the right kind of vehicle for this job language to go forward on. Let's not forget the chronically unemployed.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of jobs, and I don't want tomorrow's numbers, if they happen to be showing that we have not reached the goals that we want to reach, to in any way distract from the work the Democrats are doing and that we should be doing together.

I have concerns about what we just passed as it relates to jobs, although I support the infrastructure part of the bill. I think that, if we focus on jobs, we've got to save NASA, and we've got to ensure that we continue human spaceflight.

Then we've got to go into neighborhoods and areas where there are the chronically unemployed. We have to put up recruitment offices so that we can provide real opportunities for jobs to build America's infrastructure. We have to go to the public housing projects and make sure that those who live there can work on the rehabilitation of those projects.

Those who are chronically unemployed need to have a job in hand. They need to be able to be trained and then work. Those who are unemployed need to be able to be trained for new jobs and not lose their unemployment. We've got to put a job in the hand of the chronically unemployed. That's what I will continue to fight for. That's the legislation that I will support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I think it is important to note the change in the economy as we move forward. But the challenge to us as Members of Congress, even as we reflect on the enormous impact the investment dollars have had, last year in January of 2009 we had lost 779,000 jobs. In January of 2010, only 22,000 jobs were lost and the economy is percolating. But 22,000 is unacceptable.

So we must pass a jobs bill now. But we must also be concerned not only for the recently unemployed, for the white collar workers, but we have to be concerned about the young workers, 18 to 30. We have to be concerned about the chronically unemployed, or the ex-felon who has paid his or her dues, has a family, and other than getting work, they would be dependent on a government handout. They don't want that.

So when we talk about jobs, we have to worry about seniors, and working families, and people who have been unemployed for a long period of time. We have got to put a job in their hand. And that is what I want to do, work to get jobs for the American people and the 18th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, besides the question and the need for jobs, I think it is important for America and for my colleagues to know that the meeting yesterday at the White House at Blair House was a vitally important meeting. I know that many Americans were able to see it in its purity, meaning that you were able to watch it live.

The President intended that we have the opportunity to hear real discussion. And I would beg to differ whether this was an opportunity for just show

and tell. I have listened to the President's commitment to health care reform. I have listened to the Democratic leadership's commitment to health care reform. And I have spent hours listening to constituents through town hall meetings in August and traveling throughout the district. As they speak about jobs, I want us to be very clear.

Every time I am in the district, someone says, are you going to get health care reform passed?

This is real meat and potatoes. This is about premiums that go up about $1,400 to $2,500 a year on a family of four. This is about 36 million to 40 million who are now uninsured. This is about working people who are uninsured. This is about families whose children have asthma or respiratory illnesses or preexisting conditions and are not able to get insurance because of birth defects or other illnesses that their children are born with, a preexisting disease. And presently, you cannot get insurance if you have a preexisting disease.

This is, likewise, about the noncompetitive atmosphere that health carriers live in and that we suffer under. And you know what?

Before we began discussing this health care reform, we accepted it as the norm. We didn't think anything of it. In Alabama, one insurance company in the entire State. In a State like Texas, only three insurance companies. That is not competition. That is, you take me the way I want you to take me, and if you don't like it, move on.

That's the kind of atmosphere that health care insurance companies live in. They tell us, move on. Preexisting disease, move on. You can't pay your premiums, move on. You're in the hospital and we don't want to pay it, get out. That's what atmosphere Americans are living in.

And I realize that those who have insurance that they like, they don't see these horror stories of people dying because they don't have insurance. And I want the people who have insurance to keep their insurance. But 45,000 people die every year because they don't have health insurance.

So yesterday's meeting was a serious meeting, because the bottom line of it was, we're listening and we're open, but we have to move on because we're losing people's lives.

And so this preexisting disease will be eliminated. Premiums will go down. We'll save billions of dollars because of the health care reform process.

