Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The House was able to hold its position. And on title VII, section 737, I want to say thank you. There is a long amendment that includes my amendment and specifically speaks to having a report that will have recommendations for changes to policy, a law that could improve the prevention, early detection, awareness and treatment of breast cancer among the Members of the Armed Forces. I would ask the Defense Department that when you look at treatment and research, you must include the triple negative breast cancer. That is, as well, an attack on your personnel in the United States military. If we care about our soldiers, our men and women in all of the branches who serve us, we'll care about their health, and we will include that research. I thank the conferees for moving forward on something that is so near and dear to the families of those who live, but certainly of those of the families who have died. Mr. Speaker, I am here today in support of language from my Amendment, Number 91 to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which would direct the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). In addition, my amendment was intended to result in information useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design that will enable both TNBC patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and develop multiple targeted therapies for the disease. Unfortunately, my language was not included in the Senate Amendment but I have read language in the Joint Manager's Statement and the Conference Report does provide for a study. The language reads, ``Study on incidence of breast cancer among members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty,'' and is included in Section 737. I stand up for all women today who have been victims and really for those who might so that we can look into prevention, cure, and eradication of breast cancer. Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I offer this amendment in hopes that through a coordinated effort, DOD and NIH can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. Today, breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease. Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups. African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer. More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I too believe in military preparedness, coming from a State like Texas, where the population of men and women who have served or are serving in the United States military is renowned and appreciated. As I look at the tourists who walk through the Halls, I wonder which of those young people will take an oath and join the United States military. And so when I see raises for the troops, it pleases, I think, all of us. I'm concerned about the Afghanistan timeline. I had hoped that it could be expedited. I certainly do commend the Iron Dome because we saw it work with respect to Israel. I question, however, the drones that may have collateral damage. But I do think it's important that this bill does, in fact, make a commitment to protecting the women and children in Afghanistan, responds to the issues dealing with sexual assault against military personnel, and particularly women, and is strong on Iran sanctions. But I rise today as well because I think when we talk about people, and we talk about the men and women of the United States military, we talk about their health. And yesterday, in the Rules Committee I raised this point and I raise it again. I'm going to support this bill because I think it'll make a leap of faith and commitment to finding the cause of triple negative breast cancer. I mentioned yesterday in the Rules Committee that triple negative breast cancer cells are usually of a higher grade and size, onset at a younger age, more aggressive and more likely to metastasize. In fact, the survival rate for breast cancer, but on triple negative, people are diagnosed and they die in months, maybe a year, such as my constituent, Yvonne Williams, a wonderful health professional who left a husband and two children. Or maybe the young lady who stopped me when I was walking in the Race for the Cure and said, my mother, a Hispanic woman, got triple negative breast cancer. We did everything we could, and she died within months. Apart from surgery, the only relief is cytotoxic chemotherapy, its only available treatment. Targeted molecular treatments, while being investigated, are not accepted treatment for this disease. As I speak today, there are women who may be listening, or others who realize that either their loved one or they may be diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, and they understand the impact. Whether they are Caucasian or Asian or Hispanic or African American, this disease has not been able to be treated like breast cancers in the other stages. So I offered an amendment that the House accepted. I think it is an important amendment because what it spoke to is that we need to pinpoint and focus in on what is the cause of this disease. And it called for the triple negative breast cancer patients to be identified earlier in the progression of their disease and to develop targets on molecular and biomolecular issues. But through that amendment, I must say, although I wanted the specific language, the House was able to hold its position.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. In the original Plan B that I assume the Rules Committee was to address last evening through the distinguished chairperson, there was no sequester plan. We were in a posture of cutting education and research. Yes, you are right. In the creative work of your staff, as you said right here on the floor of the House, late into the night you found the reconciliation that had been addressed in the summer, I believe, and all of us, a lot of us, voted against it. All of us voted against it, and we understand that that plan will have no traction in the United States Senate. I thank the gentleman for his work, but what I'm suggesting is there is no sequester plan. There was no sequester plan with the Plan B. And as I was saying, if I can quickly go back, Madam Ranking Member, without this plan, what we leave in place with Plan B, which really troubles me, coming from the Texas Medical Center and meeting with the hospital before I left Houston, it cuts reimbursements for doctors seeing Medicare patients by 27 percent. Fifty million Americans will then have their health care in jeopardy. It cuts nutrition plans, food stamps. There is no plan. My quiet comment, Mr. Speaker, as I close, it is in disappointment. It is not in shrill debate. It is simply in disappointment. Because we have Americans who are looking to us to work with the President, to work with the Speaker, to go forward on the plan that was offered on Monday--at least for us to debate--and to find a way to be able to respond when people like those victims of Hurricane Sandy and Newtown, Connecticut, call on us. That's all I'm asking my colleagues, is that you work with us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry. When we started out with the Plan B, there was no sequester plan. Obviously, there was a mysterious offering last evening.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady. Twenty-seven percent.