Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the Speaker this afternoon, and I am grateful for the words, the prayer that was offered about light, both of inspiration and collaboration. I think there are bipartisan voices crying out for an acceptance of a tax cut on 98 percent of the American people. That is why the President went to Michigan, to speak to working men and women, to be able to reaffirm their voices that were spoken so loudly on November 6. Let us have a tax cut that will impact 98 percent of the American people and businesses. And let us collaboratively work together for the steps going forward. But let me be very clear. Having spoken to physicians yesterday in meetings in hospitals, you cannot raise the eligibility rate of Medicare recipients. It just will not work. You cannot judge a person's physical condition between 65 and 67. That is not the way to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. We know that entitlements, Social Security, is not the issue. Pass the tax cuts on 98 percent, Mr. Speaker, and work collaboratively in 2013 to find a pathway forward to make this economy the growing economy that it has begun to be. I ask my colleagues, let's work together.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank the gentlelady from Illinois for her persistence on this issue of seniors and Medicare. Congresswoman Schakowsky, along with Congresswoman Matsui, cochaired a task force that was very effective on making sure that the Democratic Caucus--and, really, Members of Congress--had an understanding of the safety net, but also the issue around the word ``earned.'' For some reason or another, when you put the benefits of individuals on the altar of sacrifice, it's because they didn't earn anything. You can sacrifice them. One thing that the Congresswoman emphasized is the idea that Social Security is earned, Medicare is earned, and, to a certain extent, Medicaid, though it's on a different structure. To the gentleman from California, I want to speak directly to what you've said as insurance commissioner. We value your experience, because here's my point that I want to make. I want to stay narrowly focused. First of all, let me say that there are enough bipartisan voices right now to pass the Senate bill. I want to thank Congressman Walz, whom we have a petition with 178 Democratic names. We welcome our colleagues, Republicans, to get on. But the point I want to make is that--and I want to change my vernacular, I want to change my language--100 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. If we pass the Senate bill, 100 percent----

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The Senate bill is $250,000 and below. The income up to $250,000--whatever you make--receives the continuation or a tax cut, and the remaining obviously expire. Simple premise. That means 97 percent of our businesses today, that means all the businesses on Main Streets in everybody's cities and towns will be protected going into the 2013 tax year or the 2012 tax year. But what it means is that middle class Americans will not have a $2,200 per family of four going into January 2013. I just want to lay that on the table, because now I want to move to this question of entitlements, but specifically the eligibility as it relates to age. That's been batted around. I really wanted to come here today. I was home over the weekend, and I said, I have to get to Washington to convey the thoughts in the minds of my constituents, not only the average citizen, but doctors whom I sat down with yesterday to ask about this question. But here's my point. Now, you can look at it globally, and then I'm going to narrow it down. Globally, one would say that we're living longer. Of course women are. This is the actuarial genius here, you know, the actuarial tables that you deal with. So women are living longer. It's always been a tradition, et cetera, but the body politic is living longer, maybe because they're healthier. That is not the case in the span of what we're speaking of, because what we're talking about globally, or nationally, are people whose beginnings are different, whose lifestyles are different. Now, I don't know, but the family farmers--and I'm not picking on that group of people--have worked with their hands. Of course they work with their minds--they have to have a budget and make things work--but they're in the outdoors, foresters. Some would say, well, that's a healthy lifestyle. I don't know until you walk a mile in their shoes. Those who work in the coal mines in West Virginia; those who are in the sanitation department of our municipal cities; those who work in concrete and the building trades; those individuals who work in the energy industry in all shapes, forms, and sizes; those who may be in the vocational trades, maybe even nurses and nurses aids who are lifting patients all day long, thank God for them. We see them all the time when we're visiting the sick and our relatives or even we're in the hospital. So what I'm saying is you cannot have a cookie that fits all. You cannot immediately jump to entitlement reform between now and December 31. Here's a solution: The bipartisan voices have said pass the Senate bill or pass the elimination of the tax cuts on the top 2 percent--but I, frankly, believe that 100 percent of Americans will get it. We cannot then jump to entitlement reform now. It would not be wise. It is not prudent. It does not work. When you talk about 65 to 67, that is a lifetime. Because what you do, as the gentleman has said, you throw seniors into the marketplace. You save a buck, and they have to spend two bucks, three bucks, four bucks. And then on top of the four bucks, they will have doors slammed in their face. The Affordable Care Act was premised on a 65-year-old Medicare admission, if you will--except for those who are disabled--and therefore, now, you want to skew it. You've already claimed that ObamaCare is going to raise prices. Look at the projection of cost to the seniors, trillions of dollars that they will pay in the open marketplace. But more importantly, how many of the poor seniors not having the money to go into the open marketplace will drop dead? I'm being colorful because, in terms of your lifestyle, some people struggle to get to 65. It makes no sense that they should be on the altar of sacrifice. I'm passionate about this because I just don't understand why we jump so far. I say, Members, let's be deliberative. You cannot throw it out and say, oh, that's what we're going to do, when you don't know the numbers, you don't know the ultimate results, you have not done an analysis on what seniors of this age, what are their particular work histories. Maybe we will have, 40 years from now--let me go 20 years from now, we'll have all white collar seniors. I don't know what we have now, and therefore I can't judge that 65 for one person is 65 for everybody. Let me say this to my good friends that are here: Let's take raising the Medicare age off the table. I'm delighted to see people here who are 65, 72, 80, 42, fine, but sometimes we do not represent a microcosm of America. Let me finish on this note. I sat down with doctors and I posed a question. Doctors have a sense of pride. They like their work and they think they can keep us healthy. They could have said a number of things to me: Well, if we stay on a nutritious diet and if we do our exercise, I can see that in the future. They did not say that. They shook their heads, and they said it is unbelievable. It won't work. It doesn't work. It's not a good answer. They were against raising it on the basis of medical grounds. So let me just say this: I hope that we stand firm, our caucus. I hope we will work with the White House. I know they are speculating over a number of opportunities and options, but my perspective is you go for this tax relief, and you put on the table for deliberative consideration what is the best approach to have Medicare savings and to provide for the American people. But I can't fathom burdening seniors with raising the eligibility age for Medicare.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I'm so glad you used the statistic of a white male because I want this to be holistic. You did it on income. There are other disparities between African Americans, Asians, and Hispanic based upon a number of factors, a number of factors. So, there is a population that you've just mentioned, I assume there are numbers for white women, and then there are what we call health disparities because of various ethnic differences and distinctions, nothing that would make them different as Americans, but it would make you want to think more closely about a cookie-cutter approach to how Medicare can be. And to raise it to 67 is dangerous for the diversity of this country. And remember what we said. We want to be for the 100 percent. I thank you for allowing me just to say that point. Thank you, Congresswoman, because I think our fight is a noble fight, and it is not against anybody, it is for something, and I would like our friends to join us and recognize that this is not a good idea. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This is an enormously positive exhibition of the working relationship of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. And I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for the evidence of collegiality in these waning moments of the 112th Congress. I'm going to follow my ranking member and acknowledge appreciation for the service of Judiciary Committee Chairperson Lamar Smith, who happens to be a tall Texan. And so we are delighted to thank him very much for the work that he has done, and to join with an established icon of Judiciary prominence in John Conyers. The two match well in their excellence, and I thank the ranking member and the former chairperson for his work and service. There is great work being done by the Judiciary Committee, and I think it is enormously important that we are the holders and protectors of the Constitution on behalf of not only our Members but on behalf of the United States of America. Now is not the time, but I do want to acknowledge and hope that the House will consent at the appropriate time to acknowledge one of our fallen of great prominence of this committee, someone who I sat in his office as a baby Member of Congress, the Honorable Jack Brooks, who has passed. I hope there will be an appropriate moment for us to honor him before we leave today. I rise to be able to thank the sponsor of this legislation--he attracted my interest in it--to correct something that probably was thought to be of good direction, but was not, in the limitation of the coverage of the President and the President's children, the First Family's children. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, let me say that we are celebratory of the fact that we have not had another attack on our soil since 9/11. If we look at it in a global perspective, we've not fought a war on our soil since--I believe at least an intense one-- since the Civil War. But certainly we know that terrorism and danger have taken a new direction in this country and the world. And for those of us who spend time on these issues on a regular basis, this is a forward-thinking and smart initiative to ensure that the security of the men and/or women who have served as President of the United States and their children can be fully protected. Let me acknowledge, as well, the service of the men and women of the United States Secret Service. And to be very frank, having jurisdiction over the Secret Service and Homeland Security and having interacted with them on a number of occasions, certainly we note that there was a moment in this last year that did not reflect well upon the decades of service of the United States Secret Service. But they have done their job well. They have been dutiful servants and protectors of the men that have held the highest office, along with the First Ladies and their children. This legislation speaks to a modern-day world where you never know where danger may approach someone and can be utilized in an untoward manner, such as being held hostage and used to threaten the sanctity and democracy and freedom of this Nation. So this legislation reflects our smartness and astuteness in correcting what was probably thought to be good but upon reflection does not reflect on the goodness of this Congress, the goodness of the American people, who respect the service of their public servants to the highest office in this land. With that, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleagues to support the underlying legislation. And as this exhibits our opportunity that we can work together, I know that we'll find the right solution for solving our issues of middle class tax cuts and the fiscal deadline and make sure we move in a very positive direction.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. There should be one powerful driving force for all of us--and that is to serve the American people. The least we can do before December 31, 2012, is to provide the middle class of America--the working men and women of America, those who every day get up at 6 a.m., at 4 a.m., and work night shifts--a tax break. I am proud to commit to giving Americans making incomes of $250,000 and below a tax break, and I stand here today proudly in having signed the petition. Let me say what else we can do very quickly. As a cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we have passed a bipartisan bill on the intervention in and prevention of bullying. Everywhere you go, you're hearing about the dastardly conditions of our children who are going to school across America. To our Members of the United States Congress, let's pass that legislation before we leave here, and let's go into 2013 with America recognizing that the Congress understands that the safety and security of our children in the schools of America are vital. That's the least we can do--to protect the children of America. Pass the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2012 now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, America has always been known to rise to the occasion--the American people, our values--when there is a need for us to come together. Just a few minutes ago, I sat in for a moment on the recapturing of the enormous bravery of those who were on Flight 93, Americans who came together and made a sacrifice. So although all my remarks will not speak to the issue of sacrifice, some of what I say this morning speaks to the values of the American people who always, when called upon, have said: Send me. But first I'd like to speak to an issue of just basic fairness. Let me give great respect to the constitutional premise that the Senate has the right to advice and consent. Of course that comes with the Presidential right to nominate persons to serve in his or her administration--either at the Cabinet level, under Secretaries, various appointees--throughout the administration, administrations from years gone by. So I rise today to query the character assassination of Ambassador Susan Rice. She has not been nominated. We are so fortunate to have such a dynamic Secretary of State in Hillary Clinton, who has indicated her desire to leave the administration at the end of her term, but has also indicated her willingness to continue her work--recently in Syria, possibly even today in that devastating area. Certainly, her partner at the United Nations for 4 years in diligent, excellent, astute, thoughtful and patriotic service has been Susan E. Rice, a daughter of Washington, D.C. and parents who loved America, a graduate of Stanford University, where of course she earned department honors and university distinction, became a Harry S. Truman scholar, Phi Beta Kappa and a Rhodes scholarship, certainly a beginning that did not warrant the kind of personal attacks that we have seen. I think we should leave politics and campaigns and won or lost races to November 6, 2012, for you cannot debate a political and Presidential campaign around a patriotic public servant. If there is a nomination for Ambassador Rice, the Senate has every right to advice and consent, and the votes need to be taken on up and down. I can assure you that if she is nominated by the President she will serve this Nation well, as she has done in the past. I know her well as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs under the Clinton administration, dealing with very difficult issues involving African countries such as Ethiopia and Eretria, responsive and detailed. Why in the world, with others who may have been equally culpable in misunderstanding what actually occurred on that day--the tragic day where we should be speaking more to the loss of brave Americans in Benghazi, Libya--why is she the one that is pinpointed, pinpointed, pointed, and with, I think, inappropriate accusations, casting aspersions and doing damage to a reputation of service that is undeserving? So my words are simply this: let's be fair. Let's carry on our rights as Members of Congress to speak to the issue of what a tragic incident occurred in Benghazi. If there is a nomination--which I hope there will be--among the many talented people that the President has, it will be his choice. Senators that are eager, friends of mine, Senator Kerry and others, may have this opportunity. But let us hold to the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty, that someone's great service is deserving of respect--and she is deserving of respect. Susan Rice is deserving of respect. Let me move quickly to this idea that America cannot settle its issues of financial concern before the fiscal deadline. See, there is no cliff, because as we all well know, the simple premise of making sure that we have tax cuts for those making $250,000 and below have the right to follow through on the President's premise because this is what the American people voted on. Vote for the tax relief for $250,000 and below, Mr. Speaker, and move forward in reconciliation on doing the right thing for Medicare holders, Social Security, and Medicaid. None of that has anything to do with the deficit; therefore, we need to know that we are in a nonstarter position, Mr. Speaker. We need to go forward and reconcile to do what is right for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my absence from rollcall votes 605-608 on Thursday and Friday, November 15, 2012 and November 16, 2012. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: For rollcall vote, 605, I would have voted ``no''. For rollcall vote 606, I would have voted ``no''. For rollcall vote 607, on the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2453--Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and issue gold and silver coins with a design emblematic of Mark Twain, I would have voted ``aye''. For rollcall vote 608, on H.R. 3803 ``Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012'' to provide normal trade relations status to Russia and Moldova, ends Jackson-Vanik restrictions on both economies, and establishes new human rights-related sanctions on Russia, I would have voted ``aye''.