Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, ``My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty.'' God bless America. I'm glad that we have songs that can capture our spirits and the love that we have for our Nation. I'm reminded of being a child, singing the words, ``My country, 'tis of thee.'' I'm reminded of that day, 9/11, when Members of Congress gathered to stand on the steps of the United States Capitol to sing ``God Bless America.'' I rise today to pay tribute to Americans and a myriad of persons whose lives remain forever changed because of 9/11. We honor and mourn still those who fell on that day. It was the world, a potpourri of personalities, nationalities, languages, different descriptions, and life stories. It was the world that was in America, a country that welcomes all. Then, of course, there are those of us who are reminded of the rushing in of heroes and ``sheroes,'' NYPD, civilian volunteers, firefighters, Park Police, Federal workers, all in some way helping to save someone's life, fellow office workers, dishwashers, restaurant workers. Some died so that others might live. I remember very clearly where I was here in the United States Capitol, having a meeting with one of the Cabinet members of the President at that time, deeply involved in work regarding small businesses, going on with the normal daily responsibilities, Members who work on legislation, constituency issues, and oversight over the government. There was a rattling outside and, of course, phones started ringing, with the technology of that time. We indicated that we were still in the meeting and did not answer until someone banged on the door and said, I don't know what is happening, but you must get out. Without panic, but certainly with great concern, as you entered the hallways, people were rushing, rushing to come out of this building. As the rumors began to fly or the words began to fly about the White House, the State Department, then, of course, there was the billowing smoke that one could see from the Pentagon. It was real. It was something that we had never, ever seen. Maybe for those who had been in wars preceding us in far-away lands, but not in the 20th century on the soil of the United States of America, or the 21st century. I stand today with great honor for those who died, those who died in trying to save others and those who did. I am grateful today that we have the opportunity to be able to say thank you, though sadly, to families who remain, to those who now stand in New York reading names, to those who are at the Pentagon who still have the piercing feeling of loss, and certainly those in Pennsylvania, the family members, the surrounding community. I am grateful that in the last couple of days we finally acknowledged that there is something to those who breathed the smoke, and they are now going to be included for the entity that provides health care for those who were impacted by 9/11 toxic smoke. It took us too long. I'm glad we passed legislation to help the first responders, firefighters, police, and others who suffered catastrophic illnesses after they went in to help those who could not help themselves. I remember drafting legislation and introducing legislation for the latchkey children, for many of us don't remember that so many children were left at home and no one came home to see them on that fateful day, 9/11. Children now read the names of their parents or loved ones, grandparents. Children grew up without a family member because of the heinous horror, hatred, contempt, and violence. I hope this Nation on this day comes closer together, that we come together as independents, Republicans, Democrats, and nothing, that we stand as one Nation being able to be reminded of the greatest Nation in the world. God bless America, for I will say that throughout my life whatever the ups and downs that we may have, this country is great. As I travel around on behalf of the United States of America, visiting those who fought in Iraq and who fought in Afghanistan, I see that they are great because they were willing to sacrifice at the call of the Commander in Chief and the call of their Nation. Today I come on this floor to honor all of those who were touched by 9/11, and to remind all of us as Members of Congress and the Nation, never yield to the weakness that we are not great. Always our democracy, our love of God, makes us that. God bless America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank Mr. Turner and the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, for their courtesies of yielding to me and allow me to take this moment on the floor on 9/11 to again acknowledge the Members of Congress who this morning joined each other, if you will, two Houses, that came together, on the east steps to be able to acknowledge those who were lost, and I would like to say those who still live in the backdrop of the tragedy, for many are still pained by the loss of their family members. As we know in New York the reading of the names, and, of course, the laying of the wreath that occurred today at the Pentagon. We cannot get those lives back, and what we recognize is that those lives represented places around the world, but it also represented moms and dads. Children today have grown up without those loved ones because of the horrific and heinous tragedy, and some might say America's naivete. But I am glad to live in a country that believes in her freedom. I am glad to live in a country of which we claim democracy and understand it, understand the freedom of speech and freedom of access, freedom of association. I would not want to live anywhere else. But we were pained on that day because they attempted to take our naivete away from us, our innocence. But I am glad that we came together, both in terms of allowing people now still to travel from the east to the west, from the north to the south, to have summer vacations, to lay out in the open sun. This is our Nation. I am grateful for having the privilege of serving on the Homeland Security Committee. I hold this flag just to indicate that this is a great Nation. I'd like to thank our early persons who led this committee. Certainly, Mr. Chris Cox, Mr. Jim Turner, the Homeland Security Select Committee and members who were on that committee. I want to acknowledge my outstanding ranking member, Mr. Thompson, who has been a great leader on these issues. He has been diligent; he has been patriotic; he has been loving of this country, along with the chairman, Mr. King, who has worked for the common good as we have tried to work together. It has not been a perfect unity because we have had disagreements. Many of us disagree on the interpretation of democracy and civil liberties, but we all believe in one Nation under God, but more importantly, the security of this Nation. Mr. Thompson, I want to thank you for allowing me to serve with you and for your leadership. It is in that spirit that I rise today to speak to H.R. 3857, which amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. I might just say, Mr. Turner, that there were those of us who were here--and you come from New York, and so I know that more than likely there were people in and around your area, the Queens area, who lost their lives, or family members. So we acknowledge the regions that were impacted, from Boston to New York to Pennsylvania. And certainly those families whose family members were on those airlines, we understand, but cannot feel, the deep pain that they have today. The 9/11 Commission, of course, came about mainly through the many families that walked the halls. And let me, of course, acknowledge those families who even in their pain, again, came to the Halls of Congress and asked us to do something. So this particular legislation is amending the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to allow public transportation agencies to be eligible for grants for security improvements to be used for specialized patrol teams, including the sustainment of such teams without fiscal year limitation, as long as the agency applying for grant funds submits a sustainment plan for maintaining in future years the capability or capacity achieved with the funds. That is a good step. It allows local jurisdictions to expand their services as long as they're able to sustain it. In January 2007, soon after Democrats took control of the House after being in the minority, I joined with my colleagues across both sides of the aisle and we passed the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This legislative landmark was critical in strengthening our Nation's homeland security efforts. Specifically, the 9/11 Act established the Transportation Security Grant Program, which provides a vital source of funding for our transportation systems across the United States. Shortly thereafter, I remember a conference where the House and Senate came together, and I remember the opportunity to establish transportation security centers of excellence. I am grateful that we established one at Texas Southern University, among other Historically Black Colleges, where we looked at ways of improving transportation security. Having just been briefed by Texas Southern University, I know that they are finishing their work, and I want to thank the team that led on that program. Those funds were truly used productively, efficiently, and effectively to provide new technology, new techniques and vetting procedures on how we can truly secure America. Since the demise of Osama bin Laden--led by the outstanding military of the United States of America, guided, directed, of course, by the Commander in Chief, President Obama, and the excellent military leadership, the National Security Agency, that provided all of the guidance for this enormous task--it has been revealed in the public domain that terrorists continue to be interested in developing plots to sabotage mass transit systems, and of course the aviation system. This threat, however, is not new. Today, as I indicated, marks the 11th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks, and as such we must take every step to commemorate the men and women we lost on that day. We also have the responsibility to make sure that we do not allow another catastrophic loss of life like the one we faced that day. In the course of the years since 9/11 we have seen incidents in London and Spain, we've seen incidents in Mumbai, tragic incidents on mass transit. We have also seen the individual efforts that have been made to bring down another airline over American soil, or certainly en route to the United States of America. Therefore, it is imperative that Congress examine how the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are addressing the current and evolving threat to our transportation systems and continue to support programs that have yielded a positive security impact, such as TSA's Transportation Security Grant Program. I have seen in my own transit system the utilization of these funds. I've seen the utilization, as it has been very effective in canine units. Let's come together around recognizing that the security of America is holistic--first, of course, the frontliners, meaning the United States military; then, of course, the men and women who overlap in jurisdiction under Homeland Security, the many different law enforcements that every day work on the border, work on internal enforcement, work at airports, coalesce and collaborate with the FBI and DEA and ATF, and others, around the question of security. I am glad these programs are being expanded for security purposes, for efficiency purposes, for utilization of our tax dollars in the right way. That is why I am pleased to see that the majority and the ranking member, along with members of the Democratic part of the committee, at my request and submission of an amendment, accepted my amendment during committee consideration to authorize $400 million for the Transportation Security Grant Program for FY12 and FY13. This funding will ensure that transportation agencies have the resources needed to secure our public and mass transit system. I would argue that it complements what we're doing in aviation, which, together, maintains the nucleus, if you will, of transportation security. So I'm hoping that this will move quickly through the United States Senate and find itself on the President's desk. It is crucial. I then hope that my colleagues can come together for us to put on the floor a Transportation Security Administration reauthorization. We've done it before; I know we can do it now. And I ask my colleagues to come together in the name not only of security, but of the families, the 9/ 11 Commission, who now bear the brunt of that tragic day, along with so many others. Thank you to our first responders, and of course to the men and women who now serve around the world and those who have come home. