Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the legacy of Gabriel ``Gabe'' Zimmerman, a young man devoted to community service, and the great democratic principles upon which our government stands. Gabriel Zimmerman was murdered on January 8, 2011, struck down in the prime of life at the young age of 31. He was one of several persons killed or wounded during the mass shooting in Arizona that so seriously injured our colleague, former U.S. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Gabe Zimmerman is the first congressional staffer to be killed in the line of duty. As the Community Outreach Director for Congresswoman Giffords, Gabe organized the ``Congress at Your Corner,'' at a supermarket in Tuscon, Arizona, where the mass shooting took place. Colleagues remember him as someone who would go out of his way to help people in trouble, who attentively listened to the concerns of constituents, and who had a real gift for working with people. I rise today not only to commemorate Gabe Zimmerman but to speak out against the scourge of gun violence our nation faces. We have all been shaken by tragic events in recent days and years involving gun violence. Whether these events occurred in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Tucson, Arizona; or on the streets of Chicago, gun violence is a critical issue that we need to effectively address immediately. Urban, suburban, or rural--no region or community is immune to danger of gun violence. While the nation's attention has often been drawn toward some of the more high-profile events, the broader statistics are disturbing, demonstrating a real need to address how we protect our nation's children from gun violence. Consider these facts: Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America dies or is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm. In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns. To put that in perspective, 58 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty that year. In light of recent tragedies, the American people are demanding action. One thing we can do immediately to reduce the incidence of gun violence is to pass H.R. 65, the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013, legislation I introduced to protect our nation's children from gun violence and accidents. H.R. 65 will prohibit persons under the age of 21 from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons or large capacity magazines. Moreover, H.R. 65 increases penalties on individuals who knowingly transfer a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person under age 21. In addition, H.R. 65 will also prohibit importers, manufacturers, and dealers from transferring firearms without providing the purchaser with a gun storage or safety device. Finally, H.R. 65 authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to provide grants to enable local law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and children. These provisions, and others, can go a long way toward making our homes, schools, and streets safer for children across this country. Mr. Speaker, we may not be able to prevent every gun-related tragedy from occurring in the future, but we have a responsibility to implement reasonable standards that will prevent the loss of innocent lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reflecting on the events of last week, I want to speak about some very important homeland security issues. I want to publicly thank the outstanding law enforcement, FBI, and others who worked on the tragedy of 9/11, as we proceed as Members of Congress to further investigate how not to allow an incident like that to happen again. But the one point I want to make very clearly and that has been said over and over by Members and certainly by leaders of the administration: this does not and should not stop comprehensive immigration reform. We should proceed with regular order because you need to know who's in this country. Also, I offer my deepest sympathy to those in West, Texas, but make the point that we have to have a nexus between chemical plants and those who hold those kinds of hazardous materials. As well, we need a mechanism of reporting to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security a security plan and a process to avoid events such as the horrific tragedy that occurred. I will soon be introducing such legislation, and I certainly believe that it is our role to intervene and to secure the homeland.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, I say that the cloud is saving consumers and businesses from the loss of valuable data. The Jackson Lee amendment adds to the firewall of protecting Americans' privacy and, in the flow and the discourse of business, of protecting the privacy of our businesses that do not have data that is necessary for the government's information. That should be said over and over again. I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for their kind remarks, and I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that provides, again, the firewall of privacy. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for the work in crafting this legislation and the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It improves the bill by providing that: Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to provide authority to a department or agency of the Federal Government to require a cybersecurity provider that has contracted with the Federal Government to provide information services to provide information about cybersecurity incidents that do not pose a threat to the Federal Government's information. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson Lee amendment makes clear that the only instance in which a cloud service provider can share information about a cyber incident with a government agency is when the objective of an attempted intrusion of the service provider's network was to gain unauthorized access to the government's information. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to state that this commonsense amendment is supported by interested groups across the spectrum, from the ACLU on the left to the Constitutional Alliance on the right. In other words, if a cyber incident does not threaten the government's information, then the incident is none of the government's business. And this is especially true where disclosure to the government would compromise individuals' privacy and proprietary information of businesses. Mr. Chairman, today something commonly called ``the Cloud'' plays an unseen but critical part in the lives of millions of Americans and thousands of businesses. Persons and businesses who use iPhones or use Gmail, Yahoo and MSN e-mail services are connected to the Cloud. Cloud services include popular online services like Facebook, YouTube, ``LinkedIn'' (a professional networking service) and ``Flickr'' (a place where millions of personal and family photos are stored). The Cloud is saving consumers and businesses from the loss of valuable data through storage services like the popular Apple iCloud. The Cloud protects digital information from loss should their computer or smart phone be damaged, lost or stolen. The Cloud also allows users seamless access to information from any location in the United States where internet access is available. Mr. Chairman, ``cloud computing'' is such an important innovation that it is changing how people, businesses, and government agencies manage information. The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes the importance of ``cloud computing'' to our economy and is consistent with the objectives of the bill while assuring that privacy and civil liberty rights of citizens are protected. This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Organizations Endorsing Jackson Lee Amendment