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's a delight just to be with you, not a delight on this discussion that we're having. I want to thank the gentlelady from Wisconsin for her leadership and membership on the Budget Committee, and certainly the gentleman for Virginia on his leadership on the Budget Committee, and delighted to be a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and have a reasoned discussion. And just to pick up from where Mr. Scott was saying and just reinforce it, Medicare is solvent. Let me just turn. Medicare is solvent. Medicare is solvent. Medicare is solvent and it is strong. It is solvent to 2024. Social Security, which is not even an issue, has nothing to do with this deficit. It is a trust fund, but more importantly, it is solvent until 2037. Let me repeat myself that Medicare is solvent. Social Security is solvent until 2037. That is really a lifetime. The gentleman has made a very good point that I would like to pursue in discussing fiscal deadlines. I have washed my mouth out with soap and will no longer yield to terminology that has been used that is falsifying where we are. Let me first go over, and I'm going to mix some apples and oranges a little bit of what the President has offered us. I know we've heard it, but let me reinforce the fact. And my numbers are going to be not precise, but I'm going to say that 1.2, 1.1, over 1 trillion in tax cuts. And then a war dividend, a peace dividend of about 1 trillion--I want to say war, but war savings. I have signed on to expedite the return of our heroes from Afghanistan, move into the diplomatic process, bring our soldiers home. And $50 billion in infrastructure that creates jobs. For those of you who find sinkholes for your cars, overcrowded on various freeways and highways, this is to aid in doing what we have not done over many decades, $50 billion. And then, of course, the mentioned Medicare. And Mr. Scott has indicated that is the President's attempt to be the reasonable man, even though on November 6, 2012, America spoke soundly and loudly that the idea of protecting the safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is vital. I add to that unemployment insurance. In terms of those who have been looking for jobs, that is crucial. We have a lot of young people who have started out with a job but then may not have had it. Please know that unemployment insurance is that--it's insurance, not a handout. It's a hand up. Do you realize that all of this would be wiped out with the proposal that our friends insist on keeping, when economists will tell you several things. First of all, there is no documentation that in fact if you keep the cuts, you'll create jobs. There just isn't any basis for that. First of all, we take care of 97 percent of small businesses with income under $250,000. Go up and down the streets of America on Small Business Day and ask these small businesses what their income is, not what they take in and pay employees, et cetera. They will not pay any taxes on income of $250,000. And then, if you are hardworking, an $80,000 salaried person, two workers in the family, $40,000 and $40,000; that's $80,000. If you make $250,000. If you make $15 billion in salary or in income, you will get a tax cut of $250,000. Is that not the reasonable man and woman standard? Is that not reasonable? Let me tell you why that's reasonable. Because as I said, most economists will tell you that, first of all, cutting spending is not the answer in a recession as relates to the deficit. And so we're not insensitive to the deficit. We want to have a reasoned response to the deficit. The crisis is to ensure that middle America and low-income Americans and young people with their start-off jobs making a certain amount of money do not have an enormous tax increase as they go into 2013. Be very sure now, this whole thing about going downhill doesn't exist, because it's something of a slide. All of these things don't happen right at 2013. We have the time to be reasonable to deal with the tax cuts to save people from having increases, meaning those earning $250,000 and below. And for the blessed and well-to-do, let me just say this is not any punitive measure in suggesting that we don't have the respect for people's wealth and the well-to-do. What we're saying is where there's mutual benefit, there's a mutual burden. And I haven't heard a cry out from anybody to say that they would not welcome that balance. So then we have the opportunity, even though the President's put on the table, as the gentleman from Virginia said, $480 billion. This whole boogie man about entitlement reform is such a straw man. It's just something to throw out to the American people. The people that are on Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are entitled ne'er-do- wells. That is not true. The people who get Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, even unemployment insurance, are people who have worked. They have worked. They have earned this. Now, there are many ways that we can look at these elements going forward. But the idea that we would throw this on the altar as a sacrifice and cloud people's minds and tell them that they are in fact going to be the life or the answer of whether or not our good friends join us on the other side of the aisle and do this reasonable act of cutting the taxes of 100 percent of Americans and eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the 1 and 2 percent. Let me just tell you, for those who think that they don't mind the cliff, I'm not sure who's been saying that. And I respect them for it. I said I wasn't going to say that. But you're talking about increasing taxes. You're talking about causing the loss of jobs, increasing taxes about $3,000 on the average family. You're talking about increasing unemployment from 7.9 percent to about 9.1 percent. This is what we're playing with. But let me just give you something else. The tax cuts that we have been paying for already over a 10-year period, the extension would cost $2.4 trillion. And if anybody is serious about cutting the deficit, how nonsensical and what sense does that make to continue these cuts? If they could document for me how these create jobs, then maybe we would be able to respond to it. Does anybody realize and recognize that Hurricane Sandy came through and that one of the mayors of one of the largest cities was just here this week asking for an enormous infusion of dollars, of which we are merciful and recognize the role of the Federal Government? Why are we stalling on the simple process of eliminating the Bush tax cuts of 2 percent of the individuals who have been particularly silent because they recognize benefit and burden? And for our corporations--and I have the greatest respect for capitalism--presently flush with cash, let me tell you what the instability is. The corporations, the businesses are saying, Tell us what the deal is, then we'll plan. We'll know what to do, and so we will be able to stabilize. I hope they'll invest the money they already have out into the market because there's still incentives for creating jobs. Maybe if we pass the American Jobs Act, we'd be able to do that. Let me just finish on this point to my dear friend. I want to remind everybody that tomorrow is World AIDS Day; and I want to remind people that over its lifetime and up to the end of 2005, 38.6 million people worldwide were living with AIDS and more than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981. And so a lot of people say, Oh, that's behind us. What is she talking about, HIV/AIDS? Well, I know when I go into the Thomas Street Clinic in Houston, Texas, that is not the case. And I congratulate them for what they have done. But there are approximately 1 million, 1.2 million positive individuals that live in the United States and 56,000 new infections every year. Why am I saying that? Because when we think of discretionary funding, it's a nebulous term. What does it mean? Mr. Reid rightly asked my good friends on the other side of the aisle, What spending cuts are you talking about? It was the intervention of the Federal Government with the Ryan White Treatment Act and the research regarding HIV/AIDS that have helped people like those who are hemophiliacs and others in the large population. That means that everybody gets it. It's not a stigma. Everybody is possibly susceptible to it. Where would we be without that intervention of the Federal Government? So in the shadow of honoring tomorrow and those who have lost their lives in this terrible epidemic, to be able to salute and thank those who've done the research and improved the quality of life of those who are now living with HIV and AIDS and saying to those millions who lost their lives that we will not forget, that's what this debate is about. It is about rental income for poor people. By the way, those poor people are working people. It is about supplemental nutrition dollars for women and children. I would not call them the deadbeats of life. Those who speak on the floor about national security and border security, do you realize that we'd be cutting $823 million from customs and border protection? These are the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government. And so rather than take a frivolous perspective on this, rather than tell people that you can't do anything before 2013, rather than suggest that entitlements are laid upon the table, on the altar as a sacrifice, just tell the American people the truth. Let's just tell them the truth. Entitlements are not the issue. And if so, cool heads can sit down and engage the American people and tell us how many seniors in nursing homes do we want to throw out in the street. What options do they have? Maybe we'll begin to talk about home care. That's okay. But you don't talk about home care overnight. So you have to be deliberative. And then, who wants to make a fuss about Medicare when it's solvent until 2024? Again, abusing the information given to the American people. Who wants to make a fuss about Social Security when it's solvent and it's about you earned it? So to Mr. Scott, my call today is to thank you for giving us this opportunity. As I speak to my constituents, I indicate that we're just immersed in these kinds of discussions and I'm hoping and, as I said, I'm optimistic and believe that cool heads will come together. We'll be back next week. We'll be talking to our constituents over the next couple of days. I'm looking at a sheet that has a number of revenue options that I'm going to be studying. That means that I am not in any way taking the serious work of the deficit for granted. But I do want to put a firewall around hysteria and put the hysteria over here, and get to work with eliminating the tax cuts for the top 2 percent, give everybody a $250,000 income tax break, and then, in a thoughtful manner, look at a number of ways and join with the President on saying it's valuable to do something about infrastructure, it's valuable to count in the war savings and to bring our troops home--heroes--with honor. I passed an amendment to do that, to honor every returning soldier that comes home. So I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his service, but also for the work that you've been doing on this issue. I hope I'm not too animated, but let me end on a very quiet note. I am calm, and I believe that we can be deliberative and responsible in our thinking, and I look forward to that occurring.