Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize and honor the extraordinary public service commitment of Congressman Ralph Hall, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman, the dean of the Texas Congressional Delegation, and my long serving colleague. Today, Congressman Hall reigns as both the oldest Member of Congress and the oldest House Member known to cast a vote on the House Floor. I am pleased to say that Congressman Hall will also become the oldest person ever elected to a new House term, during the 113th Congress. Congressman Hall, a lifelong native of the great State of Texas, has been a faithful public servant and has dedicated 32 years of service to representing the constituents of the 4th Congressional District of Texas. In 1942, Congressman Hall became an aircraft pilot for the United States Navy and served our country during World War II. Congressman Hall soared to the top of military rankings, becoming a senior grade lieutenant. Congressman Hall, thank you for your service in the Armed Forces in efforts to protect our freedoms and to ensure America is the greatest country on the Earth. Congressman Hall also served the great State of Texas in both State and local government. In 1950-1962, he served as County Judge of Rockwall County, Texas. In 1958-1959, he served as President of the State Judges and Commissioners Association. He served in the Texas Senate from 1962 to 1972, where he served as President pro tempore for a year. In addition to a successful early political career, Congressman Hall is an accomplished businessman. He served as: The President and CEO of Texas Aluminum Corporation, The General Counsel of Texas Extrusion Company, and He was a founding member of Lakeside National Bank in Rockwall County. After his service in State government and achievements in the private sector, Congressman Hall decided to run for U.S. Congress. In 1980, he was elected to serve the Fourth Congressional District of Texas and has been re-elected each succeeding Congress. Some say that his long tenure in Congress is related to his love for the Fourth Congressional District of Texas. I can attest that Congressman Hall loves his District, and he certainly loves the United States of America. Congressman Hall is often quoted, saying, ``I'd rather be respected at home than liked in Washington.'' Congressman Hall, we need more politicians like you who value the demands of the American people and recognize, we as elected officials, are accountable to those who elect us to office. While in Congress, Congressman Hall has been the recipient of numerous awards. Among Congressman Hall's many achievements: He has been credited for helping to advance research and development for new technologies to keep America competitive. Congressman Hall has worked to utilize abundant domestic energy resources and helped explore alternative energy sources that would lower costs. He has also played an integral role in ensuring America's preeminence in human space exploration. I stand proudly before this body of Congress to honor Congressman Ralph Hall. He has contributed so many great things to our country, and he is the epitome of a great leader. I pray that you serve as the oldest Member of Congress for years to come.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day. We get to honor a great and magnificent American--my friend, our friend, Ralph Hall. In the moments and minutes and hour to come, there will be many who will rise to recognize the extraordinary public service, but I want to add, in addition to the extraordinary public service, a man who has seen numbers of Presidents. As an American who has worked, spoken and achieved under all of them, Ralph Hall today reigns as both the oldest Member of Congress and the oldest House Member known to cast a vote on the House floor. But that is not his only definition, for he is one who has a heart and who recognizes the value of service to the American people. Oh, he loves his great State of Texas. He is truly a tall Texan. He is a faithful public servant who has dedicated 32 years of service to representing the constituents of the Fourth Congressional District; but he started his life by the service to the United States in the United States military--in the United States Navy. Yes, 1942. So he has seen this Nation in her ups and her downs, but Ralph Hall has never been down. What a great leader of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. What an opportunity to serve with him. What a servant as he worked with Presidents like Lyndon Baines Johnson, making difficult and tough decisions--not a partisan but a lover of America. Yes, I can stand here today and say not only is this great hero and American and Member of the United States Congress--young in age but old in numbers--wise, dedicated, but I can also say that he is a lover of his family: his late wife, his grandchildren, his children. I was able to join him at a time when he had to visit a grandchild. I was glad to be able to have Ralph in our city, not for the cause that he was, but to be able to say, Ralph, you're a friend, and we stand with you during this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an American hero and also to a friend and a great leader on this floor, someone from whom I wish years and years and years of service. As a fellow Texan, I join my Texans and others to say, Thank you, Ralph Hall, for the friendship, the leadership, the courage--and, yes, you are an American hero. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First, I think it is appropriate to welcome back my colleagues and to congratulate all of those who have chosen again, if reelected, to serve this great, great Nation, and for those for the first time who have the honor and privilege of being in this storied institution. Now words are that we can come together and make a difference in the lives of Americans and we can, in fact, find a way to help the most vulnerable, the impoverished, and those who work every day. I know that we can solve this problem of sequestration. I lead now into something that is quite contrary to the idea of America's issues and problems and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting a Congressional Gold Medal for Malala Yousufzai. This is the little girl who was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan standing up for education for our children and for her fellow boys and girls. What an amazing young lady now healing in a British hospital. Sixty-one million children worldwide are not enrolled in school. We're advocating, or many around the world are advocating, for a Nobel Peace Prize for her. I believe that the Congressional Gold Medal symbolizes those who are willing to suffer for others and to make a difference. I ask my colleagues to join me. The United Nations declared Saturday, November 10, 2012, as Malala Day, to highlight the lack of access to education for 32 million girls. I think that we can join together and say we stand with girls and boys around the world and we stand with our children. Support a Congressional Gold Medal for the little girl who was willing to stand up to the Taliban.