Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 683, ``Expressing the regret of the House of Representatives for the passages of laws that adversely affected the Chinese in the United States, including the Chinese Exclusion Act.'' This resolution acknowledges the historical injustices against Chinese Americans, as reflected by a series of laws; however, with a particular emphasis on the Chinese Exclusion Act that which was first passed on March 23, 1882. One hundred thirty years after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and other such measures unjustly targeting individuals in the U.S. with Chinese heritage, it is necessary for Congress to take steps to right the wrongs that were placed on thousands of people by recognizing that discriminatory laws were passed that had a harmful effect on persons of Chinese decent here in the United States. Just last year, I congratulated the Chinese American Citizens Alliance in Houston, Texas during their momentous 51st Biennial National Convention. This historical and highly respected organization was founded in response to the repressive 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and other Federal and State laws that aimed to restrict and ostracize. This celebration highlights the organization's 116 years as the oldest Asian American civil rights organization, consciously commemorating its courageous founders by continuing to pioneer a pragmatic future. Securing equal economic and political support, cultivating minds through the exchange of knowledge, defending American citizenship, and observing the practice of the principles of brotherly love and mutual help, are a few of this organizations highly beneficial practices. These goals are achieved by the organization's eighteen affiliated chapters being highly decorated with individuals of significant achievement; including leaders in the legal, medical, educational, scientific, arts and literature as well as corporate, business, and entrepreneurial endeavors. These endeavors are also supported by Members of Congress who recognize the important contributions of Chinese Americans. Legislation like the one before us today serve as reminders of how important it is not to remember our past so that we do not repeat it. The United States has always been a place where people from diverse backgrounds arrive in hopes of attaining better opportunity, seeking refuge to escape prosecution and provide a more fruitful lifestyle for their families, likewise in the 19th and 20th century many Chinese came to the United States for similar reasons, unfortunately they were not treated favorably. With the passage of legislation that limited Chinese immigration such as the renegotiation of the Burlingame Treaty and the Fifteen Passenger Bill which only permitted 15 Chinese passengers on any ship coming to the United States, the Chinese in this country were directly affected by unequal treatment. On a personal level I can relate to the plight of many Chinese Americans as they fought to be accepted in the United States. I am well aware of the United State's history of discrimination and the harmful impact such discrimination has upon our society as a whole. It is my belief that no one should be forced to endure inequality on the basis of their race, class, gender or religious belief. It is necessary that measures are constantly taken to ensure that our past failures are acknowledged and not repeated. H.R. 683 demonstrates the regret felt by the House of Representatives for the passages of laws that targeted people of Chinese origin solely based upon their ethnicity. The passage of this bill will make clear that we do not support those actions today. It is essential that we continue to aim for cultural acceptance and embrace the differences that make up the diversity of this country that sets us apart from any other nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we can do better. As we work to ensure the tranquility of this great land and the opportunity for those who desire and deserve jobs, I frankly, think, it is likewise a devastating disaster, a crisis, that the world has not risen to stop the bloodshed in Syria. I realize that we are not ready to engage in war, and I say that we do not have to. Syrian Americans are just pleading for the world to intervene, for Dr. Assad to step down, for the cease-fire to take place, and for the killing of women and children to stop. I join with the administration to ask for Dr. Assad to be removed. I ask the Arab League, I ask the surrounding neighbors to stand up against this increasing violence. To the Syrian Americans that I have stood with in Houston, I stand with you until Dr. Assad is removed and the violence is stopped. The United Nations has moved towards a resolution of peace, and Russia and China must stop standing in the way and watching bloodshed pour. Remember, children are dying. Dr. Assad in Syria must leave and peace must come.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member and the ranking member of the full committee and ranking member of the subcommittee for their courtesies, and I think clearly over this process that we've had an opportunity, as authorizers, to work with our friends on the Appropriations Committee. I wanted to have the opportunity to share what I think is important information, an amendment that I believe and hope that the policy aspect of these amendments we can work together in conference to ensure we've come to a meeting of the mind. I look forward to working with the conferees and working with the Senate to make some corrections. Last evening, my amendment to help to restore the mission of FAMs was, in essence, an amendment that needs to be clarified. I again rise with the policy amendment that would help FAMs, the Federal Air Marshals, which I think I could poll any American and ask them the question as to whether or not Federal Air Marshals are, in fact, a crucial element of our security. Today in our hearing, Administrator Pistole, in a direct question that I asked of him as to whether a $50 million reduction would reduce the mission and the security aspect of the Federal Air Marshals, his emphatic answer was, yes, that is what is happening. I think that we should streamline and be efficient, but my amendment that we were hoping that would be discussed was an amendment to restore the $50 million. It should be noted that this was taken from $5 billion, and many Members thought we were, in essence, drawing resources that were taken away from a small pot; but of $5 billion, we are simply asking that 50, 51 would be taken out to restore the mission of FAMs and to respond to concerns about cabin security. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment 404 to ``the FAMS Appropriation in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' The House Report has recommended reducing the FAMS budget by $50 million. It is my sincere belief that this is a detrimental mistake. This recommendation ignores FAMS' integral part in the homeland security mission. If FAMS loses $50 million to its budget it will result in the virtual shut down of the FAMS program. Flight coverage is controlled by two outstanding factors: the number of FAMs available and the Mission Travel Budget which includes hotel and per diem costs. These constraints directly impact FAMS ability to perform optimally. They are outlined in the FAMS risk-based concept of operations (CONOPS). International flights are the highest risk followed by large plane and long haul flights. With the reduction, FAMS will be forced to choose whether domestic or international flight coverage will be decreased. If domestic flights are maintained, then international flight coverage must be cut by 20 percent. Keep in mind that as I stated, international flights are the highest risk operations. By contrast, if international flights are maintained, domestic flight coverage must be cut by as much as 30 percent. This domestic reduction does not take into account the 10 percent decrease noted in the President's proposed budget. In total, FAMS domestic coverage will face a crippling 40 plus percentage reduction that FAMS has not experienced since Christmas Day 2009. I mention this date because on Christmas Day in 2009, a failed attack forced Congress to increase FAMS' size to cover both domestic and international flights. It was clear then that Congress recognized flight vulnerabilities that have since been all but forgotten. While we believe that we cannot afford the FAMS budget, what we truly cannot afford is a successful attack to our security. It is important to note that FAMS is exploring alternative cost saving efforts. FAMS plans to extend its current hiring freeze into FY 2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. The reduction combined with limited employees would severely undermine FAMS mission. The hiring free will extend to administrative personnel in FY'13. FAMS will also implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel of three to five days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down and consider a reduction in force (RIF) to strategically reduce on-board staffing levels. In addition, FAMS will undergo a significant decline in critical operational programs including travel, information technology and logistical support. I must stress again that any reduction to the FAMS budget goes beyond the reasonable operational abilities of this program. It will severely impact our aviation security and impede the good work and progress of this program. For these reasons and more I urge my colleagues to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget. Amendment to H.R. 5855, as Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by increasing the amount made available for ``Security, Enforcement, and Investigations--U.S. Customs and Border Protection--Salaries and Expenses'', by increasing the amount made available for ``Federal Air Marshals'', and by reducing the amount made available for ``Research and Development, Training, and Services--United States Citizenship and Immigration Services'' by $25,000,000, $25,000,000, and $50,000,000, respectively. In addition, we have an amendment that I hope the policy of it will be moved in conference, the overall look of adding resources to the Transportation Security Administration, particularly TSA, in the amount of $50 million, that will help restore the reduced mission of the Federal Air Marshals, more training, professionalism; but there is no doubt we have to close offices, we have to furlough FAMs, and we have to be able to try to meet the concerns of, in essence, the question of cabin security. It is very difficult to not have this $50 million. I am going to work with conferees, and I hope to work with the ranking member and the chairperson to see the value of providing some restoration to the FAM dollars. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 5855, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year ending September 2012. Jackson 405 amendment will increase the budget for the Transportation Security Administration by $50 million. The Transportation Security Administration, which was created in the aftermath of 9/11, nothing is more important to me than the safety of the traveling public. TSA, informed by the latest intelligence, researches and deploys technology and constantly evaluates and updates screening procedures in order to stay ahead of the evolving threats to aviation security. The United States has a complex and inter-connected transportation network that has developed primarily over the last 100 years, and is what makes our fast-paced lives possible. Our ability to travel efficiently from place to place and to transport materials and consumer products around the world is essential to our modern lifestyle, and to our nation's security and economic health. At the same time, our transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, bus stations, railways and railway stations, airports, inland waterways, seaports and pipelines) is vulnerable to damage from both natural and man-made disasters. The transportation infrastructure in the United States includes: Aviation, 5,000 Public Airports; Passenger Rail and Railroads, 120,000 Miles of Major Railroads; Highways, Trucking, and Busing, 590,000 Highway Bridges; 4,000,000 of Public Roadways; Pipelines, 2,000,000 Miles of Pipelines; Maritime, 300 