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the importance and significance of World AIDS Day. Established by the World Health Organization in 1988, December 1st is universally known as World AIDS Day. World AIDS Day serves to focus global attention on the devastating impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. All governments, national AIDS programs, churches, community organizations and individuals are given the opportunity to display their commitment to fight this deadly disease. It has been more than 30 years since the first AIDS case was reported in the United States. It does not seem like it was too long ago, but HIV/AIDS had affected many around the world before the disease even made its way to America's shores. Since then, countless researchers, healthcare providers, politicians, and educators have contributed to the global initiative to contain and eventually eliminate its presence in all corners of the world. Although HIV/AIDS is no longer a mysterious and mischaracterized entity, it is the most relentless and indiscriminate killer of our time. And though a diagnosis is no longer the sealing of an immediate fate, it is the beginning of an indefinite battle for life, adequate health care, and for social belonging. With an estimated 38.6 million people worldwide living with HIV at the end of 2005, and more than 25 million people having died of AIDS since 1981, December 1st is a date which serves to remind everyone that action makes a difference in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Let there be no mistake, we are here to acknowledge that AIDS is a deadly enemy against which we must join all our forces to fight and eliminate. Americans should be reminded that HIV/AIDS does not discriminate. With an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 HIV-positive individuals living in the U.S. and approximately 56,000 new infections occurring every year, the U.S., like other nations around the world is deeply affected by HIV/AIDS. The detrimental effects of HIV/AIDS have also hit home. More than 65,000 people in Texas are living with HIV. Thirty-Six percent more Texans are living with HIV today than just seven years ago. In 2010, studies showed that 1 in every 3 diagnosed persons in Texas were not getting proper medical treatment. We must make certain that every affected individual receive efficient medical treatment that will afford them long life. Not only is the state of Texas suffering from HIV and AIDS, but my district, the 18th Congressional District of Texas, has seen an increasing number of people living with the disease. In 2010, there were over 22,000 reported persons living with HIV (non-AIDS) in the greater Houston area, and more than 9,000 reported persons living with AIDS. This problem continues to escalate as there have been 1,700 new infections each year among individuals in Harris County, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. We must continue to fight a tough fight to reverse all of these costly and tragic trends. I will continue to sponsor and co-sponsor legislation that addresses the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The fight is not over. We must continue to stand strong in our struggle to conquer some old and new challenges that we as Americans and members of the global community encounter. This Saturday, December 1st is World AIDS Day. And, we will focus on HIV/AIDS, prevention and awareness, and continue to fight for life. Together, we will help all of our friends, relatives, and children live healthy and full lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. I think the difference with my friends on the other side of the aisle is their lack of recollecting that America has always viewed immigration as good. In fact, I heard a very potent story this morning about the restoring of the Statue of Liberty that so many of us as children have had the opportunity to climb to the very top and be reminded of the welcoming of the huddled poor. That's what this debate is all about, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the chairman for yielding to me, and I just want to deviate for a moment in this time of economic tension just to remind people that tomorrow is World AIDS Day. I want to congratulate the Thomas Street clinic in my district and remind people that 25 million people have died since 1981. I just wanted to acknowledge those individuals as we begin this very important debate. We are respectful of immigrants. Even in the Democratic Caucus, and I would imagine in the Conference--my good friend who is now managing had an immigrant history. Yesterday, we elected a son of immigrants to be the vice chair of the Democratic Caucus. He told a very potent story about his grandfather coming here to the United States of America. I can assure you that he did not come with massive degrees, but he built a foundation for his country and for his family. Now, I am very much in support of the STEM process and premise, which is to give opportunity to those who have studied in our universities, research institutions. Why wouldn't I? Having had children who have had the opportunity to attend some of the best institutions in this country, having had my children meet some of those very students, from Harvard to the University of North Carolina and Duke, I am well aware of the importance of this. But I would raise the question of whether or not we can judge the Diversity visas, where people have come from places like Bangladesh and Uzbekistan, Germany, Ethiopia--one of our strongest allies in Africa--Liberia, with an African woman as President, the first on that continent, South Africa. Or maybe we would choose to ignore our friends in Israel, where Diversity visas were received; or Albania, where we went to war to ensure the integrity and the saving of those people; or Hungary or Iceland or maybe our strong ally Turkey. That's what Diversity visas represent. There is no reason to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. In fact, if my friends would really pay attention to the recent charge of the November 6 election, they would know that what America needs is comprehensive immigration reform. If I might, in this debate of deficit reduction and the need for increased revenue, we know that if you had comprehensive immigration reform over 10 years, you would introduce into the economy $1.5 trillion. That's a reason to come to the floor right now and vote this bill down and start in the next week and put on the floor the bills that Luis Gutierrez and myself and Zoe Lofgren and John Conyers and many others--at one time, Senator McCain wanted to put on the floor of the Senate and the House. My concern is that we tried to come in a bipartisan manner. I introduced legislation--an amendment, rather--in the markup to say that let's study this issue of fraud with the Diversity visas, or let's assess what it is, because we have evidence that, in fact, the alleged fraud was because of a computer error, not the people who are applying. Mr. Speaker, 15 million have applied. Only 50,000 have been able to get the Diversity Visa. And of those, some of them are African immigrants, 50 percent of them; but they equal only 1 percent of the legal permanent residents. This whole question of terrorism just troubles me. I went to the Rules Committee in a spirit of bipartisanship to say, eliminate the provision on Diversity Visas. We can then support you. Keep the underlying premise of this legislation. I even asked that the rollover be extended because there's no evidence that you can get 55,000 in 4 years. If you are serious about creating jobs--I am serious about creating jobs. My colleagues are serious about creating jobs. But I am disappointed that we would classify the Diversity Visa as bringing in ne'er-do-wells, people we don't want. Because I will tell you that America was built on the ne'er-do-wells--maybe those of us who came as slaves or indentured servants, who came in the late 1800s with not any money in their pocket but who were determined to serve this Nation.