At the same time, I want us to do good. I want to make sure that we save physician-owned hospitals. Many of you probably have been patients in physician-owned hospitals, where doctors have come back in and purchased failing hospitals by a small percentage of ownership, where their name is on the line, where they want high quality hospitals like the 40-plus that are in the State of Texas, like Doctors Hospital, like St. Joseph's Hospital, like the hospitals down in the Valley, where individuals who are paying the amount of money can count on doctors being there who care. And so I want this health insurance reform not to close down those hospitals and eliminate those employees who are there.

We can do a lot of good, and we must pass health care reform. We have to already recognize that we've passed the antitrust exemption so that you can have more competition in these States. We did that this past week. That's a good thing.

But we've got to make sure that we increase CHIPS for our children, Children's Health Insurance Program, protect Medicare and Medicaid, and open the floodgates for Americans who work and have dignity to have dignity when they are sick. The last thing you want to do is to be on your sickbed and to lose your house, your car, your ability to support yourself while you're losing your job because you're sick.

So I simply say that it is time now for the wake-up call to go out amongst all of those who care. America needs to wake up. When America demands, this legislative body, this People's House acts.

And so I thank the President for transparency yesterday. I thank the Democratic leadership for transparency. I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for attending and engaging.

But after all is said and done, there will still be 45,000 people that are dying every year because they don't have insurance.

Mr. Speaker, the call is being made. The question is, will we answer. I will, for one, answer for health care reform for America.

Mr. Chairman, sometimes we come to the floor, Mr. Speaker, but we don't understand, really, the impetus and the importance of the work that is being done here.

To my colleagues, what we are doing is securing the American people. We know that right now there is a major debate that is occurring with leadership dealing with health reform. We will also be addressing the question of jobs. But let it be very clear, nothing is going to stop us from addressing the question of national security.

Chairman Conyers has been working on the reform and the refitting, if you will, of the PATRIOT Act to make sure that it provides more security for the American people.

I just came from a hearing on Homeland Security of which I am a member, with the Secretary of Homeland Security, asking hard questions about the reinforcement of security, the provisions of support for personnel at the Department of Homeland Security, and the ability to give more resources so that the traveling public can be secure.

In this instance, we are acting expeditiously and responsibly, because what is now occurring is that we are providing for the extension of the PATRIOT Act so we can, in fact, engage the other body and work constructively, one, to, with no doubt, commit ourselves, as the President has done, in committing to use every instrument of national power to fight terrorism, including intelligence and military operations, as well as the criminal justice system. That's the Judiciary Committee.

There's never been a doubt about the commitment of the Obama administration or the Judiciary Committee, the chairman and our colleagues in the other body. But it is important for us to handle our business and to do our duty, and that is to look with a fine-toothed comb at the PATRIOT Act to ensure that it does not violate the rights of Americans. No matter what your political persuasion, you have a sense of understanding of the Constitution. You understand due process. You understand unreasonable search and seizure. And so it is our obligation to do so.

As I listened to the debate on the Intelligence bill, I was struck by the efforts that have been made to shore up any of the missing links to provide us a pathway away from the Fort Hood incident or the Christmas Day bombing. And one of the things I want to emphasize is the importance for horizontal integration: Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Intelligence, the agencies dealing with national security as we attempted to do after 9/11. We must ramp up the coordination of information. There must be a focus not only on enhanced coordination, which is the premise of the PATRIOT Act, to get information and to ensure the obligation to ensure your civil liberties; but we must also be somewhat unique and distinct on how we assess who might be a threat.

I have constantly asked that we consider this thing called human assessment and behavior. A lot of people will call for profiling and that that's the way to do it. And I can tell you, colleagues, that you can profile from this morning until the end of time, and you will miss someone who doesn't fit the caricature, if you will, of who you might think happens to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh didn't fit that profile.

And so it is important for them to be developed human intelligence and human behavior assessment. That would have been an appropriate approach to the captain at Fort Hood. That's not profiling; it's assessing the behavior of interacting on the Internet, of speaking to the imam in Yemen, very conspicuous behavior that was assessed in Washington before he was transferred to Fort Hood, behavior that was not transmitted, if you will, in the right way.