Inland/Coastal Ports; Mass Transit, 500 Major Urban Public Transportation Operators. In the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, damage to transportation systems can result in injury and loss of life, hamper emergency evacuation from the scene of the disaster, and inhibit rescue workers' ability to get to the scene to provide aid. Sometimes, as in the case of Hurricane Katrina, the existing transportation systems, even if undamaged, are insufficient to effectively evacuate a disaster area. Recovery from a disaster can take years and be very expensive for individuals, private companies and government agencies. Focusing on transportation security means that we are doing what we can to predict, plan for and prevent, if possible, these catastrophic events. This includes developing resilient transportation systems, mitigating the effects of a disaster, and planning for recovery. I ask my colleagues to join me in increasing the budget for TSA. Also, I think it is very important on this question of Buy America, and that is legislation that requires the Department of Homeland Security funds to, in this time of unemployment, be used for American companies only. One might say we already have a Buy America. Well, let me just educate my colleagues. In the issue of screening, where there is this desire to have a Screening Partnership Program through the FAA legislation that was passed in February, the prohibition of using foreign companies to screen Americans in United States airports was removed. And so foreign companies can now be our screeners. That, of course, is a question of jobs. It is particularly a question of Federal dollars dealing with security going to foreign-owned companies. This amendment is a crucial amendment. I wish my colleagues would have allowed it on the floor of the House. But I believe that this should be a matter taken up under the security premise as to whether or not, even if there is a provision for the Screening Partnership Program, which, again, Mr. Pistole indicated that the $15 million that was allotted out of our screening program was going to undermine the screening program, the federally based screening program, that our system should be federally focused. But if there is an SPP, if there is a Screening Partnership Program, the idea of having foreign-owned companies secure the contracts, take away American jobs, and then be screening Americans, is ludicrous at best. I would encourage individuals that we can work together. I look forward to working together. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my limitation, amendment 403 to H.R. 5855, the ``Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.'' Under my amendment, DHS funds will only be allocated to companies controlled by U.S. citizens. In the midst of an economy that continues to maintain a high unemployment rate, it is imperative that we do everything in our power to ensure that American tax dollars support American businesses which will in turn support our citizens and our families. Private companies that perform security screenings at our U.S. airports are no different. Security protection laws and private vs. federal screening disagreements aside, we must ensure that we hire our own American companies. Unlike other aspects of aviation security that are subject to multiple hearings before Congressional committees, there have been no hearings or findings of fact to establish the security risk of allowing foreign owned companies to perform screening at U.S. airports. Prior to this year, the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) allowed some U.S. airports to opt-out of using federal screeners. In addition, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 44920 prohibited TSA from entering into contracts to provide private screenings of passengers and bags by any company that was not owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States. Congress changed this requirement in February with the FAA Modernization Act that included a waiver of the requirement that private screening contracts only be awarded to U.S. owned companies. According to the Defense Security Service, a U.S. company is considered to be under foreign ownership, control or influence ``when a foreign interest has the power, direct or indirect, whether or not exercised, to direct or decide matters affecting the management or operations of the company in a manner which may result in unauthorized access to classified information or may affect adversely the performance of classified contracts.'' By allowing foreign companies to conduct security screenings at our airports, we leave ourselves vulnerable to foreign interests taking precedence in the safety of our citizens and the security of our flights. It is no secret that aviation security in the U.S. remains a focus of Al Qaeda. In thwarting attacks, it is not enough to merely mitigate a hostile, foreign influence. Any access to intelligence, technologies, policies or procedures that could be communicated to foreign terrorists must be avoided entirely. Concerns about national security have led to tighter guidelines for federal government approval of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies by foreign investors and the granting of federal contracts to foreign owned companies. But they neglect the other important issue at hand--the loss of opportunities for American companies. The law establishing the opt-out program in 2001 required the head of TSA to determine there are private screening companies owned and controlled by U.S. citizens to perform screening contracts. There is no evidence of any shortage of U.S. owned security companies to perform screening when an application is granted. We must not allow foreign owned companies to perform screening at any U.S. airport. The U.S. should not reopen itself to a risk of lives lost and damage to the aviation industry and the U.S. economy by opening the door to the risk of another attack by Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group outside the U.S. In addition, American tax dollars should support our American businesses and our people. For these reasons and more I urge my colleagues to include my limitation