Mr. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Mr. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants. As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment. On Wednesday, I once again I offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it. Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process. Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions. Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries. Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents. The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission. chance for the american dream The Diversity Visa sustains the American Dream in parts of the world where it represents the only realistic opportunity for immigrating to the U.S. Former Rep. Bruce Morrison--one of the architects of the Diversity Visa--testified in 2005 that the program advances a principle that is ``at the heart of the definition of America;'' the principle that ``all nationalities are welcome.'' Ambassador Johnny Young, Executive Director of Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testified at a 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing: ``The Program engenders hope abroad for those that are all too often without it--hope for a better life, hope for reunification with family in the United States, and hope for a chance to use their God-given skills and talents.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I recall the story of my colleague whose grandfather served in World War I. As soon as he got here, he was willing to shed his blood for this country. I am on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to jeopardize one inch of this Nation's security; but I can assure you, if we look to 9/11, there was no one there with a Diversity Visa. The terrorists had student visas, and they were overstays. Former Congressman Bruce Morrison, who introduced this, said that Diversity Visas are at the heart of the definition of America. And as my friend and colleague from California, Congresswoman Lofgren said, Who that was a terrorist would want to stand in line and provide all of the information that they needed to provide to get a Diversity Visa? I will enter into the Record a letter from the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Migration, who absolutely opposes H.R. 6429, a church that believes in the Beatitudes, as we all do. Committee on Migration c/o Migration and Refugee Services, USCCB, Washington DC, November 28, 2012. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to oppose H.R. 6429, legislation that would eliminate the existing Diversity Visa program and its 55,000 permanent immigration visas in order to provide visas to foreign graduates of American universities with expertise in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). To be clear, USCCB is not opposed to an increase in STEM visas. We prefer to see Congress authorize additional visas for this purpose, however, rather than eliminate existing immigrant visa programs. Our nation should not limit itself in attracting newcomers who can help contribute to our economic and cultural growth. And it certainly should not eliminate the Diversity Visa program, which is one of the few avenues available for many would-be immigrants from some African and European countries to immigrate to the United States. While we appreciate the spirit of an unrelated provision in the bill that would permit some beneficiaries of family-based immigration petitioners to live in the United States while awaiting their priority dates, we believe that persons granted such a status should also be granted work authorization, as has been done in the past, so they can support themselves during this period. H.R. 6429 falls well short of what is needed to repair our flawed immigration system. Indeed, we believe it would represent a setback compared to current law in that, for the first time in more than a generation, it would eliminate a category of legal immigration. We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in the House of Representatives to achieve comprehensive immigration reform in the near future. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Most Reverend Jose H. Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles, Chairman, USCCB Committee on Migration.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I can only say, the Catholic Church does not want terrorists to roam this Nation. And if we look closely at this allegation of fraud, we will find computer error. We will find that with the decades of Diversity Visas, as they were introduced with Bruce Morrison, we will find that this is not the cause of any cancer of terrorism. If we go into our hearts, we will know that Diversity Visas reflect the language written so eloquently by the poet for the Statue of Liberty and that is: ``Give me your tired, your poor.'' Those are the great Americans. And I can assure you that in my constituency, Mr. Speaker, the diverse 18th Congressional District in the city of Houston, they reflect what America is. They are building the jobs. I ask my colleagues to oppose this, and let us get back to the drawing board for a conference on immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 821 the Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' an ill-conceived bill that eliminates the Diversity Immigration Visa Program in order to increase the amount of visas available for STEM applicants. As a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee I have long advocated for the Diversity Immigration Visa program. Earlier this year, during a Judiciary Committee mark up of a bill which was also designed to kill the Diversity program, I offered an amendment that directed the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State to report to Congress on steps that could be taken to further eliminate fraud and security risks in the Diversity Visa program. Rather than vote to fix the program and defend legal immigration and diversity in our immigrant pool, every Republican on the Committee who was present voted down the amendment. On Wednesday, I once again offered amendments in Rules Committee to protect the Diversity Visa Program, and once again the Republican majority on the Committee voted against it. Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process. Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4 percent of all Legal Permanent Resident, LPR, admissions. Unlike every other visa program, its express purpose is to help us develop a racially, ethnically, and culturally-diverse population. It serves a unique purpose and it works. In recent years, African immigrants have comprised about 50 percent of the DV program's beneficiaries, however only 1 percent of legal permanent residents recipients. Diversity Visa immigrants succeed and contribute to the U.S. economy. According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY 2009 Diversity Visa immigrants were 2.5 times more likely to report managerial and professional occupations than all other lawful permanent residents. The Diversity Visa program promotes respect for U.S. immigration laws. It reduces incentives for illegal immigration by encouraging prospective immigrants to wait until they win a visa, as opposed to attempting to enter without permission.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the Senate Amendment to H.R. 915, the ``Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act,'' which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST), which shall establish units to enhance border security by addressing and reducing border security threats and violence. More specifically, this Border Enforcement Security Task Force will achieve its goal of border security enhancement by (1) facilitating collaboration among federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies to execute coordinated activities in furtherance of border security and homeland security; and (2) enhancing information-sharing, including the dissemination of homeland security information among such agencies. As the Representative for the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I am deeply concerned about spill-over violence along the border between my state and Mexico. The recent increase in drug trafficking-related violence in Mexican cities, such as Juarez and Nuevo Laredo, is cause for concern, particularly in the neighboring U.S. cities of El Paso and Laredo, TX. In fact, in 2010, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a safety alert to law enforcement officers in the El Paso area warning that drug trafficking organizations and associated gangs may target U.S. law enforcement. The BEST program is currently administered by DHS, and involves information sharing and law-enforcement operations between personnel from federal, state, local, tribal, and foreign law-enforcement agencies to combat criminal activity near the United States borders. There are currently 34 BEST units. Since inception in June of 2005, these DHS-led task forces made 10,024 criminal arrests; 6,541 administrative arrests; 5,802 indictments; and 4,999 convictions. They seized over 88,500 pounds of cocaine; 870,748 pounds of marijuana; 4,669 pounds of methamphetamine; 4,383 pounds of ecstasy; 1,404 pounds of heroin; 3,866 vehicles; 14,243 weapons; 2,920,155 rounds of ammunition; and in excess of $111.8 million in U.S. currency and monetary instruments. Additionally, BEST units have initiated approximately 8,490 investigations. Jamie Zapata was a Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent from Brownsville, Texas who was killed in the line of duty on February 15, 2011 while serving on assignment in Mexico for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This bipartisan bill, named in Jamie Zapata's honor, seeks to enhance our nation's abilities to deal with the dangerous activities occurring near our borders and, hopefully, prevent the tragic deaths of more of our agents. These are men and women who put their lives on the line in order to protect our country's interests. We know that this program works and has provided American citizens with improved border security and greater security throughout the United States. I urge my colleagues to support the ``Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act,'' which will ensure that our agents tasked with securing our border, who work under extremely perilous circumstances, are better protected through enhanced information sharing and greater collaboration between agencies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just about 40 minutes or so ago, we were in the midst of a debate concerning STEM, which is something that most Americans have come to now understand as the acronym for science, technology, engineering, and math. As a longstanding member on the Subcommittee on Immigration and on Homeland Security, STEM is now a basis for expanding visas to ensure or to give opportunities to young people who are graduating from our research institutions of higher learning who have been born in other countries and to give them the ability to be able to stay here in order to help create jobs and to build this economy. That's a good thing. Yet on November 6, 2012, I think America spoke and said, We're ready to do more and go further. I voted ``no'' on the rule because I believe we are ready for comprehensive immigration reform, not something that will hurt us, but something that will help us. For those who appreciated the Statue of Liberty that welcomed the poor and the downtrodden, that welcomed the Irish and the Germans and the Italians, we know that comprehensive immigration reform is the right way. This rule, H. Res. 821, is not the right way. So I ask my colleagues to look to comprehensive immigration reform, and I will speak about this bill tomorrow.