And then we can look at the Christmas Day bomber, which we hope will never happen again. We had the shoe bomber. And so behavior should send up a red flag.

When we look at the premise of the PATRIOT Act, it is gathering information. And I know my colleagues would not want us to rush to judgment. And so what we have in place now is the opportunity for America to be protected, to use this cross-signal of information.

Might I also mention the assessment of the actions of the Department of Justice. There's not been one moment of a decision that has jeopardized the American people. Yes, there's been a decision that initially was accepted by local officials, as we understand it, to try individuals in a particular area.

There were provisions, obviously, to be made for that. That decision alone and whatever happens on the decision after about where that trial will be held has nothing to do with undermining America's security.

We have Mirandized people before, and they have given us information and we've garnered that information to use for our security. We have tried people in the civilian courts under our legal system, and we have found them guilty on the basis of what they have done, and we've protected the American people.

So I am concerned that there is some labeling going on, that there is not the convergence of resources in the Obama administration, there's not the work on behalf of the Judiciary Committee chaired by Chairman Conyers that steadily puts together building blocks to secure the American people.

I hope that we will rise to vote for this extension of the PATRIOT Act to allow this Congress, bipartisan, to sit down and do its work. But in the meantime, would we not be irresponsible if we did not come to the floor today to protect the American people, just as we've done with an authorization of the Intelligence bill which has never been done for over a large number of years. We are now doing that because we believe in the security of the American people.

I look forward to moving forward on this legislation. I look forward to pressing the intelligence community on human behavior assessment now, not tomorrow, but now; and I look forward to us going forward on securing the American people with the tools that the Obama administration is working on.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3961--Extending Expiring Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and R. 2082. I support this motion to extend expiring amendments though I offered several amendments as we debated this issue in the Judiciary Committee that I believe would have made the existing provisions of the ACT more effective.

H.R. 3961 extends for one year--through Feb. 28, 2011--three antiterrorism provisions which would otherwise expire on February 28, including the ``roving wiretap'' authority that allows the government to conduct surveillance on suspects who communicate on multiple devices, or repeatedly change their cell phone numbers or carriers; a provision that permits federal law enforcement authorities to seek a court order for ``any tangible thing'' they deem related to a terrorism investigation such as business records; and the ``lone wolf'' provision that allows for surveillance of terrorists who are not connected to terrorist groups.

The measure also extends, for one year, a provision under current law that expanded authority to access records or ``any tangible item,'' including business and library records, through the use of Section 215 orders. The provision has been one of the focal points of criticism of the PATRIOT Act, uniting liberals and libertarians who express concern that it was too broadly written and could have allowed the government to access a virtually unlimited range of records.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, court orders requested under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for access to business records had to assert that there were ``specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain [was] a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.'' The law limited these records to those of hotels, motels, car and truck rental agencies, and storage rental facilities.

The provision in the USA PATRIOT Act modified requirements for a FISA court order to include ``any tangible things''--such as library or bookstore records--regardless of the business or individual holding the item, as long as law enforcement officials assert that the records are sought in an effort to obtain foreign intelligence or in a terrorism investigation. An application for access to business records under this provision must provide a ``statement of facts'' proving that the information sought is ``relevant'' to the investigation.

A September 2009 letter from the Justice Department reports that the FISA court had issued about 220 orders to produce business records over the period of 2004 to 2007. The letter noted that 173 of those orders were issued prior to 2006 in combination with FISA pen register orders ``to address an anomaly in the statutory language that prevented the acquisition of subscriber identification information normally associated with pen register information.'' The 2006 reauthorization of the Patriot Act included language to clarify the law, and the Justice Department says the change made the use of the ``business records'' provision for such information unnecessary. The remaining business records orders were used to obtain transactional information that did not fall within the scope of other authorities.

The department called on Congress to reauthorize this provision because there would ``continue to be instances in which FBI investigators need to obtain information that does not fall within the scope of national security letter authorities and are operating in an environment that precludes the use of less secure criminal authorities.''