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there's so much that we can acknowledge and respect as we come back to work on behalf of the American people. I'd like my colleagues to allow me, for a moment, to raise the issue of the recognition of introducing a legislative initiative to award the Congressional Gold Medal to Malala Yousufzai, the little girl in Pakistan who had the courage to stand up against the heinousness of the Taliban. On October 9, 2012, Malala was shot and nearly killed by Taliban operatives because she advocated simply for educating girls in Pakistan. Her shooting has sent shock waves through the region and around the world. Leaders across the globe have condemned her shooting, while Taliban leaders remain unrepentant. In fact, as she heals in a British hospital, they have continued to threaten that she will be shot again if she comes to the soil. Sixty-one million children worldwide are not enrolled in school, of which 32 million are girls. Pakistan has the second highest number of girls who are not attending school in the world. As a cochair and founder of the Pakistan Caucus, the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I urge my colleagues to rush toward this legislation and sign on. The United Nations declared Saturday, November 10, 2010, Malala Day, and many are advocating for a Nobel Peace Laureate. I ask my colleagues to join me in advocating to recognize this brave little girl who stands for the children of the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on August 3, 1962, a life changing decision was made by Dr. Denton Cooley in the founding of the Texas Heart Institute. As I listened to the words said this morning, he chose wisdom over ignorance with respect to diagnosing cardiovascular disease, the most devastating killer of Americans, killing a life every 33 seconds, 2,600 lives each day, and nearly 1 million lives each year. Dr. Cooley was honored this past week with tributes from President George Bush and President William Jefferson Clinton, joined by his wife and extended family. Over the years, he has been able to help men and women and children. He has done a magnificent job with respect to the amount of surgeries that have been performed. He performed more than 118,000 open-heart operations, 258,000 cardiac catheterizations, and 1,270 heart transplants. The Texas Heart Institute, along with St. Luke's Hospital, continues to serve the world and continues to do research to improve the lives of those who suffer from heart disease. Dr. James Willerson is the new CEO. His demeanor and temperament, his research abilities, and his leadership has taken this great institution to the 21st century. What a great honor to be with those who honor Dr. Denton Cooley for his wisdom and his ability to challenge medical profession science to be able to save lives. Today, children live, families are reunited, and we are stronger in our health because of the existence of the Texas Heart Institute. It is my privilege to congratulate them for 50 years of saving lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment, I believe, that common sense would allow us to work together and pass. This amendment would simply maintain the current deadline that existed under the previous administration of 90 days under the Clean Air Act by striking section 503 of the bill which artificially limits agency comment periods on water quality permits to 30 days with no possibility of extension. This existed under President Bush's administration. Why, then, would my friends on the other side of the aisle not join with me to say let's have regular order? Let's ensure that we give everyone a reasonable opportunity for a response on their quality of life. On the surface, the intent of H.R. 3409 appears to be to prevent the Interior Department from revising a Bush administration midnight regulation that significantly weakened mountaintop protections on the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. Let me remind you, they did not alter the comment period. Mountaintop removal mining, as many of us know, is a very challenging, environmentally difficult process. For many, they say, it creates jobs. What we are trying to do is to ensure that there is a balance between that industry and, as well, the fairness of allowing those to be able to comment. As it's presently drafted, this bill would reach, in fact, it would make it much more difficult, if you will, to deal with the question of rulemaking. The people in the State of Texas and the city of Houston appreciate the ability to drink cool, fresh water. So does everyone else. The idea of not being able to comment on the impact of this particular process is challenging. I ask my colleagues to consider the importance of coming together and extending, or going back to, the 90-day comment period to balance, if you will, the timeframe and to ensure that all are heard on any aspects that would impact the environment, impact the environment of this particular procedure. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment that speaks to the health and good quality of life for all Americans and America's children. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just clarify what is happening with this legislation. It eliminates the EPA's authority to apply minimum Federal water quality standards sufficient to protect human and aquatic life, and it is weaker than State standards in many places. It strips the EPA's authority to object to the State discharge permits that fail to meet Clean Air Act requirements. Now, this is not about creating jobs, Mr. Chairman. I ask, on the names of our children yet unborn, to be able to have a quality of life, quality of water and quality of air that the requirements that they are trying to eliminate in this bill, the proponent of this bill, to the extent that they will narrow the comment period to 30 days rather than 90 days. Why is that not a simple request if my good friend could not say, Congresswoman, we support the amendment. I hope that's what he will say. The difficulty that I have is I would rather, Mr. Chairman, be doing Medicare, tax breaks, jobs, urgent priorities that are needed. I just ask for a little bit of consideration on recognizing that the Nation is better when we have provided a quality of life for all Americans. Who are we to speak of the needs of the people who have coal in their region? What we have asked is that we put in the four parameters of common sense and reasonableness. My amendment is that. It expands back to its regular order the existing comment period, Mr. Chairman, to 90 days. It strikes the provision, and this bill that limits it to 30 days.