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for the work that they have done in getting us here today and in crafting the legislation, and I thank the Rules Committee for making what I think is a very important amendment in order. I thank this process for allowing clarifying amendments because we are here representing the American people. Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It improves the bill by indicating that: Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to provide authority to a department or agency of the Federal Government to require a cybersecurity provider that has contracted with the Federal Government to provide information services to provide information about cybersecurity incidents that do not pose a threat to the Federal Government. We want to be concerned about that. It makes it clear that the only instance in which a cloud service provider can share information about a cyber incident with a government agency is when the objective of an attempted intrusion of the service provider's network was to gain unauthorized access to the government's information. I am pleased to state that this commonsense amendment is supported by a number of groups, including Constitutional Alliance, The Constitution Project, Liberty Coalition, and the ACLU. In other words, if a cyber incident does not threaten the government's information, then the incident is none of the government's need to intrude, and this is especially true when disclosure to the government would compromise an individual's privacy and proprietary information of businesses. Mr. Chairman, today, something commonly called the ``cloud'' plays an unseen but critical part in the lives of millions of Americans and thousands of businesses. Persons and businesses that use iPhones, Gmail, Yahoo!, and MSN email services are connected to the cloud. This, of course, does not in any way hinder our homeland security or national security. Cloud services include popular online services like Facebook and YouTube. The cloud is saving consumers and businesses from the loss of valuable data through storage services, and when you speak to our industries, they are protected. This is the cloud--all private sector. They are not intruded upon, but add the government--if the government comes in and decides just without any clarification that we'll give your information to others without it being necessary, without it being government information, without it being related to government operations, my amendment protects you in the private sector from that kind of intrusion. So I believe that this amendment will protect commerce. These are well-known names. This is who this amendment will protect--all of those who are generating commerce in the midst of cloud computing. Mr. Chairman, cloud computing is such an important innovation that it is changing how people, businesses, and government agencies manage information. The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes the importance of cloud computing to our economy, and it is consistent with the objectives of the bill while ensuring that the privacy and civil liberties rights of citizens are protected. Again, they are doing business with each other. Once we put in the government, the question has to be whether or not the government transmits information that is not necessary. My amendment protects consumers and businesses that are in the midst of providing and helping in their lives to make sure that users have their privacy. The cloud allows users seamless access to information from any location in the United States where the Internet is accessible and available. My amendment protects them and is ready to help clarify this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield to the ranking member of the committee, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am in support of the amendment offered by Intelligence Committee Chairman Rogers, Congressman McCaul and Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson to H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2013. This is very similar to the amendment I offered before the Rules Committee, but was not made in order. I am pleased that the focus of my amendment is addressed by this amendment that was made in order. This amendment just as I outlined in my amendment offered to the Rules Committee would establish a lead role for the Department of Homeland Security--a civilian agency in matters related to cyber security threats. DHS would be the agency to receive all cyber threat information. This amendment designates the Department of Justice (DOJ) as the civilian entity to receive cyber threat information related to cybersecurity crimes. These changes make clear that DHS and the DOJ will serve as points of entry for those seeking to share cybersecurity threat information with the federal government. The amendment also requires the Secretary of DHS, the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of Defense to establish procedures to eliminate any personal information from cyber threat information shared with the federal government. Cyber threat information shared with the government from any source will be scrubbed of any personally identifiable information and deleted--this is also known as ``minimization.'' Every agency receiving cyber threat information must notify these four agencies, and Congress of significant violations of the procedures required by the bill. These agencies must also establish a program to oversee compliance with the minimization procedures. The importance of a civil agency in a central role regarding the establishment and functions of domestic cyber protection programs is critical to building in the transparency, accountability and oversight the American public expects. I am in strong support of this amendment and thank my colleagues for their efforts to address the concerns of many of our constituents as we work to assure the Internet is as safe as it can be and that we maintain the level of oversight that is needed. This is an important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise to speak on H.R. 624, The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. I thank and appreciate the hard work done by Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Ruppersberger for their leadership of the House Committee on Intelligence that crafted the legislation we are considering. They have demonstrated their strength of bipartisanship in their work to make great improvements in the bill that was considered during the last Congress. The bill is intended to improve our nation's ability to investigate and prosecute cybersecurity crimes; secure the protection of individuals from danger of death or serious bodily harm and investigate and prosecute crimes against the most vulnerable in society--our children. The bill's objective regarding minors is to provide physical safety for them from sexual abuse, kidnapping and trafficking. The debate on H.R. 624, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act afforded members of the House of Representatives and the American public a view into some of the more complex issues related to the protection of digital information. The bill's drafters and those who have contributed to the process through the amendments offered worked to improve the work already done by the Intelligence Committee. The goal of the bill is not to lay bare the personal digital records of every individual living in the United States. The text of the legislation explicitly states that the government could not obtain library records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, tax return records, education records or medical records. The Internet challenges us as policymakers because it introduces into our deliberative process a class of technology that can change far faster than other forms of technology. This fact is acknowledged by the bill's sponsors by highlighting the nature of threats that exists on the Internet--rapid and automated. Cyber attacks can be as short as a few minutes or last for only 2 hours. Thieves work together and have learned to use our own personal computers to help them hurt us. The tools that have proven to be the most threatening are called botnets. A botnet uses a computer virus or worm program to infiltrate computers and take control of them. One botnet can be made of millions of private personal computers. A botnet of this size would have the computing power to overwhelm a major institution's network with a brute force attack that searches for the password to one account on a computer network. Once the botnet controller has gotten access to a private or government network they can use that access to seek greater control. The question for us today is should the Congress view the threats posed by the Digital Information Age with the same urgency as when our nation has faced events such as September 11 or catastrophic hurricanes. Many of my colleagues have joined me in expressing great concern about privacy and civil liberties as the Federal presence on the Internet has grown. Federal government agencies are now using Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to communicate with and engage millions of Americans. There appears