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The Congressional Budget Office even indicated that there is no such thing as a ``cliff.'' There will be expiring deadlines that will allow deliberative thought. That's what you're talking about. Let's have deliberative thought. When you act and your hair is on fire or you're running out of a burning building, you will take any water hose you can find; and that may not be the good water hose that will keep us going. I just wanted to mention my late colleague, Mickey Leland. This is his birthday this week. It was November 27. I just wanted to mention it on the floor of the House. Congressman Mickey Leland served in this Congress in the late 1970s until 1989, when he died in Ethiopia trying to feed the starving Ethiopians who had been impacted by the drought. At the same time, he helped cochair the Hunger Select Committee because at that timeframe there was an effort to try to extinguish hunger in America and hunger in the world. Lo and behold, here we are in 2012, and I bet we can have a vigorous debate on hunger that still exists in this country. When we put our hair on fire, then we start looking and digging deep and we start ignoring the peace dividend and resources that we could get from that, from an expedited withdrawal for our hardworking military that are in faraway places such as Afghanistan. The point is that then we begin to do things like look at the minimal subsistence that people get in order to survive. Social Security is a different line of funding; but as you well know, I mentioned that sometimes you get it on disability and sometimes you get Social Security as a death benefit for a deceased parent that keeps those children going. Then you have people who get payments because they are ill or have no way of working or have children, need assistance; and people start looking at that. We need to be deliberative in our attempt to do the things that we want to do in a bipartisan way, which is reduce the deficit, to make sure we tighten our belt and act accordingly to churn this economy, and we're fair in our tax policies. My friends, we can do all that, but let us not do that with hysteria that starts looking at the basic safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. As my friend said, Social Security is 2037 and Medicare is 2024. That means your house doesn't have to be on fire. You don't have to get a skinny hose that is just drip, drip, dripping, and then you just burn up. You can be deliberative. We can deal with this immediate fiscal issue of deadlines with tax issues and begin to build on what the revenues will be.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield for a moment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. And, of course, who could help but listen to that very potent message. And we are better for the fact that you and the distinguished gentleman from Arizona have come together again to--I call it standing in the gap and reinforcing to individuals who have never walked these Halls. The thing I want to just reinforce very briefly is how much all of us who have the privilege of walking these august Halls, sometimes on occasion looking at these ornate murals and recognizing the historic features and the history of this body, the largest democracy but the longest democracy, extending democracy in the world, that is the United States of America. And for this place called the House of Representatives, this honored place to be called the people's House is for the very reason that we are the defenders. We are those who will stand in the gap. We will be there when others cannot and when others' voices cannot be heard. So let me give you a picture of America because, for some reason, if we are not tied to the latest social media or maybe to our favorite cable stations, we can't imagine what happens across America, from California to New York, from the furthest State going to the North to our southern friends, including the great State of Texas. Every morning, every morning some family, some single mother, some single dad, some mother and father rise at 4:00 or 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning. And on some tables, there may be more than one would expect for breakfast; on some tables, there is no breakfast. They rush to prepare for the day's work. They rush sometimes to get their children to schools that are far beyond bus stops. And the reason why I say that is many school districts have even cut out school buses. So that means that these hardworking Americans have to rush and get their children to school. And they go off to jobs that are 8, 10, 12 hours long, where they work all day. And maybe they had someone--a grandmother or someone--pick up the child, but maybe they did not, and, therefore, they have to either have extended public care or wind up picking up those children. But what I will say to you is that they toil and work every day. So this fiscal deadline--deadline--is very serious to the Progressive Caucus and those of us who really believe that we would not be the patriots that we claim to be if we did not recognize the millions of Americans--with great humor, people were making jokes to the gentleman from Minnesota about the Powerball last night and how many people had tried to sign up for it--not out of greed. When they interviewed people, they were talking about charity and their friends and helping Mama get a better house and helping themselves get a better house. And something was said in our discussions today that the people who are trying to get into the middle class are the ones that we should be able to say to them, Your desires, the service you have given to your country, the work you do when you get up in those early mornings--some of them are park attendants. Some of them are working in bus barns. They may not even be bus drivers or they may not be conductors. They may be working around. They may be working in the great work that we could not survive, we call it Departments of Sanitation, the same group of men at that time that Martin King went to Memphis for. And the reason why I call out what it's like every morning before dawn when people get up and go to work is that they don't have time to do social media. They don't know when we are in negotiations about the fiscal deadline, but they're hoping someone is here standing in the gap. And Social Security is earned. It is earned by these people, whether they're in coal mines, as I said, whether they're sweeping streets, whether they are children who are disabled, whether they are children of the deceased who the only thing that kept them going or is keeping them going is a Social Security death benefit that they got from their deceased parent. So it is important as we look to what we will be doing is that we understand that it is not those of us in this place that we speak of. And as we speak of the hardworking middle class, we must put into the mix those individuals that keep the lights on, those individuals that keep the streets clean, those individuals that are assisting those who are at home--our nurses, attendants, and aides--those who are working in daycare centers, those persons who, when a fire in my district burned down a daycare center or something occurs, then you can be sure that there are workers who cannot work. And let me be clear: Since there was a tragedy in my community, I was not speaking of that specific tragedy. I'm talking about if something stops you from working, something happens to your business and there are workers there, those workers are unemployed, but they had paid into Social Security. Which brings me to a couple of other points, and I will yield back to the distinguished gentleman. It is important that we maintain the extension of unemployment benefits because I'm glad to say that I feel a surge in this economy. Things are getting better. We've had some great Thanksgiving sale days, and people went out even on Thanksgiving Day. Then we had Black Friday and then Cyber Monday. And everybody is telling us that things are on the move. But it is important to recognize that the country churns if you keep the important safety nets of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. And that must be what we do. And then to add unemployment, unemployment insurance. You always have to say over and over again, the word ``insurance'' means that you've gotten some insurance to get you through a rainy day. It's not a handout. It's a hand up. But it is insurance, and you've earned it because you have worked and you are now unemployed and you are looking for work. So the unemployment insurance is to be something that we need to count as a safety net and one that is of great need. Now let me finish by trying to, again, reemphasize the importance of bipartisanship. And progressives are those who recognize what a great country this is, and we are progressive by the nature of some of the issues that we support. But we do not have a wall in front of our face and say that we don't believe