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If we pass the American Jobs Act, we will help Hispanic youngsters, Anglo youngsters, African American youngsters, and all Americans. However, what an insult to America's values to suggest that those who come to this country to give by way of a legal process, diversity visas, are not contributing. I do not want to insult anyone who comes with the idea of helping America. That means wherever they've come from: Africa, Iran, elsewhere. If they come for a good reason through the diversity visa to reunite with their family, that is the American way. Immigration by law, that is the American way.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm most grateful. Thank you very much. To the Speaker and to my colleague from Texas, this is the perfect infrastructure for collaboration and bipartisanship. We have worked together on this issue, and we have confronted the issue that I mentioned to Congresswoman Lofgren on which we will continue to work, which is to ensure the outreach to Historically Black Colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges for the engineers and scientists who are prepared to work in America's technology industry, and I expect that that will happen. I am supportive of STEM visas to provide for the infrastructure of workers for the dynamic technology, Silicon Valley software, Austin, Texas, and beyond to be able to be vibrant and thriving. But as I just left the President of Malawi, a woman who has inspired Malawians to look to the future, and as they look to the future, we have said that we want to ensure that America has a future with the continent. To remove the diversity visas that create diversity, to take away opportunities from a continent that, by and large, has been an ally and friend to the United States, whose African citizens have come to be reunited with families, who have generated outstanding businesses, from South Africans, to Kenyans, to Guineans, to those from Cote d'Ivoire and those from Nigeria--in my town, Nigerians have created the most successful brand of small businesses from being seamstresses to doctors and lawyers and others. I cannot vote for a bill that will allow us to remove the component for diversity visas as an exchange or substitute for this kind of approach. We must have balanced and comprehensive immigration reform.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. What we will do is to raise the flag as Americans and evenhandedly and quickly investigate the source of this horrific incident to our family members. We will not let their memory be diminished by quarreling and squabbling about pointing the finger as much as it will be to investigate what actually happened. I think it is time now, as we saw occurring just a few days ago with the welcoming home of their bodies, that America draws together to show that we are united around those who have fallen in battle and those who have served, to express our deepest respect, and of course our deepest honor for them. I will go forth to work harder to ensure that we are protected with secure Council offices and embassies and enhanced security for those who are willing to put themselves on the front line. I think this is appropriate in conjunction with this present legislation, H.R. 5044, that helps our fallen veterans as well. I thank my colleague for yielding the time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the subcommittee ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee for his leadership, and I thank my friend from Texas, Congressman Johnson, for managing, and the sponsor of this legislation as well. Let me rise in support of what I think is a recognition, a recognition of the sacrifice that families make and those who remain behind after our soldiers fall in battle--a fall pursuant to a service- related injury--and to not have the added burden of having any forgiven debt be included as income to be assessed by the IRS. I believe that this is a fair and important collaborative exercise, a reasonable response to taxation. I hope, as we come together around veterans and this removal of this burden, we can clearly see pathways to address the question of tax reform that responds to working Americans, that protects working Americans, for that is obviously what this family is. They sent a son off to war, or a daughter off to war-- or a mother or father or uncle or aunt, cousins. America is about family. Therefore, now we have the legitimate response that they would not, through some procedural snafu, be burdened by having that forgiven debt be part of the remaining family's income, particularly those who may have cosigned. I know the fallen soldier would not want that to happen. As I stand here, I cannot help make mention as well of the resolution that saluted the fallen in Libya, H. Res. 786. I just wanted to acknowledge the passion that all Americans have for Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service information management officer Sean Smith, and security officers Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have often said that terrorism is franchised. It does not have to be an army of millions or thousands, it does not have to be a battalion, it doesn't have to be anything but one wanting to do evil. Therefore, it is important to say to the families of these men in particular, and others that fell, and others that were injured, and the men and women that serve as our face--civilian face, if you will--in embassies and consulate offices around the world, particularly those who have served in the horrific backdrop of 9/11 in a region that is now overwhelmed with conflict--to say to their families that our priority will be to offer you sympathy and to mourn with you and to love you and to indicate that we will not allow divisiveness to fall on the issue of who did it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to rise on the floor of the House today to pay tribute to astronaut Neil Armstrong, an American hero. Yesterday, at the National Cathedral, we paid tribute to him as a national hero and recognize that his name will forever be a testament to our Nation's will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration and push the boundaries, going where no man has gone before. As a 12-year member of the House Science Committee and a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I can tell you that I am deeply indebted, but also embedded with the idea of human space exploration. How can I not be, representing and coming from the community where NASA Johnson Space Center is. Today I rise in tribute to all of them and recognize the greater leadership that Neil Armstrong gave as a humble American. He, along with fellow astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin, shared a most significant