to be no scarcity in the capacity of the Internet to accommodate new business websites, technological innovations or the millions of new Internet users who purchase digital devices, create blogs or e-mail accounts. The Internet is more than ones and zeros--it is how the world is working, living, and communicating. Its borderless nature and ubiquitous presence means that billions of computing devices can interact and connect using the global telecommunication infrastructure. Computing technology was once tethered by technical limitations to physical spaces--now computing devices are mobile. For example, a few years ago, portable phones that were as powerful as computers were difficult for most consumers to imagine--now they are common place. Unfortunately, with every advance in computing innovation we see that there are those within society who would search for vulnerabilities in these innovations to disrupt their operation. The Internet is a critical path forward for our nation's recovering economy. However, to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities the Internet makes possible, we must understand the threats and risks as well as take full advantage of innovation. One of the central challenges for us as legislators is to preserve the Constitution of the United States for future generations. Each generation of Americans has had the task of defining the role of government in their lives. Today, the Internet is making the role of government in American life in some ways more transparent and accessible through government agency websites. We as members of Congress are using the Internet to bring more transparency to the work we do on behalf of our constituents. The content found on House web pages provides access to information regarding the work we do on behalf of the public. The Internet could also make the government's presence in our lives much more opaque. For example, the same social networking services that families and friends create to share details about their lives is not held solely under their control. What once would have been words shared among family members are now digital data stored with social networking service providers. Computer stored data can live on far longer than may be prudent for the peace and tranquility of family life or economic opportunities as our child transition from youth into responsible adults. If the government gained access to the digital equivalent of your papers and effects--it would leave no signs of having done so. Digital information unlike paper does not fade way nor do the words in digital files degrade when they are copied over and over again. What is more problematic for the purpose of our debate on this bill is what would happen if the government had open access to decades of communications: the books read; videos watched; thoughts expressed; or the joys and sorrows of millions of our nation's citizens. How would this impact the America experience? We know that the founders of this nation were determined to protect the privacy of people from the power of the government. The Fourth Amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The constantly shifting Internet environment creates challenges for policy makers. Today, the ``papers and effects'' of persons have changed in the new Information Age into digital data. This information is not limited to the home, but is mobile as well as remote from the owners of the information. How do we make sure that the Constitution is preserved and that we as its stewards pass it to the next generation in better condition than when we took an oath to protect it--not just the parts of the document that we like, but all of it. Although the challenges are great, the rewards of an environment that supports innovation while protecting privacy, civil liberties, and freedom should be the focus our nation's policies and laws that govern our decisions regarding the Internet. As members of Congress we must keep a watchful eye on preserving, defending and protection the Constitution. It is our duty--our passion and our calling to serve this nation--unwavering in our commitment to act first in the interests of the entire country as we see to the needs of the people we serve.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have faced enormous tragedies this week with the horrific tragedy of Boston, and now today the tragedy of explosions in West, Texas. I rise today to salute Minister Yolanda Adams, who has taken her music to a step where she is ministering and giving comfort to those who need comfort. As reflected in her prayer and through her music, Yolanda Adams has taught us 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 their future or of their lives. Yolanda Adams is a native-born American, native-born Houstonian, and in fact someone who grew up in the public schools of Houston and began her life in music after she began her life as a teacher. She graduated from Sterling High School in 1979 and is the oldest of six siblings. After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, she began a career as a schoolteacher, and then she began her career as a professional singer. But she wanted to do more and combined her singing with ministering. She is an American Grammy Award-winning gospel singer, but she also has a heart for giving, and she provides every year in our community a health forum for women to make them healthier, to make them take care of themselves, to provide them with information. She has a wonderful album, ``Songs from the Heart,'' with the wonderful song ``Fragile Heart.'' In 1999, she was able to move her career beyond this local community. Her songs included ``Yeah'' and ``Open My Heart.'' Many of you have heard her sing ``Believe,'' ``Never Give Up,'' and ``Battle is the Lord's.'' Yolanda Adams comes to us as a person who believes that her ministry can comfort, but she can also comfort in song. She never leaves anyone behind. She had the privilege and honor of giving to President Barack Obama and adding to the song, ``Yes We Can: Voices of a Grass Roots Movement.'' She has sung the national anthem at the BCS national championship football game, as well as making a lot of other contributions to American music. She is a supporter of music education for our children, the mother of a daughter, and, yes, a prominent American. But I think what says the most about Yolanda Adams is that she never stops evangelizing and seeking to help those who are hopeless and in despair. She brings joy to those who seek it and believes that everyone is a child of God. I'm grateful to know Yolanda Adams and to claim her as a constituent of the great city of Houston and the great State of Texas. But most of all, she is an American and a believer and understands the value of America's freedom to be able to worship. She continues to soldier on to save souls, and we're delighted to have been able to have her bless us this morning. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a great American artist. I wish to first thank Ms. Adams for her thoughtful, and inspirational prayer. As the representative of the 18th District of Texas I am proud to say that she is a constituent and represents what is best about the State of Texas. As was reflected in her prayer, Yolanda Adams through her music, has taught us 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. Yolanda Adams is an American Grammy and Dove-award winning Gospel music singer and radio show host. The oldest of six siblings, Yolanda Adams was raised in Houston, Texas. She graduated from Sterling High School in Houston in 1979. After graduating from University of California Berkeley, she began a career as a schoolteacher and part-time model in Houston, Texas. Eventually she gave up teaching to become a professional singer. Her enormous talent attracted the attention of Thomas Whitfield and Sound of Gospel Records which signed her recording contract and released her first album, Just As I Am in 1987. In 1990, she released her second album, Through The Storm, released by Tribune Records. Songs from the Heart, her album released through Verity Records, featured the inspirational ``Only Believe,'' ``Still I Rise,'' a song dedicated to Rosa Parks and inspired by Maya Angelou's poem of the same name. ``Fragile Heart,'' was dedicated to the memory of Yolanda's long time road manager who died in 1998. Her album ``Mountain High . . . Valley Low'' in 1999 extended her popularity and appeal outside the urban contemporary gospel arena. The album went Platinum in 2000 and won