amendment to the DHS appropriations bill. Amendment to H.R. 5855, as Reported Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the following: Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated for a contract entered into under section 44920 of title 49, United States Code, with a private company that is not owned and controlled by a citizen of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank you very much. Mr. Price is absolutely right, I serve as the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee on Homeland Security, and a risk- based, well-trained professional team is what we have been working toward and what we are achieving. I ask my colleagues to remember America pre-9/11 without a professional workforce. And I'd also like to say that in spite of the citations of inappropriate behavior, which none of us condone, there are thousands and thousands of untold stories of TSO officers doing their job, providing the safety lines for the safety of this Nation and providing assistance to the traveling public. How do I know? Because I make it a habit of visiting airports and seeing our TSO officers work and interacting with them and asking them how long they have served. Many of them came in after 9/11 because they could not sit idly by while the Nation had been attacked. Many of them are former law enforcement officers, former military personnel who believed that they were serving their Nation. What is a badge? It is a dignity that is allowed to those who are on the front lines of the Nation's security. What is a uniform? It is a consistent statement that you are authorized to do your duty. And I would simply say in the mistakes that occur in any body, whatever body it might be, local law enforcement, the United States military, do we strip them of their gear because of incidental or arbitrary incidents that individuals perpetrate? In this instance, we have a majority of heroic, first-line individuals who want to do better. Can we do better? Absolutely. But it is not done through the removal of the badge or the removal of the uniform. I would just say to my colleagues that we have been blessed since the tragedy of 9/11, but I am reminded of the tragedy of 9/11, and I'm reminded of the heroic souls who lost their lives, families who still mourn. And I'm reminded of the effort of this Congress and the administration at that time, President George Bush, to answer the call. The TSA was part of answering that call. It is our duty, I believe, to ensure that professional service, to allow them to serve, and to ensure that they are serving the American public. With that, I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentlelady from Tennessee's amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I really thank the chairman for his comments. I don't want to give a whole historical perspective, but I've certainly been on the Homeland Security authorizing committee since 9/ 11. I am quite familiar with the technologies and various changes in aviation travel in particular, and we've made great strides. We have certainly made great strides, but here is my point that I think is crucial: How long are we going to continue to count on heroic, if you will, passengers and continue to cite them as great heroes until the day of some tragic and horrific incident? We thank the American traveling public for what it has done to thwart a number of incidences, some of which, obviously, are not terrorist- directed but which do impact on the traveling public's security while airborne. Air marshals are the frontline support and defense in a vessel, if you will, in an aircraft that, if tampered with airborne, can be a catastrophe of enormous proportions. Air marshals are, in essence, a crucial part of the security of this Nation. If we are to literally obliterate them by the $50 million reduction, you will see a reduction in mission, what offices will be ultimately shut down, FAMs personnel being furloughed for a minimum of 4 days, and civilian personnel gone. I don't deny that we can look to be responsible fiscally and that we can find ways that will streamline. I happen to believe that $50 million is too drastic a cut and should be restored. So I would ask my colleagues, in spite of what changes may have been made, that they do not act superior to that human resource on that aircraft that is standing in the gap for a dastardly devastating terrorist act or some other altercation that needs the resources and expertise of the Federal Air Marshals. Let me conclude by saying for a very long time I've introduced legislation to give flight attendants the kind of security training that would help them in the course of a potential terrorist incident on the aircraft. We'd hoped that that would have already occurred. I believe the other front-liners are TSO officers. That flight training has not yet occurred, so Federal Air Marshals act in the capacity of that standing in the gap to secure the crew and as well to secure the traveling public. Who wants to subject the traveling public, domestic or international, to that kind of gaping hole of the reduction of cost or dollars that would ultimately result in this huge reduction of mission, furloughs, loss of civilians, closed offices? I think that we need to reconsider, and I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment of adding back the $50 million reduction that has taken place.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I would ask unanimous consent that my amendment be considered out of order.