My amendment would have made an improvement to the public's oversight of the PATRIOT Act by extending the life of these intrusive government surveillance programs for two years rather than four years as proposed. Specifically, my amendment focused on Sections 102 and 202 of the underlying bill. The change to Section 102 would have extended the sunset dates of roving wiretaps and FISA business records to December 31, 2011 rather than 2013. The change to Section 202 provides a sunset date of December 31, 2011 rather than December 31, 2013 for national security letters, with the effect of expediting the return of the relevant national security letter statutes to their statuses as they read on October 25, 2001.

These proposed changes in those amendments that I offered in the Judiciary committee focused on the idea of increasing public oversight and transparency. These changes would have permitted Congress to review these sections in two years rather than four years. In two years, we may find that these tools are in fact unnecessary, or that new tools are required.

Mr. Speaker, the motion also extends, for one year, a provision that allows law enforcement officials to pursue terrorists who use multiple devices, or change cell phone numbers or carriers repeatedly to thwart surveillance efforts under FISA. The law permits authorities to obtain multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps so that officials do not have to file multiple applications to continue their investigation.

Under current law, applications for a wiretap do not have to include specific information on the location of the wiretap or the names of third parties who would be involved in assisting authorities with setting up the wiretap. Instead, court orders apply to the person or persons and not a particular device or location. Under prior law, the government would have to return to the FISA court for an order that named the new communications carrier, landlord, etc., before tapping the new device or location.

The law requires the FISA court to base its finding on ``specific facts'' included in an application, and it requires court orders for roving wiretaps to describe in detail the specific target in cases in which the target's identity is unknown. In the cases when the location of surveillance was unknown at the time of a court order, investigators would be required to notify the court within 10 days of the start of surveillance at any new location. The court can extend this notification time to up to 60 days.

According to a September 2009 letter from a Justice Department official, the provision has ``proven an important intelligence- gathering tool in a small but significant subset of FISA electronic surveillance orders.'' The letter noted that this authority is only available when the government is able to provide specific information that the target of surveillance may engage in counter-surveilance activities. The letter noted that the government has sought to use it ``in a relatively small number of cases (on average, twenty-two applications per year).''

Additionally, the measure extends by one year the so-called ``lone wolf'' provision that allows federal law enforcement officials to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to conduct surveillance on suspected individuals or ``targets'' who are engaging in international terrorism activities or preparation for such activities, but cannot be connected to terrorist groups or foreign nations. The provision applies only if the target is not a United States person, i.e., is not a citizen, legal immigrant or resident.

Before 2004, national security officials had to show a court that a target was an agent of a foreign power, or acting on behalf of a foreign power, in order to get permission to monitor him or her, which some argued prevented monitoring a lone wolf operating as an individual. According to the Justice Department, the authority was aimed at situations in which information linking a target to an international group is absent or insufficient, but where the target's engagement in ``international terrorism'' has been sufficiently established. The department noted that in practice, the government ``must know a great deal about the target,'' but must also be unable to connect that person to any group meeting the definition of ``foreign power'' under FISA.

A Justice Department official, in a September 2009 letter, stated that the department had never filed a FISA application using this provision since it became law in 2004, but

stated the department's support for reauthorizing the provision because of potential situations in which it could be the only avenue for surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important that we extend the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the motion and work to restore civil liberties and secure America.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, here are the jobs. I believe if you polled across America you would understand that the investment that this Democratic Congress made, along with its President, created or saved 3.5 million jobs, gave 95 percent of American workers a tax cut, and began to build our crumbling rail and water and a variety of infrastructure.

Where are the jobs? I will tell you, 2.4 million jobs were created according to the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan, $120 billion in tax cuts to 95 percent of our working families and to businesses, loaned nearly $20 billion to our small businesses creating or saving a job.

What I like most of all is the 300,000 jobs in education and the 400,000 jobs in corrections officers and public health personnel. Let's ask all the firefighters and police officers across America whether or not there were jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that we have invested in America. We had an economy that wasn't growing when we came in, down some 6 percent. Now it's up. We have the jobs, and we are going to do health care reform this morning as well.