her a Grammy Award. Notable singles from the album include ``Yeah,'' ``Fragile Heart,'' and ``Open My Heart.'' In 2001, Yolanda Adams released a live album, The Experience, which won her a second Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Soul Gospel Album. Believe, which included the hit ``Never Give Up'' was released in 2001. She would later go on to perform this song at ``The Salute to Gospel Music'' at the White House during President George W. Bush's administration. Believe was certified Gold in 2002. The Divas Of Gospel, with Albertina Walker, (Queen of Gospel), was also released in 2001. Yolanda Adams recorded the song for the 2003 hit film, Honey titled ``I Believe'' and was also a judge for the 2nd Annual Independent Music Awards. Yolanda Adams' song ``Hold On'' is included in a compilation in support of Barack Obama's campaign entitled `Yes We Can: Voices of a Grass Roots Movement'. Yolanda Adams performed the National Anthem at the 2009 BCS National Championship football game at Dolphin Stadium in Miami, Florida. I want to thank Yolanda Adams for her bountiful contribution to American music, songs which have enriched our lives for a decade and cascade like the blessings from the heaven above. Mr. Speaker, Yolanda Adams has sold 4.5 million albums since 1991 according to Soundscan. Although she is proud of that achievement, she has said that her greatest treasure is being a child of God.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Today, Mr. Speaker, the other body has an opportunity to do what 90 percent of the American people would like us to do--to be prayerful and to come together to respond to the horrific siege of gun violence in America. It is important to note that, on average, 13 young people from ages 10 to 24 are victims of homicide every day, and 82.8 percent of these youth are killed by a gun. Every 30 minutes a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes a child or a teenager loses their life from a firearm. In 2010, 82 children under the ages of 5 lost their lives due to guns. To put that number in perspective, 58 law enforcement lost their lives. And so today, we don't have to violate the Second Amendment. As I said, we can be prayerful. We can pass universal background checks--the same thing we do with registering our cars, getting licenses. This is a time for America to rise to our higher angels and do what our children need them to do. I ask the Senate to challenge its conscience and to vote for universal background checks to stop the violence.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained with meetings in my office. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on the Rogers amendment, ``aye'' on the Connolly amendment, and ``aye'' on the Langevin amendment to the underlying legislation, H.R. 624.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished ranking member and the chairman, as well, for working to answer an enormous concern on the question of national and domestic security. Since Robert Tappan Morris in 1988 released one of the first commuter worms, we realized, as the computer and the Internet now have grown, the proliferation of computer malware, or computer programs designed specifically to damage computers or their networks or to co-opt systems or steal data, has attracted public and media attention and that we needed to do something. Now more than ever, cybersecurity impacts every aspect of our lives. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I can assure you that my concern about the electric grid utilities, the energy and financial industries, recognize that it is important to act, and to act with speed and understanding. Likewise, I am concerned about the rage in epidemic of hackers and the impact that it has on 85 to 87 percent of the infrastructure in this Nation. For that reason, however, I believe that along with this effort, we should have a lead civilian agency to collect the data. I'm looking forward to the manager's amendment, which I hope will clarify that Homeland Security will be that. In addition, I have offered an amendment. My amendment ensures that if a cloud service provider identifies or detects an attempt by someone to access, to gain unauthorized access to nongovernmental information stored on the system, it would not be required or permitted to report that attempt to the government and it cannot share that information with the government. I thank the Rules Committee for allowing that amendment to be in. I do, however, want to raise the question on privacy. I believe that we could fix this legislation with a small addition dealing with the privacy question as we hopefully address the question dealing with the lead civilian agency. I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I look forward to further discussion on this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have been on this floor yesterday and today, earlier this morning, to offer my sympathy to those who lost their lives and suffer in Boston and say that we are united with them. But this Congress now is proceeding on some important business, and I offer to my colleagues that we cannot wait to pass legislation on gun safety and gun violence prevention. Homicide is the second leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. Homicide is the leading cause of death for many minorities in this country. 82.8 percent of young people who are killed are killed with a firearm. Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or a teenager loses their life to a firearm. And in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns. We must respond. I have introduced H.R. 65, which indicates prevention, or a system to prevent children from having access to guns. Children have accidentally shot themselves, shot their parents because guns have been accessible because we as adults have not been responsible. As we work across the Houses, it is important to pass gun violence prevention legislation and do it now. It does not violate the Second Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reflect again on yesterday's tragic and obviously painful events. I think it's important for our colleagues, and certainly for those we represent across America, to recognize that our attention on those issues are equal to the pain and the devastation that they represent. It is important to again offer sympathy to those who lost their loved ones, to those who still are under the care of the medical team in Boston, to the city of Boston, the State of Massachusetts, the mayor and Governor, my colleagues from the State of Massachusetts, and certainly the people there. You have our prayers and, again, our commitment to never cease until the perpetrator or perpetrators are brought to justice. In saying that, I believe it is important that we proceed in a discussion that will also move this country forward, and that is to finally get to a point of passing a budget that eliminates, takes away, never to be seen again, this horrific sequester that the American people do not deserve. Let me congratulate the President on having a humane budget, a budget that considers the needs of Americans. It is outstanding that he has offered a universal pre-K, having seen the tears of grown men when the sequester came through and their child was eliminated from Head Start, grown men, parents crying at the Head Start center. And everywhere I go in my district, people who are in charge of Head Start literally in pain about those that they have to eliminate from those positions because those families don't have the resources for private child care. So I congratulate the President on his astuteness in recognizing the importance of that and recognizing to not stray away from the necessities of job creation and putting in place major transportation jobs and infrastructure jobs: passenger rail, which I am so passionate about; surface transportation; and a most important one, rebuilding your neighborhoods and communities and cities where jobs are in short demand and where the infrastructure and the city is crumbling. I want to congratulate the President for his saving of Medicaid and ensuring that seniors who are in nursing homes will be protected. But, more importantly, that those without health insurance will have the ability under the Affordable Care Act to ensure that they will have that. But I serve as well on the Homeland Security Committee, and I think it is important to say and be honest that the sequester is devastating to America's homeland security. It is good to have