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their courtesies. I am the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee and have had the privilege of serving as the chairperson of that committee. I now work with the chairperson, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the issues of our committee as relates to the present appropriations. I think we can all be reminded of a number of incidents, starting with 9/11 and the attack on the Nation's aviation and the Nation's soul. During that time, we did not have the structure of Federal Air Marshals that we have today. We can be reminded of the shoe bomber, the Christmas Day bomber, the issue of the pilot that caused a disturbance some weeks and months ago. We know that the idea of aviation security is crucial. In the course of that, we have developed a very important system called the Federal Air Marshal system. If you would query much of the traveling public, whether domestic or international, they would say yes to more Federal Air Marshals, and I agree. I've offered amendments and legislation to require more Federal Air Marshals on international trips and certainly have encouraged the training and utilization of FAMs on domestic trips. I have visited their offices. I've sat down and spoken to them. They are committed and dedicated public servants. My amendment will restore the Federal Air Marshals, FAMs, budget by $50 million. As you're aware, FAMs is an integral program to the homeland security mission. I believe that this recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational challenges FAMs will face as a result of a reduction. The FAMs risk-based concept of operations, CONOPS, outlines the two constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage: First, FAMs is, of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air Marshals available; Secondly, FAMs' flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel budget which covers all FAM travel expenses, including hotel and per diem costs. With the large cost difference between domestic and international flight operations, CONOPS must be used to conduct the most optimal mission allocation that can be maintained within those limitations. In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze in FY 2013, as mandated by the President's budget. It plans to be cooperative. With limited employees, if the proposed $50 million reduction were to be implemented, FAMS' operation would be severely undermined. I would venture to say they would be shut down to a great extent. The program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include civilian personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a minimum of 4 days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down, and consider a reduction in force, or RIF, to strategically reduce onboard staffing levels. This is not the time to do this in the course of franchise terrorism. In addition, FAMS would suffer a significant decline in critical operational programs, including travel, information technology, and logistical support. A reduction would be an obstruction to the good work and progress of this program. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to look closely at the devastation and the loss of these dollars and ask you to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget. I would ask my colleagues to consider this amendment, and I would ask that we include or recognize FAMS as an integral part of a homeland security, Nation security, frontline security, and an important point and program to consider funding necessary to ensure the security of the traveling public and the Nation's homeland. With that, I ask support of the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 5855, Making Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the Fiscal Year ending September 2012. My amendment will restore The Federal Air Marshalls (FAMS) budget by $50 million. As you are aware, FAMS is an integral program to the homeland security mission. I believe that this recommendation takes into consideration the crucial operational challenges FAMS will face as a result as of a reduction. The FAMS risk-based concept of operations (CONOPS) outlines the two constraints that impact its optimal allocation of flight coverage. First, FAMS is of course, dependent on the number of Federal Air Marshals available. Secondly, FAMS flight coverage is reliant on the mission travel budget which covers all FAM travel expenses including hotel and per diem costs. With the large cost difference between domestic and international flight missions, CONOPS must be utilized to conduct the most optimal mission allocation that can be maintained within these limitations. In deciding the FAMS appropriation, the House must take into consideration FAMS' plan to extend its current hiring freeze into FY 2013 as mandated by the President's Budget. With limited employees, if the proposed $50 million reduction were to be implemented, FAMS' operations would be severely undermined. The program would be forced to extend the hiring freeze to include civilian personnel, implement a furlough of all FAMS personnel for a minimum of four days, reduce mission coverage, assess which offices can be shut down and consider a reduction in force (RIF) to strategically reduce on-board staffing levels. In addition, FAMS would suffer a significant decline in critical operational programs including travel, information technology and logistical support. A reduction would be an obstruction to the good work and progress of this program. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to restore the $50 million to the FAMS budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my appreciation to the ranking member and the chairman is evidenced by hoping to offer an amendment that is a reflection of the time that I served on the Science Committee for 12 years, and now almost a decade plus on Homeland Security. When we speak about jobs, we understand that jobs are equated to education, and the education that is the key of today in the 21st century is science, technology, engineering, and math. I had the privilege of participating in one of the largest robotic competitions among students from around the world, hosted in Houston, Texas, sponsored by the Harmony School. It was amazing, Mr. Chairman, to see the outstanding and talented young people, particularly from the United States, but hosting individuals from around the world. The camaraderie, the collegiality around not war but peace and how to use science, technology, engineering, and math to improve the quality of life of all who live in this world was amazing. But more importantly, as we look to America and the creation of jobs, we must create a new generation of inventors knowledgeable about science, technology, engineering, and math similar to what NASA did in inspiring young people to go into physics, biology, chemistry, and a variety of sciences, all desiring be to be astronauts, many of whom became medical doctors. Now, as we begin to look at regaining our manufacturing prowess, science, technology, engineering, and math are key. The United States economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources in science, technology, engineering, and math. But, in addition, manufacturing can be bolstered by science, technology, engineering, and math. It is so important, then, to ensure that we prepare the next generation. This amendment is simply a restatement and an affirmation of the importance of the fact of the Department of Energy energy programs, science, and that we reinforce the value of these programs. I have seen it firsthand. I am promoting, and many Members as well, science, technology, engineering, and math in their particular communities. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Nation's education report card, shows that fewer than 40 percent of students at every grade level tested are proficient in math and science. In 2006, only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in engineering. So I ask my colleagues to just reinforce our commitment to job creation; to science, technology, engineering, and math; to inventiveness; to world peace; to the collaboration of young people in this generation moving forward to make a better quality of life for all who are in this world.

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

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the committee for its work. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My amendment will protect funds provided for Science under Title III of the Department of Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), as well as, the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices. As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. The economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens. The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation . . . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap between our nation's workforce and those of our international counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that purpose.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect and thank the gentleman from Indiana very much, the ranking member, for his support of the amendment, and I thank him for his leadership. I appreciate the chairman's commentary, but that is why I attempted to be very responsible and balanced. This is a mere--though I take that word seriously--$10 million. And let me tell you why it is enormously important. The U.S. Department of Energy report found that wind energy could supply 20 percent of the Nation's electricity by 2030. We're fast approaching that, which could entail 300,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity. There are States throughout the United States that would have a great opportunity for increased job creation and businesses around wind capacity. Again, a holistic approach to energy. Nearly $20 billion will be saved if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings improved by 10 percent. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee overseeing the Homeland Security Department, I know we look at all aspects to secure our Nation. Energy independence, in spite of the fact of our diversity in resources, is extremely important. That's why I believe a holistic approach is crucial. This helps the holistic approach. As we continue in States that deal with fossil fuel, this is equally important. Thirty percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or unnecessarily. Ethanol is a clean renewable energy. It is helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic, environment benefits. Again, I'm not too unappreciative, if you will, of the diversity of energy in this country not to look at all aspects of it. And I do hope that we can have a holistic approach. I think this contributes to that holistic approach, taking into account all aspects of energy in a unified energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the ``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My amendment provides to increase funds by $10,000,000 for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program is an essential office that invests in clean energy technologies created to strengthen our economy and protect our environment. Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research providing funds to innovators with the resource they need to develop energy efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction industry and in the transportation market. This program is designed to develop cost efficient methods through the use of renewable energy practices for the home. Financial incentives are provided to builders who utilize methods that results in the reduction of energy use during construction, as well as, manufactures within the transportation industry who research and design energy efficient vehicles. Providing additional funding to this program today only advances research that may one day result in a significant decrease in our dependence on energy from foreign sources that are hostile to U.S. interest. In addition, this program will positively impact rising fuel prices affecting Americans across the country. It is this research which will ultimately contribute to sustaining our economy by looking for domestic solutions to energy concerns thus reducing foreign dependency on highly consumed substances such as oil. Likewise it provides incentives to businesses taking initiatives to conserving energy by creating tools directly effecting solar, wind and water energy. Programs like these are vital to the Americans, in order to develop a highly skilled technical workforce to address current energy issues that have generational effects on our families and our land. fast facts The U.S. Department of Energy's Building Technologies Program reduced energy costs for consumers and businesses by billions of dollars, as well as associated energy use and emissions, through setting minimum energy performance standards for appliances and commercial equipment. To date, every Federal dollar spent has resulted in an average of $650 in net savings, and has also helped spur product innovation. As of 2010, consumers and businesses have saved $15 billion per year, and this annual amount is expected to nearly double by 2025. Buildings use more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy, consuming more than 70 percent of electricity and over 50 percent of natural gas. A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report found that the wind energy could supply 20 percent of the Nation's electricity by 2030, which would entail 300,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind generating capacity. Nearly $20 billion would be saved if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial buildings improved by 10 percent. Thirty percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or unnecessarily. Ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel. It is helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic and environmental benefits. Today, on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced from corn results in about a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions relative to gasoline. With improved efficiency and use of renewable energy, this reduction could be as much as 52 percent. One hundred ten (110) manufacturers joining the Better Buildings, Better Plants Program to gain recognition and technical support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Demonstrated their commitment to energy savings by signing a voluntary pledge to reduce energy intensity by 25 percent over 10 years. These companies are implementing cost- effective energy efficiency improvements that reduce their bottom lines while enhancing U.S. competitiveness. Household vehicle ownership has changed over the last six decades. In 1960, over 20 percent of households did not own a vehicle, but by 2010, that number fell to less than 10 percent. The number of households with three or more vehicles grew from 2 percent in 1960 to nearly 20 percent in 2010. Before 1990, the most common number of vehicles per household was one, but since 1990, the most common number of vehicles is two. Starting in 1980, more than 50 percent of American households owned two or more vehicles. The typical U.S. family spends at least $2,000 a year on home utility bills. This amount can be lowered by up to 25 percent by engaging in more efficient methods to save energy within the home.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. If my good friend from Iowa was joining and trying to make sure that Federally funded construction jobs went to companies that were based here in the United States, I would be celebrating with him to avoid the incident that happened with the bridge in California, where it was built by a Chinese company with Chinese nationals who had come over to the United States. But in this instance, I would like to ask the gentleman where he finds this present-day discrimination. In fact, as he well knows, opportunities for minority contractors have come about because of Members of this Congress who have fought for what we call--not set asides--but MWBE opportunities. We have seen the increase in construction companies. We need more. More importantly, unions have engaged in apprenticeship programs. Prevailing wages are nothing but giving a hard day's work and a decent-paying wage. It is to construction what we were trying to do with paycheck fairness. I disagree with the gentleman that in this day and time we're not making extensive efforts to make sure that there are diverse populations working and being trained under the union label and umbrella, and that there are young men and women who are benefiting from these training programs. More importantly, MWBEs, and if the gentleman would want to work with me on ensuring that these small contractors can work on Federal projects, he would have me aligned with him today. But not to deny us the Davis-Bacon and prevailing wages. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment in the name of fairness and in the name of the betterment of the working person.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. For a number of years, Mr. Chairman--and to my colleagues, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member--I practiced energy law in the State of Texas. For a number of years, I worked with advocacy groups that were crying out for an energy policy in this Nation, one that would respect the assets that we've been blessed with in this country. Texas is blessed with a number of assets, particularly wind and solar, as it has fossil fuel, shale--opportunities to ensure that America remains independent in the quest for energy independence. My amendment recognizes the holistic approach to energy. In recognizing the various resources that our State has and many other States, it is a very, very small contribution, but an important contribution, for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. Whenever you speak to the multinationals, I will assure you that all of them have within their companies an emphasis or a section on the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. This is an essential office that invests in clean energy technologies, an office that is created to strengthen our economy and protect our environment. It works well simultaneously along with the other very important programs in the U.S. Department of Energy. Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research, providing to innovators the funds and resources they need to develop energy- efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction industry, and in the transportation market. The main concept is that this can create jobs, that partnerships can create jobs. This program is designed to develop cost-efficient methods through the use of renewable energy practices for the home. Financial incentives are provided to builders that utilize methods that result in the reduction of energy use during construction, as well as to manufacturers within the transportation industry who research and design energy-efficient vehicles. I have had the privilege of going through energy-constructed homes. What a unique difference. Builders across America are crying out for the opportunity to experiment with these very special, unique tools. I would ask my colleagues to consider the job creation aspect of renewable energy and the role that it plays in a holistic energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I again ask my colleagues to support this amendment because anyone who has lived near a port understands what the Army Corps of Engineers is going through. We spend our time working with the Corps on this issue of dredging. In every port in the United States, millions of dollars are lost because of the inability of access and the difficulty of making sure that our Nation's ports are ready for the increase in business. The Transportation Institute Center for Ports and Waterways indicated, analyzing the direct economic effects of channel restrictions and the loss of 1 foot of draft from the Houston ship channel, as an example, and the data was collected from the years 2008 and 2009, the study determined that a direct economic impact of the loss of 1 foot over 2 years amounts to $373 million. This, in fact, is an account that has been authorized, as evidenced by the Army Corps, which deals in particular with the Department of Army Operations and Maintenance. This infusion is to assist in making sure that jobs are saved and jobs are created. The study does not consider other effects that are very real but are extremely difficult to measure, but they can measure what the lack of dredging can bring about. I would make the argument that in ports that are competing with world ports, accessibility is crucial. I ask my colleagues to be reminded that we are in the business of creating jobs. It seems ridiculous that we cannot add to an existing account to create jobs, to assist in one of the largest ports in the Nation, ports along the west coast, ports along the gulf, and ports along the east coast, all ports that are engaged in receiving large vessels that are bringing in goods and large vessels going out with manufactured and other goods from the United States of America. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his expression. What I would argue is: What are Members here to do? I would vigorously disagree this is an earmark. I believe there is authorization, in particular under operation and maintenance. But the dilemma that the gentleman is making an argument on is whether or not you can increase it versus reducing it. And so what my argument is is that this is a general increase to operation and maintenance with no specific tie to indicate that it is an earmark. There is no monetary benefit to me as a Member of Congress, publicly stated on the floor of the House. Therefore, this is to increase millions of jobs in America, in ports around America, for an issue that is devastating to ports and that the Army Corps of Engineers is being overwhelmed, that is, the requirement of dredging. Dredging equals allowing the quality of vessel to increase by tonnage, to bring in and take out goods that Americans have manufactured and goods that Americans are seeking to import with our allies and trading partners. It is to increase jobs. Therefore, I'd make the argument that we are bound by rules that have nothing to do with earmarks if you are, in essence, placing funding into existing accounts to help Americans--all of America--and to build our ports--all of our ports--making them more secure and making them more accessible so that the goods of Americans can go to and fro, and that jobs can multiply. If one port alone, by one foot of inaccessibility, lack of dredging, loses $373 million, multiply that by the number of major ports in the United States from the East to the southern coastline to the west coast. I make the argument that this is an amendment that can stand on its own and should not be subject to a point of order. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is my ``can we all get along'' amendment. I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for their work on this bill. My amendment would be helpful to the Army Corps of Engineers and their work on our east coast, on our gulf, and on our west coast because it deals specifically with restoration. It sends a strong message to the importance of restoration and its issue of national importance. It talks about the economic well-being of the regions along the Nation's coastlines, and it provides an opportunity for restoration. There is no doubt that over the years our coastlines have deteriorated and that wetlands have not been protected. We've experienced a devastating spill on the gulf coastline, and so many along that coastline, from Florida to Alabama to Louisiana to Texas and in between, have experienced a negative impact on their wetlands and their coastline. This takes a mere $10 million--again, I say it with respect--to assist the Nation in providing aid and improvement to the Nation's coastlines, which, again, produce opportunities of economic development, tourism, and various protections for a coastline that has suffered under neglect. The United States Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 60 percent of the coastline along the gulf is eroding. The coast loses up to 10 feet of shoreline a year, with 225 acres of topsoil washing into the gulf coast. Funds are needed to preserve the gulf coast as well as other coasts. This will, in turn, protect the economic stability of that region. Just a few months ago, I introduced H.R. 3710, which would provide for the added opportunity of protecting the coastline as well as for deficit reduction through an energy security fund. The legislation would provide funds for programs to help with the restoration as it establishes grants for States along our coastal areas--a coastal and disaster grant program and a national grant program--to address coastal and ocean disasters and the restoration, protection, and maintenance of the coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with State and local agencies. I look forward to the hearing and passage of that legislation, but today I rise to support the Nation's coastal region and to provide these resources. With that, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.