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady, the ranking member from the Rules Committee, and I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, when I mention the words Hurricane Sandy and the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, many would wonder what do they have in common? The enormous gun tragedy, a loss of 26 lives, and Americans suffering from a devastating storm. Certainly our hearts go out for those babies who were lost. But it really speaks to Americans in need. And I guess that's why I'm so troubled to be on the floor today, because the framework that we have says to America that when you're in need, we will not, as this Congress and as this government, be prepared to help you. I think what is disappointing--and I know for the Speaker it is probably the same case as I'm speaking, because just about 3 days ago we thought there was a deal between the White House and the framework that was offered and the leadership of this House. It's disappointing that, in the course of a couple of days, we've come to a situation where this plan, Plan B, raises only about $300 billion from high- income households, and the Center on Budget Priorities suggests that millionaires will get $108,500 per million, over $1 million in tax cuts. But what will the middle class get? Plan B allows the old pre-Bush--or Bush tax cuts to continue the itemized deductions for the rich, giving them more opportunity to keep their money. In fact, we will lose $400 billion, under this plan, in high-income revenues. Disappointing. But at the same time, there is a thought that we should cut Social Security by changing the way Social Security is calculated, so that if a senior buys cheap food, that means they need cheap Social Security, and we cut their Social Security benefits because we thought there was a deal. I can't agree with that at all, cutting Social Security, and I can't agree with recalculating how a senior gets their check. But I will tell you that this plan raises taxes rather than reduces it, as the President wants to do, as this House of Democrats wants to do, as the Senate bill, where 180-plus Democrats have signed. This raises taxes $1,000 on 25 million working families. And then there is a mysterious bill that, I guess, suggests that we are in the business of making cuts. But you know what that will do? And by the way, there's no sequester plan in this plan that is here. It cuts education, research, and national security; but it also cuts the hardworking Americans who are yet employed, and it cuts off 2 million of them, unemployment insurance. It cuts out doctors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Conference Report on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 but will use this statement to speak of the silver lining in this otherwise flawed legislation. The silver lining of which I speak is Title 7, Section 737, which includes language for a breast cancer study. Last night before the Rules Committee I spoke of an amendment I offered to H.R. 4310 ``National Defense Authorization Act,'' which directed the Department of Defense Office of Health to work in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). In addition, the amended language was designed to result in the generation of information that could then be useful in biomarker selection, drug discovery, and clinical trials design. This will enable medical professionals to identify TNBC patients earlier in the progression of their disease and would help advance the development of multiple targeted therapies for the disease. My amendment which passed the House was designed to highlight the importance of studying and eventually finding effective treatments for triple negative breast cancer. I was pleased to note that, although it was not included in the bill we vote on tonight, my amendment helped generate the language included today in Title 7, Section 737 which highlights the importance of breast cancer among members of the armed services. I wish to emphasis the importance of addressing trople negative breast cancer and that this aspect must be included in the National Defense Reauthorize. Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I believe that through a coordinated effort between the DOD and NIH that they can develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. Today, Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease. Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39% higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups. African American women are also 12% less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer. More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Senator Inouye lies in state this morning. But as a young lieutenant platoon leader on a battlefield in Italy, even after being shot in the stomach by German machine-gun fire, he refused medical treatment and still managed to find the courage to destroy two machine-gun posts. Nearly losing consciousness from blood loss, he heroically charged a third machine-gun nest before having his right arm severed by a German grenade. Somehow, even after those grave injuries, Daniel Inouye still found a way to toss a grenade that destroyed the third bunker. What an American. What a man who loved this country and stood for the values of diversity. He loved the independence of the Congress, and he fought for it in the strength of our democracy and the values of America. His words were this: I represented the people of Hawaii and this Nation honestly and to the best of my ability. I think I did okay. To the Senator and your family, you did more than okay. To the Asian American community in Houston, Texas, and all of Texas, I want you to note this hero spoke volumes for what America is all about, that no matter where we've come from, we can stand equally under the sun. He thought of that and his beloved Hawaii as his final words, not only in representing Hawaii--``aloha''--but to America. Senator, we love you, and good-bye. What a great champion, a great warrior for peace, and one who represented all of us so well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, you will hear many voices being raised in the backdrop of an unspeakable tragedy from which, even as Members think of it, they cry. Just a few minutes ago, there was a press conference in which there was probably not a dry eye in that room as Members gave tribute to those lives lost and to those being buried today, and as they spoke of their own anguish, their lost children, and of the loss of their fellow staff members in a gun incident. So I rise today to say that we must act and can act and can pass legislation even this week. I join with Senator Feinstein's effort and Congressman Perlmutter's and Congresswoman McCarthy's and that of many others with legislation. I join with the legislation of H.R. 277, that talks about protecting our children, which was introduced by myself. I join with the statement by the Progressive Caucus that speaks about this ammunition, these guns, and mental health. I also join with Dick's Sporting Goods store. I will just personally say to those who are listening: maybe you'll want to turn in your guns. Oh, no. I am not going to take your guns, but look at what Dick's Sporting Goods did in the moment they wanted to be part of the solution and a part of America. Let us mourn with action. God bless those who have lost their lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reflection and remembrance of the life of Senator Daniel Inouye. I was deeply saddened to hear of the loss of Senator Daniel Inouye on Monday; his passing marks the end of an era for the people of Hawaii, for the United States Senate and Congress, and for the country. A public servant from start to finish, Daniel Inouye has left a shining, indelible mark on history that will inspire Americans for generations to come. His story is simply incredible. Daniel was a medical volunteer during the Pearl Harbor attacks in 1941. Even though the U.S. Army banned people of Japanese descent from enlisting, and even though Executive Order 9066 authorized the internment of roughly 110,000 Japanese Americans, Daniel Inouye found it within himself to be an American patriot. Soon after the ban on enlistment was lifted, he abandoned his Pre-Med studies at the University of Hawaii and enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1943. He was a war hero in the truest sense of the term, earning a Medal of Honor for his actions on the battlefields of World War II before his state was even admitted to the union. Daniel Inouye was a Lieutenant and Platoon Leader on the battlefield in Tuscany, Italy in April 1945. Even after being shot in the stomach by German machine gun fire, he refused medical treatment and still managed to find the courage to destroy 2 machine gun nests. Nearly losing consciousness from blood loss, he heroically charged a 3rd machine gun nest before having his right arm severed by a German grenade. Somehow, even after these grave injuries, Daniel Inouye still found a way to toss a grenade that destroyed the 3rd bunker. He remained a proud member of the military until his honorable discharge