time in our history--one small step for man, but a great and gigantic step for humanity. Right now in Houston, we are celebrating 50 years of human space exploration at the Hyatt Regency, commemorating NASA Johnson. I want to thank Dr. Mae Jemison and all those who came after this great hero for continuing the dream. They can count on me as a Member of the United States Congress to fight again for human space exploration. Thank you, Neil Armstrong, an American hero. May you rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my gratitude to the great American and Astronaut, Neil Armstrong. Neil Armstrong is a name that will forever be a testament to our nation's will to prevail in the challenge for successful space exploration and push the boundaries--going where no man has gone before. Neil Armstrong was truly an American hero and icon. He represented the ingenuity and the passion for exploration and discovery that is the hallmark of our nation. It may have been a ``small step,'' but when he became the first person to set foot on the moon, it changed the course of history, making the impossible possible. His legacy will live on each time we dare to dream beyond what seems possible. I am sure that everyone in this House and around this great nation has some memory of where they were and what they were doing when they saw Neil Armstrong become the first human being to walk on the Moon as commander of the Apollo 11 mission. Neil Armstrong was born in Wapakoneta, Ohio on August 5, 1930. He joined the Navy and flew as a naval aviator from 1949 until 1952. In 1955 he made the decision to join the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics' Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory and later transferred to the high speed flight station at Edwards Air Force Base, California to become a civilian aeronautical test research pilot for NASA. Mr. Armstrong, along with his fellow astronauts, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collin, shared the most significant accomplishment of modern man--they were the first people to successfully complete a voyage to and walk on the Moon. On July 11, 1969, Armstrong, boarded the Apollo 11 spacecraft and departed for the Moon. Four days later he arrived landed our lunar module in the Moon's sea of tranquility. While Astronaut Collins remained with the orbiting Mother Ship, Neil Armstrong, said ``One small step for man, one giant leap for Mankind,'' and took the first step on the Moon's surface. At that moment Neil Armstrong changed Mankind and the Earth. At that moment in history, America along with the world celebrated the fantastic milestone--science fiction had become science fact--Neil Armstrong and his fellow Astronauts had accomplished through the help of thousands back on earth and Heaven's blessings. Mr. Speaker, I hope that in honoring Neil Armstrong, we as Americans will renew young people's interests preparing for careers in mathematics and science.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to join my colleague in asking for the blessings on this Nation and to remind America that we gathered on Tuesday, together, in commemoration and recognition of 9/11. But America also needs us to do better. And I speak in the backdrop of a horrific tragedy that we are all reminded of in the loss of Americans in what continues to be an attack on our values. That's why it's important for us to shed all that partisanship leads to and the lack of bringing forth bills that would help all of America. So I am here this morning to remind us of work yet undone, that we just had 61 bills that have been signed into law this year, the fewest in more than 60 years. In all of 2011, only 90 bills were signed into law. And so we know in the last session, the 111th Congress, 258 bills were signed into law. We have got to do better. And the most difficult thing that I rise and speak about is the lack of presenting on the floor of the House the President's jobs bill, the American Jobs Act, that would invest in small business, that would create an opportunity for those who have lost their unemployment to be extended, to create summer jobs and part-time jobs, to be able to ensure that there is job training, and to make sure that we say to America: we are your partner in job creation. Why haven't we been able to overcome those who would stand in the way on the other side of the aisle for putting forth the American Jobs Act? It is to help the American people. We have not been able to tackle, if you will, postal reform. Those are jobs. Those are people who work to make America's commerce travel from place to place. I have spoken to small businesses, and they say the U.S. Postal Service is their lifeline for their small business. They can actually make a profit by using the U.S. Postal Service. Senior citizens who receive their Social Security checks, sometimes in the mail, many times we know online, but are connected to the post office. They're connected to the letter carriers. They're connected to the local post office in their neighborhood. How do I know? Because of the outpouring of concern for the closing of a post office on Mesa Road in the 18th Congressional District, my congressional district. So I am interested in this Congress not being known by the do-nothing Congress, do-nothing Republican Congress. I want us to work together and be able to say that these items need to be put forward for the American people. What do we have to say, now looking toward sequestration? We realize that you cannot cut discretionary funding. We realize that 50 million Americans are suffering from food insecurity, and we have a $13 to $16 billion cut in the supplemental nutritional program. That simply cannot be. That cannot be the record of this Congress. No jobs, no postal reform, cutting food that people need, and, of course, staring down at our men and women in the United States military where resources that they need may be cut. So I am asking that we may be reminded that there are those who have written, Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, that in studying Washington politics in Congress for more than 4 years, this is their quote, they have never seen such a dysfunctional place. We can do better. We must do better. Democrats are ready to work to pass the American jobs bill, to pass postal reform, to pass bills dealing with helping to improve the lives of Americans, to ensuring that no American goes to bed hungry, and that we welcome our troops home and provide for their families. That's the Congress that we should be known for. That's what America is all about. I ask that God blesses this Nation, but this Congress recognize that we have to be busy until He comes. Let's get busy for the American people. Democrats are busy and want to work to succeed to do what is right for America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 