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3857. H.R. 3857, ``Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support Act--Amends the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 to allow grants to eligible public transportation agencies for security improvements to be used for specialized patrol teams, including the sustainment of such teams without fiscal year limitation, as long as the agency applying for grant funds submits a sustainment plan for maintaining in future years the capability or capacity achieved with the funds.'' Tuesday, September 11, 2012 Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3857, the Public Transit Security and Local Law Enforcement Support Act. Mr. Speaker, In January 2007, soon after Democrats took control of the House, I, along with my colleagues across both sides of the aisles, championed the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. This legislative landmark was critical in strengthening our Nation's homeland security efforts. Specifically, the 9/11 Act established the Transportation Security Grant Program which provides a vital source of funding for our transportation systems across the United States. Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has been revealed in the public domain that terrorists continue to be interested in developing plots to sabotage mass transit systems. This threat, however, is not new. Today marks the 11th anniversary since the 9/11 attacks. And as such, we must take every step to commemorate the men and women we lost on that day. We also have the responsibility to make sure that we do not allow another catastrophic loss of life, like the one we faced that day. Therefore, it is imperative that we, Congress, examine how the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration are addressing the current and evolving threat to our transportation systems and continue to support programs that have yielded a positive security impact, such as TSA's Transportation Security Grant Program. Which is why I am pleased to see that the Majority, at my request, accepted my amendment during Committee consideration to authorize $400 million for the Transportation Security Grant Program (TSGP) for FY 12 and FY 13. This funding will ensure that transportation agencies have the resources needed to secure our public and mass transit systems.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just recently it was announced that 50 million Americans experience food insecurity--and experienced it in the last year. What that means is that families in the United States suffer without food. A predominant number of those are single parents and children. What are we as a country if we allow children to go hungry in this particular great land? I just came back from Africa, and saw children who are hungry. But yet we were there to encourage better technology to promote agricultural development. But today, this Congress, this House, Republican Congress, is cutting $16 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Program. We can do better. I want to work with this Congress to ensure that 50 million Americans are not hungry in this great land. Let us revisit the cutting of the Supplemental Nutrition Program because our children are begging, they're asking us: Do we care? We do care. We cannot cut $15 billion, $16 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Program with 50 million Americans experiencing food insecurity--working Americans, Americans with children. The time to stop is now and support those families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member and the chairwoman of this committee for bringing us together. I don't like sanctions, Mr. Speaker, but I rise in strong support of this legislation. And when I say that, I understand what sanctions can do to women and children and families. In fact, I'm reminded of a debate on apartheid and sanctions in South Africa. That debate was a question of whether you undermine that nation. But we saw what happened with sanctions when we came together as a Nation to bring down the dastardly structure of apartheid. Iran, right now today, can stop this legislation by shedding itself of all signs of building a nuclear weapon. The regime change is not by war. This bill does not suggest war. It means that voluntarily, by election, their government can change. But what I believe is most important is that we recognize, having seen that fallen woman bleeding in the street, that human rights abuses are massive. They're massive in their influence on Iraq, where they're influencing the treatment of residents of Camp Ashraf. That must stop. So this legislation is crucial because it impacts the human rights abuses, it indicates that there is no giving on a nuclear weapon, and it gives Iran, right now today, the ability to stop this legislation and sanctions by owning up to eliminating any sign of a nuclear weaponization, treating its people with dignity, and responding to the needs of the people in Camp Ashraf. I support the legislation enthusiastically.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, although I have great affection for the gentleman from South Carolina, I am so enthusiastic that Ranking Member Slaughter is managing this bill. I rise in great opposition to H.R. 8, but in enthusiastic support for H.R. 15. This is a gift to America's women, working women, mothers. And let me give you the role: every taxpayer will get tax relief on $250,000. That, by the evidence of this letter from small businesses, will be 97, 98 percent of small businesses. And they are women--most of them, many of them--women who are in their homes having a one-person small business, women who have hired people in a five-person small business, women who are thinking of getting ready to start their small businesses. Then, of course, the child tax credit. What a boon for working mothers and others who need that desperate relief. And then, of course, the marriage tax relief. EITC, if you come from the gulf region, we were saved by the earned income tax credit for Hurricane Katrina victims. They were able to get some minimal relief to carry them through. The higher education tax credit. The adoption tax credit. And as I indicated, the child care tax credit. A tax credit, as well, for expensing in small businesses. What are my colleagues and my friends on the other side talking about? A job-killing, economy-killing, deficit-busting H.R. 8 is not the way to go. So I am enthusiastically here to tell the women of America that this is a vote for you today. Those women who get up every day, who design a way to make a living when there is no job--these women, along with men, who have come into understanding what small business can do for America. I'm excited because I consider the 18th Congressional District to be a host of small businesses. Everywhere I go, individuals are talking about their small businesses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will submit into the Record, Madam Speaker, a letter from small businesses of the Main Street Alliance opposing H.R. 8 and supporting this legislation the Democrats are offering. This is a celebration for women. This vote today will enhance opportunities for women, small businesses, and families across America. Madam Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8 and H.R. 6169, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of regular order for any proposed tax legislation, whether it comes to the House Floor today, tomorrow, or next year. The Rule before us is structured and I note that is titled H. Res. 747, but unlike the jetliners that we Americans use every day, this bill and the Rule are not yet ready for take-off. House Republicans released a proposal, H.R. 6169, that would relax some of Congress's normal procedural rules in order to enact an overhaul of the tax code--so long as the tax overhaul meets the objectives laid out in the House budget plan authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. Their proposal states: ``The United States tax code is far too complex and bloated. It forces American citizens and small business owners to focus on filling out tax forms instead of tending to their families and businesses. It is clear to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that real, fundamental reforms to our tax code are long overdue. In fact, our revenue laws have not been substantially reformed in 50 years,'' Chairman Dreier said. I couldn't agree more with Chairman Dreier but by putting a stranglehold on the tax reform process before we even begin is tantamount to forcing debate on any tax reform bill while potentially limiting input. H.R. 6169 lays out several components that the tax overhaul legislation must have in order to be passed through the easier legislative procedure. All of these components seem identical to those laid out in the Ryan Plan that we witnessed in the Spring--it's like a bad B movie rerun. The required components of the tax overhaul include: replacing the personal income tax rates with just two rates, 10 percent and 25 percent (or less) repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT reducing the statutory corporate income tax rate to 25 percent (or less) adoption of a ``territorial'' tax system (exempting offshore profits of corporations from U.S. taxes) collecting revenue equal to between 18 and 19 percent of GDP The ``findings'' section of the bill states that revenue will ``rise to 21.2 percent of GDP under current law,'' meaning its proposed revenue target of between 18 and 19 percent of GDP is an explicit cut in revenue. Like the Republican Plan, the bill introduced by my colleagues Ways and Means Chairman Camp and Rules Committee Chair Dreier, does not say which tax loopholes and tax subsidies should be closed to ensure that the tax system still collects revenue equaling between 18 and 19 percent of GDP even after the plan's steep rate reductions and the repeal of the AMT are in effect. My sense is that even if those with incomes exceeding $1 million were forced to give up all the tax expenditures Ryan could possibly want to take away from them--all their itemized deductions, tax credits, the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance and the deduction for health insurance for the self-employed--even then the net result for these taxpayers would be an average income tax cut of $187,000 in 2014. That's because the income tax rate reductions Ryan proposed are so deep that they would far outweigh the loss of all these tax loopholes and tax subsidies. I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two years ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits. I am deeply saddened that the fate of unemployed, low and middle income Americans has been held hostage by the insistence by Republicans that this legislation include a giveaway to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans that is going to irresponsibly expand the already large deficit. I have spoken to and heard from many fine, patriotic, hardworking middle income Americans from Houston, from the great state of Texas, and all across the nation. Middle class American families and small businesses are deeply concerned about our troubled economy, the skyrocketing national deficit, high unemployment rates, job creation, and sorely needed extension of the tax relief and unemployment benefits set to expire at the end of this month. The Republican bill temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, all the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003 that are scheduled to expire on Dec. 31. The measure maintains the maximum estate tax rate of 35 percent while retaining the exemption amount of $5 million, provides a two-year ``patch'' to prevent the alternative minimum