as a Captain in 1947. He was Hawaii's first Representative in the House, a source of great pride to all Members, past and present. As Hawaii's first Congressman and, subsequently, as a nine-term Senator, Daniel Inouye embodied the spirit of `aloha' in his work. Serving as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, he worked to strengthen our national security and help veterans access the benefits they've earned. He was a consistent champion for the interests of Hawaii's people. I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with Senator Inouye, and my thoughts are with his family and with the people of his beloved Hawaii, who will always remember him for his leadership and his courage. As a Senator, he never forgot his military roots, and has always been a voice for veterans. Senator Inouye was a patriarch of Hawaii, and all Hawaiians will long remember his unyielding devotion to the economic vitality, progress, and success of his beloved home state. His fellow Americans will long remember his leadership in protecting our men and women in uniform, strengthening our national security, reaching across the aisle, and investing in a future of prosperity for all. By his actions, he stood firm for the independence of the Congress, the strength of our democracy, and the values of the American people. I want to extend my condolences to his entire family as they mourn the loss of a great man. When asked recently how he wanted to be remembered, Daniel said, quite humbly, ``I represented the people of Hawaii and this nation honestly and to the best of my ability. I think I did OK.'' I think that I speak for us all when I say that this was quite an understatement for a man who accomplished so much and sacrificed so much for this country. And so with heavy hearts, we bid ``aloha'' to Senator Daniel Inouye--a man whose chapter in American history will live on. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let it be very clear, Emanuel Cleaver is not retiring from the United States Congress, but we are here to thank him for his service to the Congressional Black Caucus as chair, but really to the Nation. Let me thank my colleagues for gathering this morning to raise a voice of crescendo in thanks and appreciation for this man called Emanuel Cleaver. His progeny and his ancestors are grateful for the mark that he has made on behalf of America. Chairman Cleaver speaks eloquently about his origins of hailing from Texas and his many relatives who remain there, even those who are in the surrounding areas of the 18th Congressional District. He's a proud graduate of Prairie View A&M University in Texas, in the surrounding area of Houston, Prairie View, Texas. He has a great heritage and connectedness to the Black Power movement, and he is a good combination of peace, gentleness, firmness, leadership, and courage. And I might say that he was a man for these times, just as the Bible dictated that Esther was a woman for her time, was there for a time such as that. Our chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus found his role in a number of challenges that we faced. And if I might paraphrase a Biblical story, hopefully I have it nearly right, but I call this chairman a modern day Joseph who is able to wear the multicolored coat, representing constituencies from all backgrounds and going to represent his people in a foreign land. Chairman Cleaver would go to places where others had not gone or raise his voice for issues that were unpopular, and he did so with the consensus and collaboration of the astute and committed members of the Congressional Black Caucus. I went to his district, as many of us did. We're proud to see the affection, friendship, and love given to him by his constituents. I was so interested in what we call the green corridor; so many are looking to instill and implement that in their own districts. Thank you, Reverend Cleaver, for coming to Houston, Texas, on more than one occasion, but particularly to the NAACP banquet when I was named a recipient of the Mickey Leland Humanitarian Achievement Award, but more importantly, for your words of diminished return that if, in fact, we go to the lowest common denominator, if we don't raise ourselves to the highest level of challenge, then it becomes a diminished return, if I might paraphrase Chairman Cleaver's words. It was a rousing and challenging speech that lifted people off their feet, and it caused us to think about what we need to do. Finally, as others have spoken of his work on creating jobs for all of America, particularly those underserved, where the African American job unemployment rate was so high, he was a champion during the debate and the challenge of passing the Affordable Care Act, now proudly ObamaCare. When we came together that Sunday, March 19, before we had to go and vote, it was Chairman Cleaver that led us to a prayer service where we worshipped and were renewed. We came back ready to cast our votes, to put this great legislation that is going to save lives over the top. We did it as a body, as a collective body, and as a group of members of the Congressional Black Caucus. And so even preceding his time in leadership, he led. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me offer my thank-you to this native son of Texas, a graduate of Prairie View A&M, one of the great institutions in the State of Texas. Let me congratulate his wife and his wonderful children and his extended family and all those who have seen in him the willingness to sacrifice for others. Thank you, Chairman Cleaver. The great news is you're not retiring from this body and your leadership for America will continue.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012,'' a bill that simply clarifies a provision of the Economic Espionage Act for the purpose of protecting American business and jobs. More specifically, S. 3642 would broaden language in the Economic Espionage Act so that it protects businesses from trade secret theft to the extent that it was originally intended to rather than the narrow scope applied by a recent Second Circuit court opinion. In United States v. Aleynikov (April 2012 decision), the Second Circuit overturned the conviction of a defendant who was found guilty of stealing computer code from his employer. The reason for this reversal was that the court determined that the theft of the trade secret did not meet the interstate commerce threshold delineated in the Economic Espionage Act. Even though the Defendant copied stolen code from his New York office to a computer server in Germany, downloaded the code in New Jersey, and then took the code with him to his new job in Illinois, the Second Circuit found that the stolen trade secret was not part of a product that was produced for or placed in interstate commerce and, therefore, was not the subject of this criminal provision of the Economic Espionage Act. Effective protection of intellectual property rights, including trade secrets, is essential for fostering innovation. Innovation typically requires substantial investment in education, research and development, and labor to bring a new idea to the marketplace. The fact that the stolen computer code, which was proprietary, was not produced to be placed in interstate commerce should not preclude a guilty verdict from being rendered. Businesses often spent time and money to develop their own proprietary software to be used internally; if others can steal their idea, it undermines the creator's ability to recoup the cost of his or her innovative investment, and the incentive to innovate is reduced. These innovations add value to the overall business, even if they are not commercial end-products themselves. The language contained in this bill will fix the problem so that trade secret thieves cannot take advantage of the loophole in the Economic Espionage Act. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support S. 3642, the ``Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act of 2012.