a budget that respects those needs, but it is important to tell the truth. We are desperate when it comes to recognizing the needs of our Border Patrol agents and the numbers, even at 21,000, that we may need to increase, that there are Border Patrol agents being removed from the front lines in order to process those individuals who have come across the border. When they do that, they remove the coverage from the front lines on the border dealing with those who are in those detention centers. We have to recognize that transportation security, as much as one might say how many officers they have, in the sequester, we will be standing in long lines, and it is about to come. That is the front lines of securing this Nation, along with the Coast Guard and many, many other facets of the Department of Homeland Security. We are asked a question about the securing of the homeland. We are feeling the pain along with our colleagues of the tragedies that have occurred, the attempted Times Square bombing, the successful bombing in Boston. We cannot take this anymore, and I believe it is time, with the President's budget, the Senate's budget, the House budget, that the Speaker of the House needs to immediately appoint budget conferees to move us forward to conference and to get rid of the sequester, which is not the fault of the American people. Our deficit is going down. We need to determine what revenue we can increase in order to pay our bills and provide for the basic necessities of this Nation. Not only is the tragedy in Boston one of human life, but it is a disaster that requires Federal Emergency Management aid, just as our continued friends in the Southeast and Northeast are still suffering from Hurricane Sandy and the atrocity of this House not providing them with resources for 65 days. So I believe it is time for the American people to know that we do care. In order to care, you need to have budget conferees go through the budget process and begin to pass elements of the President's budget that speaks to the heart and mind of the needs of the American people. I conclude by offering my deepest sympathy and my promise to those who suffer that America and its Congress must stand up to respond to your needs. I'm ready to do so, as my colleagues are, and we should do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on the Science Committee, and thank the proponents of this legislation, my chairman on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. McCaul, and Mr. Lipinski, for their bipartisanship on something that is enormously crucial; and it is certainly crucial for those of us who serve on both Judiciary and Homeland Security and probably a number of others. What I want to applaud most of all is the R&D and expanded training. We will need to have a cadre, an army of civilians, who understand the protection of America's cyber landscape, if you will. And it is a domestic issue, as well as a security issue, because America's energy and utilities and medical care all are tied into the cybersphere. Whether or not it is a youngster who wants to hack, or whether or not it is an aggressive foreign country, it is valuable and important for us to be trained. I'd like to offer the importance of Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving Colleges as well, being part of this very important effort and, as well, to educate the private sector, which has 85 to 80 to 90 percent, in essence, of the private sector dealing with cybersecurity. Let me complete, Mr. Speaker, by saying as we move forward, I think it is important for Homeland Security to be a lead on some of these issues, particularly the bill coming forward. But I applaud this legislation. I congratulate the proponents and sponsors and ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it was my intent as well, as my colleague indicated, to come to the floor and discuss and urge the fast consideration of gun safety legislation and to speak as well to the jurisdictional issue of the Homeland Security Department working on cybersecurity. But I, too, believe it is most important to offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives in Boston on Patriots' Day in this Boston Marathon that all the world comes to; to thank the first responders, including nurses and doctors, volunteers, marathon runners, and those who came from around the world to be in this unifying event. We give to them our deepest concern. I express my deepest sympathy to my colleagues who represent the Boston area, to Governor Deval Patrick, and to those families who lost loved ones and those who are now lingering in hospital beds. I wish them well and stand with my colleagues as we did on 9/11 and many other times, that those who perpetrated this heinous act will be brought to justice. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker, I also hope to look at venues and big events in the pending weeks and months so that we can reassess the safety and security for the American people. That is our charge and our responsibility, and I know that together we will be able to accomplish it. Again, my deepest sympathy for this loss. We cannot express the depths of the feelings of sympathy that we have. May God bless you, and may those who have lost their lives, may they rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Throughout the week, we have been hearing from souls who have asked us to have mercy on them and to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Thousands came to petition the government. There were mothers and fathers and children, and I am listening to their cries, as America has listened and as the Statue of Liberty often said: to bring you those who were in need but wanted to serve this Nation. Today, I introduced Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, H.R. 1525, to have earned access to citizenship, family reunification, border security, supporting our Border Patrol agents, and a number of items that will bring us together. I hope that we can move this legislation forward. Let me quickly say that 50 of us signed a letter this week to stop the filibuster on sensible gun legislation. Thank goodness the other body now will move forward to answer the cries of other Americans who have been the victims of gun violence. It is certainly in keeping with the Second Amendment that we have the opportunity to have universal background checks, to rid ourselves of assault weapons and multiple rounds that have killed many in the various mass killings, and to have the ability to help those who have mental health needs. We can do this as Americans and as Members of Congress. I ask that we move forward and respond to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend. I'm so glad my good friend talked about the question of fairness because I believe in fairness as well; and I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically, with great presence, to vote this legislation down because it is unfair because I believe in the working man and working woman and working families who desperately need a fair body that is in regular order, the NLRB, that allows companies, corporate America, to come to the table of reconciliation on issues like pay equity, of which my good friend Rosa DeLauro is a champion of and I'm joining her, on good issues like the quality of life in the workplace, the idea of income and negotiations on plants being shut down. What my good friends want to do is deny the process to this President that Ronald Reagan used some 240 times, the hundreds of recess appointments in the 1980s, to ensure that regular order occurred in this Nation on behalf of the working men and women of America. This is a direct stab at them. This is a direct affront to them. And I would ask my colleagues to vote against this and for the working men and women of America. This is a bad bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.'' This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, are violated. The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare their paychecks. The NLRA also protects workers when they act together to protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws have been applied to protect employees who discussed their salaries with each other on Facebook. You don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws. Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations Board (``NLRB'') with their workplace grievances. The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices involving unions. On January 25, 2013, in Noel Canning v. NLRB, 678 F.3d. ___, No. 12- 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013), a case challenging the constitutionality of certain appointments made to the NLRB by President Obama pursuant to his authority under Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling invalidating President Obama's appointments on the alleged ground that they violated the Recess Appointments Clause. The D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning rests upon its novel and controversial interpretation of the word ``the'' in Recess Appointments Clause, which states that ``The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court held that the Recess Appointments Clause applies only to ``intersessional'' recesses, that is, only to the recess occurring between the first and second session of a Congress but not to ``intrasessional'' recesses, which are those occurring during either the first or second session. The decision in Noel Canning is squarely at odds with that of every other circuit court that has considered this issue going back as far as 1880. Indeed, until the D.C. Circuit issued its bizarre ruling, this was thought to be a long settled issue, most recently affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit in 2004 in Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220, 1226-27 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 1640 (2005). In Evans, the court upheld the intrasessional recess appointment of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit made by President George W. Bush. The court rejected the same argument that was advanced by the petitioner in Noel Canning, stating: ``interpreting the phrase to prohibit the President from filling a vacancy that comes into being on the last day of a Session but to empower the President to fill a vacancy that arises immediately thereafter (on the first day of a recess) contradicts what we understand to be the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause: to keep important offices filled and the government functioning.'' 387 F.3d at 1226-27. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will review the Noel Canning decision, and I expect the Court to reverse the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. Mr. Speaker, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has estimated that had the decision in Noel Canning been the controlling precedent over the last the 30 years, it would have invalidated more than 325 appointments made by Presidents of both parties, including the following conservative icons: Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Alan Greenspan, and John Bolton. In fact, of the 326 total intrasession recess appointments made over the past three decades, 76.7 percent, or 250, were made by Republican presidents: 72 from President Reagan; 37 from President George H. W. Bush; and 141 from President George W. Bush. In contrast, less than 1 in 4 appointments (79) were made by Democratic presidents: 53 from President Clinton; a mere 26 from President Obama. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1120, the bill before us, is a solution in search of a problem. Until and unless the Supreme Court affirms the Noel Canning decision, the NLRB remains empowered to administer the National Labors Relations Act and protect the rights of workers and management as it has since its inception in 1935. The proponents of H.R. 1120 simply dislike the NLRB and are using this bill as an excuse to try the neuter the agency. Rather than preventing greater uncertainty, this ill-considered and unwise legislation would inject uncertainty in labor-management relations. Mr. Speaker, the American people are not fooled. They understand this bill is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to weaken the ability of organized labor to protect the interest of working families. And I am proud to stand with the President and the following organizations in unyielding opposition to this legislation: 1. AFL-CIO 2. AFSCME 3. SEIU 3 4. International Brotherhood of Teamsters 5. International Association of Machinists 6. Airline Pilots Association International 7. Transportation Trades Department 8. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 9. Building and Construction Trades Department 10. United Steelworkers Mr. Speaker, I stand for fairness. I stand for justice. I stand with working families. I stand for certainty in labor-management relations. And that is why I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 1120, the misnamed ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.'' I urge my colleagues to vote me in voting against this assault on working families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Today, the bodies of this Congress have an opportunity to save lives. In fact, they have an historic moment. They actually have the ability to act for once after a tragedy of the proportions of Newtown, having not acted over the years--after Columbine, the theater in Aurora, the horrific tragedy at Virginia Tech, and many, many others, including that of our colleague in Arizona. So I am hoping that as we stand here today that the right consciences of those who have the opportunity in the other body to pass sensible gun legislation will do so. In order to aid them, to listen to the voices of the people, 50 Members of the United States House of Representatives have asked for those in the other body not to filibuster any gun legislation, but to have an up-or-down vote. The reason we say that is because of the massive numbers of loss of children, some 80 children who die every month by gunshot, the thousands of teenagers who pick up guns to resolve differences, and the million people who were killed by guns since the assassination of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. This is a Nation that is gunned, but not safe. The tragedy that happened in my area just a few days ago with the slashing of students by another student at a community college. Just imagine--14 people were injured--if that person had had an assault weapon with multiple rounds, similar to the heinous acts that occurred in Newtown, when 155 rounds were shot in 5 minutes. So I'm hoping that this letter will move those Senators not to filibuster and to let us have an up-or-down vote. I also rise today to encourage us to do the right thing and to vote ``no'' on the National Labor Relations Board legislation that wants to stop the President from his Presidential authority, and that is to make sure that the government runs by appointing people to the NLRB through recess appointments, among others, just like President George Bush did 140 times, to make recess appointments to be able to move the government forward. In contrast to the D.C. Court of Appeals decision that ruled that our President cannot, three other decisions and other court decisions said you can. We need to vote ``no'' on this legislation. It is destructive, it is only to stall government, and it is only to stop the work of the NLRB, where workers and corporations come together to solve their problems. What we should be doing is working to create jobs. That's what Americans want us to do. They want us to make it in America. They want us to build up manufacturing. They want us to create and pass legislation, as we introduced yesterday with whip Hoyer, 38 pieces of legislation that we all are joining to support to create jobs. One thing they don't want us to do is to pass anything with a chained CPI on Social Security because Social Security is solvent. Those people are not the fault of any deficit or any debt; they are hardworking people. I will not ever vote for a chained CPI. And I am not a whiner. I, frankly, see those people in my district who are supported by Social Security and Medicare, which they earn because they work for it. They did not have it as a handout, because seniors are important and seniors believe in young people. We should protect our seniors; we should invest in education. I salute the President for his early pre-K initiative, that every child should have the opportunity to be in a pre-K program, supporting our teachers. So here we are; this is what we should be doing. We should be promoting job creation to bring down unemployment and to, in fact, get those who are underemployed and those who have completely gone out of the marketplace. They can be hired, they have skills, including our disabled. Then we should continue to invest in education, including higher education, making it easier for parents