tax, AMT, from hitting over 27 million taxpayers and allows small businesses to deduct an increased amount of their capital expenditures for another year. I feel like we have been down this path before and I recall many of my colleagues staking a claim to fiscal responsibility. Well, I ask in all sincerity, which bill is more fiscally responsible: H.R. 8, which blows a hole in the deficit, or H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative which keeps the Bush Tax rates in place for the people who truly need tax relief. This is the same Republican Congress which has asked for a balanced budget amendment. It has codified the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is possibly unconstitutional, and has had no impact on jobs and the unemployment problem. Yet today they want us to vote on a tax increase for the top 2 percent. This illustrates what happens when Congress does not work together in a bipartisan manner, laboring for the American people. We must work together and compromise. The Senate gave us a layup by producing a bill last week which is virtually identical to the Democratic Substitute. All we have to do is act like Olympians and pass it. The American people are asking the President and Members of Congress to move swiftly and take decisive action to help restore our economy in a fiscally responsible manner. I am disappointed that Republicans have insisted on holding tax cuts for working and middle class families' hostage in order to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. I would like to thank President Obama for his determined leadership, support and commitment to protecting important tax relief issues for middle-income Americans and the nation's small businesses and farmers during these challenging economic times. I would also like to thank all the Members and their staff who worked diligently to bring this essential legislation to the House floor today in an attempt to do all that we can to protect the American people and move this nation toward fiscally responsible economic recovery. I support those provisions of H.R. 8 which provide relief for middle- class families and small businesses who will see their taxes go down and get much needed certainty. But I cannot in good conscience support tax relief for millionaires and billionaires at a time when others need help just to make ends meet. Unlike those provisions of H.R. 8 which benefit America's struggling middle class, I do not support the provisions of this legislation which condition that desperately needed relief upon the unconscionably high cost of providing an unnecessary, expensive giveaway to the wealthiest Americans by providing a 2-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while keeping their estate tax rate at 35 percent on estates valued at more than $5 Million for individuals and more than $10 Million for couples. These giveaways to the wealthiest Americans during these dire economic times needlessly add billions of dollars to our skyrocketing deficit yet create no value for our ailing economy since these tax cuts are not tied to job creation and preservation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of H.R. 15, and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together in support of H.R. 15, the Democratic alternative offered by our colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Levin. I have consistently supported and voted for middle class tax cuts, as I did two years ago when I voted for the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010, and the extension of unemployment benefits. The intelligent Democratic substitute offered by my Ways and Means colleague temporarily extends for one year, through 2013, the reduced tax rates and other tax benefits enacted in 2001 and 2003 that expire on Dec. 31--but only for income levels below $250,000 for joint tax returns and $200,000 for individuals. This is smart tax policy which acknowledges the deficit problem but does not squelch tax benefits for those most in need. It also extends the expanded education tax credit, child tax credit and earned income tax credit benefits that were included in the 2009 stimulus law and extended in the 2010 tax extension law; those provisions unfortunately are not included in H.R. 8. On the other hand, the Democratic proposal does the following:

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it saddens me today to rise to pay tribute to the late James Lightfoot, pastor of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Houston, Texas, who lost his life just a few days ago. I am delighted I had the opportunity to visit Pastor Lightfoot and his church on their 44th anniversary. It was an exciting time, and he looked forward to the celebrating of the 44th year of his pastoral leadership of that church, as he started in 1968. I am gratified to salute this distinguished gentleman and distinguished American. He used faith in a way of service not only to his parishioners and to those whom he lead as a shepherd, but to those outside those bricks and mortar. He concentrated on philosophy and ministry. That was his concentration at Southwestern Seminary. He completed a master's in education at Texas Southern University. He holds a Master of Divinity from Houston Graduate School of Theology, and a Doctorate of Ministries from the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. At Houston Graduate and Austin Presbyterian the emphasis was on the philosophical implications of ministry as it affected the culture of today. He has done advanced training at Texas Southern University and Houston Graduate School of Theology in counseling. He did an internship at Bellaire Columbia General in their Rapha Unit. He served as a lecturer in church administration in the Central Baptist Convention and teaches pastoral ministry. He was a conferee to the Transitional Church--Church Conference/Southern Baptist Convention. And as well, he was honored to serve as third vice president to the Independent General District Sunday School and BTU. He was a gentleman that uses faith to be of service. He deals with the philosophical implications of peace and justice, issues for today's church. How important that is when so many people are hurting. In the backdrop of the tragedy of Aurora, it is imperative that our faith leaders are engaged in our community and pray for their deliverance. I am delighted to say that he also worked with young people. He was a kind spirit. He was a charitable spirit. He was a professor at LeTourneau University--that's how much he cared for young people--where he taught Bible and Family. He was likewise an adjunct professor. He served on the mayor's affirmative action committee. He served as the chairperson of a Black Ministries Committee of the Union Baptist Association. As well, he has served in many civic and community affairs. As I indicated, he always had a summer program for young people who needed a place to come. He always had a smile on his face. He was always joyful. And, of course, he was a wonderful husband to his wonderful and devoted wife. He had the privilege of speaking to over 20,000 persons in January of 1992, where he spoke to the Baptist General Convention of Texas-- Evangelism Division, to an attendance of over 20,000 persons. And in January of 1992, he was guest preacher for the Mississippi Baptist State Evangelism Conference and delivered the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day sermon at the Austin Presbyterian Seminary, his alma mater. What I would like to say most of all is that, beyond the accolades that he got on the outside, he was an outstanding human being, an outstanding minister, an outstanding civic leader, someone who continued to serve his community even during his time of illness. You never noted a lack of cheerfulness in Reverend Lightfoot. And in the early stages of his illness, I had the opportunity to visit him at home. And again, what a cheerful, believing person who loved America and served America in his capacity, and that was as a faith leader who believed in all persons, reached beyond his doors, helped build a beautiful new sanctuary on that same street, Homestead, did not move, continued to serve the community, and was known as a light to all. My sympathies to Velma Mitchell Lightfoot, his wife, and his beautiful children and his eight grandchildren, and being a great- grandfather as well. The diversity of his training has led him to be that light, that servant, that special person. I believe it is appropriate to pay tribute to James Lightfoot who remains, even in death, a light to us all because of the great history and the great legacy he has left. May God bless him, God bless his service, and I know that he would want me to say that God bless his most wonderful and most great Nation, the United States of America. Pastor Lightfoot, may you rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, these are tasks that we often do not find welcoming. I rise this morning to pay tribute to a public servant among us, someone who served in this House as a staff person, a chief of staff in my office. I rise this morning to pay tribute to Kathleen ``Kathi'' Wilkes, whose memorial service will be held this afternoon, July 24, 1:30 p.m., at the Alfred Street Baptist Church in Alexandria, Virginia. Kathi died suddenly last Saturday. The good news is that so many of her friends were able to fly in, as I was able to do from Houston, and to be with her in those waning hours. One can always ask the question why, and there is no explanation for someone so full of life, so ready to serve, so willing to help, to lose their life so suddenly, even as she was so active the week of her death. Kathi had a wonderful history of coming from Ohio, touching down in Pennsylvania, in Houston, and Washington, D.C. How often can what we call a ``civilian'' touch the lives of so many States and so many people? Kathi pulled herself up by her bootstraps, supported herself, and became a nurse. As she was so good at nursing as well, she continued to nurture people, maybe in the spirit of Florence Nightingale. That was not enough for Kathi. She continued to put herself through school and ultimately graduated and became a lawyer. That brought her to Houston, Texas, working for one of the major corporations there, but it brought her into my life so many years ago. There, she was a light as well, interested in helping and befriending not only my husband and myself, but my two little ones, Erica and Jason. Boy, did they have a buddy in Kathi Wilkes. She loved to do things that children much smaller and much younger than herself enjoyed. She was just a fun-loving person. Then, of course, she traveled to places around the world embracing friends. As she came back to Washington, D.C., to become the chief of staff in the 18th Congressional District, what a light she was in the office, bringing in great talent and other young people who were nurtured, counseled by her, tutored, and made great. Then, of course, what a partner in legislation. She was there through the ups and downs of the 1990s, through the impeachment proceedings, as I was a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Through all these tough times, Kathi was there. Then we were able to do something quite great, if I might say so myself. This House was built by slaves, the Capitol of the United States of America. But as we looked around a few years past, there were no statues of African Americans, less an African American woman. I passed legislation, along with then-Senator Clinton, to place a statue of Sojourner Truth in this House. Sojourner Truth was a person who had been an abolitionist, a suffragette, a slave, a mother of 13 children, who had seen most all of them sold into slavery. Kathi worked without ceasing to ensure that that statue was sculpted, that we had the opportunity to place it historically in the United States Congress, and it was honored with 2,000 people coming to see the placement of the Sojourner Truth statue having then-Secretary Hillary Clinton and First Lady Michelle Obama and, of course, the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, present. What a wonderful day and occasion and tribute to the hard work of Kathi Wilkes. It is befitting that I rise today to express the deep pain that so many of us feel, friends from all around