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join my colleagues in honoring and remembering all of the victims of the tragic shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, CT. My condolences and prayers go to the families and loved ones of the women and children who lost their lives in this senseless tragedy. I also recognize and applaud the heroic efforts made by the teachers, administrators, and law enforcement officials who acted quickly to secure and protect the lives of the children who survived this deadly encounter. As the founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I have listened to the tragic testimony of individuals who have survived or lost loved ones as a result of gun violence. The parents and grandparents who dropped off their children and grandchildren in the early morning hours of December 14, 2012, could never have imagined that by 10 a.m. on that morning they would to have face this tragedy. This moment will be etched in our memories and will forever remind us of other moments like those of Aurora and Columbine. Moments when lives are needlessly lost due to gun violence. As we unite in grief, it is time for us to unite in finding a solution. Newtown, CT by all accounts is a small close-knit town. Everyone in Newtown was in some way connected to the students, parents, teachers, and administrators from Sandy Hook Elementary School. And if asked, they would all agree that things like this sad occurrence just do not happen in Newtown. We must join together in recognizing that things like this can happen in any community and we must immediately begin to address the underlying problems that would lead a young man to take up arms against defenseless women and children. If we act now and work together, we can work towards preventing these types of tragedies. At around the same time that the children in Newtown, CT faced a deranged gun man, thousands of miles away in China, another man also attacked a group of school children. Again, a tragedy that no one in the community could have anticipated; however, because the man in China was armed only with a knife, he wounded instead of killed 20 children. The lives of 20 children in China were spared because their attacker did not have in his possession a gun. I believe the solution to these acts of violence can be found by taking a multifaceted approach. There are those who will say that ``guns don't kill people, people kill people.'' The statistics for the harm that people are capable of doing with guns to themselves and others is alarming. People are indeed killing people, with guns. We need to reform how we view guns in this country and also how we address mental health challenges in our communities. We must act now. This is the right moment to demonstrate that the safety of our children is one of our most sacred priorities. It is imperative that this Congress brings to the House for immediate consideration the following gun safety laws. First, there must be an immediate ban on all assault weapons. Second, we must close gun show loopholes which allow for the sale of weapons without a background check. Third, we must reform our current mental health system to provide support for families to enable them to get immediate assistance for mental health issues. In addition, there should be pathways for families who are facing these challenges to gain emergency access to publicly funded or private counseling services. Fourth, we must look at the design of primary and secondary schools in which these schools may need to have reinforced bullet proof window and reinforced secure entrances. Lastly, we must expand current state laws to hold adults accountable and responsible for the security their weapons. We can help to prevent tragedies like this one from happening again. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun violence, claims the lives of over 30,000 people For every person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, approximately 100,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour. There were 73,505 Americans treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers--less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns here in the U.S. over the course of 7 weeks rather than 7 years. Homicide U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides. Over a million people have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968, when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. On average, 33 gun homicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010. Regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership. Where guns are prevalent, there are significantly more homicides, particularly gun homicides. Suicide Firearms were used in 19,392 suicides in the U.S. in 2010, constituting almost 62% of all gun deaths. Over 50% of all suicides are committed with a firearm. On average, 49 gun suicides were committed each day for the years 2005-2010. White males, about 40% of the U.S. population, accounted for over 80% of firearm suicides in 2010. A study of California handgun purchasers found that in the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among the purchasers. Firearms were used in nearly 44% of suicide deaths among persons under age 25 in 2010. More than 75% of guns used in suicide attempts and unintentional injuries of 0-19 year-olds were stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend. The risk of suicide increases in homes where guns are kept loaded and/or unlocked. Unintentional Deaths and Injuries In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people. From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005- 2010 were under 25 years of age. People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels. A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six. The U.S. General Accounting Office has estimated that 31% of unintentional deaths caused by firearms might be prevented by the addition of two devices: a child-proof safety lock (8%) and a loading indicator (23%). For years, I have introduced and reintroduced gun safety legislation and supported the efforts of my colleagues who have also worked diligently to protect the lives of our nation's children through adequate gun safety. I re-introduced H.R. 277 the Child Gun Safety And Gun Access Prevention Act of 2011. This legislation would prevent anyone under the age of 21 from being eligible to own a handgun and would prohibit youth from possessing semiautomatic assault weapons. Under this legislation parents and supervising adults will be held accountable if a juvenile is able to gain possession of dangerous firearms that are located in their household. The statistics are clear, firearms in a household must be properly and adequately stored. A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self- defense shooting. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17. Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of 3. A 2009 study found that people in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault. My legislation also requires a parent to accompany a minor when attending a gun show. Our focus should also be on the owners of guns. Parents need to keep guns and ammunition out of the reach of teenagers. Parents should be responsible for securing from their minor children access to dangerous firearms. Further, my bill is a preventative measure, my legislation encourages school districts to proved or participate in firearm safety programs. It also addresses the underlying concerns related to violence and suicide. It amends the Public Health Service Act to direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support programs to promote mental health services among all children and their families and to provide early intervention services to ameliorate identified mental health problems in children and adolescents. This is a multifaceted approach to address this multifaceted issue. As in years past, I once again will join Senator Dianne Feinstein in advocating for additional gun safety laws. I support Senator Feinstein's bill which she intends to introduce once again in the 113th Congress to ban the sale of automatic assault weapons and ban the sale of big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's leaderships and will continue to join her in advocating to pass this legislation in the 113th Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to do all that we can do to reverse this level of gun violence. We must pass common sense gun safety. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1379, the ``The D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2011,'' the purpose of which is to grant the District of Columbia (D.C.) Courts and Public Defender Service (PDS) greater administrative flexibility in several areas. First, the bill authorizes the D.C. Superior Court and Court of Appeals to hold judicial conferences either annually or biennially, eliminating the current mandate that they always hold such conferences every year. Under S. 1379, magistrate judges are required to attend these judicial conferences. Moreover, this bill authorizes the D.C. Courts to toll or delay judicial deadlines in certain emergency situations such as natural disasters, and allows the D.C. Courts to be reimbursed by the D.C. Government for certain office expenses. Finally S. 1379 gives the D.C. Public Defender Service authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys and changes the term for Family Court judges from five years to three years. Current law requires the D.C. Courts to hold a judicial conference annually ``for the purpose of advising as to the means of improving the administration of justice within the District of Columbia.'' Federal Courts, however, must hold a conference only every two years. The D.C. Courts have estimated that, in addition to the time spent by judicial personnel planning and attending the conference, they will spend approximately $50,000 on the 2012 judicial conference. We know that local governments, like D.C., are under tremendous budget constraints, and given Congress' Constitutionally-mandated duty to oversee the District, we should be solicitous to District concerns when it comes to what we require of its government, particularly where costs are concerned. The requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences was enacted before 1975, long before the internet was created in addition to numerous other advances in communication. D.C. Courts have determined that the funds, resources, and time required to prepare for and conduct such conferences would be more effectively used if the judicial conference were conducted biennially rather than annually. With the significant improvement in the dissemination and exchange of information the D.C. Courts' judicial conference is no longer the primary means of obtaining advice pertaining to the administration of justice within D.C. Specifically, the Courts have determined that electronic and other forms of communication, including the Courts' websites, enable them to regularly communicate with the various participants in the court system. We should remove the burdensome requirement that D.C. Courts hold annual judicial conferences and, instead, require biannual conferences. Furthermore, despite their important role in the judicial system of the District, magistrate judges currently are not required to attend the D.C. Courts' judicial conference. D.C. Court magistrate judges hear a variety of cases, including misdemeanor and traffic cases, criminal arraignments, small claims, child support orders, and protection orders. The D.C. Courts have requested that magistrate judges be required to attend judicial conferences. Because of their importance to the judicial system, I believe that this request should be granted. The D.C. Courts have also expressed concern with their inability to toll or delay judicial deadlines in the event of an emergency or terrorist attack. For example, in recent years, snowstorms as well as Tropical Storm Sandy have resulted in devastation of the D.C. Metropolitan area, resulting in federal government closings. To address this concern, S. 1379 authorizes the Chief Judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Superior Court to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of natural disasters or emergency situations. Emergency authority under this bill should be used sparingly, and only in extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, S. 1379 requires that if the emergency authority is used for 14 days or more, the Joint Judicial Committee must approve each extension and the courts must give Congress a written justification no later than 180 days after the expiration of the last extension granted. Currently, there is no statutory authority to allow D.C. Courts, absent explicit authority from Congress, to enter into reimbursable agreements with anyone, including the D.C. government. This is because the D.C. Home Rule Act prevents the obligation of funds without approval by an Act of Congress. To address this concern, S. 1379 modifies the D.C. Code to allow the D.C. Courts to enter into reimbursable agreements for certain office expenses. Finally, unlike Federal public defender service organizations, D.C. Public Defender Service does not have explicit authority to purchase liability insurance for its attorneys; consequentially, its attorneys are unable to protect themselves from potential lawsuits arising during the course of their official duties. Individuals who provide professional advice and services, such as attorneys, typically carry liability insurance in order to offset the risks arising as a result of the advice or services they render. To address this, S. 1379 provides the D.C. Public Defender Service explicit statutory authority to purchase professional liability insurance, allowing its staff to be protected from the financial risk of potential lawsuits by clients and others. The accommodations sought by the D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act are reasonable and will ameliorate several deficiencies under current law. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1379.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank all of my colleagues. I particularly thank Congresswoman Davis for her persistent leadership, and I join her as a cochair of the Afghan Caucus. I thank the chairman for his support as well. So many of us have traveled to Afghanistan and have traveled as women to Afghanistan and have begun to look at this country from the eyes of wanting its survival. Malala is a young girl who is not from Afghanistan, but she symbolizes the essence of this motion to instruct. Malala is from Pakistan, but many of you will remember that she took more than one bullet as a young girl who fought and stood up for girls being able to be educated. In my travels to Afghanistan and to the many provinces, you would hear stories from women, as have been evidenced, about the inability to serve, the inability to express themselves. In meeting with a group of women Afghan parliamentarians, interestingly enough, they would indicate how they wanted to serve their constituencies but how difficult it was and dangerous it was to travel as women to their particular provinces to serve their constituents. That is not the basis of the principles for which our soldiers have fought and died. America has wonderful principles, and I am delighted that this motion to instruct focuses on providing the safety net for girls and women in leadership and in education. It is indicated, of course, that this transition will occur but with the requirement of a road map to ensure the safety and security of girls and women. Over the period of time of our being in Afghanistan--the longest war that this Nation has ever seen--we have seen the ups and the downs but, more particularly, the tragedy of having schools burned that were particularly directed towards serving girls. Girls turn into young women and into women who want to serve. As we all know, the hand that rocks the cradle does establish the basis of civilization. For the democracy of this great nation, I include my support for the motion to instruct, for our Nation not to leave, as it leaves a pathway of democracy, leaves a pathway of democracy for the women and girls of Afghanistan. We must provide the protection that they need to help lead this nation and to ensure its democracy, freedom, and justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Speaking in the instance of deliberations, redundancy is sometimes good. So I join my colleagues in again placing the defining word ``nonstarter'' on any idea to raise the eligibility age for Medicare for hardworking seniors, but hardworking Americans. Let me clarify that Medicare is earned; it is not a handout. The word that we use as ``entitlement'' sometimes now has become on the order of what ObamaCare used to be. An entitlement is entitled because of earning it, and that goes to Social Security--which is solvent until 2037--and even Medicaid for seniors who are in nursing homes who have worked. So if we move that aside to look long term at how we begin to look at entitlements, we're open-minded. But the bottom line is let's pass the middle class tax cuts that are for 100 percent of Americans. Let's join Senator Tom Coburn: I'm for raising revenue because we have to; or Senator Corker: There's a growing body of folks who are willing to look at the rate on the top 2 percent; or Kay Granger: Extending middle class tax cuts is just the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, let's get busy in a bipartisan way.