Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and the representative from Houston, which lays claim to one of the most effective police departments in the nation, and a co- sponsor of the legislation, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 180, the ``National Blue Alert Act of 2013.'' I support this bill as a good and necessary measure. Everyday, more than 900,000 officers protect and serve the people of the United States. Every 57 hours, one of these men and women die in the line of duty. These officers deserve nothing less than a system that ensures an efficient method to support and protect them, and to bring justice to those who would harm them. It is for this reason that I support the legislation before us. The National Blue Alert Act directs the Attorney General to establish a national communications network within the Department of Justice to disseminate information when an officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty, and assign a Department of Justice officer to act as the national coordinator of the Blue Alert Network. The Blue Alert system is modeled after the Amber Alert and the Silver Alert programs, which have been very successful in finding abducted children and missing seniors. Currently 18 states, including my home state of Texas, have local Blue Alert programs in operation. The National Blue Alert Coordinator will provide assistance to states and local governments using Blue Alert plans; establish voluntary guidelines for states and local governments for developing these plans; develop protocols for efforts to apprehend suspects; work with states to ensure regional coordination of various elements of the network; and establish advisory groups, to assist states, local governments, law enforcement agencies and other entities in initiating, facilitating, and promoting Blue Alerts through the network. The National Blue Alert Coordinator will determine what procedures and practices to use in notifying law enforcement and the public when a law enforcement officer is killed or seriously injured in the line of duty and which procedures and practices are the most cost effective to implement. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that this legislation enjoys the strong support of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Sheriffs Association. As I stated, 18 states currently have a Blue Alert program in place, and it is time to expand this excellent program nationwide. This bill will enhance officer safety, which should always be one of our major concerns. Since the first recorded line-of-duty death in 1791, more than 19,000 men and women have died in the line of duty. It saddens me that 1,665 of the names on the National Law Enforcement Memorial in Washington D.C. come from Texas. That is more than any other state. My city of Houston has lost 112 officers in the line of duty. It should be clear to everyone that the regular dangers our officers face have only increased. The 40 deaths that have occurred in 2013 represent a 21% increase over the comparable period in 2012; and gun related deaths are up 7 percent. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 180, the Blue Alert Notice Act of 2013, will not prevent brave law enforcement officials from falling in the line of duty in the future, but it will help. If it saves the life of at least one policeman and enables him or her to return safely home to his loved ones, this legislation will have proven its value. I urge all members of the House to join me in supporting H.R. 180, the National Blue Alert Notification Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank my good friend from California for really framing the discussion tonight around, I think, the only theme that gives us the kind of positive agenda that puts Americans back to work. We know, as the economy collapsed, 12 million were out of work. We also know that we have steadily made an increase, but it's not where any of us would like to be. I listened to the gentleman so eloquently and so effectively ask the simple question as to why are we again putting on the floor of the House a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, something that has not only been resoundingly embraced by many of our leaders and by the uninsured in our Nation who are looking forward to the opportunity to be insured, but in the last election, I think it was very clear that, in the affirmation of President Obama, 64 million-plus people voted for him, and an enormous, unequaled divide in the States supported him, and he made it clear that he wanted to ensure, on behalf of the American people, that there would be the coverage of working families. Now, as he looks to implementation, we recognize that Members of Congress will be engaged in making it work right, but we also realize that the Affordable Care Act will provide more resources for health professionals, that it will establish more federally qualified health clinics, which will create more jobs, and that it will attack the dastardly number, my friend, Mr. Garamendi, of 28.4 percent uninsured, and of 6 percent uninsured in the State of Texas. Of course, our Governor sees fit to reject the expanded Medicaid. I can't imagine why we have not embraced this agenda, which includes the idea of all of the above and of creating clean energy and manufacturing jobs, bringing solar energy back to the United States again, making solar panels. Certainly, I'm aware of the fact that any country will grab what it can grab, but the United States has the capacity to do solar energy. It has the capacity to build wind turbines. All we have to do is invest. It has the opportunity, in actuality, to build submarines and to get back in the shipbuilding business. I'm sure there are Members listening and saying, We've long left that business. No, I don't think so, because there is always a more technologically efficient, more effective, more swift, if you will, ship or submarine. You can always make it bigger and better, smaller and better. With the technological revolution, we also have the opportunity to raise the specter of manufacturing. Of course, in the energy sector, where I come from, there is a whole array of opportunities as we utilize clean natural gas. That is making the manufacturing opportunities grow grander and grander, and I truly believe that we will find a common balance between natural gas producers and the manufacturers who need to use clean energy. Let me also say that the housing market is booming, and I am delighted to stand here and say that that is creating jobs, and many of these homes are being built on the basis of clean energy. H.R. 1524 is a bill that speaks to this issue. I don't know why we are spending our time, 3 days, on the floor. I know that they will be in the Rules Committee tomorrow, and I will have a number of amendments that I hope to be introducing that hopefully speak to the issue of the utilization of expanded Medicaid for States that have 20 percent-plus of uninsured, the idea of ensuring that we include the right kind of Medicare reimbursement. These are issues that can go in regular order, but yet we are spending the Nation's time, dollars, and resources to be on the floor when we could be putting forward tax reform. Many of us want to work on tax incentives for small businesses, the backbone of the economic engine of this country. My friends--I call them all my friends; I want small businesses to be paying attention-- you are our friends. You create jobs. You stay the course. Just today, I was listening to an individual in the ravaged area of Hurricane Sandy, and she was saying she has six restaurants. She was complaining that we had not done what we were supposed to do. Obviously you remember they stalled the compensation for those souls in that eye of the storm. We waited and our friends, the Republicans, wouldn't let the money out. She is a victim of that. She said I have six restaurants and some of the ones I cook in. But just give her, in addition to the compensation from FEMA which is overdue, give her a tax structure that can help her grow her business and pass legislation that gives incentives for hiring the unemployed. That's what should be on the floor of the House as we approach all of the excitement of graduation, when young people will be coming out of college doors, looking for the opportunity that America has always promised when they say we all are created equal. I'll be going to a number of graduations. I know I will. You'll be speaking at graduations. What will you be saying to them? That America is a land of opportunity, yet we pound day after day after day after day, month after month, year after year on a bill that has been passed, signed into law and is being implemented, where physicians and researchers are saying thank you for the Affordable Care Act. For the items we have to fix, let's fix them together. So I came to the floor to just say that I want to join the chorus of getting to work; I want to join the chorus of creating jobs. In fact, I want to join the chorus of putting our heads together and creating a summer youths' job program for the young people, high school students that are coming out in the middle of their high school years. We always used to be able to find work. No one cannot tell me that when we did it in 2009, the first year of President Obama's administration, it was a grand and exciting--it was not an experiment, but a grand and exciting response to all those young people who were in the high schools preparing to go to college. Let me finish by saying this and just throw a little something on the table just to say that if we want to work, let's move toward immigration reform. That is another job creator and one that answers the questions of America's businesses. Let's do that. If we want to work--of course, I know I'll see a couple of my friend running out the door, but we can find sensible gun legislation. But I'll just say that if nothing else, can we get something that says store your guns? Over the last weeks, we've been seeing people leave guns around and do this. So could you do that? Could you just have a simple--H.R. 65 says to hold people responsible for storing their guns. I want to thank my friend for your leadership. It has been a persistent and pronounced leadership that I've been delighted to join you on. And I want to thank our leader, Nancy Pelosi, for her pointedness about can we get to work and her rising leadership, if you will, in the backdrop of the tenor that she had as Speaker to be able to get things done. And, of course, all the leadership, including the leading spokesperson for Make It in America, our friend, Steny Hoyer, and I must mention all of our leaders, Mr. Clyburn, Chairman Becerra, and our vice chair in Mr. Crowley, along with our committee ranking members. But our message has been that we can do all of the fussing; we can fix the IRS; we can talk about issues that are occurring with leaks. That's our job. We understand that. But it is not our job to come back over and over again and revive a bill that is the law of the land not only by the vote of the United States Congress, but by the United States Supreme Court. What more do we need to answer that question? So I hope to accomplish this in partnership with the gentleman. We're writing legislation, as well. Let me throw one other point in there. We joined in on some legislation about doing human exploration again. That creates jobs, as well. It builds the Orion that's on the books right now that is getting ready to be built. There are so many things we can do together bipartisan. And I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to speak on H.R. 807, which would result in the Congress refusing to pay obligations it has already agreed to. American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones not to pay, and the United States Congress cannot either without putting the Nation into default for the first time in its history. I oppose this bill because not only will it be bad for America, but devastating for Houston. Just as our nation's economy has begun to show signs of sustained improvement, along comes H.R. 807 to further depress the economy of the parts of Houston which have not been fortunate enough to benefit from the economic recovery. The city of Houston has a half-trillion dollar economy which is threatened if the United States economy begins to falter because of the sequester already in place, and misguided legislation like this bill. This bill would threaten the full faith and credit of the United States, cost American jobs, hurt businesses of all sizes, and do irreparable damage to the economy. It is important to note that the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 15,000 for the first time ever, and jobless claims fell to a five-year low this week. Why would we want to jeopardize this progress with a bill like H.R. 807, which is a step in the wrong direction. This legislation would cause the Nation to default on payments for Medicare, veterans, national security, and many other critical priorities. This legislation is unwise, unworkable, and unacceptably risky. Earlier this year, the Congress took a sensible approach to paying the bills it had already incurred by raising the debt limit. By contrast, the proposal in H.R. 807, which chooses which bills to pay, is a deeply irresponsible approach that is simply default by another name. Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which has been done numerous times but the normal process by which the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress, seems to have hit a major roadblock. This obstructionist governing is based on a practice that seems to put ideology over pragmatism and politics over common-sense legislating. Madam Speaker, another reason I cannot support H.R. 807 is because it gives preference to making payments to foreign bond holders such as China, Iran, and the Cayman Islands over the payments needed for critical services for our veterans, and those payments required under Chapter 31, United States Code, which insures the savings of Americans. I would hope that my colleagues on the other side realize that these are trying times for the American people and brinksmanship is not the answer. This body must come up with a sensible solution to the pressing financial problems which plague our economy. We cannot continue to hold our Nation hostage, keeping the benefits of recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who must have sleepless nights because they are worried about the disappearance of their monthly checks. I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that would increase certainty and economic stability. The bill before us this morning, H.R. 807, is a short-term measure with unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating uncertainty in the Nation's fiscal system, and I would note that the Obama Administration is also in opposition to this woeful piece of legislation that allows China to be paid first. My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts and slashes to entitlement programs--all of which is driven by rabid ideology--as opposed to sitting down and working with Democrats to come up with reasonable budget reforms which do not hurt Seniors and the disadvantaged. Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for nearly all of their income. Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in retirement savings, pensions, and home values. Today, every dollar of the average Social Security retirement benefit of about $14,800 is absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary. Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own revenues. I would add that instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, I truly believe we have an opportunity to strengthen the economy by putting the Nation on a sounder fiscal path. Progress has already been made towards that goal. In 2011, the President signed into law $1.4 trillion in spending reductions, not counting additional savings from winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to seize this template and move forward--not backwards, in the direction of H.R. 807. The fiscal agreement the President signed at the beginning of January increased revenue from high-income households by over $600 billion. Together with interest savings, these two steps will cut the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion over the next decade. We should have done more to address our revenue problem. The President has made clear that he remains willing to work with both parties in the Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, shared growth, and shared opportunity. By adding Chained CPI to the discussion it is clear that President Obama is willing to go more than halfway to meet the House Majority; but they have not reciprocated. The President has also made clear that he will not have another debate with the Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they have already racked up through the laws that they passed. The President has made clear that the Congress has only two options--pay their bills, or fail to do so and put the Nation into default. And I am in complete agreement. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, spending for Medicare and Medicaid is projected to increase from 21 percent of non-interest federal spending in 2010 to 31 percent by 2020. The numbers are wonkish sounding but in terms of real dollars, the increase is mammoth. That is why we must address the spending issue in earnest but not using the paltry monthly income of Seniors to pay for yachts for millionaires. National spending on health care has grown about 2 percentage points per year faster than GDP over time. Federal revenues, however, have not kept pace, growing at roughly the same rate as GDP. As a result, federal deficits will be driven upward by federal health programs unless their rate of growth is tamed. This discrepancy must be dealt with sooner rather than later, but no matter how you couch it, there is no better translation than the word: b-r-o-k-e. I hasten to add that Community Health Centers provide much needed, high-quality healthcare to over 20 million Americans. These centers are able to serve vulnerable portions of the American population, including racial and ethnic minorities, as well as rural and low-income Americans. I want to give some pertinent facts about my district and why the uncertainty provided by H.R. 807 is a step in the wrong direction. The Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown Metropolitan Area consists of 10 counties: Austin, Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, San Jacinto and Waller. The Houston metro area: It ranks sixth among U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 5,867,489 as of mid-2009, and it covers more than 10,000 square miles, and has a gross product of $403.8 billion, according to The Perryman Group. This area recorded 2.54 million payroll jobs in November 2010, more than the job counts of 31 U.S. states, including Arizona, Colorado and Alabama. The Houston economy has experienced a resurgence but let's remember the economic history: The recession hit Houston in September '08. Our region lost 152,800 jobs through January '10. We began to recoup jobs starting in February that year and by October '11, the region had gained 153,000 jobs, or 101.1 percent of what we lost in the recession. And though Houston faces some challenges in the near term, the long- term outlook is bright. The challenges are those of managing growth rather than economic stagnation. The long-term outlook for the Houston metro area is positive, and steady growth will be the norm for Houston for the foreseeable future. What Houston cannot afford right now is continued uncertainty from Washington, DC. Moreover, given the uncertainty of final funding decisions and the possibility that across-the-board spending cuts will drag us back into a recession unless Congress and the President can reach agreement to prevent the currently scheduled ``sequester,'' it is critical that we work towards bipartisan solutions to our nation's financial woes. Given the U.S. economy is showing signs of progress, it is crucial that we continue to fund government programs without interruption. Lastly, as a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees I understand the importance of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection mission to enforce drug, trade and travel laws in efforts to keep our borders safe; and the importance of ensuring that our nation remains safe from terrorists and others who would do harm to our nation. In summation, I urge my colleagues to reject this poll-driven exercise in futility and give a clean debt ceiling vote so that the American people can carry-on with the business of achieving prosperity. Doing a clean debt limit bill is not a new law, new outlay, or some random, esoteric exercise in the fulfillment of the Obama Doctrine. In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, since March 1962, Congress has enacted 76 separate measures that have altered the limit on federal debt. Typically, the Treasury Secretary consults with the President and Congress, and the limit has been subsequently raised to accommodate our fiscal needs. And I close with the sacred words from our Constitution. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states clearly that: ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' And a great nation pays its debts. That is why I oppose H.R. 807. I urge my colleagues to resoundingly reject H.R. 807.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, you've seen them, many, many women, hourly workers. You've seen them with their sneakers on, their rubber-soled shoes, standing at bus stops, getting on buses in order to get to work and to get back in time to be with their children. But those workers need cash, Mr. Speaker. They need cash to make ends meet in housing, food and other living expenses. It's also our men as well. These workers would see a substantial reduction in their take-home pay if they were compensated with time off rather than cash up front. We know that if H.R. 1406 was passed they would be paid nothing for their overtime work at the time they work. We also realize that employers can schedule workers to work up to 160 hours of comp time. Workers will be cheated out of the accrued overtime earnings, these same mothers and many, many men who depend on this overtime pay. You've seen them. The same mothers that will receive for their gift on Mother's Day a little outstretched hand with maybe a daffodil or a rose in it from a little 5-year old, mothers who need the cash. Let me tell you that the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce is against this legislation because they know that there will be preferential treatment. There will be pets, and the employers will pick those who have taken the comp time. You've seen these mothers. They get the outstretched hand and the little flower. Pay them their money. This is a bad bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' I thank Ranking Member Miller for this opportunity to speak on behalf and in support of the working women and men in my District and against this terrible bill, which has been offered repeatedly over several Congresses, and each time it has found strong opposition and ultimate defeat. Under current law (the Fair Labor Standards Act), employers are required to pay workers time-and-a-half cash for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Workers can request ``comp time'' during any 40 hour work week if they need it. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the average weekly overtime hours for manufacturing workers in 2012 was 4.2 hours or over 44 hours a week. In a year 4.2 additional hours of overtime, considering 2 weeks for vacation would total 210 hours. A Boilermaker with less than 2 years of experience earns $35,856.00 a year or $18 an hour. A Boilermaker making $18 an hour working overtime would earn $27 an hour. In 2012 manufacturer workers overtime averaged 4.2 hours a week that would be 210 hours for 50 weeks of work. A Boilermaker over a year could accrue 210 hours in overtime--if this bill becomes law this could mean a loss of $5,670 annually. The first quarter of 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded an increase of overtime hours worked to 4.3 hours per week for manufacturing jobs this is an increase over the last quarter of 2012. If Congress allows the free market to work then the numbers of employed persons will increase. Labor is in strong opposition to H.R. 1406 because--this bill would mean forced labor hours without giving workers the guaranteed right to get paid for their work. Workers already have the right to ask for ``comp time'' within any 40 hour workweek when they need it. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts overtime as a benefit not as pay. If the result of the bill is to have employees work more hours, but without the guarantee of compensation--it is flawed. If Congress wants to do something for workers we should support the President's Budget for state paid leave programs. His proposal would not force workers to choose between taking time off for family needs and receiving income, or even risk losing their jobs. The President's minimum wage proposal would also support working families by making sure that all workers receive enough hourly income to make ends meet. That is why I oppose H.R. 1406 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this terrible legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record opposing the GOP's revolting Mother's Day gift--more work, less pay for working moms. Happy Mother's Day.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and unyielding opposition to H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' I thank Mr. Courtney for this opportunity to speak on behalf and in support of the working women and men in my District and against this terrible bill, which has been offered repeatedly over several Congresses, and each time it has found strong opposition and ultimate defeat. This bill should it become law would take income out of the hands of workers and their families. When the economy is weak--workers and their families need more protection not less. Under current law (the Fair Labor Standards Act), employers are required to pay workers time-and-a-half cash for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. According to statisticians with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics there is no survey to offer insight on the issues addressed in this bill--the desire of employees to receive ``comp time'' instead of cash for their work. We do know that if the Education and the Workforce Committee had accepted Congressman Joe Courtney's amendment in the nature of a substitute when the bill was marked up in full Committee--workers would have something to be cheering about today. His amendment would have created 56 hours of paid medical leave for employees to use when they needed it. The Administration along with many of my colleagues will not support H.R. 1406--and it will not become law for very good reasons. H.R. 1406 supporters say that it would not prevent employers from cutting the overtime hours and reducing the take-home pay of employees who currently have the right to overtime compensation. But will workers be in a position to assert this right given the economic climate and their own situations. So-called ``comp time'' or the ``company time'' legislation would allow employers to pay workers nothing for overtime work at the time the work is performed--in exchange for a promise of time off in the future. ``comp time'' would reduce new worker and could jeopardize existing worker take home pay According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the average weekly overtime hours for manufacturing workers in 2012 was 4.2 hours or over 44 hours a week. In a year 4.2 additional hours of overtime, considering 2 weeks for vacation would total 210 hours. The average income of a Boilermaker with less than 2 years of experience would earn $35,856.00 a year or about $18 an hour. In real dollar terms, a Boilermaker making $18 an hour, when working overtime would earn $27 an hour. Under H.R. 1406, the total forgone hours for the average workweek for a manufacturing worker over a year is 210 hours--if the worker is a Boilermaker it means a loss of $5,670 annually. The bill's text suggests that existing workers will retain their right to receive overtime pay and that only new employees would fall under the ``comp time'' provisions. The bill attempts to divide existing workers and new workers by denying one group of workers something as basic as equal pay for equal work. This may lead some employers to prefer their workers who are not protected by wage laws. The reality is all workers in this economy face the potential fallout from a change in labor laws that reduce protection of monetary compensation for work done. ``comp time'' would hurt workers and their families Another clue that this bill may be way off the mark for what workers need--is the reaction of organized labor to it being brought before the House of Representatives for a vote. Labor is in strong opposition to H.R. 1406 because they know what this bill would mean to workers and their families, just as I and many of you know--it would mean forced labor hours without giving workers the guaranteed right to get paid for their work. The skill acquired by a worker is something they own and can bring to the market place in exchange for a fair wage. This is an important component of a capitalistic system that should be valued and respected. The bill fails to mention that workers already have the right to ask for ``comp time'' within any 40-hour workweek when they need it. What is not allowed is an employer making the decision that workers must take ``comp time'' when they work overtime. H.R. 1406 places unnecessary competitive pressure on employees to accept ``comp time'' because employers believe it is an easy way to reduce operational costs for their businesses. H.R. 1406 provides no meaningful protection against employers pressuring workers to enter into ``comp time'' agreements. The first quarter of 2013 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded an increase of overtime hours worked to 4.3 hours per week for manufacturing jobs this is an increase over the last quarter of 2012. If Congress allows the free market to work then the numbers of employed persons will increase. ``comp time'' would threaten the protections offered by the 40 hour workweek The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established the 40-hour workweek to allow employees to spend more time away from work and encourage employers to hire more staff when workloads increase. The FLSA's only incentive for employers to maintain a 40-hour workweek is the requirement that they pay a time-and-a-half cash premium for overtime. The cost of labor is a factor in helping to expand the numbers of employed persons in our nation. When employers see the cost savings associated with hiring more workers as the hours worked by existing employees increase labor cost due to overtime pay--they hire more workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts overtime as a benefit not as pay. If the result of the bill is to have employees work more hours, but without the guarantee of compensation--it is flawed. The 40-hour workweek discourages employers from demanding overtime by making overtime more expensive. This bill by contrast, encourages employers to demand more overtime by making overtime less expensive. This gives all of the power to employers to demand their employees work longer hours without adequate compensation. By making it cheaper for employers to demand