We are working for the American people.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

Madam Speaker, I rise to announce to the American public and to this body that, as we stand here today, over a year's time, 45,000 Americans die because they don't have health insurance. They don't have health insurance because the premiums have literally spiraled beyond any imagination. So, today, we are rising to create an opportunity for Americans to live and for lives to be saved because competition is the engine, not only of the economy, but it is the engine of better health care for all Americans.

Here is an example that shows how increased premiums are the complete opposite of commitment and service to our constituency: When the State of California passed a law in 1988 that eliminated the State antitrust exemption for the auto insurance industry, auto premiums for consumers in California rose 9.8 percent when the rest of the premiums in the Nation were going down. The Consumer Federation of America said that consumers would save over $50 billion in insurance premiums by repealing the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act.

I thank the distinguished colleague from our Judiciary Committee, Mr. Perriello, for his leadership, along with many others.

Removing the antitrust exemption will not only enable appropriate enforcement against these unjust practices when they are uncovered, but it will also give all health insurance companies healthy competitive incentives so you as a family of four, as a grandmother, as a single parent can get the

insurance possible as we move forward in health insurance.

The attorney general of New York, in his investigation, found that insurance companies engage in collusion. That's why we need this. We want to break the rules so we can help doctors with lower premiums and medical malpractice and with shielding our constituency from these Godforsaken prices.

Let me tell you that we have seen this in action in the Ocean State Physicians Health Plan v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Citing this act, this antitrust prevention act, the First Circuit overturned a jury verdict against the dominant health insurer for using its monopoly power to put financial pressure on area employers to refuse to do business with a competing HMO. The First Circuit, because of the exemption, blocked any opportunity for competition. We need to change this, and we have found that this collusion is hurting us.

So, Madam Speaker, I would say to you that, in order to save lives, like the lives in my 18th Congressional District, where Texas is the poster child for the most uninsured, 1.1 million--it has the dubious honor of being the largest uninsured State in the Nation. My county, Harris County, as we fight over and over for health insurance, does not have people who are insured. So this will help bring, along with the health reform that we will pass in the next couple of weeks, the idea of saving lives and of providing for our children and our families.

Chairman Conyers had the single-payer bill. That was the initiative that should have gone forward, but now we have a way of saving lives. This is fiscally secure, and it provides security to those who are in need. I ask that you support this legislation to, again, save lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4626, Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, a bill designed to restore competition and transparency to the health insurance market--by repealing the blanket antitrust exemption afforded to health insurance companies by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Today 45,000 people a year die without health insurance and they die because they do not have health insurance! This is a matter of life and death.

Madam Speaker, competition is the engine that drives our economy, spurs innovation, and ensures that the American consumer receives a fair deal on goods and services. There is significant evidence that removing the antitrust exemption will increase competition in the insurance industry and will result in lower prices and other benefits for consumers. In fact, experience has shown time and time again the benefits of increased competition in the form of lower prices, increased choice, and greater innovation.

A healthy and competitive health insurance market will drive prices down in the health insurance industry, just as we have seen it do in so many other industries where competition is allowed to take hold. For example, since the state of California passed a law in 1988 that eliminated the state antitrust exemption for the auto insurance industry, auto premiums for consumers in California have risen by only 9.8% while the rest of the country has seen auto premiums rise by over 48 percent. The Consumer Federation of America has said that consumers would save over $50 billion in insurance premiums by repealing the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act for all lines of insurance. Further, it is estimated that subjecting health insurance companies to federal antitrust laws would lower premiums by 10% or more.

Removing this antitrust exemption will not only enable appropriate enforcement against these unjust practices when they are uncovered; it will also give all health insurance companies healthy competitive incentives that will promote better affordability, improved quality, increased innovation, and greater consumer choice, as the antitrust laws have done throughout the rest of the economy for over a century.