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the ranking member of the committee. It's always good to be able to thank him, Madam Speaker, for his leadership and service. I think we are safer because Members of Congress like Congressman Thompson, the ranking member, and our chairman, Congressman King, have, on a number of occasions, come together around the idea of America's security. I want to express my appreciation for having been able to serve on the committee for a number of years. It gives me also a moment to say to the Speaker, or to acknowledge Congresswoman Emerson, for her service as well and to thank you so very much for being a person who loves America. I think that should be our litmus test when we rise on this floor for those of us who love this country. As the ranking member, and having served as the chairwoman of this committee in previous terms, I know how important it is to provide safety in the transportation modes for the United States of America. This bill, the No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012--and I thank the sponsor both in the House and the Senate--provides a measure of recognition and acceptance of foreign countries that are making efforts to have consistent security procedures and technology to have an easier travel process for passengers who are deplaning in the United States but going on to another domestic destination. So I want to acknowledge the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, who had this legislation passed in the Senate, and our House sponsor as well. What the basis of this legislation is, by relieving the need to rescreen every piece of baggage arriving in the United States from countries where we have strong bonds and screening agreements in place, efficiencies will be realized and our screeners can focus more attention on those items we know least about. And the term ``screeners,'' let me correct that and say the Transportation Security Administration personnel. That is probably the most maligned group of American public servants, those who work in the cause of the United States and the safety and security of the United States. But at their best, when they are trained, as I have worked so hard to insist on, to increase their professional development training--and we have made great strides with Administrator Pistole and previous administrators, so much so that as I travel through airports I can see the sense of pride and respect that this group of Americans have for their job. So when we speak of screening, we're talking about serious work that has to be done to ensure the safety and security of America. We want to be able to work with our allies. This is not an immigration reform initiative, but it is similar to the visa waiver programs, where we have a list of countries that we feel confident that their procedures are not only equal to ours, but their policies, their alliance with us goes decades, and we believe that their citizens can come into the United States. This particular legislation tries to get the personnel of the TSA to focus on race-based screening that many of my fellow members on the committee have been calling for, and of course that the administrator has listened to. This legislation represents the kind of commonsense security measure this Congress must focus on to make both the Department of Homeland Security and its components work more. It is, of course, my hope that we can look forward to more work being done with transportation security, that we can look to providing, as I introduced legislation dealing with air marshals, both their funding and increased utilization on some of our flights coming into the United States; that we will have the opportunity to do a transportation authorization bill again like the one I joined with Chairman Thompson on and we reauthorized in the 111th Congress that drew bipartisan support. And of course Mr. King has worked with us on this legislation. So this particular No Fly for me has merit to it. But as I rise to support the thought behind the legislation passed by the Senate, I also remind our colleagues that air travel is still dangerous. Whether it is the shoe bomber, whether it is the Christmas day bomber, whether it is thwarted incidences that we will never hear about, whether it is the constant reporting of intelligence and classified information that suggests how vulnerable our airlines and airports are, whether it is an accidental or incidental intrusion on the tarmac or the perimeters of the airport, whether it is the accidental entry of a public person, either visitor or traveling public, that goes into an unauthorized area that causes airports to be shut down--incidences that occurred in Newark and other places--we have to realize that we have to be particularly sensitive to this question of securing the traveling public, and particularly Americans. That is why, in the wisdom of the Congress and others, we created the Transportation Security Administration that had a mandated and Federalized workforce of security screeners to inspect airline passengers and their baggage. It gave them broad authority to assess the vulnerabilities in aviation security and take steps to mitigate these risks. I'm glad that they exist. So I have an acute understanding of TSA's role in aviation security, and I also appreciate congressional oversight. But I further appreciate that, even with that broad discretion, we have to be keenly aware that in the best of all circumstances some loophole, some misstep can occur. I represent one of the largest systems, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, the William Hobby system. As I would want for that airport system, I would want a system of security for everyone. So this idea of allowing unfettered transfer of your bags coming from a nation that has been an ally, but that has put into place procedures that we can document that are in fact adequate, accurate, and superior, I'm going to raise it to that level, because adequacy is not a basis for fighting the dangers of terrorism. I only raise a flag of caution--and maybe a red flag--that it is important that the Department of Homeland Security study this carefully. Make sure that they look at the technology and look at the process that in essence will be put in place. Because, again, all good things are meant for good, but we know what can happen if in some way we are in error. I don't want this to be a basis for error, I want this to be a basis for good. I want this to be the intention of the bill, which is to ameliorate some of those delays associated with the rescreening of bags transported on commercial flights from international locations. I want those traveling to the United States to be welcomed with a smile who are here to do good, and I want them not to miss their connecting flight--and it might be one of us. But our main focus is to secure the homeland. So to my colleagues, to the chairman and ranking member, I join you in supporting this legislation, but I ask that the Department of Homeland Security, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, who is to give this discretion to waiving rescreening pursuant to a preclearance agreement between the United States and a foreign nation, that seeks to ensure this process works, be very keen and careful of reviewing the process, having the resources to ensure that the technology is superior and that we are constantly reviewing how this is working. I'm sure that we will see many smiles of our traveling public. They will welcome that convenience. In the course of the convenience, I also argue for security. I know that that will be the case. I will ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and as well, we continue to secure the homeland.