778, the Rule providing for consideration of H.J. Res. 117, making further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through March of 2013. I am quick to note Mr. Speaker the attempt by the Rules Committee Ranking Member, Ms. Slaughter to amend the rule for H.R. 6365 to make in order and provide the appropriate waivers for amendment #1 offered by the Budget Committee Ranking Member Mr. Van Hollen, which would have replaced the entire sequester for 2013 with savings from specific policies that reflect a much-needed balanced approach to deficit reduction. The entire House should have been allowed to debate Mr. Van Hollen's measure even though I had serious concerns about the substance. Nevertheless, the debate is one that we should have. I rise in support of making further continuing appropriations for the beginning of the 2013 Fiscal Year. This measure will continue to assure funding for all federal government agencies and allow the government to continue its day to day operations through March 27 of 2013. I am also rising in support of helping families in Houston cope. I am rising in support of Texans who need critical Federal Government goods and services. I rise in support of people who are clinging to their jobs--the working poor. I rise in support of those on Medicaid who are beholden to the governor of Texas who is in the business of rejecting federal funds and then using them to prop up his budget numbers. I rise in support of the elderly. I rise in support of military veterans. I rise in support of children. Today, the House will consider H.J. Res. 117, Six-Month Continuing Resolution. This Continuing Resolution will fund the government through March 27, 2013. The Senate is expected to consider the House-passed Continuing Resolution next week. The Continuing Resolution reflects a bipartisan agreement between Congressional Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and the White House--and will prevent a government shutdown and maintain the programs and services critical to the American people. The Continuing Resolution (``CR'') ensures a total rate of operations for FY 2013 at $1.047 trillion--the level for FY 2013 discretionary spending that was agreed to as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (PL 112-25). As a starting point, the CR continues funding at the current rate of operations for federal agencies, programs and services. To meet the agreement to ensure the rate of operations at $1.047 trillion, a government-wide, across-the-board increase of 0.6 percent over the base rate is also included. The CR caps funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) for FY 2013 at the President's FY 2013 request of $88.5 billion--which is $26.6 billion below the FY 2012 OCO funding level. OCO is not included under the $1.047 trillion cap. The CR continues funding for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund at last year's level, with this disaster relief funding also not included under the $1.047 trillion cap. The CR includes a clean, six-month extension of TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Without this extension, cash assistance and work support for working families would stop in FY 2013. The CR extends the current pay freeze for federal employees, which includes Members of the House of Representatives and Senators, as requested by the President. The CR also includes various provisions, often needed in a longterm CR, to ensure adequate funding of certain key government operations and services through the six-month period, including provisions allowing additional funding for such things as: The Veterans Administration to meet an increase in the disability claims workload. The Interior Department and the Forest Service for wildfire suppression efforts. The FCC to conduct spectrum auctions. Nuclear weapons modernization efforts, to ensure the security of our nuclear stockpile. Sustaining Homeland Security cybersecurity efforts. I urge my colleagues to pass this Rule and the underlying Continuing Resolution. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections: Sec. 3. Upon completion of consideration of House Resolution 746 the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 15) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax relief to middle-class families. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill. Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this resolution. Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All points of order against the resolution and against its consideration are waived.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much to the ranking member of the Budget Committee. Madam Speaker, we rise today to try to bring some logic and sense, because as Americans debate sequestration, they throw their hands up and say, What is that? What is that in the minds of children and the elderly? What does that mean in a real rational way of coming together and saying there are some cuts and there are some revenue increases to be able to invest in the American public? In order to create jobs, you expend dollars, you invest in research and development, you help to create opportunities for small businesses, you help to promote manufacturing. That's how you create jobs. But let me tell you what the underlying bill says. This bill will only take effect one year later. It has no opportunity, no desire, and no rationale to raise revenue. Every thinking economist says that we must raise revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to spend dollars to invest in the American public. Do you want your military families to be on food stamps? Do you want 50 million Americans to suffer food insecurity? Do you want these Americans to suffer? That would include seniors on Meals on Wheels, home care, adult protective services. Millions of children, one-third of them, depend on these social service block grants, child protective services, foster care and child care. This also includes 1 million disabled, respite care or transportation. Do you want to, as I said, continue the food insecurity for 60 million children? All I can say is that this bill not only kicks the can down the road; it kicks the mountain down the road. Let's vote against this bill. Let's sit down at the table, boost revenue, and invest in the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join in asking for calm, along with Secretary Clinton, in this violent and tumultuous world, and particularly with regard to the actions that are going on in Yemen, Cairo, and certainly Libya. I offer my deepest sympathy to those who lost their lives. I stand again to say, as the Secretary indicated this morning, that the American people and the American Government had absolutely nothing to do with this heinous film, but we reject the horrible and horrific violence. I am also saddened to hear that resources probably prevented some of the reinforcing of some of our Embassies. We cannot shortchange the securing of the homeland, and as we go forward in dealing with sequestration, I beg that we understand that we must protect those who serve us overseas, including the United States military. But I call for peace. I know the American people realize that no religion should be denigrated, but we cannot accept and will not accept and will stand against any violence against the American people or those who serve us in a civilian manner with honor and dignity. To their families, I offer my deepest sympathy and a commitment that we will stand against terrorism.