the world even, but certainly in this Nation. Friends, as I said from Ohio, to Pennsylvania, to Washington, D.C., to Texas, many of whom will be able to come today, others of whom will celebrate her in Houston and in Ohio. One may ask why she is deserving of such. In the backdrop of such terrible tragedies that have faced us in Aurora and places around the world, as we mourn the loss of so many in the occurrence of last Thursday, I stand here today to say that I know that if Kathi Wilkes were alive today, she would be somewhere trying to help, to nurture, to assist my office, to be of help, even as she is no longer a chief of staff, but really a former chief of staff. That is simply the way Kathi Wilkes is to her mother, her son, and, of course, her granddaughter and her many relatives and many friends. We have lost a good friend, but I can see her now taking wings. Farewell, my good friend. You have served well and made us proud. More importantly, you have given of yourself. May you rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for, again, leading us on a very important topic, one of which that I have worked on, Mr. Speaker, for the time that I have had the privilege of serving in this House. And I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that if I look to this side of the House and this side, we would all hold to the view that it is important to have one vote, one person. And then we hold to the view that I have been saying, regardless of our ups and downs in the economy, that we do live in the greatest nation in the world. I say it all over, everywhere. There are too many great things that are happening in America. There are too many great men and women in the United States military. There are too many great individual personal stories of survival and small businesses and family farms. I live in a great State. And I get to see urban America. I get to see family farms, small businesses. I get to see ranchers and people who are struggling against droughts but are still hanging in there. We have, in Texas, a potpourri of the Nation. So I know that we live in a great Nation. I happen to have had the privilege of serving in a district that the Honorable Barbara Jordan first served in. This district was not created before Barbara Jordan served. And Barbara Jordan, who was an honorable Member of this House, ran many times in a segregated and southern Texas. Many of the times that she ran, she lost. But it was only after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, when they created the opportunity for districts, that Barbara Jordan was able to win a seat in the State Senate. Her picture now is in the State Senate as the only African American woman who served as a Governor for the day. So this is the great news, what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 generated. She went on to become the first African American elected out of the deep South with Andy Young. And out of that great leadership, she was able to add language to the Voting Rights Act, to create language for minorities which, in essence, provided extra protection for those who had been discriminated against. Let me remind my colleagues that all I speak of is one vote, one person. That's what redistricting is about. That's what we stand here today and speak of. We in the Congressional Black Caucus believe it is important, along with the Democratic Caucus--and again, I extend my hand of friendship, I believe, to all Americans--that we fight for one vote, one person; that we fight for extending open, if you will, the doors of opportunity through voting. Let me make note of this one point: Sixty years after the American Revolution, Americans were fighting to expand the right to vote. In 1842, Thomas Dorr, a white male legislator from Rhode Island, led a huge crowd of citizens, workers, and artisans, white men who were being denied the right to vote because they did not own property. The working man who had no property fought for the right to choose his Nation's leaders and did not win until 1850. If we just put ourselves in each other's shoes--nonproperty owners, women who did not get the right to vote until the 20th century--we would understand what it means now when voter ID laws are being passed across America. And voters who are vulnerable, voters who are Americans--Americans such as the 95-year-old woman in Pennsylvania who, in essence, is not covered by the Voting Rights Act because of a voter ID law. She cannot vote because she does not have her birth certificate. We looked for my mother, Ivaleta Jackson's birth certificate until her death. We made all kinds of efforts. We moved and moved and moved and moved to the place of her birth, which was the State of Florida, and could not find that birth certificate. But she had a voter registration card. And I can tell you, by God, that was a citizen, a proud citizen of this Nation who had seen her brother go to World War II, her relatives be in the war. She was someone who loved America, who worked as a laborer but provided, along with my father, for our family. Would I deny her the right to vote in a State that would have a voter ID law? This is not about a picture, about someone impersonating a voter. It really is a larger question of the Constitution that provides us with due process. Taking away your voting rights is not due process. So I join my colleagues in supporting the Voter Empowerment Act, same-day registration, protecting voters, having the right to sign up online. And there is one sentence that says, ``No provision passed by any State can intimidate or prohibit a person from voting.'' Why would we not want to vote, Mr. Speaker? The argument that I would make is, when I have had the privilege to travel on behalf of this great Nation--I remember one of my distinctive trips was as an early and new Member of Congress going into Sarajevo, landing before the Dayton Peace Agreement had ever been signed. Joining me was our former majority leader Dick Armey. We went into Bosnia, the former Yugoslavia, and Croatia after our brave Americans had worked to bring peace to that region. We wanted to see what was going on. When we went to a city like Sarajevo, my eyes could not believe what I was seeing. People were walking the streets in destitute conditions. Books from the library were all thrown out on the street. Buildings look like they had their heads shaved off, just cut off--maybe by, if you will, a chainsaw, because it was from the bombing. And as we walked the streets, because there was no transportation, we were going to meet with the president, then, of that country. We landed, as I indicated, under a French flag. I had a flak jacket on to get off the plane. When we went in, they told us that they just had a city election. A city election? In the meantime, I will tell you, as I was walking, a mother came up to me in all black, an elderly woman, and she said, Have you seen my son? He went off to the war. I haven't seen him. This is the destitution of the people. And they told me that that city election had 98 percent of the people in that city voting. What is happening to America? There is so much intimidation at the voting polls. There are so many headlines about who cannot vote, that people don't vote. That is not the great country that we love. We're purging people off of rolls instead of sending them a notice and saying, Are you registered to vote? Or do you want to stay on the roll? They're not. A million people in Florida, 1.5 million in the State of Texas, a voter ID law that the courts are now reviewing because there is merit to the fact that these are prohibiters of people voting. In the State of Texas, they have a voter ID law that's tracked to the Department of Public Safety, a great organization that does not have offices in every county in that State. We have 254 counties, and we've got 80 or 90 of them without Department of Public safety offices. So I think it is important, as we look to the 2012 November election, that we be reminded that this is not about party politics. It's not about who gets the upper hand. For Americans, it is about one person, one vote. And it is to remind us of days past that, yes, those of us who came out of a history of slavery could not vote. But also, white men who were not property owners could not vote; women could not vote; white men could not vote who were not property owners. And certainly Asians at one time could not vote. Latinos at one time could not vote. But America has grown up, and we recognize the value of that. So I think it is enormously important that we join together to support the Voter Empowerment Act that we have worked on, and that we recognize the issue of voter protection. This is crucial. And I do want to close by, again, expressing my sympathy to those in Colorado. But we have had a litany of these tragic issues. I remember how much we mourned the tragedy in Arizona. And now we come full circle, where there are families in such pain. I think part of the pain is that when you send someone to a place of innocence, to a town hall meeting on the square, to the movie theater, which is really America's part-time pastime. Everyone knows those Friday night movies and Saturday movies, families, children, one couple with a baby. And they said, We didn't have a babysitter. I understand that. I was a young mother with my spouse in an area where we moved away from our families. It was hard to find babysitters. So you take a sleeping baby to the movie. There is no sin in that. But it is an innocent place. It is a place where you can have joy, and enjoy the genius of America in producing these films. And what happened? Someone who was intent on evil came and destroyed lives. Someone who didn't want their mark to be only in the theater, but they wanted it to be on the innocent neighbors who might by chance do what every neighbor does when you're too loud in your place and it is next door to their place, to ask you to please turn the music down. Just think, Mr. Speaker, if someone had asked to turn the music down or had asked by either knocking loud or entering that apartment, that door was cracked, maybe it was the kind of apartment where neighbors felt comfortable to do that, and if they just entered, the enormous disaster and havoc and carnage and bloodshed that would have been added to the bloodshed. I made a plea earlier today on the floor of the House, I am, in fact, going to do that. I am going to invite the National Rifle Association to one of my meetings. I want to sit down and talk to them about how we can work together because I want an explanation on why someone can buy 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet without any oversight whatsoever. Why is there no basis of giving notice? If they had given notice to the local police, maybe someone would have knocked on the door and found out what was going on, not last Thursday but a week back, last month. We can find a way to come together. This is not rocket science to determine why you're getting 6,000 rounds. And you know what pains me, Mr. Speaker, you know what causes me to bleed? It causes me to bleed that active duty troops lost their lives, as the story tells. Sitting in their own Nation, unarmed, along with innocent civilians. We know that those troops, if they could have stopped it, if they were in their armor, they would have been on the front lines protecting the homeland. I am saddened by the condition of this individual, saddened by what is represented to be this individual's circumstance. Those of us who deal with terrorism and sit on the Homeland Security Committee, have to raise a question about this incident. I close by simply giving my deepest sympathy to the people of Colorado, the congressional delegation of Colorado, and again our dear friend Congressman Perlmutter and all of the delegation for those whose districts overlap those areas, and to say that the American people will continue to pray, to lift them up because as I started out, this is the greatest Nation in the world. I know that we can find a solution to the opportunities of democracy, and we can find a solution to a peaceful way of coexisting so that people are protected as they walk the highways and byways, and law enforcement officers, United States military, babies, young people, and others similarly situated who come out for a simple opportunity of friendship and fellowship and fun. America is better than what happened last Thursday, and we are certainly better than denying individuals their right to democracy. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me, and I look forward to working with you and the Congressional Black Caucus and the entire Congress and the Democratic Caucus on standing tall for that constitutional right, precious right to vote, and standing tall for the protection of America, for people, and the homeland.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we all came together prayerfully last week as the tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, took place. The State of Texas has a relationship with Colorado. We probably were of one territory some time ago. But I rise today to extend my sympathy to Congressman Perlmutter and the entire congressional delegation in Colorado, both House and Senate. I also rise to offer sympathy to the victims and those fallen-- families, innocent babies, children, that were injured. And I reach out to say this: Tell the NRA to come and sit down with all of us so that this Congress can work in an effective manner, that we can begin to look at issues such as buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet, not against the Second Amendment, but that the fact that the Internet sellers did not even have to give notice that one person was buying 6,000 rounds of ammunition. There's no Federal law on that issue. There's not even a Federal law to give notice on that issue. We can find common ground. Something has to be done, whether it is a disturbed person or not, whether it's a terrorist act. And for me, this issue was a terrorist condition because of what happened. But I want us to come together as one. We can do so, and we can come together to do what is good for the American people, respect the Second Amendment, but find ways to protect the American people, whoever they are, wherever they live, from these dangers. May God bless the people who have now fallen, and those who suffer, and God bless the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my excused absence from rollcall votes 452-454 on Monday, July 9, 2012. I was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington from Houston, TX due to weather. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 452, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 4155, ``Veterans Skills to Jobs Act'', which would require the head of each federal department or agency to ensure that an applicant for any federal license who has received relevant training while serving as a member of the Armed Forces is deemed to satisfy any training or certification requirements for the license, unless the training received is found to be substantially different from the training or certification requirements for such license. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 453 on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 4367, ``To Amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit the free disclosure requirement for an automatic teller machine to the screen of that machine'', which cancels the requirement that such a fee disclosure appear in a prominent and conspicuous location on or at the ATM. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 454 on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 5892, ``Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2012'', which Amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to increase from 5,000 to 10,000 kilowatts the size of small hydroelectric power projects which the Federal Energy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my absence from rollcall votes 469-470 on Tuesday, July 17, 2012. I was attending a funeral. I would have voted aye for rollcall vote 469, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 6018 ``Foreign Relations Authorization Act'', which would authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2013, and for other purposes. I would have voted aye for rollcall vote 470, on motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill S. 2009, ``Insular Areas Act of 2011'' which would require a study of possible health risks to people living on an atoll in the Marshall Islands, and also delay an increase in the minimum wage in American Samoa, and require those increases to take place every three years instead of annually.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding my excused absence from rollcall votes 462-468 on Thursday, July 12, 2012. I was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington due to pressing matters in my District. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 462, on agreeing to the Tonko (NY) Amendment, which would narrow the scope of the underlying bill to address strategic and critical minerals only; the underlying bill covers mining for virtually all minerals, including sand, gravel, and clay. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 463, on agreeing to the Hastings (FL) amendment, which would give the lead agency, in the event of new or unforeseen information, the authority to extend by two six- month periods the arbitrary 30 month time limit the bill imposes on permit approval. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 464, on agreeing to the Markey amendment (A003), which would require a royalty payment of 12.5 percent of the value of hardrock minerals such as gold, silver and uranium mined on federal lands. The revenue generated by royalty payments would be dedicated to cleaning up the more than 160,000 abandoned hardrock mines. Currently, companies pay no royalty to mine hardrock minerals on federal lands. I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall vote 465, on agreeing to the Young (AK) amendment, which would require the Forest Service to allow mining roads in areas currently designated as roadless. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 466, on agreeing to the Grijalva amendment which would protect hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation on public lands by requiring review of any mineral exploration or mining permit that might diminish opportunities for these activities. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 467 on motion that the House instruct conferees. I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall vote 468, on final passage of H.R. 4402--National Strategic and Critical Minerals Production Act of 2012 which would require federal agencies to expedite environmental review of proposed mining projects, and limits the judicial review process for challenges to approved mining permits on federal lands or associated environmental reviews. In addition the measure would give mining companies control over the timing of permitting decisions for virtually all mining operations on public land, not just those involving strategic or critical minerals.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise today to congratulate our hometown university, Rice University, for their 100-year celebration--a university known for advancing education in the arts, humanities, and sciences. It is a leading university, and it has been ranked among the top 20 universities in the United States by the U.S. News & World Report every year since the rankings began in 1983. As a former member of the House Science Committee, I am reminded of their great work in nanotechnology, space, cellular technology, bioinformation in energy and health, and their collaboration with the Johnson Space Center. I am also delighted that they have decided in years past to eliminate the bar against African American students and to open the opportunities of a grand education to Latinos and African Americans and to young people who have a last name such as Qadeer. They have a bright light in Dr. Roland Smith, who has led the effort in diversifying their campus, and I was delighted to go and join them in honoring the Honorable Barbara Jordan, one of my predecessors in the 18th Congressional District. They, of course, have a group of astute athletes who have made them proud, and they represent the diversity of America. It is great to congratulate a university that understands its brilliance and its necessity in teaching the next generation of scientists, thinkers and humanitarians, and to also be called an excellent university. Congratulations, Rice University, for your 100th year, for your service to this Nation, and for your reflection of the diversity of this great country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Frankly, I would say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle that there probably could be, in many instances, common ground about the exporting of mineral exploration. Many of us would look to this as a positive strategy for creating jobs. I think it is important to say to my friends that, in fact, this bill is not even coming to the floor of the House today. It is not even going to be debated today. So that is one fracture, if we talk about creating jobs. But another fracture is, of course, that we are substituting this legislation--that might, if it was bipartisan, be able to move forward on creating jobs--for wasting time and casting votes and debating on the Affordable Care Act, an act that has already proven that it has saved lives, provided coverage for small businesses; exempted businesses under 50 persons, allowing them to have insurance; closed the doughnut hole on the prescription drug benefit; and saved billions of dollars. Here in this legislation, of course, one of the challenges that I have is that even though one would call this a bureaucracy, in actuality it is expediting and overlooking the National Environmental Policy Act, and therefore expediting necessary environmental review. It is being called an ``infrastructure project'' for purposes of the executive order entitled Improving Performance of Federal Permitting that was designed to reduce permitting time. But more importantly, there are environmental impacts that should be considered. There is no opposition to creating jobs. There is no opposition to the value of our minerals. But I do believe there is opposition to expediting the process and excluding an environmental review and, more importantly, limiting this debate--that might create jobs, might have opportunities for more amendments, might have more time on the floor-- by what we're going to do today, which is frivolity, again, for those of us who believe that we can come together in a bipartisan way to work on the underlying premise of the Affordable Care Act of saving lives, expanding opportunities, and adhering to the Supreme Court's decision that this is the right law of the land that works for all people. I'd ask my colleagues on the underlying rule to oppose it, and maybe we can get down to the work of the people of the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I thank this House. I am reminded of the Declaration of Independence that calls upon this great Nation to pursue life and liberty with certain inalienable rights, as I paraphrase it. I don't know what the answer is to my friends on the other side. I don't know what the answer is to those who are languishing in the State of Texas when we have our Governor rejecting Medicaid and politicizing it by, in fact--in the ObamaCare plan the Federal Government sought to force the States to expand Medicaid. He says, in repeating, that the gun to our heads has been removed--certainly, a personal statement by this Governor. I asked him whether or not he has asked 357,000 young people in the State of Texas, who actually are on insurance plans because of this bill. I wonder, has he asked the 3 million children that have benefited in the State of Texas since 2010, boys and girls like these little ones who are seeing doctors now for the first time. What next, is the question. Maybe this little one, who needs to have doctors' appointments. I would like to know, has he responded to the fact that our plan, the Affordable Care Act, reduces the deficit by $143 billion. Has he responded to the fact that 5.3 million seniors have saved $3.7 billion in part D, or does he realize that health care costs have been halved to 3.9 percent now after this legislation was passed, the Affordable Care Act, because before it was 6 percent and over. I call ObamaCare LeRoy care, Maria care, senior citizens' sick care, nursing home care. That's what it is. Does he realize that the American Cancer Society said this organization was looking at the ruling on Medicaid and is concerned that the decision may limit the expansion of quality coverage to some of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. That is what the Governor of the State of Texas has done and many others.