overtime, ``comp time'' would lead to more mandatory overtime, longer hours, and more unpredictable work schedules for workers. This bill also makes it harder for America's workers to have their rights enforced by the Department of Labor. Amending the law to weaken work for pay requirements would result in even more widespread violation of the overtime law and more workers working longer hours for less pay. ``comp time'' is a pay cut for america's workers Millions of workers depend on cash overtime to make ends meet and pay their housing, food, and other living expenses. These workers would see a substantial reduction in their take-home pay if they were compensated with time off rather than cash up front. It is true that ``comp time'' is paid leave, but most workers would have been paid anyway if they had not taken the time off, and under H.R. 1406 they are paid nothing for their overtime work at the time they work it. Again, H.R. 1406 takes the power out of the hands of the employees. H.R. 1406 does not ensure that workers' choice to reduce their income through ``comp time'' is truly voluntary. H.R. 1406 provides no meaningful protection against employers assigning overtime work preferentially to employees who accept ``comp time''. Under H.R. 1406, employers can schedule workers to work up to 160 hours of ``comp time.'' Workers will be cheated out of their accrued overtime earnings when their employer goes bankrupt. I stand today with America's workers. We are united in opposition to H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. If Congress wants to do something for workers we should support the President's Budget for state paid leave programs. His proposal would not force workers to choose between taking time off for family needs and receiving income, or even risk losing their jobs. The President's minimum wage proposal would also support working families by making sure that all workers receive enough hourly income to make ends meet. That is why I oppose H.R. 1406 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this terrible legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it gives me a sad opportunity to rise to acknowledge the loss of one of Houston's distinguished citizens--not only Houston, but recognized in places far away from this great Nation--Mr. Syed Hasan-Asif, a great leader and the father of a wonderful family, sons, and many extended family members. I am saddened that this great man has been lost, but I offer the words: Do not fear and do not grieve but receive good tidings of Paradise, which you were promised. This gentleman leaves his wife, Tahseen F. Begun. But he was a great man that was a father to many. He was a businessman, trained his family to be able to be sharers of their opportunities that they had. And the prosperity that they were able to achieve they did not keep to themselves. He was a friend to many. He loved many. He stood strong. He took care of his family. He brought joy, and he was generous. I'm so very pleased that so many got a chance to know Mr. Syed Hasan-Asif and to know of his generosity and his spirit and to know that his reach was not only here in the United States, but also in faraway places. I offer to his family my deepest sympathy, my respect and admiration for having such a great leader in our community, who generated businesses and created an economic engine of opportunity wherever he was able to come. Now as he rests in peace, may it be, as I indicated, for us not to fear and not to grieve, but receive good tidings of Paradise, which you were promised. May blessings be upon him and his family.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the managers of this legislation. And I think it should be made very clear, since we'll have a general debate that I hope to engage in, that the underlying premise of this bill, H.R. 1406, is two simple points, and H.R. 1406 undermines this point. The Fair Labor Standards Act only provides the incentive for employers to adhere to the 40-hour workweek by paying time and a half. H.R. 1406 removes that fundamental requirement and allows employers to pay nothing for overtime work at the time the work is performed. I, too, am sensitive to those who want to join with their families, and clearly, that opportunity is there. But if you allow this bill to go forward, you take the choice out of the hands of the employee. And if you are looking at a boilermaker, or those in manufacturing, and a boilermaker can have close to 210 overtime hours making a certain amount per hour, literally, if you force them to take comp time and not be paid, you would cause them to lose their time and a half, and they would lose almost $6,000 in income. I can tell you, with the economic divide between the top 1 percent and working Americans, many people work overtime in order to receive payment. And I think that H.R. 1406 goes in the wrong direction. What I would encourage my colleagues to do is to spend some time discussing the budget, passing a budget, ending sequestration, creating opportunities for the private sector to hire more people; and, frankly, the private sector would do well to cut their costs by hiring additional persons. So I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent at this time to bring up H.R. 900, which would end sequestration at this time and begin to put us on the right track to ensure that we end the cuts in air traffic controllers, in Homeland Security, in Head Start, in Medicare, Medicaid, Meals on Wheels, and begin to get this Nation back on track. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rule on H.R. 1406, the so-called ``Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013.'' I thank Ranking Member Miller for this opportunity to speak on behalf and in support of the working women and men in my District and against this rule because it does not fix this very flawed bill. If the Education and the Workforce Committee had accepted Congressman Joe Courtney's amendment in the nature of a substitute when the bill was marked up in full Committee--workers would have something to be cheering about today. His amendment would have created 56 hours of paid medical leave for employees to use when they needed it. The rule for this bill should be open and allow us to do something to help workers and their families. When the economy is weak--workers and their families need more protection not less. Under current law (the Fair Labor Standards Act), employers are required to pay workers time-and-a-half cash for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The bill's text suggests that existing workers will retain their right to receive overtime pay and that only new employees would fall under the ``comp time'' provisions. The bill attempts to divide existing workers and new workers by denying one group of workers something as basic as equal pay for equal work. This may lead some employers to prefer their workers who are not protected by wage laws. The reality is all workers in this economy face the potential fallout from a change in labor laws that reduce protection of monetary compensation for work done. The bill fails to mention that workers already have the right to ask for ``comp time'' within any 40 hour workweek when they need it. What is not allowed is an employer making the decision that workers must take ``comp time'' when they work overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 established the 40-hour workweek to allow employees to spend more time away from work and encourage employers to hire more staff when workloads increase. The FLSA's only incentive for employers to maintain a 40-hour workweek is the requirement that they pay a time-and-a-half cash premium for overtime. The cost of labor is a factor in helping to expand the numbers of employed persons in our nation. When employers see the cost savings associated with hiring more workers as the hours worked by existing employees increase labor cost due to overtime pay--they hire more workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counts overtime as a benefit not as pay. If the result of the bill is to have employees work more hours, but without the guarantee of compensation--it is flawed. This bill also makes it harder for America's workers to have their rights enforced by the Department of Labor. Amending the law to weaken work for pay requirements would result in even more widespread violation of the overtime law and more workers working longer hours for less pay. Under the rule for H.R. 1406, employers can schedule workers to work up to 160 hours of ``comp time.'' Workers will be cheated out of their accrued overtime earnings when their employer goes bankrupt. I stand today with America's workers. We are united in opposition to H.R. 1406, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013. We should not be wasting time on legislation that is going nowhere. Instead we should be focused on the real problems facing Americans, like creating jobs, ending the Sequester, and helping businesses grow. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to call up for immediate consideration H.R. 900, the Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013. If Congress wants to do something for workers we should end the sequester.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank the community of North Forest and the North Forest Independent School District. This has been a tumultuous week. This school district, undeserving, has fallen prey and victim to the closing of public schools in a public school system--this district that has acceptable schools; this district that has homeowners who have taxed themselves to ensure excellence in the teaching of these children, 7,500 students that are happy to be in a small pond and be a big fish. It is sad that the TEA administrator has undeservedly offered to close this school district without accepting an offer of compromise. This is time for the Secretary of Education to act on the massive closings of public schools throughout America. This is time for the U.S. Department of Justice to act on preventing the elimination of elected school board members and utilizing section 5. But more importantly, I want to thank the ombudsman coalition headed by Dr. Ken Campbell and President Robinson, the presidents of the Ministers Alliance who carried on a prayer vigil this last week. I do believe that prayers will be answered, the children will be saved, and we'll stop closing public schools in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Jewish American Heritage Month. Nearly 360 years have passed since the establishment of the first Jewish community in North America. Since that time, Jewish Americans have contributed to the cultural richness and diversity of our nation in every field of community life, including business, government, medicine, law, the natural and social sciences, the arts and humanities, academia, religion, and the military. There are approximately 5 million Jewish Americans and more than 100,000 of them live in Texas, nearly half of those, about 45,000, live in the Houston metropolitan area. Although their numbers may be small in a state with a general population over 20 million, the impact of Jewish Americans in Texas and in Houston has been great indeed. Jewish Americans were there during the fight for Texas' independence from Spain and Mexico. Adolphus Sterne, an East Texas merchant, was a principal source of financial backing for the Texas Revolution and a close friend of Sam Houston. Albert Moses Levy was surgeon-in-chief in the revolutionary army. The De Cordova family helped develop the city of Waco and Henri Castro settled immigrants in several Texas towns. In 1859 the first synagogue in Texas was established in Houston. Business and trade, especially the merchandising of food, clothing, jewelry with style, elegance, and distinction are the arenas in which many Jewish-Texan families made their most visual marks on the state of Texas. There is hardly a city in the Lone Star State whose history is without landmark stores founded and developed by Jewish entrepreneurs: Neiman, Marcus, Sanger in Dallas; Battelstein and Sakowitz in Houston; and Joske in San Antonio. These cities and towns reaped the benefits not only in availability of goods, but also in owners' generous patronage of the fine arts and in contributions to civic life such as the historic Levy Opera House in Hillsboro and the Brin Opera House in Terrell. Other early Jewish Americans who contributed mightily to civic life include Anna Hertzberg, who served as president of the original San Antonio Symphony Orchestra before World War I, and Olga Bernstein Kohlberg of El Paso, who started Texas' first free public kindergarten in 1892. That tradition continues today with the Dell Children's Hospital in Austin established by Dell Computers founder and CEO, Michael Dell. Mr. Speaker, it was 65 years ago this month that President Truman recognized the free, independent, and democratic State of Israel, making the United States the first country to welcome Israel into the family of nations. And for 65 years Israel and the United States have remained the best of friends and the strongest of allies. One reason for the enduring strength of this relationship is the enduring contributions made by Jewish Americans in enriching American life and culture. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the state of Texas which has welcomed Jews for more than three centuries, I join with my colleagues and President Obama in calling upon all Americans to learn more about the heritage and contributions of Jewish Americans and to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the conveners of this Special Order and express my appreciation to Mr. Horsford and to Mr. Jeffries for continuing to educate our colleagues on extremely important issues. And I'm delighted to join the Congressional Black Caucus as it proceeds continuously to ensure that we advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves. I want to take up an issue that has struck home and is being confronted by many States, some of which are in the South and some are in other places throughout the Nation. I was very pleased to stand with my fellow Democrats and support the Affordable Care Act. I could go through the journey of 2009 and 2010, when many of us spread out across the country and confronted misinformation through town hall meetings, controversy, and conflictedness. I think that what should be continuously emphasized as the President's leadership on one single point: that although health care was not listed, per se, in the Constitution, it should be a constitutional right. If you read the words or quote the words of the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that we have certain unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, one might argue that education and health care fall into those provisions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was in the context of that framework in the original words of the Constitution that, as you open the book that has the provisions of the Constitution, the opening phraseology indicates that we have come together to create a more perfect Union. I think the Affordable Care Act was intended to try and lift the boats of all people. Interestingly enough, major hospitals across America were clamoring for the passage of this legislation to really do what we're speaking about, which is to cut into the health disparities, because our hospitals across America were suffering from not being reimbursed on uncompensated care for those people who came without insurance. Many of them included African Americans, who suffered in larger numbers from the difficulties with diabetes, for example. Texas, which is now in the eye of the storm, is one of those States that has rejected the expansion of Medicaid, which goes to the very point of increasing opportunities for those who suffer disparities so they can have access