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3542, the ``No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012.'' This legislation, proposed by the Obama Administration and introduced by the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, was passed by the Senate with unanimous support and should receive the support of the House today. By relieving the need to re-screen every piece of baggage arriving in the United States from countries where we have strong bonds and screening agreements in place, efficiencies will be realized and our screeners can focus more attention on those items we know least about. That is the kind of risk based screening that I and my fellow members of the Committee on Homeland Security have been calling for. Thankfully, under Administrator Pistole's leadership, are calls are being heeded. This legislation represents the kind of common sense security measure this Congress must focus on to make both the Department of Homeland Security and its components work more efficiently and effectively. It is my hope that in the next Congress we will see more proposals on the House floor regarding the Transportation Security Administration that can garner bipartisan support. During the 111th Congress, during my tenure as Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Transportation Security, the House considered and passed the TSA Authorization bill that I authored with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, no such legislation was produced for consideration by the House this Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee in the next Congress to ensure we get back to the work of authorizing the critical programs of the TSA. Our airports are a critical point of entry to our nation, and our airplanes remain vulnerable to terrorist plots as a result of their inherent potential to cause massive destruction and human casualties. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which exposed significant vulnerabilities in our airport security, the 107th Congress moved quickly to pass the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The Transportation Security Act created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and mandated a federalized workforce of security screeners to inspect airline passengers and their baggage. The act gave TSA broad authority to assess vulnerabilities in aviation security and take steps to mitigate these risks. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation on the Committee on Homeland Security, I have an acute understanding of TSA's role in aviation security, which has been the subject of considerable congressional oversight. Moreover, this issue is one that impacts my constituents immensely, as my district is home to the Houston Airport System, which is one of North America's largest public airport systems and includes George Bush Intercontinental Airport, William P. Hobby Airport, and Ellington Airport. In 2010, the Houston Airport System served more than 49.5 million passengers, including more than 8.5 million international travelers. The American people expect Members of Congress to ensure that when they board a plane for business or pleasure, all passengers and their accompanying baggage have been thoroughly screened so as to prevent terrorists and their tools of destruction from posing a danger to passengers. This issue is something that we understand as Members of Congress; many of us, including myself, fly on commercial airlines when we travel to and from our respective districts. Like the rest of the public, we expect that when we board a flight, it is secure and that we will safely arrive at our destinations within a reasonable amount of time. While we should balance the need for thorough screening with the ideals of speed and convenience, we must continue to ensure that we are doing whatever is necessary to protect passengers on commercial flights from the dangers of terrorism. We know that many Americans and others traveling to our country are often frustrated by the time it may take to have themselves and their baggage processed through airports. This bill intends to ameliorate some of these delays associated with the rescreening of baggage transported on commercial flights originating from international locations. This would be achieved by giving the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion to waive rescreening pursuant to a preclearance agreement between the United States and a foreign nation that seeks to ensure that adequate screening procedures were undertaken at the point of origin. The idea is that baggage that has already been adequately screened by one airport does not need to be screened again once it arrives at one of our airports. As Members of Congress, we should continue to look for areas in our airport security procedures that we can modify in order to make travel more convenient for passengers that do not compromise their safety.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know that America watches as we deliberate--and I'd like to use that terminology--on facing the fiscal concerns of this Nation. Let me quickly remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that America is on the upswing, with increased manufacturing, more consumer confidence. We're moving forward. The economy is moving up. And so I believe it should be pronounced here today that the reform of the entitlements, based upon slipshod, reckless deliberations, or should I say actions, are a nonstarter. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we should raise the eligibility age for Medicare, that we should not think carefully about how we approach the reform of Medicaid, and that we don't tell the American people that Social Security is solvent. So I would say, move quickly to pass the middle class tax cuts that would be for all Americans, 100 percent, up to $250,000, and let's think about, moving into 2013, how we make this economy better by looking carefully at how we reform entitlements that are not handouts, but they are earned. I wanted to move to something else, offer my deepest sympathy for those who lost their lives in the Oregon massacre, again, at the hands of a gun and a perpetrator that is now dead, and to say that I thank Bob Costa for having the courage to get on national TV and speak to those who are rabid sports fans and say it's time for some form of gun regulation. The tragedy that occurred with the NFL player and his girlfriend speaks volumes to the idea of individuals who don't need to have guns in their hands. This phenomenon that guns don't kill, people do, is a trite and redundant and ridiculous statement. We understand that guns have to have someone at their trigger; but the idea that with no regulations about those who've had previous offenses, no regulations dealing with those who've had mental health issues, no regulations for the gun show loophole, that you can go in and buy guns on top of guns, it is time to reflect. I think the sports community could work with us to ensure that America realizes that there's nothing wrong with standing up for gun regulation. As well, let me offer my sympathy to the Brent and Brown families of the tragedy of the NFL players in Dallas. Let me ask the commissioner to work with those of us who are concerned about athletes in pro ball, that we can find a way to intervene. There should be intervention on a lot of these incidences of violence. Let me close and speak well about the issue of millions of workers in the United States Postal Service, yes, government workers, public servants, who, over the decades, have made Americans' lives easier. Just yesterday we were speaking about another day of--or Monday I think it was, on online shopping. I have small businesses who always say the post office is the most