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. In the course of this particular legislation, we had to contend with such things as warrantless wiretapping. Again, as I indicated, the need for the intruding of the Congress is a respect of the liberties which we want to protect. So I would ask my colleagues to yield to transparency, to yield to a shorter extension. Make this bill stand on its own two feet juxtaposed to the Constitution. While we mourn those who have fallen, we respect that this is a free country. Today, we are not acting on that freedom by giving up the congressional oversight that is necessary. I ask my colleagues to reject the present form of this bill. I beg the Senate to look more readily at a shorter extension and more transparency. I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I believe that although we had a chance to discuss this reauthorization in the Judiciary Committee, the full import of this bill is too broad and more debate and consideration is necessary. The fact is not lost on me that this is the 11th year following the attacks of 9-11. I open my statement with a quote from one of my heroines, and a trailblazer on so many levels, Barbara Jordan, who said: ``What the people want is very simple--they want an America as good as its promise.'' Over the past year, Senate and House Democrats have worked with their Republican counterparts, the Administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to develop proposals for amendments to FISA that would give the intelligence community the flexibility it needs to safeguard our nation, while also providing strong protections for civil liberties. A proper balancing is America--as good as its promise. And in-keeping with the notion of balance, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee Markup of this legislation which simply asked for a report on the implementation of the amendments made by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. My amendment simply requested that the report include an assessment of the impact of Section 702 of the FISA on the privacy of persons inside the United States. Even with court- approved targeting and minimization procedures in place, the government can and does intercept the communications of U.S. citizens. It does so without a particularized warrant or a showing of probable cause. This approach to electronic surveillance raises concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, warrantless eavesdropping, and the use of ``general warrants.'' The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right ``of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Many of the government activities discussed in this report have the potential to constitute a search as that term is defined in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Namely, government action constitutes a search when it intrudes upon a person's ``reasonable expectation of privacy,'' which requires both that an ``individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object'' and that ``society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.'' The Fourth Amendment and its protections go back to our founding--the ability of the American Patriots to resist unwarranted searches and seizures by the British is inculcated in the American psyche. Thus, the Fourth Amendment ultimately limits the government's ability to conduct a range of activities, such as physical searches of homes or offices and listening to phone conversations. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to demonstrate ``probable cause'' and obtain a warrant (unless a recognized warrant exception applies) before conducting a search. This rule applies most clearly in criminal investigations. For example, an officer conducting a criminal investigation typically may not search a person's belongings without first obtaining a warrant that describes the property for which sufficient evidence justifies a search. The extent to which the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to the government's collection of information for intelligence gathering and other purposes unrelated to criminal investigations is unclear. Although the surveillance of wire or oral communications for criminal law enforcement purposes was held to be subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in 1967, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress sought to regulate the use of such surveillance for national security purposes at that time. Several years later, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations for national security purposes, but indicated that its conclusion might differ if the electronic surveillance targeted foreign powers or their agents. A lower court has since upheld the statutory scheme governing the gathering of foreign intelligence information against a Fourth Amendment challenge, despite an assumption that orders issued pursuant to the statute might not constitute ``warrants'' for Fourth Amendment purposes. The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue. However, even if the warrant requirement was found not to apply to searches for foreign intelligence or national security purposes, such searches would presumably be subject to the general Fourth Amendment ``reasonableness'' test. In the context of national security, the contours of the Fourth Amendment are necessarily narrowed but not abandoned altogether. The march toward a Big Brother State begins when the people's rights to privacy and to be free from surveillance are surrendered in toto. All we have to do is look at the recent Jones decision which concerned a purely domestic case in which law enforcement took advantage of high- tech tools to follow a suspected drug dealer. A conservative Roberts Court voted 9-0 to invalidate this search. It is rare for liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to agree on much of anything these days, but I am sure that many of my colleagues on the other side would find untargeted procedures under FISA unlawful and thereby unconstitutional. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications. It is widely known that the Obama Administration would like a clean, five year reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, consistent with the approach taken by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this spring. I would also note that there were two voices of dissent in the Senate committee's proceedings, Senators Wyden and Udall who have been champions of national security, privacy, and civil liberties--which are not mutually exclusive. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was designed to provide critically important authority for the U.S. Intelligence Community to acquire foreign intelligence information by targeting foreign persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. However, our experts now tell us that there are serious issues with targeting procedures, disclosure of basic information and there is a lack of strong rules on how the information gathered can be used. ``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, had with the ill-conceived and now expired Protect America Act of 2007, was that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting is difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent such unauthorized and blanket snooping. Although Section 1881 of the FISA Amendments Act statutorily forbids such reverse targeting, it is a lingering concern of many civil libertarians which I share. No doubt there are instances where it may be necessary to target persons within and outside the United States in order to address threats but Congress has made it clear that these exigencies must be subject to review at some point and time. On the issue of targeting procedures, they were designed to ensure that only people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S. would be targeted. However, in reality quite the contrary has taken place. There has been bulk collection of information without any targets whatsoever. Ensure transparency by conducting as much public oversight as possible, including releasing basic information about the program, such as the type of information collected and how many Americans and people in the U.S. it has affected. It is also critical that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and administration interpretations of its authority to collect and use information under the FISA Amendment Act (FAA) become part of the public record and congressional debate. On the issue of disclosure, there has been a lack of transparency on what type of information is being gathered, who is being picked up and what rights of Americans have been violated. We must strike a balance between what constitutes ``classified'' information, and other compelling facts, disclosure of which do not threaten national security. On the issue of rules, there has been a lack of rules that clearly define how the information is being used. The key is to amend the FISA Amendment Act to ensure that information collected under those programs can be used only in the narrowest of circumstances. The FAA's minimization procedures should be amended to ensure that this foreign intelligence warrantless surveillance program doesn't allow information to be repurposed for other government uses. I understand that there must be a way for the intelligence community to gather vast amounts of information in a manner that makes sense. However, after carefully reviewing these proposals but suffice to say, I am still disturbed about certain aspects of the FISA Amendments of 2008. This Act was not designed for an overreach of power. It was designed to for the intelligence community to conduct meaningful information overseas. Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis DeTocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage. Thus, the way forward to victory in the War on Terror is for this country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love. It is not easy for me or any Member of this House to go against the President's wishes on a matter of national security but I am convinced that more debate is necessary, and more consideration of what the FISA Amendments mean to national security and civil liberties. We are in the throes of a national election for which the candidates have labored for over two years and the American people have seen, for better or worse, what they are about. Why so long: because that is Democracy. And civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, are the essence of the stew of our American Democracy. I hope that Congress can maintain our oversight function to ensure that law enforcement is well aware of their limitations of surveillance balanced by a strong commitment to protecting this great nation from future harm, and limiting the reauthorization to 2015.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee in this vigorous debate on the Constitution. I am also delighted that the ranking member has indicated, by his reference to the previous speaker, that this is a bipartisan challenge and question about the reauthorization. This does not have a partisan place. It does have a place in the Constitution. As I do this, might I take just a moment, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, just to acknowledge the loss of our Americans who fell in Libya--Ambassador Stevens and those who were securing him. It is a recognition that we live in a difficult world; but one of the distinctive aspects of America is that we live in a free country, that we are willing to accept the distinctions and differences of all people and that we respect the privacy and the Fourth Amendment. So I might refresh my fellow colleagues as to what FISA does from the very beginning. It is electronic surveillance, physical searches, the installation and use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, and demands for the production of physical items. Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering and not for the collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activity to which a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were conducted in a criminal investigation. Members need to understand there are questions of the Fourth Amendment right here. So what those of us who have a concern on this reauthorization are asking for has simple premise: We want to join with Congressman Conyers and his simple amendment that allows for greater congressional oversight and the protection of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to Americans by shortening the reauthorization to 2015 from 2017. It intrudes the Congress properly in oversight. In addition, there should be more transparency in the surveillance program, such as requiring the creation of unclassified versions of the intelligence assessments of the surveillance program, requiring the creation of unclassified summaries. I introduced a simple amendment. We all have respect for the Inspector General's office. That is one independent force of our agencies that most Members of Congress will not challenge. My amendment would