to health care. That is largely the problem in Texas. Federal funding for the adult expansion far exceeds current local expenses for unreimbursed health care costs, having 3 years without any match whatsoever and then having the ability to have a very small match later on. It is estimated that Medicaid expansion would generate more than 231,000 jobs in 2016, a 1.8 percentage point reduction in the State's current unemployment from 6.1 percent to 4.3 percent, and it would directly address the disparities in diabetes, heart disease, and HIV/AIDS, in partnership with our federally qualified health clinics, which many States have seen expanded because of the Affordable Care Act. And now in my home State, my city in particular, Central Care has now put more community health clinics in areas where disparities were severe and lives were being lost. It benefits children as well. I'd like to cite some numbers here for my colleagues to indicate what we would benefit from by the expansion of Medicare. Unreimbursed health care costs for charity care in 2010, for an estimated $4.4 billion in unreimbursed expenses. We would be covering that. We would also get off the number one list. Texas, number one, ranking among States with the greatest share of uninsured residents at 23.8 percent in 2011, more than 6 million people, compared with the national average of 15.7 percent. And then, as I indicated, we would, again, eliminate the opportunity for low-income adults to be able to secure care. When low-income adults don't get care, the children don't get care. So I am suggesting that the rejection by Governor Perry, along with other Governors, to not accept expanded Medicaid has a direct impact on the increase, not only of the uninsured, but the increase in the numbers of those suffering from certain diseases who cannot get care and, therefore, rather than have preventative care, which an expansion of Medicaid would provide, allowing for doctor visits, then the only time that we are able to secure health care for them is when they arrive in the cities and the counties and the States' emergency rooms, where we see a surge in emergency room costs, health care costs, and we eliminate the good will and the good intentions of a very good bill that answers the question, are we attempting to form a more perfect union by establishing a framework of insurance for all Americans, hardworking Americans, Americans of Asian descent and African descent and Hispanic descent, who have different DNA and cultural indices that would lead them to have certain diseases more than others. Let me also take note of the fact that one of those particular diseases that impacts the African American woman in a more devastating manner than in others, and that is triple negative breast cancer that impacts Hispanic women, African American women and Anglo women, but more so in the African American community. That kind of diagnosis gives in this current phrase of time a short and almost devastating diagnosis, one that is difficult to recover from, one that sees an increase in the loss of life. So I would make the argument to Governor Perry and to Governors across the Nation who have rejected the expanded Medicaid as a budget issue, as a political issue, as a ``I'm going to stand up to the President'' issue, you are wrong, you are absolutely wrong, because this is not a political issue; this is a life and death question. And I want to applaud Governors like those in Florida, who certainly, obviously, may not welcome the applause. But I think it's important when people stand on principle or what is good for others, that they should be applauded. So I applaud the Governor of Ohio and the Governor of Florida for moving forward on Medicaid expansion. And I would say to my good friend, who is leading this very important Special Order, that we need to begin to work with the President to find ways to substitute the rejection of the Medicaid expansion so that individuals that are in these States who cannot speak for themselves, who in actuality have a head of State Governor that is making a political decision, a simple political decision, will not lose out on the benefits intended by the Affordable Care Act, which is to give comfort and to give help and aid to those who need health care. I finish on this note. I want to thank Dr. Christensen, because when we began to write this legislation with the Congressional Black Caucus that, one, talked about the health care disparity, which was the premise of the fact of expanding health care, it would be a shame if after all this work and passage of this bill there would be innocent persons in our respective States like Texas that could not benefit from something that could save lives. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Why Texas Should Extend Medicaid Coverage to Low-Income Adults local benefits Local savings from the expansion would offset much if not all of the state match in 2016 and 2017. According to reports that cities, counties, hospital districts and local hospitals submit to the state, unreimbursed local health care spending in Texas that local property taxes largely support, totaled $2.5 billion in 2011. In addition, Texas hospitals reported at least $1.8 billion in conservatively estimated unreimbursed health care costs for charity care in 2010, for an estimated total of $4.4 billion in unreimbursed expenses The math is simple--federal funding for the adult expansion far exceeds current local expenses for unreimbursed health care costs. Although the impact of the Medicaid expansion and ACA subsidized insurance would not entirely offset total local expenses, since not everyone currently receiving charity care, such as undocumented immigrants, would be eligible for these programs and since some services may not be covered, much of it would. If necessary, the state could use some portion of these savings to fund the required match through an intergovernmental transfer arrangement. Local governments and hospitals would still realize a net gain over current costs from the federal funds the match would generate. It is estimated that the Medicaid expansion would generate more than 231,000 jobs in 2016, equivalent to a 1.8 percentage point reduction in the state's current unemployment rate--from 6.1 percent to 4.3 percent. state benefits In numerous programs, the state pays 100 percent for adult health care that Medicaid would cover under an expansion. For example, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice requested $186.5 million in state appropriations for hospital inpatient and clinical care for its inmates for 2014. The federal federal government contributes nothing toward this purpose now, but with a Medicaid expansion, the state would spend nothing on in-patient hospital care for eligible inmates from 2014 through 2016, and a maximum of just 10 percent of these costs by 2020. Similarly, the expansion would cover eligible adults in state mental institutions and juvenile facilities that need non-psychiatric hospital in- patient care. The state also spends unmatched general revenue for community primary care services, mental and behavioral health services and, soon, women's health care delivered to low- income individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid. Other programs include the breast and cervical cancer program, the kidney health care program and the HIV Medication assistance and STD program. Furthermore, the state supplements funding for the County Indigent Health Care (CIHC) program, much of which would be unnecessary under a Medicaid expansion. The state also pays the regular state match for medically needy adults that currently qualify for Medicaid. Under an expansion, the state would be able to use the high federal match rate for newly eligible individuals not covered by Medicare. The Comptroller's office estimates that larger caseloads from a Medicaid expansion would net increased revenues from the insurance premium tax due to the large number of persons who will buy health insurance under the exchange, as well as those covered in the expansion. The Comptroller estimates the increased insurance premium tax revenue due to ACA implementation and the Medicaid expansion at $1.3 billion from 2015 through 2019, or an average of $250 million a year. In addition to these savings and new revenue that could offset the required state match, the expansion would generate an additional $1.8 billion in new tax revenue from 2014 through 2017, assuming moderate enrollment--enough to offset nearly half of the required state match from 2014 through 2017. These jobs, many of them in health care, would provide substantial benefits and increased economic security to families and local communities. As employees spend their wages on taxable items, state and local governments benefit from increased tax collections, and the increased economic activity in turn creates other jobs. benefits to children According to the Census Bureau, in 2011 Texas had about 900,000 or 16.7 percent of the nation's 5 million uninsured children, and nearly 600,000 of the nation's 3.5 million uninsured children with family incomes below 200 percent FPL, again a 16.7 percent share. About 13.2 percent of all Texas children are uninsured, compared to a national average of 7.5 percent. Bringing Texas up to the national average would require the state to insure an additional 393,000 children, less than the 550,000 expected to enroll in Medicaid under a Moderate scenario. After 2014, the national average will increase significantly since most states will expand Medicaid, which means that, without the expansion, the disparity between Texas and other states will grow. Studies conducted in the 1980s found that expanding Medicaid to children reduced child mortality by 5.1 percent and infant mortality by 8.5 percent. Assuming the lower 5.1 percent rate, the expansion would save the lives of 2,700 Texas children every year after full implementation. benefits to adults Our children also need healthy parents to provide for their care. Many low-income individuals and families simply cannot afford basic living expenses, health insurance and out-of- pocket health care expenses, making a Medicaid expansion imperative. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that about 41 percent of adults covered under the expansion would be parents. Many of them work, but lack health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, 59.9 percent of uninsured adults in Texas work, a higher labor force participation rate than the total population's. According to Kaiser, about 1.2 million adults who would be covered under the expansion in Texas are working, about 60 percent of them in agriculture or service industries that tend toward smaller firms and are less likely to offer insurance to employees. Only 28.4 percent of the 320,334 Texas private firms with fewer than 50 employees insured their employees in 2011, versus 92.3 percent of the 132,109 larger private firms. And besides working for low wages in firms that do not offer health insurance, many low-income individuals find work only on a part-time or seasonal basis, resulting in poverty-level incomes. The Medicaid expansion would cover a person employed in a full-time, minimum-wage job paying $7.25 per hour, which equates to $15,080 per year, just below the 138 percent FPL cutoff. It also would cover a single parent earning $10 per hour (annual wages of $20,800). These wages are generally insufficient to cover basic living and working expenses as well as health insurance. The high cost of health insurance affects both employers and workers, but high premiums as well as out-of-pocket medical expenses make it impossible for most low-income workers to afford health care. The 2012 average cost of single coverage was $5,615, and family coverage was $15,745, a 30 percent increase since 2007, according to a recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. Employees paid an average of $951 for single coverage and $4,316 for and $11,429 for family coverage per employee, it is unsurprising that most small employers find it difficult to provide insurance. Although the ACA provides subsidized health insurance for individuals above 100 percent of FPL, about 1.4 million uninsured Texas adults aged 18 to 64 who are below 100 percent of FPL will not be eligible. Covering most of these adults through Medicaid would mean a healthier workforce and would reduce absenteeism, job loss and unemployment insurance costs to employers. It also would increase income for families with children, thus reducing stress and providing more opportunities. And, it would save lives. The Harvard School of Public Health recently compared three states (New York, Arizona and Maine) that expanded Medicaid to childless adults aged 20 to 64 between 2000 and 2005 with neighboring states that did not (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Nevada and New Mexico). They found not only a higher insured rate in the expansion states, but a 6.1 percent drop in the death rate for adults under age 65, or about 2,840 deaths prevented each year for every 500,000 persons newly insured. This translates into one life saved per year in the five-year follow-up period for every 176 newly insured. In Texas, that would amount to about 5,700 lives saved per year under the Moderate enrollment scenario once fully implemented. benefits to employers Only 36 percent of U.S. workers in firms with fewer than 25 workers have insurance.36 In a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, 48 percent of small employers indicated that the cost of insurance was too high for them to offer it to employees. On the other hand, when their uninsured employees become sick, they are more likely to be absent from work longer, creating a burden to their employer and fellow employees. Frequent or prolonged absences for common untreated conditions such as asthma, diabetes, heart disease, allergies and flu can lead to terminations and the costs of recruiting, hiring and training new employees. Expanding Medicaid to adults aged 18 through 64 who are making marginal wages or working in part-time or seasonal positions is an effective way to assist small businesses and their employees alike. Finally, we estimate that the Medicaid expansion would generate nearly 71,500 jobs in Texas in 2014, rising to 231,100 jobs in 2016, the first year of full implementation. Many of these jobs would be in health care, an industry that pays well and provides good job security and benefits, including health insurance, and wages would average $50,818 during the 2014-2017 period--the same as the statewide average for all industries. Texas already has the highest rate of uninsured for adults aged 18 to 64 of any state--31 percent compared to a national average of 21 percent in 2011.45 If Texas does not expand Medicaid, and Wal-Mart and other companies implement their intended policies, the number of uninsured in Texas will grow as it shrinks in states that acted, leaving Texas still at the bottom and digging a deeper hole. findings in other states Recent studies in other states have also found that states can finance their share of the expansion using funds already spent on state and locally funded health care for adults and new revenues generated from the expansion. After further study and considering revised trends, several states besides Texas have also substantially reduced their estimates of the state funds required for the expansion. Some governors that previously expressed opposition to the expansion have changed their minds. In particular, Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, initially in opposition, has recently announced that she will support it as long as Arizona includes an automatic trigger reducing Medicaid optional coverage should the federal government reduce its match rate in the future, a concern expressed by several state governors.46 After reviewing a new study that identified