to get the Parent PLUS Loans to send their children to college and putting the burden on colleges to make sure that these young people finish college and not go in and get debt and, therefore, come out with a large debt and no degree. This is what America is about, investing in young people, protecting our seniors, and realizing that the chained CPI is not the way to go on Social Security. It's to save it because they earned it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and friends who are managing this legislation. We are in the Judiciary Committee passing something called the REINS Act because our friends on the other side of the aisle don't believe that the President is omnipotent. Frankly, as my good friend from Colorado said, the President doesn't control the bus drivers and school aides and nurses aides and doesn't control the secretaries and doesn't control the construction workers who happen to be women. They don't control those individuals. Oh, and let's not forget the office workers who happen to be women. Many of my constituents who get up every morning--I saw one young woman, Mr. Polis, get on a city bus, drop her child off at the school, really do a marathon dash to the school in order for the bus to make a U-turn around--not a school bus, a city bus--to get on that bus to track all the way across to get to her job. I can assure you that she is not getting probably equal pay for equal work because that is the dilemma that we have. So I support ordering the previous question and voting ``no'' so that we can move forward and do the right thing. And that just compounds my reason for coming to oppose this rule on the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act because it is, in essence, a complete opposite. I would call it something else, but I'm going to restrain myself. H.R. 1120 is ridiculous. In actuality, my friends, what it does is put a spear through the relationships that corporate and workers are able to have before the NLRB. The President has just finished appointing Republicans and Democrats--three Democrats and two Republicans--to do the work that brings businesses together for a fair assessment of their issue with working people. Many resolutions of issues dealing with fair pay, dealing with working conditions are done at the NLRB.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. Do you know what this bill does? It puts a knife in the process that has been used by President Bush 140 times--recess appointments--to keep the work of the American people going forward. How backwards is that? I love my friends, but we need to put on the floor sensible gun legislation, we need to be talking about immigration reform. But to talk about blocking the NLRB from work when President Bush used the same process. And the fact that a court ordered something--300 other opinions said the recess appointments are legitimate. I ask my colleagues to vote down the rule, vote down the bill, stand with your working friends in America, stand with our unions, stand with making America great, and stand with peace and reconciliation by a working NLRB. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule, and the underlying bill, H.R. 1120, the ``Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act.'' This bill effectively prevents American employees from seeking remedies when their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, or NLRA, are violated. The NLRA guarantees American workers in the private sector the right to act collectively to improve the conditions of their workplace. This applies for formal meetings with supervisors, as well as to employees who gather in the break room to discuss a new company policy or compare their paychecks. It also protects workers when they act together to protest working conditions, such as leaving the building because the employer refuses to turn on the heat. Recently, these laws protected employees who discussed their salaries with each other on facebook. You don't need to be part of a union to be protected by these laws. Under the NLRA, employees can go to the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, with these grievances. The NLRB is also charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices involving unions. Recently, the D.C. Circuit, one of our federal appellate courts, ruled that the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, cannot carry out its congressionally delegated duties of enforcing the NLRA because it deemed President Obama's appointments to the Board invalid. The entire decision hinged on a controversial interpretation of the word ``the'' in our Constitution. Article II states that ``The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.'' The court decided that this clause of our Constitution refers to some recesses, but not others. Many other federal courts have disagreed with this stretched reading of our Constitution, and in areas of the U.S. covered by these courts, the D.C. Circuit decision does not apply. While we eagerly await the Supreme Court's verdict on the meaning of the word ``the,'' the NLRB is still allowed to continue carrying out its statutory duties under the NLRA, and American workers still retain their rights under the NLRA. That is why I am opposing. This bill merely eliminates the rights of American workers in places outside the D.C. Circuit to seek a remedy when their employer violates our National Labor Relations Act. Without a remedy, rights are meaningless. Depriving employees of this remedy during these difficult economic times is merely a stab in the back to hard working Americans across the country. This Congress should not take actions that undermine American employees and working families. The argument that an active NLRB produces economic uncertainty is unfounded. America has prospered since the creation of the NLRB. Other countries that have much stronger laws protecting worker rights and are much more heavily unionized, such as Australia, Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, are doing better or at least as well as the United States in this economic downturn. H.R. 1120 merely seeks to add more uncertainty and create fewer rights for American workers during these tough economic times. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and the underlying bill. Congress should not remove the ability for employees to seek redress for workplace wrongs. Instead, we need to stand up for our employees and working families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the greatest labor leaders that I have known and to honor the memory and mourn the loss of Ronnie Raspberry of Houston, Texas. I rise to pay tribute to him as a champion of working people, one of the great community leaders in the cities of Houston and Harris in Texas. Unfortunately, he passed. In this month of April, we lost a dear friend. Ronnie Raspberry was born in 1941 in the midst of the times of challenge. And he married his beloved wife, Roycie, and they are proud parents of five children. Being born in the midst of World War II, he understood as a child the value of service, and so he joined the United States Marine Corps and was honorably discharged. He then began to work in an apprenticeship program under the Houston Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry. He then became a member of Local Union No. 716 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, where I first met him. What a generous heart; what a man who loved people. He loved to train people. He was a fighter to ensure that there was dignity in the workplace. In 1974, at age 32, he was elected as business manager. He held that position for 15 years. During his stewardship, he served as its chief contract negotiator, chairman, and secretary of numerous boards and trusts and committees. He continued to represent labor at labor conferences. He was elected and served 5 years as a representative of the Sixth District International Executive Council. Ronnie was awarded the West Gulf Ports Council ``Labor Leader of the Year,'' Mr. Speaker, and appointed to many other positions by Governor White. We knew he was a good leader. So I stand here today to offer my deepest sympathy to his wife and family and to thank him for his service as he rests in peace. We love you. We thank you for being the great leader that you've been to all those who are in need, fighting for the working people. Thank you, Ronnie. God bless you. And, again, may you rest in peace. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Ronnie Raspberry, a great American, a champion of working people, and one of the great community leaders in the City of Houston. Ronnie Raspberry died this past Monday, April 8, 2013, at the age of 71. His loss is mourned not only by his family and friends but the thousands of people he helped and inspired over the course of his full and eventful life. Born on August 14, 1941, Ronnie Raspberry later met and married his beloved wife, Roycie, and they were the proud parents of five children. After serving and receiving an Honorable Discharge from the United States Marine Corps, Ronnie applied for and was accepted into a 4-year Apprenticeship Program under the Houston Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee for the Electrical Industry. After completing his first of apprenticeship training, Ronnie became a member of Local Union #716 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Ronnie served on every committee his local union, IBEW Local #716, would allow. Ronnie completed his apprenticeship, graduating with honor. He then ran for and was elected to a number of Board positions in his Local Union. In 1974, at the age of 32, he was elected as Business Manager of IBEW Local Union #716. He held this position for 15 years. During Ronnie's stewardship of Local Union No. 716, he served as its Chief Contract Negotiator, and as both Chairman and/or Secretary of numerous Boards, Trusts, and Committees, as well as all other responsibilities that go with being Business Manager. He continued to represent labor at Labor Conferences and Conventions, as well as Political Conferences and Conventions. Ronnie was elected and served 5 years as representative to the Sixth District International Executive Council of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representing the IBEW members from Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Arizona. In 1986, Ronnie was awarded the West Gulf Ports Council ``Labor Leader of the Year'' Award. Ronnie also appointed by then Governor Mark White, to serve on the Management Task Force for the Texas State Treasurer, Ann Richards. He later was appointed by Governor Ann Richards as a Commissioner on the Texas State Licensing and Regulation Commission, a position he held for six years. Ronnie served as the Executive Secretary of the Houston Gulf Coast Building and Construction Trades Council until December 2012 when he finished his term. He then joined the high respected law firm of Williams Bailey, now Williams Kherkher, of Houston, Texas, serving as Labor Relations Officer, a position he held until he passed away earlier this week. Mr. Speaker, Ronnie Raspberry lived a full and consequential life and he will be deeply missed by all who knew him as a friend, colleague, advocate, and community leader. Most of all he will be missed by his relatives and his children who knew and loved him as Dad; his loving wife, Roycie. Mr. Speaker, I ask a moment of silence in honor of the memory of Ronnie Raspberry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I too adhere to the Second Amendment, as all of us do. I can assure the gentleman that anything we do with sensible gun legislation that will protect the lives of babies whose lives were lost in Newtown and Aurora and Virginia Tech and Columbine will be fair and just. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will hear from those of us who are sending him a letter: no filibuster, but real gun-sensible legislation. Let me turn to the budget and indicate that it is important that we rid ourselves of the sequester and ask the Speaker to put on the floor H.R. 900. I think it is good that the President has saved dollars out of the Iraq and Afghan war of over $1 billion and provided security for embassies and $222 million for gun legislation enforcement, but we must not have to change CPI. Many people don't realize that in this instance of Social Security seniors are paying more money for health care. They will not be able to compensate. Those who are poor and vulnerable will be worst off after the changed CPI. I join with many, many Members of the United States Congress to say we can make Social Security solvent, Medicare solvent and Medicaid solvent, but we must not have to change CPI. I oppose it and many others.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, most of us came here to this place to serve the American people and to ensure that the most powerful law- making body answers the needs and the cries of those who cannot speak for themselves, and yet, as we languish in those values, they may be more on paper than they are in action. I rise today to ask, maybe even plead, that this House puts on the floor H.R. 900, which is to eliminate the sequester from the Budget Reconciliation Act and to go to regular order because the people of the United States are hurting, and even more so, I would say that they are crying. It's very easy for us to be able to say there is no impact; we see no impact. I hope for those who have been in their districts for the last 2 weeks that they will realize how inaccurate and untrue that is. In fact, it hurts me to see the pain in my constituents' faces and homes because of sequester--a reckless scheme to move Congress to act and it did not work. Some will say whose fault it was, whose idea it was. We really don't care because right now there are people who have lost Head Start seats, whose parents have been told their children cannot come back to school anymore. Grown men crying--grown men crying because their little one cannot go back to a Head Start class, and they have nowhere else for them to go. The WIC program that is so desperately needed for women, infants, and children--cut to the bone. This is a scheme that is long overdue for us to get rid of. Food inspectors. Just recently, a food business was shut down in my district. The thought of it is horrible. Many of their products in our local grocery stores. If we had not had food inspectors from the FDA, which we probably won't have anytime soon because they're being slashed and eliminated, this product would still be on the market. $85 billion in cuts is too nondescript. The Federal emergency management under Homeland Security, $1 billion being cut, which means those who are still suffering from Superstorm Sandy, many of whom are homeless, 40,000 are still in hotel rooms in New York, they won't be able to be helped. Department of Transportation, $1.943 billion, and that means the New Starts, mobility, people waiting in line for light rail, jobs cut immediately. I spoke this weekend to FAA members, air traffic controllers. Don't think it's not being felt, and it will be felt more and more in the summer increase of travel because of $637 million in losses, and almost $500 million of that is jobs. We are in trouble. $512 million cut from Customs and Border Patrol over the international ports of entry. We're talking about comprehensive immigration reform and border security. There's your border security--cutting the very personnel that are ensuring the security of America. That's wrong-headed, and it's time to stop now. But it really pains my heart, if you will, to see the cuts to those innocent families with those children in Head Start, to see the cuts to workers who have done nothing other than to come to work every morning, those Federal workers, and the impact on contractors to the Department of Defense, work that is forward-thinking in dealing with technology, cut to the bone, slashing employees. We will see the surge of the economy going down. This is not the fault of the administration. This is the inaction of us in the United States Congress, and I think it is immediately necessary for Speaker Boehner to put on the floor of the House for a full debate H.R. 900, eliminate the sequester, simple sentence, and go to regular order. Begin the process of the budget. Whether you like this budget or that budget, begin the appropriate process of appropriations, for if you don't think that we're going to have one of the darkest seasons forthcoming, you wait and see what $85 billion in reckless cuts means. It's a trickle-down effect. You cannot recoup. Jobs will not come back, and we were moving up, creating jobs. Everybody wants to point the finger as to whose fault it is, and I believe it is something where we have to come together. I want to finish on the note that medical research funded by the National Institutes is also being cut, and we were number one in medical research. The time is now. Get rid of the sequester and help the American people.