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from New York for her distinguished commitment and service to small businesses across America. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, a colleague rose to the floor and called this ``socialism.'' It is not. Many have risen to the floor to talk about how this will impact negatively on small business. It will not. I rise enthusiastically to oppose what is a political legislative act--the repeal of ObamaCare. It is really the Affordable Care Act by the statement of the United States Supreme Court. The statement of Justice Roberts, of which I read, indicates that, beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with the mandate must make a shared responsibility payment to the Federal Government. That is what this is about--sharing and bringing about health care costs that will go down, not up. To my small businesses, let me say how much we care for you. I have supported small businesses throughout my public life and before, and I would argue vigorously that this helps to ensure that you can keep employees and add employees. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, health care costs dropped to 3.9 percent when it was above 6 percent--almost one half less than before the Affordable Care Act was passed. This, frankly, exempts all businesses fewer than 50 employees. That means some 96 percent of American small businesses will not even be impacted. For those that are, this legislation will provide $40 billion in tax credits for small businesses to offer health care. Now, in 2011, 360,000 small businesses have benefited from the health care tax credit--2 million workers. As well, you will be able to ensure with your health insurance that 85 percent of your premiums will go toward health claims and improvement activities, not to advertisement. It entails that if an insurance company pays $70 for every insurance claim and quality-improvement activity, you will get rebates, $127 million in total rebates in the individual market, and $1.3 billion, Mr. Speaker, to consumers and businesses. The fact is this is the right thing to do. Support ObamaCare. Oppose the repeal. This is good for business. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 3, 2012. Hon. Rick Perry, Governor, State of Texas, Austin, Texas. Dear Governor Perry: As you may know, the United States Supreme Court has upheld major provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) last week. Residents in the state of Texas will greatly benefit from its implementation, of which two provisions will directly impact Texans. This includes the Medicaid Expansion and the implementation of health insurance exchanges. I respectfully request that you charge, the Texas State Legislature and the Texas public health departments to begin implementation of the entire law. Now that the decision has been made by the United States Supreme Court, it is now time to move past the partisanship and begin delivering affordable care to millions of Americans. Many provisions in the ACA will benefit all of Americans; however, these two specific provisions will greatly benefit our state. For instance, the Medicaid expansion will expand coverage to Americans who are below 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL). Roughly 25 percent of Texans are below 100 percent of the FPL, which is higher than the national average. Those who are low income have less access to care, have poorer health outcomes and are at a higher risk of premature death. Our State has an obligation to ensure those who are most vulnerable do not prematurely die because they lacked coverage, especially after the United States Supreme Court has ruled the law constitutional. Furthermore, a number of states have already expanded their Medicaid program, and I encourage you to move forward on expanding our program as well. Although the Supreme Court decision apparently permits a state to opt out, I am requesting that you choose not to, and take care of Texans in need. The ACA also requires states to have their state-based health insurance exchanges running by 2014 and provide a progress report by 2013. Currently, our State of Texas has done nothing in exploring options. I encourage you to begin setting up our exchange for a number of reasons. For one, many Americans and businesses find navigating private health care insurance plans complicated and confusing. Establishing our State-based health insurance exchange will provide a clear mechanism for many Texans and small businesses purchase affordable health insurance plans. This will greatly benefit those who are below 400 percent of the FPL. As a Member of Congress, representing our great State, I have an obligation to do all that is possible to ensure that the laws are followed when enacted. Our Supreme Court has decided on the ACA and now it is time to move forward and begin with implementation. Our State has so much to benefit from implementing the law, and I know Texans will greatly appreciate your dedication to adhere to the law. Very Truly Yours, Sheila Jackson Lee, Member of Congress.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Finally, Mr. Speaker, these soldiers who are coming home, who lose TRICARE, are the very people in the State of Texas whom we want to salute and honor. They will come home. Their families will need the Affordable Care Act. Thirty percent in the 18th Congressional District in Houston, we will lose this; $1.74 trillion in costs in health disparities, health disparities, death, and disease because we are losing the Affordable Care Act. What is next? What is your answer? Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vehement opposition to H.R. 6079, the ``Repeal Obamacare Act of 2012.'' This is a colossal waste of time and resources--this body should be focused on fostering an economic climate that promotes job creation-- not settling old grudges. The health care overhaul signed into law in March 2010 through two separate acts--the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PL 111- 148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (PL 111- 152)--remains the signature legislative achievement of the Obama administration. Otherwise known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or ``Obamacare'' by its detractors, the laws have been the main target of Republicans since taking control of the House in 2011. But on June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the health care law, essentially by affirming the government's power to require that Americans have health insurance or pay a financial penalty. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that the law's ``individual mandate'' requirement that individuals maintain health coverage or pay a penalty falls within Congress' power to tax. The justices also ruled, however, that states may opt out of the law's expansion of the Medicaid health care program without losing all of their federal Medicaid funds. This bill repeals the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PL 111-148, PL 111-152). The measure also contains a number of ``findings'' detailing the rationale for repealing the law, including the argument that the overhaul fails to lower health care costs and instead raises the cost of coverage for millions, jeopardizes many Americans' ability to keep their current health care coverage, and ``imposes 21 new or higher taxes'' on individuals and businesses. The findings also claim that the board created by the law to make cost-cutting recommendations if Medicare spending exceeds target growth rates would limit seniors' access to care, and that the law ``expands the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion.'' Texas is one of those states that has vehemently vowed to opt-out of the law expansion. This is a devastating decision for the 6.2 million people, including 1.2 million children, who lack health insurance. Texas has the largest percentage of people without health care than any other state. In my congressional district in Houston, 30 percent of the population is uninsured. It is my goal to continue to push Texas government to help ensure affordable and decent healthcare for those that so desperately need it. The major provisions of the law will take effect within the next two to seven years (2014-2019). States will only spend roughly 5 percent for new Medicaid funding. This is especially true for states, like Texas, with low Medicaid coverage. This is because a large share of new enrollees will be financed by federal spending. The State of Texas may see a reduction of about 1.4 million uninsured individuals compared to the national baseline. To say the least, the state of Texas is one state that will greatly benefit more from reform than most other states. The repeal of the ACA will eliminate patient protection provisions, which this one provides equitable and fair services to businesses and consumers. Estimates by the Kaiser Family Foundation determined roughly $1.3 billion in rebates to consumers and businesses by this year in August. This is one of many definable benefits within the ACA. The State of Texas will receive roughly $127 million in total rebates in the individual market plans, $28 million in small group market plans, and $30 million in large group marker plans. As part of the patient protection provisions drawn out within the ACA, insurance companies are required to issue a rebate if they did not comply with the Medical Loss Ratio provision within the ACA. The Medical Loss Ratio is calculated by dividing health care claims and quality improvement expenses by the insurers' premium income minus taxes and regulatory fees. Insurers for individual and small group markets must spend at least 80 percent of their premium income on health claims and improvement activities. Insurers for large group markets must spend at least 85 percent of their premium income on health claims and improvement activities. This basically entails that if an insurance company pays $70 for every insurance claim and quality improvement activity but collects $100 in monthly premiums, they have a MLR of 70 percent. This means that the company has 30 percent left over to spend on administrative costs, marketing, and other functional actives. As a result of the ACA, insurance companies can only spend 20 percent on such marketing and administrative activities. Therefore, the company has to issue a 10 percent rebate to consumers and small businesses in individual or small group market plans in the example above, or a 15 percent rebate back to the consumer or businesses in large group market plans. It is yet to be determined if these rebates will either be refunded as a decrease in premium amount or issued directly back to the employer. Additionally, it is not an estimate of based on the experience of an individual enrollee or group. Instead, MLR rebates are based on an insurers' overall compliance with applicable MLR standards in each state it operates. The most vulnerable (or use low-income adults) citizens are now able to access affordable health insurance. Eliminating a more organized and competitive market for individuals to buy health insurance. Reduce health disparities between different socioeconomic and cultural communities can change to communities of color. The United States spends more on healthcare costs than any other developed country. The ACA helps many small businesses be more competitive by reducing the cost burdens through tax subsidies. The last sentence here is already identified in the key points. But the first sentence may help emphasize why it should not be repealed. It is time for Republicans to get to work on jobs and to end outsourcing instead of voting for the 31st time to take patient protections away from Americans. The GOP will vote to take away patient protections for Americans that they already enjoy as Members of Congress--in order to protect their friends in the insurance industry: Up to 17 million children can no longer be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, 6.6 million young people have obtained insurance through their parents' plans, 5.3 million seniors have already saved $3.7 billion on prescription drugs, 105 million Americans no longer face lifetime limits on their insurance coverage. President Obama has promised to veto the Republican bill to repeal patients' rights: ``The last thing the Congress should do is refight old political battles and take a massive step backward by repealing basic protections that provide security for the middle class. Right now, the Congress needs to work together to focus on the economy and creating jobs.'' The President is right. Enough is enough. It is time to act to put people to work and strengthen the middle class. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, we have just finished part of the debate for legislation that wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I rise today as we conclude and begin to look toward the conclusion of the debate tomorrow to make a public appeal. When the 1965 Medicare law was written, it was written to save lives. We have statistics that recognize that prior to Medicare, Americans were living 60 years and under. It is well documented that we've extended the lives of senior citizens through Medicare. Now the Affordable Care Act seeks to extend the lives of the sickest of the sick, to extend the lives of children with preexisting diseases, to extend the lives of individuals who would not have access to insurance, or those families who have been thrown into poverty because of catastrophic illnesses or an accident. We can do better. This bill is a promise of allowing and providing for all Americans to be insured. This bill cries out for Republicans and Democrats to work together. This bill cries out for saving the lives of Americans who have been falling along the highway of despair and dying. It is important for us to look for the common and better good, the public good. Save this bill. Vote against the repeal.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4348 the ``Surface Transportation Conference Agreement.'' More than 100 days ago, the Senate passed a bipartisan, job-creating transportation bill to rebuild America--that is similar to the bill we are taking up today. This bill will create or save more than 2 million jobs, authorize highway and transit programs for more than two years at current levels, make key reforms consolidating transportation programs, and leverage federal resources to expand public-private partnerships in transportation. However, regarding the education of our Nation in making college more affordable has always been a top priority of Democrats. In 2007, the Democratic-led Congress enacted legislation that cut the interest rate on need-based student loans in half--to 3.4 percent--over five years. Unfortunately, under current law, that reduced rate expires and doubles to 6.8 percent on July 1. This Congress cannot sit by and let students suffer and be denied a chance at making a better future and a brighter tomorrow because we failed to act. I am determined to see that students have a chance to learn, to aspire, and to dream. If we don't pass this bill with common-sense pay-fors, we are setting up a roadblock to dreamers, in essence telling them that education can be foreclosed on because we did not do our jobs. If the current rates expire the average student faces an increase of $1,000 each. In doing nothing, House Republicans are, putting more barriers in the way of millions of Americans already struggling to pay for a higher education. It is time for Republicans in Congress to stop playing politics with students' futures and come to the negotiating table. Minority and Women Contractors. Regarding set-asides to ensure that minority, women and other disadvantaged businesses are able to compete for transit and highway contracts, the conference report continues the program and includes key findings regarding discrimination in transportation contracts to ensure that these important provisions are upheld if ever challenged. These provisions are not expanded to rail, which is not authorized in the bill. Although I am disappointed the bill does not include rail, it is important that as we move forward, transportation contracts, whether it be for airlines, bus, rail, or even little red wagons, women and minorities are able to compete on equal footing with the old boy's network. I have supported this reauthorization at least 16 times since 2008. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) has been invaluable for victims and potential victims of flooding in Texas. Congress must extend authority for the NFIP to write or renew flood insurance policies, which are required in order to obtain a mortgage in the 100-year floodplain. This is an issue of importance to not just the coastal states but in nearly every state. Just a month ago the Houston Association of Realtors was in town and came to advocate for a reauthorization but as a practical matter would prefer--like many Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle--a long-term, 5-year reauthorization for this important measure. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in 1968 in response to increasing federal government spending for disaster relief. Standard homeowners insurance does not cover flooding and therefore offers no protection from floods associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rains and other conditions. The NFIP mandates that federally regulated or insured lenders require flood insurance on properties that are located in areas that have a high risk of flooding. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection of the Committee on Homeland Security, I understand as well as anyone that supporting and securing our Nation's transportation systems are critical to ensuring the free movement of people and commercial goods. But I also know that, in the strained economic circumstances that we currently face, it is equally imperative that we allocate limited resources in a way that maximizes their capacity to improve the lives of as many Americans as possible. I am pleased that the Conference Agreement measure includes provisions to strengthen highway and motor carrier safety programs. The legislation consolidates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration incentive grant programs, and increases funding flexibility for states that qualify for safety incentive grants. The measure also improves motor carrier safety in a balanced manner. As the Representative of 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, I am keenly aware of our transportation needs. Houston needs infrastructure to relieve congestion and provide adequate public transportation, but it also needs this because an investment in Houston's New Start Transit Project means jobs for Houston's constituents through the transportation sector in its communities and around the Nation. However, I must balance the needs of my constituents. This funding is critical for funding existing and pending surface transportation and infrastructure projects while we pursue longer term solutions in the face of a misplaced focus on spending cuts. We must work together to forge a bipartisan long-term solution to our Nation's transportation and infrastructure needs. Economic experts universally agree that funding the critical and necessary infrastructure projects nationwide creates jobs for America and increases our level of global competitiveness. There is an intense competition between fiscal responsibility and investment in job growth & infrastructure. We must make investments in job creating infrastructure projects in order to grow the US economy. We must be winners in contest for economic change now and for our children's future. We cannot be the losers. We must catch the wave of economic growth or be crushed by it. China, India and Europe understand this because they have committed to greater investments in their infrastructure. As I think of my home District, the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas and its busy ports, much like the other ports around this great nation, I am compelled to urge my colleagues to consider the pressing national necessity of decongesting the surface transportation, both rail and highway, that moves the goods in and out of those ports. We must improve this surface transportation system in order to accommodate national economic health, global competitiveness, and to avoid harm to agriculture industry, maritime jobs and manufacturing jobs. Maritime jobs and construction jobs for infrastructure provide a good middle class wage, allow workers to get educations at night, and lower crime rates in our cities. We must invest in High Speed Rail. We have about 500 miles of high speed rail in process, but China has about 10,000 miles being built! We need to have a domestic talent pool with the required knowledge, skills and trained workers to do projects like high speed rail or we will be paying for skilled Chinese companies to do it for us. Infrastructure Investment is a Non-Partisan Issue: If the AFL-CIO and U.S. Chamber of Commerce have teamed up to promote infrastructure investment, then surely the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress can do the same. Moreover, now is the time for us to consider the creation of a long overdue National Infrastructure Bank and Public- Private partnerships to shift our infrastructure improvement into full gear. We should not shy away from this issue when a nation is waiting for us to do our part to restore our economy through fortification of our infrastructure. It is time for another large, bold, national forward thinking infrastructure project like interstate highway system. Governors and Mayors at ground level around this nation will quickly confirm that Infrastructure investments create jobs, help balance budgets, and grow both state and national economies. We must listen to our local elected officials who must fix the potholes, repair the crumbling bridges and tunnels or be held directly accountable by their constituents on every street corner. Our local elected officials will quickly tell us that infrastructure investment creates jobs, because it attracts business! The American Association of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives U.S. Infrastructure the Grade of ``D'' in its 2009 Report Card. Infrastructure Investment equals Jobs! But, the U.S. is falling behind its competitors in infrastructure development (especially China, India & Europe). The bottom line is that Transportation and Infrastructure Investment is needed for a Strong Economy. So, I say to my colleagues that we weight this measure carefully. A delay in enactment of this Conference Agreement will shut down more than $800 million next month in highway reimbursements and transit grants to States and urban areas, endangering more than 28,000 jobs and multi-million dollar construction projects across the country. As Ranking Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee at the House Committee on Homeland Security, I have continuously supported the increase in adequate resources aimed at enhancing the efficiency, safety and security of our rail and mass transit systems. This Congress, I introduced the ``Surface Transportation and Mass Transit Security Act of 2011'' which seeks to authorize adequate resources and program attention to surface and mass transit security programs at the Transportation Security Administration. To this end, the bill authorizes additional surface inspectors needed to validate security programs impacting our surface and mass transit security. The bill also creates mechanisms to strengthen stakeholder outreach, makes key revisions to the public transportation security assistance grants program and increases canine teams and resources for surface and mass transit modes. I must say that I am pleased today that our colleagues have come together in a bipartisan and bicameral manner to create a Conference Agreement that will put Americans back to work.