The antitrust exemption was enacted in 1945, as part of legislation whose main purpose was simply to reaffirm the authority of States to regulate insurance for the protection of their citizens. The antitrust exemption was quietly inserted at the end of the legislative process, in conference committee. As a result, insurance companies have been shielded from legal accountability for price fixing, dividing up territories among themselves, sabotaging their competitors in the marketplace in order to gain monopoly power, and other practices that unjustly harm consumers. Moreover, antitrust court actions alleging each of these practices, and more, have been blocked by invoking the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption.

For far too long, the health insurance industry has played by a different set of rules. Shielding health and medical malpractice insurance companies from federal antitrust laws is a practice that must end.

Madam Speaker, the American public agrees that the special treatment the anti-trust exemption affords insurance companies must come to an end. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 65% of Americans favored removing the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies. Of those polled, Democrats supported subjecting insurance companies to antitrust laws by a seven-to-one margin. Sixty-four percent (64%) of independent voters and 58% of Republicans also believe insurers should abide by antitrust laws. This data demonstrates that there is bi- partisan public support for demanding that health insurance companies play by the same rules as other companies in America.

Madam Speaker, I agree with the majority of the American public that shielding health and medical malpractice insurance companies from federal antitrust laws is a practice that must end. Eliminating the anti-trust exemption for the health care industry is a vital step toward reforming health care, lowering prices for consumers and doctors, and leveling the playing field for American businesses.

The Consumer Federation of America has said that consumers would save over $50 billion in insurance premiums by repealing the 1945 McCarran- Ferguson Act for all lines of insurance. Further, it is estimated that subjecting health insurance companies to federal antitrust laws would lower premiums by 10% or more. Moreover, in addition to bi-partisan support amongst the American public, repealing anti-trust exemptions for all health insurance is supported by conservative political leaders as well such as Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and former Majority Leader Trent Lott.

This bill is also necessary because, over the years, health insurers have been able to use this antitrust exemption to block court actions regarding anti-competitive behavior. For example, in Ocean State Physicians Health Plan, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, the First Circuit Court--citing the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption--overturned a jury verdict against the dominant health insurer for using its monopoly power to put financial pressure on area employers to refuse to do business with a competing HMO.

Removing this antitrust exemption is supported by key law enforcement groups, including the National Association of Attorneys General. In 2007, the National Association of Attorneys General--representing both Democratic and Republican State Attorneys General--overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for repealing this exemption. As the resolution pointed out, ``the National Association of Attorneys General consistently has opposed legislation that weakens antitrust standards for specific industries because there is no evidence that such exemptions promote competition or serve the public interest.''

In addition, in a recent letter to Congress, nine State Attorneys General pointed out, ``Since 1977, and most recently in 2007, antitrust experts and enforcers have concluded that repealing the McCarran- Ferguson exemption would result in enhancing competition while allowing standard industry practices necessary for the proper functioning of these markets, such as sharing loss and other insured risk information.''

Removing this antitrust exemption is also supported by leading consumer groups. Numerous consumer groups--including the Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, U.S. PIRG, Center for Justice and Democracy, and Public Citizen--strongly support removing this antitrust exemption. In a joint letter to Congress, consumer groups pointed out that, under this legislation, health insurance companies ``would be required to play by the same rules of competition as virtually all other commercial enterprises operating in America's economy.''

In closing, I want to also take this time to reiterate my support for a public health care plan that covers every one of the 47 million people who live in our great nation without health insurance. Madam Speaker, my state of Texas has the dubious honor of being the uninsured capital of the nation. Further, with more than 1.1 million of the nation's uninsured living in my own county, Harris County, I represent what some have labeled as ground zero of the health care debate. Thus, the issue of universal health care coverage--something that would have been achieved by Chairman Conyers' Single Payer bill, which I supported, is more than an empty slogan; it's a matter of fiscal and physical life and death to the people of the 18th Congressional District. Therefore, no matter how the pending debate over the details of the health reform bill winds up, my constituents can count on me to continue fighting and continue working together with my colleagues of both parties, to ensure that everyone in my district, in Houston, in Texas, and in America has access to affordable and quality health care.