in bipartisanship or we haven't joined with some of our colleagues to make a difference for America. I truly believe that every set of policies have, maybe, relevancy as their past, and some policies--and I'm going to add the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act--have an unending life. But when you come to fiscal policy, because the economy churns and it goes in cycles, sometimes we're up, and sometimes we're down. Tax cuts of the nineties and earlier than the nineties with President Bush, before President Clinton and then thereafter with President Bush who came after President Clinton--sometimes economic policies say it's time for a rest; and those tax cuts, the top 1 and 2 percent, it is time for a rest. To be able to shore up, to say to every American that you will get a tax cut for $250,000 of your income, which includes 97 percent of small businesses is a reasoned response to the changing economy. The protection of the safety net is a reasoned response to the changing economy. And the recognition of the importance of Social Security, the recognition of the importance of Medicare and Medicaid, and the recognition of the importance that if you're unemployed of extending the unemployment, responds to the people who don't get their news on a regular streaming basis. They don't know what's going on up here. They're counting on us to stand in the gap and to make a difference in their lives. Some of them are working and some are on assistance, but they're not defined by anything except that they are Americans that love their country. I hope as we go into 2013 and as we have the privilege of being sworn in again, that we will look at issues like a wealth tax, that we will look at issues that address equalizing the impoverished in this Nation, most of them children. We're not there yet, but I think that we would be even a greater country--we're a great country and the greatest country in the world--if we recognize that there is value to lifting all boats, that there is value to saying that you're on hard rubble times, and this great country wants to lift the boat so that any children that you are raising have the equal opportunity to achieve their greatness. To the gentleman of Minnesota and the cochair of the Progressive Caucus, let me thank you for your wisdom and your sense of--I think the characterization that I've heard you state in many different instances and the characterization that I made today. We have an obligation to the people whose daily life is simply about trying to make it to the next day. I hope this Congress and I hope this process of negotiations and media debate and discussion don't ignore the fact that sometimes you've got to make sure that you respond to those who are now busily filling in those 12 hours of work, and the only thing they're looking forward to is whether they will have enough for a dinner at home and to pick up those children and get ready for the next day. As Americans, many of whom have served their Nation, I feel an obligation to make sure that we stand in the gap on their behalf. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res. 821, the Rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6429 ``STEM Jobs Act,'' a bill which eliminates the Diversity Visa Program. Nearly 15 million people, representing about 20 million with family members included, registered late last year for the 2012 Diversity Visa Program under which only 50,000 visa winners were to be selected via random selection process. Each year, diversity visa winners make up about 4% of all Legal Permanent Resident (LPR) admissions.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 6025, the ``Mandatory Operational Control Reporting and Performance Measures Act of 2012,'' which provides for annual reports to Congress from the Secretary of Homeland Security on the status of operational control of the international land and maritime borders of the United States, as well as, unlawful entries through those borders. As a Ranking Member of Homeland Security Committee Transportation Subcommittee, I recognize the essential role that the Committee and this Congress play in securing our borders from terrorism, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. This goal involves the substantial efforts of federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as Congressional creation of effective border policy. I recognize that this bill seeks to provide additional information to Congress that will be helpful to that process going forward. Section 2 of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to ``take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime border of the United States.'' The section defines operational control to mean ``the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.'' As the Representative for the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas, border security and integrity are of paramount importance to both me and my constituents. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. Its services link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world. It generates about $11 billion annually and provides over 287,000 direct and indirect jobs in Texas. As the port plays such a large role in the US economy it is crucial that we maintain its integrity and security. H.R. 6025 is designed to gauge the performance of the Department in achieving operational control, so that Congress may provide additional legislation, tools, and resources as necessary. More specifically, this bill will provide for annual reports on (1) the number of miles of the international land and maritime border between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico that are under operational DHS control, cumulatively and by sector; and (2) the estimated number of individuals who unlawfully enter the United States annually, the estimated number of individuals unlawfully present in the United States as of the date of each such report, and the number of individuals unlawfully present in the United States who voluntarily exited the United States in the preceding year. Border security and immigration enforcement are enormous tasks requiring extensive resources. The Federal Government aims to, and must, work with State and local authorities to share the responsibilities and the common goal of a safe and secure America. Despite the many examples of successful initiative and cooperative efforts, there are plenty of legitimate concerns that must be taken into account when discussing the best way to ensure that America's borders are secure. Significant improvements in technology and infrastructure have been made to the efforts the Federal Government is making to improve border security and immigration enforcement. Reports like the one proposed today are important to achieving our long term goals.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6328, the ``Jamie Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act,'' which Directs the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration [TSA]) to transfer unclaimed clothing recovered at airport security checkpoints to local veterans organizations or other local charitable organizations for distribution to homeless or needy veterans and their families. Moreover, it authorizes the Assistant Secretary to enter into agreements with airport authorities for disposing of such clothing. In my home state of Texas, we have nearly 1.7 million veterans. I represent 18th District in Texas which is home to over 32,000 veterans. Of the 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Veteran homelessness has been a substantial problem going back to at least the Vietnam era. An estimated 10-16 percent of our nation's homeless population (between 76,000-136,000) are veterans. Nearly one in seven homeless adults are veterans, as of * * * More than 67,000 homeless veterans were counted on a given January night in America last year. More than 4 in 10 homeless veterans were found unsheltered. Almost half of homeless veterans were African American in 2008 despite the fact that only 11 percent of veterans overall are African American. 1.5 million veterans are at risk of homelessness due to poverty, lack of support networks, and dismal living conditions in overcrowded or substandard housing. 30.2 percent of veterans ages 18 to 24 were unemployed according to unpublished 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly 1 in 10 veterans with disabilities were not employed in 2010. According to Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a 2007 survey showed that more than one-third of employers were unaware of protections they must provide to servicemembers, and more than half spent less than 2 percent of their recruitment budget on military advertising and/or did not understand the qualifications of military service. In that same survey more than half of all veterans were unsure of how to professionally network, and nearly three in four felt unprepared to negotiate salary and benefits and/or unable to effectively translate military skills. More than 968,000 of veterans ages 18 to 64 had been in poverty in the past year in 2010. More than 33,000 veterans were housed since 2009 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs in permanent, supportive housing with case managers and access to VA health care. $31 million of SNAP/food stamps funding in 2008 was spent at military commissaries to help feed military members and their families who struggle against hunger. A veteran lives in one in five households benefiting from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which provides heating and cooling assistance. After serving this country and protecting our rights and freedoms, these veterans often sustain debilitating injuries or post-traumatic stress that make readjusting to life in the U.S. an arduous task. It is often difficult for them to find jobs and as they slip further into hopelessness, they become more susceptible to drug abuse and violent acts which can lead to homelessness. This is a disturbing trend that must end. Surely, in this great nation, we can provide for those who fought to defend us. As our men and women in the armed forces have served us, it is our duty to, in turn, serve them. H.R. 6328 is a step in the right direction towards finding creative solutions for the basic needs of certain veterans. By using unclaimed clothing that has been left at airports is a wonderful way to help ensure that veterans who have fallen on hard times have access to clothing. With the epidemic of depression, anxiety, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in our military, along with the burden of long and repeated deployment during our nation's most recent wars, we must be vigilant about combating the issue of homelessness among our nation's heroes. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have remained committed to meeting both the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to those who are now serving. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans. I have introduced and supported legislation that increases medical services to our troops, veterans and their families. I recently introduced a measure that resulted in $500,000 additional funding for PTSD research and treatment. Yet, as we work to improve the physical and mental health of our returning heroes; we must also work to ensure that our service men and women retain their dignity when they return home, and providing them with access to clothes is the least we can do to honor their service. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6328, the ``Clothe a Homeless Hero Act,'' on Suspension.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 5997, the ``Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act,'' which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. Moreover, this would involve the development and maintenance of an initial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, their families, and immediate victims from a chemical or biological event. As a proud Member of this body and as the Ranking Member on Homeland Security Transportation Subcommittee on Transportation, I understand the importance of maintaining an unyielding commitment to keeping the American homeland safe from weapons of mass destruction by increasing our preparedness for dealing with chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, whether they originate from individuals, terrorist organizations, and state sponsors of terror, or horrible accidents. While much has been done to prepare our first responders for a nuclear, chemical or biological incident in the United States, the healthcare system in this country is not fully prepared to handle the resulting mass casualties that would likely result from such an attack. Thousands of lives could potentially be saved if our medical personnel are adequately prepared and trained for such an occurrence. The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) provides funding to State and local governments to assist in preparing for and responding to mass casualty incidents resulting from acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other events. Using the grants, jurisdictions develop response plans, conduct exercises and training, and acquire medical countermeasures and personal protective equipment for dealing with biological events that occur on a large scale. As it stands, the MMRS program has not been reauthorized or appropriated funds due to recent budgetary constraints. MMRS Characteristics include: Integrated medical response system; detailed system response & operations plans; specially trained responders at all levels; specialized response equipment; specialized medical equipment and pharmaceutical cache; enhanced medical transport and treatment capabilities. MMRS has 12 MMRS Capability Focus Areas, which include the following: Strengthen Medical Surge; strengthen Mass Prophylaxis; strengthen CBRNE Detection, Response, and Decontamination Capabilities; strengthen Interoperable Communication Capabilities; strengthen Information Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities; expand Regional Collaboration; triage and Pre-Hospital Treatment; medical Supplies Management and Distribution; mass Care (Sheltering, Feeding, and Related Services); emergency Public Information and Warning; fatality Management; volunteer Management and Donations. H.R. 5997 would authorize use of Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) funding toward the enhancement of medical preparedness, medical surgery capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. This would effectively allow to MMRS program to continue using these funds, which provide important measures such as a pharmaceutical stockpile, medical kits, and diagnostics that will help to protect first responders, their families, and immediate victims from a chemical or biological act of terror or accident. As Americans, we must ensure that we are adequately prepared for whatever challenges that we face in our Nation; and nowhere is that more true than with the potential for large-scale disasters. Preparing for large and debilitating disasters has become an inconvenient but necessary facet of modern America, a task that our government has met head on since 9/11. This bill will help to ensure that the resources are there in order to make those preparations.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5913, the ``DHS Accountability Act of 2012,'' which establishes an independent advisory panel in the legislative branch to: (1) comprehensively assess the management structure and capabilities related to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and (2) make recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DHS management. Moreover, the advisory panel is tasked with directing the panel to examine: (1) the efficiency and effectiveness of the management structure and capabilities (2) the extent to which unnecessary duplication exists in such management structure and capabilities and how any such duplication negatively affects the mission of protecting the United States; (3) the extent to which management of key homeland security missions is centralized under DHS; (4) options to reduce or eliminate harmful waste and duplication of effort in DHS; and (5) measures to evaluate DHS's progress in reducing and eliminating waste and duplication from its management structure and capabilities. As the Ranking Member of Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation, I am familiar with the challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as the various agencies within the Department work to ensure the safety of all Americans. Like most other agencies, DHS and the agencies within it are facing budget cuts amidst the rising cost of ever present threats. I want to recognize the outstanding work and progress that this body, in cooperation with the United States Senate and the executive branch, has made in learning from the events of 9/11. Together, we have taken steps toward the implementation of policies that have made our nation more secure from terrorism, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. With over 200,000 employees and encompassing numerous agencies and various other components, DHS is the 3rd largest cabinet level department. There were certain flaws in our security apparatus that failed us on 9/11 which include the lack of information-sharing between agencies charged with determining who should and should not be permitted to enter our borders, as well as friction and difficulties that resulted from some of the overlapping responsibilities of those agencies. DHS was created to resolve some of those difficulties, and although it has made great strides, more work remains to be done. The advisory panel created by the H.R. 5913 will be instrumental in assisting Congress and the Department of Homeland Security in achieving missions vital to America while trimming waste and improving its efficiency and efficacy. It is essential that this Congress work in tandem with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that the nation is protected from threats to our homeland. Because it will help to facilitate this important process, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5913, the ``DHS Accountability Act of 2012.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say good morning and wish America a wonderful season, but more importantly I hope everyone had a blessed Thanksgiving. That is what I'd like to speak about, this whole idea of giving thanks and recognizing where we are today. Before I start that, very briefly let me encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Gold Medal for Malala. We often speak of children, but we often as well fail to recognize children. Malala is a little girl in Pakistan who was willing to stand up to the Taliban to say that we too deserve an education. She is being promoted as the person of the year. I hope Congress will celebrate her, as well. I mentioned Thanksgiving, and I believe it is important to focus on that because I call upon my colleagues to gather their wits about them as we reflect on what will approach us in January of 2013. It will not be the decline that everyone is being frightened about, because in essence they do not start those cuts right at the beginning. Why don't we be deliberative? Why don't we lay down on the table that we will protect Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, what people have earned? Why don't we explain to people that everyone at $250,00 and below will get a tax cut, everyone will, no matter what your wealth level? Why don't we stop throwing at each other various stones and other things and be deliberative on behalf of the American people. We should be thankful to live in the great country that we live in.