sufficient existing revenue sources, New Mexico's governor, Susana Martinez, also announced her support for the expansion. California. A recent study by the University of California at Berkeley and the University of California at Los Angeles on the California expansion found that increased state tax revenues and savings would largely offset additional spending. It also found that savings in other areas of the budget, including other state health programs, mental health services and state prisons due to the expansion ``would likely be more than enough to offset the $46 to $381 million in annual state General Fund spending for the newly eligible population through 2019.'' Florida. Florida has recently reduced its estimate of state costs from $26 billion to $5.066 billion over 10 years from 2013-14 to 2022-23, including costs for newly eligible adults ($1.767 billion), children who are currently eligible but not enrolled ($3.012 billion) and the cost of shifting, called ``crowd out,'' of currently insured individuals to Medicaid ($0.287 billion). The state now estimates that the expansion would generate $37 billion in federal funds over the ten-year period, of which about $30 billion is for newly eligible adults. Ohio. Estimates just published by Ohio State University compare the state's match requirements with the net savings the state would receive from moving adults from state-funded programs to Medicaid over a nine-year period from 2014 through 2019, concluding that savings in these programs would provide 41.2 percent of the state match necessary for the expansion. The study estimated that the state would receive net savings of about $1 billion on: Better match rate for medically needy adults of $709 million. Breast and Cervical Cancer Program costs of $48 million. Inpatient prison health care costs of $273 million. In addition, the study pointed out that there would also be savings on non-Medicaid substance abuse treatment, family planning, pregnant women and other state health care programs for uninsured adults. The study identified other areas of savings as well, including reduced criminal justice costs due to better access to substance abuse treatment. The study also found net increases in state revenue from taxes of $2,898 million on: managed care plans ($1.823 billion), general revenue ($857 million) from increased economic activity and increased drug rebates to the state from pharmaceutical companies ($218 million). The study estimates that the state will need about $2.5 billion for state match, which would leave a net state fiscal gain of $1.4 billion. Wyoming. The Wyoming Department of Health issued a report in November 2012 that also looked for offsets to pay for the Medicaid expansion. The department found that ``participating in the optional expansion of the Medicaid program would result in a projected cost savings for the State General Fund throughout the first 6 years of the ACA implementation (fiscal years 2014-2020).'' objections to medicaid expansion The ACA and the Medicaid expansion have raised concerns in Texas and some other states about its long-term costs for state and local budgets, as well as other concerns. Objections to expansion in Texas primarily revolve around three arguments: Medicaid is ``socialized medicine'' like that practiced in western Europe and expanding it would spread it further; The federal government should abandon Medicaid and move to a system of block grants to states, to provide them with more ``flexibility'' in meeting their citizens' health care needs; and The added cost burden of expansion, despite extremely favorable federal matching rates, is too much for a program that has already overburdened the state financially. Socialized medicine: Medicaid is not socialized medicine. Socialized medicine as practiced in Western Europe, and specifically Great Britain, is a system under which the government not only funds but also operates hospitals, hires health care providers and controls every aspect of health care. Medicaid does not do these things; patients and their health care providers make health care decisions. Medicaid in no way meets the definition of ``socialized medicine.'' Medicaid is a federal insurance program that matches state funding to provide health care to eligible, low-income citizens who cannot afford private health insurance. States receive federal matching funds and administer the program under federal rules that limit eligibility to certain groups and services and that provide states with flexibility within certain eligibility and service requirements. Texas participates in many similar federal programs that require state matching funds, including transportation, historic preservation and homeland security programs, among others. Block grants: Some Texas lawmakers suggest that Medicaid is a ``one-size-fits-all'' program that fails to meet the state's unique demographic and industry needs. They are petitioning the federal government to convert federal Medicaid funding to a block grant, with each state receiving a fixed amount to establish its own state-specific program that might or might not include all the features of the current program. Even for lawmakers who favor a block-grant approach, however, this argument should not affect the decision to extend Medicaid coverage under the ACA. In fact, lawmakers who favor a Medicaid block grant in particular should support extending Medicaid to low-income adults: the government typically bases block grants on historical funding levels, so maximizing federal funding now would better position Texas in the event of any future conversion to block grants. Cost burdens: As noted above, state and local governments currently fund all of our expenditures for indigent care and in-patient hospital costs for eligible incarcerated individuals, while the state supplies 100 percent of funding for some adults served in state health care programs that would be eligible for Medicaid. These, combined with hospital charity costs, far exceed the amount Texas would be required to contribute to expand Medicaid. New revenue from insurance premium taxes and economic growth from the infusion of $100 billion in federal funds would provide additional revenue sources. Furthermore, opting out of the expansion will not reduce Texans' federal tax burden, nor will expanding Medicaid increase it. Concerns that the federal government will not be able to maintain high match rates in the future are unlikely to become reality given that Congressional representatives and senators represent their states. To ensure against this event, however, Texas could build in an automatic ``trigger,'' such as Arizona is doing, to reduce Medicaid optional populations and services should Congress reduce the match rate in the future. Governor Rick Perry has described extending Medicaid to low-income adults as ``adding more passengers to the Titanic.'' It would be closer to the case to say that failing to cover adults will doom them like those hapless travelers. Experience in other states indicates that the death rate would fall by 6.1 percent for adults under age 65 if the state expands Medicaid, preventing premature deaths of 5,700 Texas adults in each of the five years following the implementation year, or 28,500 Texans over five years. Previous studies also have found reductions of 5.1 percent in the child mortality rate and 8.5 percent in the infant mortality rate attributable to Medicaid coverage. Such studies led one author from the Harvard study, Arnold M. Epstein, to conclude: Sometimes the political rhetoric is at odds with the evidence, such as claims that Medicaid is a `broken program' or worse than no insurance at all; our findings suggest precisely the opposite. Conclusion Extending Medicaid to low-income adults will save tens of thousands of lives and improve millions more over the next decade and beyond. The jobs created will support hundreds of thousands of people and boost the economy. The additional tax revenue will benefit state and local governments and important public purposes such as education, infrastructure and public safety. Businesses will benefit from healthier employees and lower employer insurance costs. State and local government and the state's hospitals collectively spend far more on piecemeal health care for low- income Texans than the state's expected match for the expansion. Expanding Medicaid would move thousands of people into managed care from these programs and significantly reduce the use of expensive emergency room treatment for routine care. Without expanding Medicaid to adults, Texas will still have to find additional state match for many of the eligible but unenrolled children identified in this report--but without the benefit of the additional state funds that an expansion would free up and without the new revenues that the additional federal funding would generate. The decision to expand Medicaid--or not--will affect the lives of millions of Texans for years into the future and is arguably one of the most important decisions that the Legislature has had to make in decades. If politics are set aside, the right decision is obvious.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. We have to save the traveling public, but I ask the question about 5,000 children in Texas that will lose Head Start, or the millions of seniors, or our military families that will lose support because we've got the sequester, all on the shoulders of those that believe that the way we run the Federal Government is by slash and burn. Where are our hearts? Help the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1765 is a poor substitute for real Congressional leadership and pragmatic solutions for the millions of Americans impacted by the sequester. Using sequestration, Republicans in the House are holding the American public hostage, extracting carve- outs that serve their own interests while shamefully ignoring the people who will be impacted by the billions in remaining cuts. While I support putting all of our air traffic controllers back on the job so that air transit is as safe and reliable as possible, this bill leaves everyone else to suffer the devastating consequences of the sequester cuts. Sequestration unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. I support restoring funding for our air traffic control officers, but this bill does nothing to relieve the anguish of those Americans who cannot afford to buy an airline ticket. As a Senior Member of the House Homeland Security Committee I find it outrageous that in Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed. The sequester, which the Republicans did nothing to prevent, would undermine the significant progress the Department of Homeland Security has made over the past ten years and would negatively affect our ability to carry out their vital mission. Sequestration will eventually roll back border security, increase wait times at our Nation's land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster response time and significantly scale back cyber security infrastructure protections that have been developed in recent years. Republicans forced Congress to adopt sequestration as a backstop by playing a political game of chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling to pay our debts. While we understand and share the concern of our Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism, and the arbitrary cuts imposed by the sequester are not the answer. Instead of forcing the average American to pay the price for a dysfunctional Washington, give the leaders of both parties the time needed to reach some consensus on budget issues. Republicans, particularly Members of the Tea Party, need to understand that allowing the sequester to continue is worst way to go about achieving a long-term debt reduction. Cutting two million jobs nationwide and slowing the growth of our gross domestic product by half a percent will barely make a dent in our debt, but it will result in widespread misery. Moreover, it jeopardizes the economic progress that we have worked hard to achieve, and even threatens to throw us back into a recession. My state of Texas is greatly affected by sequestration. These cuts will have a devastating and widespread impact on local communities. Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million for primary and secondary education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition, about 172,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 280 fewer schools would receive funding. Texas will lose approximately $51 million for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities. Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education. In Texas, approximately 52,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $274.8 million in total. Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim and witness initiatives. Around 83,750 fewer Texans will get the help and skills they need to find employment as Texas will lose about $2,263,000 for job search assistance, referral, and placement, meaning. Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children could lose access to child care, which is also essential for working parents to hold down a job. In Texas around 9,730 fewer children will receive vaccines for diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, tetanus, whooping cough, influenza, and Hepatitis B due to reduced funding for vaccinations. Violence Against Women Grants: Texas could lose up to $543,000 to provide services to victims of domestic violence, resulting in up to 2,100 fewer victims being served. Texas will lose approximately $2,402,000 to help upgrade its ability to respond to public health threats including infectious diseases, natural disasters, and biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological events. In addition, Texas will lose about $6,750,000 in grants to help prevent and treat substance abuse, resulting in around 2,800 fewer admissions to substance abuse programs. And the Texas State Department of Public Health will lose about $1,146,000 resulting un around 28,600 fewer HIV tests. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 900, the ``Cancel the Sequester Act of 2013'' be brought to the floor for a vote. This one-sentence bill would end this national nightmare by repealing the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that imposed sequestration and its senseless, job-destroying cuts. If Congress cannot or will not come together in bipartisan agreement on a budget, I believe we have a duty to avert these catastrophic cuts by repealing them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is a hostage-taking, and I know that the American people are watching the blame game. But the blame game falls clearly on this side of the aisle. My Republican friends held this place hostage: we won't pay the debt ceiling; we won't pay our debts. Now we're losing 2 million jobs, 4,800 Head Start programs. And I believe in air traffic controllers, but we're holding them hostage. What about the person who cannot afford an airline ticket? And so I'm saying today that it is important that we stand for the millions of dollars that we are losing for homeland security. Is it time to take millions from military families? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900, a one- sentence bill, that would repeal the section of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to get rid of the sequester, go to budget conference, have conferees, have a budget, get rid of the sequester. Bring it up now. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr., the legendary pastor of the legendary Antioch Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, Texas. This Sunday, April 28, 2013, will mark the 55th anniversary of Rev. Williams' pastorship of this great church. For more than a half century, Rev. Williams has ministered to the needs of his congregation, spoken truth to power, and been an advisor to several presidents, including Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. Born into a family of preachers and community leaders, Floyd Nathaniel Williams, was the son of the Rev. M.C. Williams and grandson of Rev. Mike Williams. In 1945, at the age of sixteen began to sense a call to the ministry and responded to the call by earning a Bachelor of Divinity Degree in extended studies from Bishop College. After serving in the U.S. Army as a Warrant Officer during the Korean War, Rev. Williams began his pastoral career at Greater Union Baptist Church in Matthews, Texas. From 1951 to 1958, he served the Lord at Friendship Baptist Church in Eagle Lake, Texas and at St. John Baptist Church in Beaumont, Texas. In April 1958, after the passing of his father, Rev. Williams was named to succeed him as Pastor of Antioch Missionary Baptist Church, located at 5902 Beall Street, where he continues to serve today. Rev. Williams did not just preach to the choir. He recognized that to do God's work and to extend his Word, it was important also to reach those in need outside the church. He was the first pastor to implement an athletic program outside of school to provide instruction and support for the youth of the community. And out of that effort came four future ministers whose lives were turned around. Although the Bible bears witness that, a professed believer should be, ``in the world but not of the world,'' for 55 years Rev. Williams has understood that African American communities have serious problems and thus undertook initiatives outside of the church to ameliorate the suffering and in his community. Among his many initiatives and activities, Rev. Williams served as Editor of the Globe Advocate Newspaper; Director of the Advisory Board Standard Savings Association; Director of the Houston Council on Human Relations; Director of the Northwest Water District City of Houston; and Member of the Human Relations Committee of the Houston Independent School District. Mr. Speaker, Rev. Williams has served the church in numerous ways: as Moderator for the Independent Baptist General Association of Texas; 1st Vice President of the Missionary Baptist General Convention of Texas; President of the Houston Baptist Pastors and Ministers Fellowship; Member of the Board of Directors of Rural and Urban Ministers Conference, Prairie View A&M University; Member of Board of Directors of Church College Relations Board at Bishop College in Dallas, Texas; 1st Vice President of the Baptist Ministers Association of Houston; Member of the Houston Metropolitan Ministries; Advocate and Supporter of the Texas Youth Commission; and Founder of the Houston Ministers Against Crime. Rev. Williams believed and strongly supported the vision of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and played an indispensable role in bringing Dr. King to Houston. Rev. Williams often reminisces about how he sat only three seats away from Dr. King on April 3, 1968, the night he delivered I Have Been To The Mountaintop, his famous last speech. A few years after Dr. King's assassination, Rev. Williams and several other local pastors decided that, they ``didn't need the government to tell us when to celebrate our history'' so they initiated the first ever Martin Luther King Celebration in 1971. To date, he has held 40 Annual Martin Luther King Day Celebrations. Rev. Williams has been a valued advisor to Presidents. He is a close and personal friend of former President George H.W. Bush whom he brought to the Acres Home and Garden Oaks communities to meet with local residents to discuss the major issues and challenges confronting those communities. Since that time, Presidents from George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama have sought the advice and counsel of Rev. Williams. On August 19, 2000, Rev. Williams was inducted into the Religious Hall of Fame Elite in Dallas, Texas. Mr. Speaker, for 55 years Rev. Williams has provided remarkable service to our nation as pastor of the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church and community, state, and national leader. I am proud to call this remarkable American hero my friend and I offer him my heartfelt congratulations on the 55th Anniversary of his pastorship of Anitioch Missionary Baptist Church and my best wishes for continued success for many years to come.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks, in my district, we've been working with a very small school district by the name of North Forest Independent School District, of about 7,000 young people, bright, energetic and prepared to reach and fulfill their future. Unfortunately, the State of Texas chooses to close that school, not because they are not meeting the Leave No Child Behind, but because one high school did not meet the threshold by two students. Over the next couple of days, we expect to hear from the State to ask this district to terminate all employees. We offered to the State a collaborative response of having them to work with public charters and work with the public school system, keeping it a public school system. We again ask the State of Texas, the Governor of the State of Texas, who has refused to give Federal funds for education back to the districts, you know why? Maybe it's because of sequester. But more importantly, I want to save those students, I want to save those employees, and I believe we can do it by eliminating the sequester. I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 900, a one-sentence bill to eliminate the sequester. These children at the North Forest Independent School District deserve to be able to graduate from a public school. It is shameful that they will be getting a notice of their beloved teachers, fire them all. I will go home to the district and stand against it. I ask for relief from the U.S. Department of Education and all of those who believe in educating our children and being responsible to our teachers who teach them and love them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the ``Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act,'' which will renew the Department of the Interior's (DOI) authority to continue operating the Federal Helium Reserve beyond this fiscal year. I want to thank Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for their hard work in shepherding this legislation, which enjoys strong bipartisan support, to the floor. Mr. Chair, I support H.R. 527 because it is an important first step in updating our nation's helium policy by increasing transparency and fostering competitive helium markets, while providing a better return for American taxpayers. Currently, the United States is the largest helium producer in the world. The most recent data from the United States Geological Survey indicates that at over 20 billion cubic meters, the total helium reserves and resources of the United States represents roughly 40 percent of the world's helium supply. Helium is primarily used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices in hospitals, but is also used as a coolant for superconductors, as well as in cryogenics, welding, chromatography, and various other uses. The Federal Helium Reserve is a strategic reserve located at the Cliffside Storage Facility in Potter County, Texas, near the city of Amarillo. Created in 1925, its original function was to ensure supplies of helium to the federal government for defense, research, and medical purposes. Through the Helium Privatization Act of 1996, the Federal Helium Reserve evolved to serve four purposes: (1) operating and maintaining a helium storage reservoir and pipeline system view map; (2) providing crude helium gas by contract with private companies; (3) evaluating the Nation's helium-bearing gas fields; and (4) providing responsible access to federal land for managed recovery and disposal of helium. While the Interior Department currently has the authority to continue funding and operating the Federal Helium Reserve, this authority is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. Upon expiration, and absent Congressional action, our national supply of helium faces severe turmoil in the form of substantial price increases and market disruptions for American consumers and businesses. Moreover, the Federal Helium Reserve, which constitutes a large portion of the global supply, is instrumental in controlling price. The large quantity of helium in the reserves means that the Interior Department effectively determines prices paid for helium around the world. Numerous reports indicate that the Interior Department may be selling helium at below market value, which may have the effect of stifling private investment in new helium supplies. As a result, we risk facing a shortage in coming years as helium supplies diminish. H.R. 527 addresses this problem by transitioning helium sales to a competitive auction system, thus ensuring a steady supply of helium and allowing users to bid on crude helium from the reserve. Consequently, the law of supply and demand would dictate price rather than having the price controlled by a central authority. Ideally, I would have liked to see more discretion afforded to the Secretary of the Interior in this bill, particularly with respect to the minimum price charged for crude helium. The bill requires the Secretary to make a determination as to the minimum sale price at auctions in accordance with various factors, including a confidential survey of domestic helium transactions with the reserve, as well as recent market prices as reflected by auction sales. Currently under the bill, the Secretary would have the discretion to adjust the minimum price by up to 10 percent if the survey is not reflective of the current market value of helium or if a higher minimum price may result in greater conservation of helium. However, market fluctuations in recent years have often been in excess of 10 percent. Providing the Secretary with greater discretion to adjust the minimum price in accordance recent trends is desirable to ensure that prices track market value as closely as possible. In my view, the bill would be improved if the Secretary's discretion were enlarged to authorize adjustments to the minimum price by an amount not to exceed 20 percent. But taken as a whole, H.R. 527 is a positive step in the right direction. And I want to express my appreciation again to Chairman Hastings and Ranking Member Markey for their good work. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues in joining me in voting for H.R. 527, ``Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The simple question is asked, why are we in such a dilemma of complexity and absolutely abandoning the American people? That's what sequestration is all about. And I know it's hard to tell a story again, but sequestration came about because a whole sizeable population of Members, Republican Members, did not want to pay America's bills. But we can, as a bipartisan, collective body that responds to America, avoid the loss of 2 million jobs and a .6 percent drag on the economy and $67.8 million lost for primary and secondary education in Texas, $51 million lost for education of children with disabilities, and 4,800 Head Start seats lost. We can come together. We can pass H.R. 900, which gets rid of the sequestration, or we can call for the budget conferees to, once and for all, address the question of America. The reason why we have a slowdown of FAA, it's because the people are furloughed. You can have 50,000 FAA air traffic controllers; but if they're furloughed, they can't work. Let's work on behalf of the American people--have the budget conferees now pass H.R. 900, get rid of the sequestration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule on H.R. 1549, the so-called ``Helping Sick Americans Act.'' This ill-conceived and misguided legislation takes funds from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to increase financing of the Pre- Existing Condition Insurance Program, PCIP. This sounds laudable but the facts are that this bill hurts an important program that our nation needs. The rule for the bill does not address the problems with this legislation. Cutting funding from public health funds is a risky move. We know from countless studies that money invested in public health is a solid investment. It improves the lives of thousands of Americans, especially our most vulnerable members: the elderly, the young, the sick, the disabled and the poor. In March 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the historic health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In addition to extending life-saving health insurance coverage to 31 million by 2019, the law includes a suite of provisions that have the potential to substantially reform our nation's health care system. One of these provisions is the establishment of the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This is the nation's first dedicated mandatory federal funding stream for public health and prevention activities. The Prevention Fund was created to increase the nation's investment in prevention in order to improve health outcomes and decrease health care costs. In the first two years of its existence, 2010 and 2011, the Fund provided $1.25 billion for critical programs that prevent tobacco use, decrease HIV rates, increase physical activity and healthy eating, increase immunization rates, and many other activities. States and communities across the nation are already implementing and benefiting from these programs. Public health is an essential component of the U.S. health system: its infrastructure and prevention-based programs wrap around clinical health systems to improve population health and reduce health care costs. Local health departments work with a wide range of community partners to create conditions and policies that help people make healthy choices, such as avoiding tobacco use, becoming more physically active, and eating healthier foods. All these proactive measures contribute to the prevention of chronic diseases and associated risk factors like obesity and smoking. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, later on today, the President will join my fellow Texans in West, Texas, to mourn the loss of so many who died in a tragic plant explosion last week. Many of them were first responders. And many who will come to mourn and celebrate life and the life of West, Texas, are those who have been harmed and injured. I will join them in spirit, as I know my colleagues here today will. That's why as I rise today to commemorate and salute two gospel music titans, it becomes even more appropriate to salute my friend, James ``Jazzy'' Jordan and Mr. Don Jackson, for they understand the value and message of gospel music. Gospel music holds a special place in the American experience. Gospel music was a release from suffering and hardship, but it was also a form of praise and protest. I would like to thank Jazzy Jordan for understanding that as we introduced in 2008 the Gospel Music Heritage legislation that establishes September in the United States of America as Gospel Music Heritage Month. We hope as we have faced these tragedies over the last couple of weeks that Americans, no matter what their religious background or nonreligious background, will find relief in this joyful and comforting music. Spirituals once sung by slaves transformed into gospel songs sung by free people who had their own space and place to express their emotions and tell their stories in music--those spirituals have been translated into gospel music. Gospel music could express the joys and sorrows of so many people. All of us remember and have often sung the song ``Amazing Grace,'' created by one who saw this wonderful resilience of their life when they thought they had been lost. That is truly American and American gospel music. We know the early founders: Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, James Cleveland, and now today Kirk Franklin, and Yolanda Adams, among so many. And then those who were influenced by gospel music: Sam Cooke, Al Green, Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, among many. Jazzy Jordan understands that and is now head of The Jordan Webster Group, a film and music production house in Washington, D.C. A brilliant businessman, he has a great love of gospel music. We are grateful for his service to Verity Gospel Music Group, now known as RCA Inspiration. Mr. Jordan was a founding board member of the Gospel Music Heritage Foundation and cochair, with gospel music advocate Mr. Carl Davis of my district, of the Evolution of Gospel Celebration which kicks off Gospel Music Heritage Celebration in the Nation's capital. Mr. Jordan was executive producer for Gold, Platinum, Grammy, Stellar, and Dove award-winning projects. Throughout his career, he served as a creative producer and has marketed and promoted many awarding-winning CDs and gospel artists that have included Kirk Franklin, and as well worked with DJ Jazzy Jeff and Will Smith--``Fresh Prince.'' Oh, he knows music. And to tell you that he does, he has engaged and worked with the likes of Kirk Franklin, as I said, Marvin Sapp, Donnie McClurkin, Fred Hammond, Heather Kyle Walker, Donald Lawrence, Richard Smallwood, Byron Cage, John P. Kee, Jay Moss, Crystal Aikin, Deitrick Haddon, and DeWayne Woods. Mr. Jordan is truly one who lives his life in commemorating and cultivating and nurturing the gospel tradition, the gospel tradition which has now spread beyond the borders of this Nation. He is joined by Mr. Don Jackson, the founder, chairman, and CEO of the 41-year-old Central City Productions, now the founder and organizer of the Stella Awards. I am grateful that Mr. Jackson thought it was important to recognize those who excelled in gospel music. He graduated from Northwestern University and entered a career in media and broadcasting with a number of stations, WBEE and WVON, a top radio station in Chicago. As he founded Central City Marketing in 1970, his company over 41 years involved itself in encouraging and helping others promote their issues. He had involvement in promotion and sales and production of media and television. But his first gospel music awards show in the United States, the Stellar Awards, was produced by his company. The Stellar Awards honors gospel music artists, writers, and industry professionals. He is one who has featured so many artists, such as the Clark Sisters, Kirk Franklin, Da' T.R.U.T.H., Mary Mary, and many others. Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me simply say, these two men are more than deserving of being American icons, and we congratulate them for loving, cherishing, and promoting gospel music. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize two of America's pioneers in gospel music: Mr. James ``Jazzy'' Jordan and Mr. Don Jackson. Jazzy Jordan and Don Jackson are titans in the field of Gospel Music. Over the last 30 years their combined efforts have elevated this unique American art form to national and international prominence. Gospel music holds a special place in the American experience. Just as Jazz is well known far from our nation's shores, the spread of gospel music has also become popular around the world. Gospel music holds a unique place in the African experience--its roots are deep in the black church. For generations, gospel music could only be heard on Sunday mornings where African American people gathered to worship. Church was a place where black people felt truly free and safe to express themselves. Gospel music was a release for suffering and hardship--it was a form of praise and protest. Spirituals once sung by slaves transformed into gospel songs sung by free people who had their own space--and place to express their emotions and tell their stories in music. Gospel music could express the joys and sorrows of black people in ways that touched those who were not African American. There were lessons to be learned for the artists and the listeners. Famous jazz and rock-and-roll artists perfected their singing styles by visiting black churches to listen to gospel music. Gospel music traditions produced many memorable voices and musical pioneers in the history of our country; singers like Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, Virgil Stamps, Diana Washington, James Cleveland, The Mighty Clouds of Joy, Kirk Franklin, Yolanda Adams, and The Winans among many others. Gospel music has inspired and influenced other music art forms and artists that include Sam Cooke, Al Green, Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Little Richard, Ray Charles, Buddy Holly, Alan Jackson, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis. I stand in the well of the House to honor two men who are my friends who also are great contributors to the American experience by preserving and cultivating new converts to the gospel music. Through their efforts gospel music has in a very short time period expanded beyond the black church to a broader global audience. Mr. James ``Jazzy'' Jordan is head of The Jordan Webster Group, a film and music production house in Washington DC. Mr. Jordan is a brilliant businessman with a love of gospel music, which he fully expressed in his leadership of the Verity Gospel Music Group now known as RCA Inspiration. Mr. Jordan is a founding board member of the Gospel Music Heritage Foundation and is Co-Chair along with Gospel Music Advocate Carl Davis of the ``Evolution of Gospel Celebration'' that Kicks off Gospel Music Heritage Celebration in the Nation's Capital. Over his 30 year career, Mr. Jordan was executive producer for Gold, Platinum, GRAMMY', Stellar and Dove award-winning projects. Throughout his career, Jordan has served as executive producer or has marketed or promoted many award-winning CDs for gospel artists that included Kirk Franklin and R. Kelly. He also, worked with DJ Jazzy Jeff and The Fresh Prince (Will Smith) on their album Parents Just Don't Understand, which sold over four millions copies; Salt N' Pepa on their Very Necessary album, which sold over five million copies; Joe on his tops selling CDs All That I Am, which was a platinum selling album, and My Name Is Joe, which sold over three million copies; and three of R. Kelly's CDs--R. Kelly, R. and TP-2.Com, which all sold more than three million copies. The other person I want to recognize is Mr. Don Jackson, the founder, chairman and CEO of the 41-year-old CENTRAL CITY PRODUCTIONS a national television production, sales, and syndication Company based in Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Jackson after graduating from Northwestern University entered a career in media and broadcasting with WBEE & WVON radio. He was someone to watch--and for good reason--he became youngest and first African American sales manager at WVON, the top radio station in the Chicago media market at the time. He had to work hard and be extremely smart to reach such notable success at such a young age. In 1970, Mr. Jackson founded CENTRAL CITY MARKETING. His company for over 40 years has specialized in marketing, promotion, sales, and the production of media and television programs for African Americans. The first Gospel Music Awards show in the United States, the Stellar Awards, was produced by CENTRAL CITY MARKETING. The Stellar Awards honor Gospel Music Artists, writers, and industry professionals for their contributions to the Gospel Music Industry. The Stellar Awards program is syndicated in over 140 markets nationwide. The Stellar Awards has featured well known gospel artists that include the Clark Sisters, Kirk Franklin, Da' T.R.U.T.H, Tye Tribbett, Mary Mary, Heather Headley, CeCe Winans, Marvin Sapp, Yolanda Adams, Donnie McClurkin, and Tamela Mann. Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, and New York have been the location of the Stellar Awards programs. Through his efforts, the spread of gospel appreciation is traveling far beyond our nation's shore and finding new converts every day. Because of the efforts to these two men scholars now know--if you want to truly understand the black American experience--you must understand the music of that experience and a way to do this is through gospel music. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the life achievements of Mr. Don Jackson and Mr. James ``Jazzy'' Jordan. 40 Years of Media Marketing Experience Don Jackson is the founder, chairman, and CEO of 41-year- old CENTRAL CITY PRODUCTIONS, Inc., a national television production, sales, and syndication company based in Chicago,

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a sense of indignation, sadness, and deep and abiding pride in the memory of four little girls from Alabama who were callously murdered by the bomb of a homegrown terrorist. Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair did not get a chance to celebrate any more birthdays, run through the fields of Alabama, go to the prom, dance at a wedding, or simply grow up and enjoy life as Americans. As was reflected in the prayer given last week in this Chamber by world-renowned soul and gospel singer Yolanda Adams we have been taught to embrace God's grace and mercy, and for those who will listen, to stand in the sunlight of joy as one looks toward the hopefulness of the future, while standing tall as a Black woman in the memory of my four little girls, your girls--these little girls were America's children, and bore the brunt of a very ugly side during a very nasty, ugly, vicious, cruel, and inexorably painful era in the history of the United States. Mr. Speaker, on August 27, 1963, at the March on Washington, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered the speech that both challenged and inspired a nation. ``I have a dream,'' he said, that ``one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.'' Nineteen days later, on September 15, 1963, the nation learned that there was still a long path to travel before it realized Dr. King's dream. For on that day 50 years ago, the nation was shocked--and the City of Birmingham was rocked--by an explosion at the 16th Street Baptist Church that severely damaged the church, injured 22 people, and claimed the lives of four beautiful and innocent little girls: Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair. But the horror and heartbreak of that tragedy galvanized a nation to act. Less than two years later, the nation responded to one of the worst and cowardly acts of hatred with two great acts of justice that have changed America for the better and still stand today as monuments to what can be achieved when challenged to live up to the true meaning of its creed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are a part of the legacy of Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair. Today we celebrate their lives--lives cut down as they should have been learning to bake cakes, play hopscotch, and learn the violin, instead they were murdered in a place which should have been a safe haven, a sanctuary. The death of the four girls drew national attention to the fight for civil rights and is credited with creating a surge of momentum for the civil rights movement. It is also important that we pass on the lessons learned through this deep tragedy so that we do not repeat it. Little girls and little boys around this great nation should hold hands and walk together regardless of race, color, religion, or creed. This bill simply directs the Speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate to arrange for the posthumous award of a Congressional Gold Medal to commemorate the lives of Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robinson and Cynthia Wesley in recognition of the historical significance of the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church. But this bill is more than that. It is a reckoning. This legislation, which I am proud to co-sponsor and strongly support, is intended to complete some of the nation's most important unfinished business. And that is to address one of the most depraved acts of violence against school-aged girls belonging to a racial group which was vulnerable, politically powerless, and innocent, and against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution. The Congressional Gold Medal recognizing the 50th Anniversary of 16th Street Baptist Church bombing is long overdue. I thank my CBC colleague who hails from Alabama, Congresswoman Terri Sewell of Birmingham, who sponsored this legislation, and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who leads the Senate effort for this special recognition as America comes to terms with its rich and often painful history. Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the Civil Rights Memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. The Memorial honors the lives and memories of 40 civil rights martyrs who gave their lives in the struggle for justice and equality. But we know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era. In honoring the four little girls of Birmingham today, let us resolve to remain steadfast in the quest to obtain justice for these other heroes. Mr. Speaker, fifty years later we have made much progress from the dark days of Birmingham. In those days there simply was no justice for African Americans because the criminal justice system--from the police, to the prosecutors, to the juries, and to the judges--was perverted by racial bigotry. Inspired by the sacrifice of four little girls in Birmingham, Americans of good will and of all races and creeds, worked to hasten the day when all would be treated equally before the law and every person would be judged by the content of their character. It is, of course, fitting and proper that H.R. 360 bears the names of Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair. Although forever linked together in history, we must not forget that each of them was an individual. Each had her own hopes and dreams for the future. Sadly, they were robbed of that future by the cowardly act of persons motivated by racial hatred. But in sacrificing their futures, Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley, and Denise McNair helped to transform America into a place where little girls and little boys today can know that their dreams can come true and their futures will be bright and that racial hatred is no longer an insuperable barrier to realizing the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, nearly 50 years ago, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the state of race relations and civil rights in America. In his historic speech to the nation President Kennedy said: We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. . . . [T]his Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free. H.R. 360 is intended to help bring justice to those whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. In doing so, this legislation will help this Nation fulfill its hopes and justify its boast that in America all persons live in freedom. And Mr. Speaker, let us also remember young Virgil Lamar Ware, a thirteen-year-old black boy who was killed by segregationists while riding on the handlebars of his brother's bicycle. His killers had just attended a segregationist rally held in the aftermath of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing. It is a sad but unfortunately not uncommon occurrence that it is innocent children who suffer when adults give in to hate. But as the scriptures teach us, unearned suffering is redemptive. And the blood of the innocents--Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robinson, Cynthia Wesley and Denise McNair--helped to redeem our country and make it better. I urge all Members to join me in supporting this fitting tribute to their heroism and sacrifice by voting to pass H.R. 360.