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his courtesies and his friendship. We've known each other a long time, and his service has been one of great commendation, and the manager as well. We've gathered here on the floor this morning, and I want to acknowledge that the legislative process is not always pretty, but there are lives embedded in this legislation today. And though I have concerns, I am more pointed toward this House doing things to improve the quality of life for Americans who stand by the wayside and the highways of despair waiting for us to provide jobs to improve the conditions of infrastructure and their lives. Over the past 2 years, we have seen tornadoes. We've even seen an earthquake here in Washington, D.C. We've seen hurricanes on the coastline where I come from in Texas. And in Florida, just recently, Hurricane Debby has pierced the infrastructure. Obviously, this legislation points to some of those needs. As I stand here today, I do want to take note of a comment made by a person in the other body and suggest to Attorney General Holder: Do not resign. We have better things to do than to speak to a Cabinet officer who is a commended public servant. So I want to make sure that that does not occur. But as I discuss this legislation, I think it is important to note several things. One, there are young people that are facing the uphill battle of getting a college education. Now we'll have a refuge. I held a town hall meeting, and to hear the stories of $37,000, $50,000, $90,000 in debt that these young people have. And they are first and second year. They are sophomores and juniors. Or maybe the veteran who does not fall into the schedule of veterans benefits with college and that person has an enormous amount of debt. And so I'm grateful that we have frozen that interest rate; and we should say loudly to the students who are now studying that America cares about them and this House will care about them. Now, I am concerned. And I am reading language that indicates while there's been significant progress regarding MWBEs--and this bill has $13 billion in it for surface transportation and highways--there is concern expressed in this report that we have not really met our goals to help small businesses and minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses. And in actuality, they have an outreach goal of 10 percent. Do we realize that there are some that are receiving Federal funds that don't even meet that goal? And I'm going to cite Houston Metro, because I was proud to have this body provide $900 million to Houston Metro; but I'm disappointed in their lack of commitment to MWBEs. And so this is an important statement. As I read the language, it is adding women to this to create jobs. And we want to work together. We don't want to be fighting against each other. But we create jobs and we help small businesses. And that is crucial. Mass transit has been helped. But I want to note the jobs that President Obama and Democrats have been speaking of are now focused in this bill. Because as we begin to fix the crumbling infrastructure and the $13 billion that we've committed to mass transit, the highways, to the construction of infrastructure and bridges that are crumbling and those that have now been the subject of tornadoes, as I indicated, of hurricanes, deteriorating infrastructure, it can now be revitalized and rebuilt. So, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, yes, I will be voting on this conference report and acknowledge the work that has been done. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge that legislation sometimes, when you have to pull things from people who are desperate, may not be a process that one says is the ordinary process. But I like the fact that ordinary people have done extraordinary things. And this is an extraordinary legislative initiative with its problems, but with $13 billion going to the people of the United States and protecting our young people and doing the business of the American people, as opposed to other direction. I hope that we will move forward in serving the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H. Res 708, ``Resolution recommending that the House of Representatives find Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with a subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.'' Holding a sitting Attorney General in contempt would be unprecedented. In our Nation's history the House of Representatives has never held a sitting Attorney General in contempt of Congress. In 1998, the then Chair of the House Oversight Committee led a vote to hold then Attorney General Janet Reno in contempt of Congress. Attorney General Reno was also accused of withholding documents; however, the then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich elected not to bring the Contempt Citation to the Floor. Attorney General Reno and House leadership were able to resolve their difference without holding our Nation's highest law enforcement officer in contempt. Today's conflict can also be resolved without holding Attorney General Holder in contempt. I firmly believe and I am joined by at least 65 other colleagues who believe that the Attorney General is acting in good faith based upon his actions over the course of the past 15 months. The Attorney General has testified before Congress no less than nine times in the last 15 months and has made himself available for meetings with Members of Congress. Further, the Department of Justice has cooperated with Congressional inquiries into this matter and is willing to continue to engage in discussions with Congressional leadership and others. As of today, the Attorney General has produced more than 7,600 pages of documents as part of 47 separate productions, including sensitive law enforcement materials related to the pending prosecution of the defendants in the underlying Fast and Furious case. Attorney General Holder has consistently expressed his willingness to find a resolution to the issues surrounding the narrow list of documents for which he is being cited. Holding the Nation's top law-enforcement officer in contempt of Congress would be a drastic, disproportionate action on the part of this body. A contempt citation should be an act of last resort, after lengthy preliminary procedures, negotiations, gathering of evidence through other methods, appeals to potential intercessors and intermediaries. Contempt Citations have been extraordinarily rare which is evidenced by the fact that the House has declared just four people in contempt over the last three decades. For these reasons and more we request that you elect not to bring the Contempt Citation to the Floor this Thursday. Mr. Speaker, I delivered a letter to you that was signed by 65 Members of this body stating the same, that this destructive piece of legislation should not be brought to the Floor today. It appears that this is nothing more than destructive election-year politics pure and simple. It is Republicans following through on their threats to use their authority to try to damage this Administration, politically, and this Attorney General, specifically, who has placed an emphasis on enforcing civil rights, voting rights and defending our justice system and the rule of law. This kind of divisive politics hurts Americans who want their leaders focused on fixing real problems they face every day and hurts law enforcement agents who are putting their lives at risk in ongoing investigations that could be compromised by the Committee's political fishing expedition. Congress has the answers to its questions about who designed this flawed operation and who authorized it--they just don't like it so they have ignored the evidence they received last year which shows this was a tactic that was designed and employed in the field and it dates back to the previous Administration. This Attorney General is the one who put a stop to the tactic, called for an independent investigation and instituted reforms and personnel changes to ensure it doesn't happen again. The Department has made extraordinary efforts to accommodate Congress by turning over almost 8,000 documents--including all the documents that relate to the tactics in this flawed investigation and the other flawed investigations that occurred in Arizona in the previous administration. The Department has even turned over internal deliberative material to answer the Committee's questions and the AG offered to provide additional deliberative documentation to resolve the subpoena, but the Committee rejected that offer. The documents at issue now are after-the-fact--they have nothing to do with the flawed tactics in any of the investigations dating back to the Bush Administration or who designed, approved or employed them. The resolution relates to a document request involving allegations of ``gunwalking'' in an ATF operation known as ``Operation Fast and Furious,'' which came to light when two weapons involved in the operation were recovered at the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. However, the documents now at issue are completely unrelated to how ``gunwalking'' there is a question about whether gun-waling existed was utilized in the operation. Over the past year, the Justice Department has provided thousands of pages of documents to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and has made dozens of officials available for interviews and hearings, and the Attorney General has testified before Congress nine times on this topic. The evidence demonstrated that Fast and Furious was in fact the fourth in a series of gunwalking operations run out of the ATF field division in Phoenix over a span of five years beginning in 2006 during the Bush Administration. The investigation identified no evidence that the Attorney General or senior Department officials were aware of gunwalking in Fast and Furious. To the contrary, as soon as the Attorney General became aware of the tactic, he put a halt to it, ordered an IG investigation, and instituted internal reform measures. The House of Representatives has never held an Attorney General in contempt. The only precedent cited in the Issa contempt resolution is a committee contempt vote that took place in the 1990's held by then- Chairman Dan Burton against former Attorney General Janet Reno. That action became so widely discredited that Speaker Gingrich chose not to bring it to the Floor for a vote. The current contempt debate no longer focuses on any documents relating to how gunwalking was initiated and utilized in Operation Fast and Furious. Since Republicans could identify no wrongdoing by the Attorney General, the Committee shifted just last week to focus exclusively on a single letter sent by the Department's Office of Legislative Affairs to Senator Charles Grassley on February 4, 2011, initially denying allegations of gunwalking. The Department has already acknowledged that its letter was inaccurate, has withdrawn the letter, and has provided the Committee with more than 1,300 pages of documents relating to how it was drafted. These documents show that Department staffers who drafted the letter did not intentionally mislead Congress, but instead relied on inaccurate assurances from ATF leaders and officials in Arizona who ran the operation. Despite these good faith efforts, House Republicans chose to move forward with a contempt resolution anyway. Moving the goalposts again, the Committee is now demanding additional internal deliberative documents created even after the Grassley letter was sent. The Attorney General offered to provide them last week in exchange for a good faith commitment to move toward resolution of the contempt fight, but Chairman Issa flatly refused. When it became clear that contempt was inevitable, the Administration asserted executive privilege over this narrow category of deliberative Department documents, while indicating at the same time that it remains willing to continue negotiations. The Issa contempt resolution is nothing more than a politically motivated, election-year ploy. During this investigation, the Committee refused every Democratic request for a hearing witness, including the head of ATF--the agency that actually ran the operation. Chairman Issa has acknowledged that ``we do go down blind alleys regularly'' and has made numerous unfounded claims, including accusing the FBI agents of concealing a ``third gun'' from the scene of Agent Terry's murder--a claim that the FBI quickly demonstrated to be completely unfounded.