require a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Inspector General of the intelligence community on the implementation of the surveillance program under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Now, let me try to find out what the horrifically liberal groups are that are concerned about this. What about the American Library Association? the Association of Research Libraries? the very well- respected Brennan Center for Justice? the Center for Democracy & Technology? the OpenTheGovernment .org? What we are simply saying today--and we hope our colleagues will listen on both sides of the aisle--is that, yes, we can reauthorize this legislation but that, no, we cannot abdicate the questions of congressional oversight. Today, we had a hearing on the abuse of power. The only issue in abuse of power is whether or not we respect the three branches of government. That is the argument we are making today. Do you respect the three branches of government--the people's House, who represent the people, who by themselves cannot defend themselves against this extensive reauthorization?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the ranking member for his courtesies of extending the time, and let me acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois for the work on this bill and working with my office. At the first glance, though, this has been proposed by the Obama administration, one would wonder why we were lessening any oversight over baggage. But this is a process that I think is in compliance with all of our commitment to safety and security. And, in particular, on this day, I do appreciate the fact that there are certain airports which this will cover, that this responds in particular to friends to the north of us, Canada, which has the most sophisticated technology, and a number of other airports. Also, I think, because of the oversight of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in case there is a need to review this particular process which allows for a bag of an entering person to continue on with them as they come into the country going on to their domestic location. This is, again, an item of trust, but also an item of technology and an item of oversight. This is an administrative proposal that came by way of the White House in order to establish an administrative process to which the flying public can travel with minimum security disruption. I always emphasize, however, the importance of ensuring in the most-- the highest of responsibilities, the security of this Nation. I believe that we, as Congress, have the responsibility to ensure that aviation security is not compromised through any efforts that ease travel for the flying public. The Obama administration has taken great strides in enhancing our transportation security, particularly that in aviation. Although Osama bin Laden, as I've repeated before on this floor, is dead, the threat to our aviation safety and security continues to evolve because we're well aware of franchise terrorism. Not only did the administration lead a successful attack to remove one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, the Obama administration has also taken significant steps to enhance policies that protect the American flying public. In December, the Department will successfully meet a Congressional cargo screening mandate of screening 100 percent cargo aboard passenger flights traveling in the United States and those inbound to the United States from foreign countries. This is a noteworthy accomplishment, since several in Washington, D.C., touted that it could not be done. It's a day of celebration. It's something that the 9/11 families welcome. Today marks 11 years since we experienced the devastating loss of life, and 9/11 marked all of our lives by exposing doubts. But as I indicated in my earlier statement, this is a great country, and of course we continue to emphasize not only our democracy, but our rights, along with our security. There's no doubt today that we are resilient and that we are survivors. Let's not forget the progress we've made in transportation security policies, and we must continue to support measures that take us forward. That is why I support H.R. 6028 and ask that my colleagues do so, because not only does it help to expedite, it helps to be efficient, but it is in conjunction with security. That is the right step and a collaborative way that we can work together. Again, I ask support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6028, The No-Hassle Flying Act of 2012. grants the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration [TSA]) discretion to determine whether checked baggage on a flight or flight segment originating at an airport outside the United States must be re-screened in the United States for explosives before it can continue on any additional flight or flight segment if the baggage has already been screened in the foreign airport in accordance with an aviation security preclearance agreement between the United States and the country in which the airport is located. Tuesday, September 11, 2012 Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this legislation we are considering today. H.R. 6028 came to this chamber as an administrative proposal by the White House in order to establish an administrative process through which the flying public can travel with minimal security disruption. I believe that we, as Congress, have the responsibility to ensure that aviation security is not compromised through any efforts that ease travel for the flying public. The Obama Administration has taken great strides in enhancing our transportation security, particularly that in aviation. Although Osama bin Laden is dead, the threat to our aviation safety and security continues to evolve. Not only did this Administration lead a successful attack to remove one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, the Obama Administration has also taken significant steps to enhance policies that protect the American flying public. In December, the Department will successfully meet a Congressional cargo-screening mandate of screening 100% cargo aboard passenger flights traveling in the United States and those inbound to the United States from foreign countries. This is a noteworthy accomplishment; since several in Washington, DC touted that this could not be done. Today marks 11 years since we experienced a devastating loss of life. 9/11 marked all of our lives by surfacing doubts of our resiliency as a Country. There is no doubt, today, that we are resilient and that we are survivors. Let's not forget the progress we have made in transportation security policies and we must continue to support measures that take us forward and provide a more safe and secure transportation for all Americans. That is why I support H.R. 6028 and ask that my colleagues do the same.