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady from California, and I particularly thank you for your astuteness on bringing us together. If I might reflect on memory lane that was very painful, we traveled a lot together, and I think of the moments in history on the Iraq war. The rising up of the American people was powerful, from San Francisco to places in between, to the quarter of a million people that walked down 53rd and 57th Street in New York on a cold morning in January. People all over America recognized that it was not these brave men and women that you see here. And I brought pictures of wonderful families and men and women who were called to serve who we continue to honor and appreciate. I thought it was important to acknowledge that our soldiers have families. We see it all the time. My district is near Ellington Field, and it is increasingly becoming a base utilizing the talents of young Americans who are willing to volunteer. So I take this 10th anniversary, as well, to pay tribute to them and those who still serve in foreign fields around the world. We know that they still serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we come here today on the 10th anniversary simply to ask the question: Why? And when we ask the question why, it is not a selfish question on behalf of Members of Congress. It is a question on behalf of those brave men and women who, no matter who calls them as Commander in Chief and for what cause, they accept the cause. For that reason, it is imperative that we understand the battle into which we send them. In the Iraq war, it was alleged there were weapons of mass destruction. We have come to a fairly complete conclusion that there were no such weapons. We all knew Saddam Hussein, and none of us adhered to his despotic and horrible governance. But I will tell you, my colleagues thought the same thing, that our approach should have been different. The bloodshed not only of the young men and women that you see here, some of their comrades were lost, but the millions, the numbers of Iraqi people who themselves, their lives were lost and of course still continue to be in danger. The Iraq war saw more than 4,400 brave men and women who wore the United States uniform make the ultimate sacrifice, and tens upon tens of thousands who in actuality were wounded. Over 32,000 of the men and women who came home suffered wounds. But as we know, those numbers have risen. Some 3,000 of the wounded call Texas their home, 500 lost their lives. We know the scars that were left on families--mother, fathers, children, and wives. We realized that we needed to make a better judgment. As the tragedy unfolded in Boston, one of the emergency physicians, one of the medical professionals, said they knew exactly what it was because they had been to Iraq, and they understood the sound of the IEDs. How many of our brave men and women encountered these makeshift IEDs that tore through their body and either killed them or completely amputated or caused the amputation of their arms or legs and the disfigurement of their face. We see them now. We call them wounded warriors. We call them heroes, and certainly those who followed in Afghanistan. But this 10th year reminds us to ask: Have we made the progress that we should have? The gentlelady spoke of the moneys, $800 billion that has directly contributed to the Nation's deficit, and the amount of money that was supposed to be used for restoration; and because there was no infrastructure in Iraq, we made our Army personnel be the little government. We made soldiers be the ones that had to interact with the village leaders and the chiefs, and carry monies to them. No, nothing accounted for; just good intentions, following orders. But we cannot account for those dollars. We don't know if they made a difference. We don't know if they helped bring Iraqis home. We don't know if they helped build schools or hospitals. So I think it is important to note that when we make decisions regarding war, we need to think about soldiers holding their families and loving their families. We need to think about the better way to go, and we need to ask those whose war we fight--Saddam Hussein is gone-- the people whose war we fight, the conflict between the Shiites and Sunnis. We need to understand our history as to whether or not a war that would see the loss of all these brilliant young people, divide families, whether or not we can bring some measure of peace, some comfort, some stability. And I'd venture to say today that we have not. And I say this to the head of Iraq, the leader, Mr. Maliki, for his participation in the ongoing conflict in Iraq, because that is the case. There is no coming together of the Shiites and Sunnis. There is a cluster of a government that hides in the walls, that does not go out and try to bring peace to the people. And I give you one example, Mr. Speaker, that troubles me over and over again--it is the Iranians who left Iran. We know the conflicted issues and alliances were all, if you will, misunderstood; old alliances, friends and enemies. We understand that. But this is supposed to be a peaceful nation now, and there are Iranians who fled the despotic Iran, and have become, in essence, enemies of Iran. They started out in Camp Ashraf. They were called rebels and terrorists. They have now been vindicated, and they're not called that anymore. But let me tell you what the present government of Iraq allows. They allow, in the camp that was Camp Ashraf that is now Camp Liberty, bombs to go in from the Iraqi soldiers. They allow no medical care to come into that particular camp. Just yesterday, the Friends of Iran, American Iranians were here, and they had 10 people or more, their faces, who had died in that camp because the government of Iraq, the government that we shed blood for, that we asked to be a peaceful nation, is, in essence, attacking people on their soil who are unarmed, who are not interested in war, who fled because they'd been persecuted. And they don't allow them to get access to cars, access to hospitals, and so people die from sicknesses because they could not get care. When we go into battle and send our troops into battle, shouldn't we ask the question of what is the ultimate result? We understand that democracy in its structure that is here in the United States cannot only be the structure that fits every community, every nation, every faith. But what I would say to you is that we bring one of those C-130s, big C-130s that many of us have rode on to go into Iraq. And I spent many hours there, nothing in comparison, of course, to those who served, but I'm grateful I had the opportunity to go and serve and see those individuals who served, and to sit down with those from Texas and to break bread with them. When we land one of those C-130s, why don't we know, and shouldn't we know our purpose, our goal, what is our ultimate direction that we would like to see? Not the dominance of the United States over this nation that we help but to be able to know that they, too, stand for democracy and peace. I want to thank the gentlelady from California for allowing me to share this time with her, and to say, it's important to remind us of the 10th anniversary, one, to say thank you, for when we land these C- 130s and these men and women come out ready for battle, they are wearing our uniform and our flag but, at the same time, we must ask the question, for what? For what results? For what long-range results? For what peace? For we owe that to them. I ask that we consider those in Camp Liberty and we find relief for them. I thank the gentlelady very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise in solidarity with my fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to speak in recognition of the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq war. I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Lee and Waters for anchoring this Special Order. On March 19, 2003 President Bush launched invasion of Iraq ten years ago under a cloud of questions about the motivations for the invasion. Today we see the toll of this war on our young military men and women, their families and communities across our nation. First and foremost, I would like to thank our troops who served in the Iraq war, but more broadly I would like to thank all members of the armed forces for their courage and heroism under circumstances that few of us could imagine. As members of Congress we have, regardless of our view of the wisdom of entering into armed conflict with Iraq, have always stood in strong and unwavering solidarity with our troops. Part of our role as representatives in Congress is to give voice to the plight of our constituents that include men and women in the armed forces--many of them served tour after tour after tour without break; and in the beginning of the war had insufficient equipment to protect them from IEDs which cost the nation countless lives and left many with traumatic life changing injuries. We cannot forget their sacrifice and heroism in the face of what was asked of them. In April of last year the great city of Houston, which I am proud to represent, hosted a Bayou City-style parade honoring the homecoming of the American troops. This gesture of thanks defines the support that Houston has for our troops in any situation. During the course of the Iraq War more than 4,400 brave men and women in uniform made the ultimate sacrifice and over 32,000 were wounded. Of these brave men and women more than 500 of the fallen and 3,000 of the wounded call Texas their home. In 2003 I fought with many of my colleagues in the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ensure that the order to proceed with the Iraq War did not pass the House, but our efforts were not successful. Although we have withdrawn from Iraq it is imperative to understand that the withdrawal is not synonymous with the end of the war on terror. It has been my stance since the beginning of the war that there are different steps that must be taken to combat terror--which include diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. The war also had an economic cost to our nation, which we are still paying and will continue to pay until our colleagues on the other side of the isle resolve to battle the economic threat at home with the vigor of the fight against a less than creditable threat many thought they saw in Iraq 10 years ago. The monetary cost of the war exceeded $800 billion, which directly contributed to the nation's deficit that is now trying to be mended by the Sequester. More worrisome, the long terms costs from the results of the war are expected to exceed $3 trillion. Since our withdrawal, insurgencies have erupted across the country of Iraq. Iraq has been seen to gravitate towards Iran, a nation that has openly been hostile towards U.S. mission, and one that has proven to be a source of destabilization in the area. The remedies to these issues once again come from intelligence and diplomatic channels that do not include invasions like the one the United States so hastily entered into with Iraq. The tactical withdrawal from Iraq can be seen with some high regard as a template for how to end the war in Afghanistan, and exit the region safely and decisively. As a nation we must turn away from this past decade of occupying countries in the name of fighting terror. These endless occupations delay the creation of opportunity within our own nation, which must be one of the priorities as we attempt to overcome the economic hardships facing the nation. In closing, I would once again like to extend my deepest gratitude to our troops fighting across the nation on the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War, and would like to thank my Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues again for hosting this event. In this post-Iraq time we must turn our attention to helping' our men and women who have fought bravely overseas to ensure our freedom and the promotion of democracy. Earlier this week a new Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic was opened in the Houston area, which will shorten the distance between Houston veterans and the care they need. The nearly 30,000 square foot establishment provides primary health care, mental healthcare, women's specialty care, x-rays, optometry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ENT (ear, nose and throat) and audiology. The new center will have a fully operational laboratory by July, as well as a visiting cardiologist and surgical physician's assistant for minor procedures. The new clinic is expected to service 7,000 to 8,000 veterans within its first year of operation and create more than 50 paying jobs. The Houston area clinic is one of many Community-Based clinics that have been established in response to the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans returning from war. It is vital that we keep these veterans, and current soldiers, in mind as we develop policies to ensure their care and wellbeing.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, often we are taught in the Christian Baptist and African American tradition, which is paraphrasing the words of the Bible, give honor unto those upon whom honor is due. For that reason, I can give tribute to the two Members of Congress without reservation for recognizing the importance, both Congresswoman Sewell and Congressman Bachus, for giving honor to those families who languished for over 50 years and wondered did anybody care. We thank Congresswoman Sewell for her great leadership and Congressman Bachus for joining and exuding the kind of partnership, the spirit of his family tradition against all adversity, saying I want to join and to speak of nonviolence. I rise today with great enthusiasm for H.R. 360 and say to the family members, the sisters, the friends of Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Denise McNair, it has been too long. And so we rise today to be able to make amends for justice that had not been served because of the callousness and indifference, sometimes of criminal collusion, and many times the lack of enforcement of devastation against coloreds, Blacks, Negroes, and African Americans. There was an era that we look sadly upon; but now today, in the spirit of Dr. King's message of nonviolence, we are able to say yes, profoundly yes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for her kindness. We are able to now say profoundly to these girls' relatives that we honor the children who lost their future. We honor them by saying to their families, We care for you. And in the words of John F. Kennedy: We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures, and it is as clear as the American Constitution--justice delayed is sometimes justice denied. But as Martin Luther King said in the Birmingham jail: ``Go wherever injustice is.'' Today on the floor of the House, we will remedy injustice. I'm delighted to be a supporter and cosponsor of this great resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the House will begin discussing in the next day the legislation called Helping Sick Americans Now Act, and I would only offer a counter to that that it seems a sick way to try and help those who are in need. This bill will deplete the healthy preventive care funding that impacts the Centers for Disease Control, that impacts the federally qualified health clinics that are all throughout our community, and it only provides funding for the sickest of Americans up until December 2013. Why don't we encourage the Governors, like Governor Perry of Texas, to accept expanded Medicaid to help heal 6 million and provide health care for 6 million uninsured in Texas, the highest number of uninsured in any State. This is a temporary fix that is not necessary. We have the Affordable Care Act that is being implemented; and, as we speak, millions of Americans are being covered. This is the wrong way, misdirected, and I might say it is a sick way of trying to help the sickest of Americans. I oppose the bill.