efficient and the, if you will, cheapest source of getting their business products where they need to be. It is a shame that we have not addressed the question of hardworking postal workers, rural post offices that are prolific in the State of Texas, rural postmasters who've come and said it'll be the death knell of their community. Let us stand the post office up. Let us view it as a vital system. Oh, we are online, but there are individuals who depend upon this massive postal system. It can be made efficient. It can be made better. We can protect the workers. Do we want to give a Christmas gift to hardworking postal workers, who as they are known to go through rain or snow or sleet, that is, give them a pink slip for no fault of their own? This is not the American way. We create jobs; we don't destroy jobs. And it's time now for us to stand up and be heard before the deadline, that our postal workers who are always there, who are the ones that find the elderly and the sick in their home because they know their route and they find those persons if they're in need, they are the good-news people that come by the seniors and come by the disabled and come by the poor families. I want to say that we can work together, bring our postal workers here to make a difference and to reform the postal system to keep it alive. It is a vital source of work, but it is a vital service to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1998, the ``DART Act,'' the purpose of which is to obtain an unqualified audit opinion, and improve financial accountability and management at the Department of Homeland Security. The DART Act will permit Congress to effectively perform its oversight duties with respect to the Department of Homeland Security. As a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on Transportation, tasked with oversight of the Department, I am a strong supporter of the work that the Department does on behalf of the American people. It is important that the public understand the vital work that the Department has done and continues to do to assess and counter threats and to maintain the security of our homeland. S. 1998 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to comply with the Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act, to ensure that the balance sheet of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and associated statement of custodial activity for FY2012 and FY2013, and the full set of consolidated financial statements of DHS for FY2014 through FY2016, are ready in a timely manner and in preparation for an audit as part of preparing required performance and accountability reports. Furthermore, S. 1998 directs the Chief Financial Officer of DHS to: (1) Submit a report on the plans to obtain an unqualified opinion annually until an unqualified opinion is submitted, and (2) Submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report on DHS's plans and resources needed to modernize DHS's financial systems. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in 2003, with the vital mission of ensuring that, in the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the American homeland is safe, secure, and protected against terrorists who would do us harm. Our domestic security is our nation's top priority; a mission that includes terrorism prevention and security enhancements, border management and security, immigration administration and enforcement, cyberspace security, and disaster response. With a $40 billion annual budget and more than 200,000 employees, DHS is the nation's 3rd largest federal department. Consequently, this Congress must pay close attention and give careful consideration to the activities of the Department of Homeland Security as we assist it in becoming a more sound, lower-risk, more efficient, and more effective department. Given the relatively new nature of the Department, along with the fact that it originated as an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, it is no surprise that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has consistently designated--as recently as December 2011--the implementation and transformation of the Department as high-risk with respect to waste, fraud, abuse mismanagement, or needing reform. Unfortunately, since its inception, the Department has been unable to obtain what is known as a ``clean'' or ``unqualified'' audit of its financial statements (i.e. a finding by an objective reviewer that the Department's finances are in conformity with generally accepted accounting standards). The DART Act seeks to address this issue by directing the Department to take the steps necessary to obtain a clean audit by the end of fiscal year 2013. In order for Congress to be able to effectively monitor and oversee DHS's efforts in this area, S. 1998 also requires DHS to provide Congress with specific details on its plans to achieve a clean audit, through eliminating material weaknesses in its internal financial controls and by modernizing its financial management systems. While DHS has previously stated that it can obtain an unqualified opinion on all of its financial statements by the end of fiscal year 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has noted that ``there is no clear plan for how auditability will be achieved'' by the end of 2013. As we evaluate the progress of the Department, I want to ensure that the Department has sufficient funding and its finances are managed and structured properly such that our nation is safe and secure from all threats.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Ranking Member, I knew that Mr. King would have other opportunities to be on the floor. We are going to be here through Christmas, but if that is not the case, then he has kind of a smile of Santa Claus, but I just want to say to Chairman King, as well, just to thank you for your service. There is no doubt of your commitment to America's security, and I have enjoyed having the opportunity to work with you on the committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman, and I rise to support S. 1998 and commend the basis of this legislation, which will look for a clean audit report and in particular as it relates to Congress submit a report on the plan to obtain an unqualified opinion annually until an unqualified opinion is submitted, and submit to Congress and the Comptroller General a report on DHS' plans and resources needed to modernize DHS' financial system. Let me be clear that we know that it takes resources to secure the homeland, but this is a Department that has $40 billion in the annual budget and 200,000 employees. DHS is the Nation's third-largest Federal Department. It demands a clean audit. I would also indicate that one of the issues that we have continued to work on in the committee is to ensure the access of small, minority, and women-owned businesses to the vast contracting needs that DHS is engaged in. In particular, when there are natural disasters, we are often seeing where those who live in the area who would benefit from being able to be the contractors or to be able to work on the restoration and remove the debris cannot access DHS in a fair way to be able to secure a contract to put people to work. So even as we are talking about audits, I'm talking about management processes, as well. And I would hope that this legislation, as it begins to look at audits and making sure that we have an unqualified audit, will also look at process as we go forward in the 113th Congress, because as we secure the homeland, we want to make sure that we have a Department of Homeland Security that has had very fine leadership in Secretary Napolitano to be able to assure that the infrastructure that runs this agency is parallel to the infrastructure that is securing America. I think that will be a perfect system. So I do support this legislation, and I hope the comments about small, minority, and women-owned businesses are taken to heart and that we will find a way to ensure that our resources, tax dollars, are utilized by the American people in the right and appropriate way.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Could I say one thing before the gentlelady, and then I will finish on that and then step away.