Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise because I truly believe we can do better. I join my colleague from Texas to speak and raise the question of: What was the GSA, the General Services Administration, thinking? There are a lot of good workers and we should not attribute to them bad acts, but it was such poor judgment--$800,000 to be spent recklessly on party hearty. But I also want to raise the question of the contracts that the GSA sends out. In the instance of the stimulus dollars, my Federal building has been rehabbed under the stimulus moneys to create jobs, and we can't get the contractor, Gilbane, to address the question of diversity in the workforce or diversity in contractors. What a terrible shame. There has been some hard work and some attention, but not the hard press that should come about when you seek fairness. Mr. Speaker, I also want to mention the fact that I'm supporting Mr. Courtney's bill, of Connecticut, because it is a shame to double, triple the interest rates on loans that college students need to provide for their education. Finally, I want to say that NASA has sent the Discovery to the Smithsonian. I want a shuttle in Houston, and we're never giving up until we get it. We are the historic home for the shuttle.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I join my colleague that just spoke on the vitality and the importance of STEM education. As a 12-year member of the Science Committee, I also had a sense of emotion as Discovery flew many times over this great democratic institution. That emotion compels me to continue to fight for a place for one of the shuttles in the hometown where it was born, the place where John F. Kennedy spoke at the Rice Hotel and inspired us to go into space, and that is Houston, Texas, NASA-Johnson. I look forward to that continued bipartisan effort to have an appropriate representation of the four shuttles back in Houston, where they belong. I rise today as well to speak about a number of things. I believe it's important for my colleagues to sort of look at a series of issues. I support the Buffett Rule, not because I believe in any kind of class warfare. I celebrate capitalism and applaud Mr. Buffett and others. But it is a good way to raise revenue and bring down the deficit. We, of course, will be dealing with a bill proposed by my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle. The only thing that they will do is enhance the pocket money of people who don't need it. There is an unfairness in the Tax Code. I would join in a bipartisan way to look at it. In making the Tax Code fair, I would hope that we would be able to bring down the deficit. But the bill that we will see, as I said, will increase the pocket change of millionaires. It will be a job killer. And, of course, it will cut the Medicare guarantees of those who have worked hard for their children and grandchildren. I cannot support legislation that isn't fair and balanced. I would plead to my colleagues to find the middle ground--a fair Tax Code, bringing down the deficit. I would encourage them to look at H.R. 3710, an energy bill. I have practiced oil and gas law for 15 years. It addresses the question of the wetlands, it uses exploration dollars to bring down the deficit, and it allows expanded exploration in the gulf region, a process that has been vetted by many energy organizations, energy companies, and they believe that is a bipartisan approach. H.R. 3710 is ready for the combined work of all of us. I also believe it's important to speak about the value of education in several ways. And I'm here today to join in H.R. 3826, proudly so, that stands with students who now carry the bulk of the debt in America--credit debt. These are students who are simply trying to, as my colleague just said, study science, technology, engineering, and math. In about 74 days, the interest rates on Stafford loans will triple to 6.8 percent. You may have borrowed at 2 percent, and here we are talking about it going up to 6.8 percent. I, with every fiber in my body, stand against that. I'm going to stand with the students and parents who have children in school. We can win this thing. We must have a legislative action to stop that stealing of money from our children, who are simply trying to be in the best colleges, the State colleges, and to be educated. Parents, wake up. In 74 days, the interest rate on your children's loans is going up to 6.8 percent. Call our offices, get on our Web sites, and beg us to pass H.R. 3826 by my good friend Mr. Courtney from Connecticut. Please, I beg of you. And I will be there with you. From Texas Southern University to the University of Houston to Houston Baptist to the Houston Community College, we're going to work on this. Let me also move very quickly, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this is the fifth-year commemoration of the terrible killings at Texas Tech. This Congress has been charged with being fearful of dealing with gun legislation. Over the years, I have introduced the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention bill. I have, in fact, supported bills dealing with gun checks and to close gun loopholes at gun shows. I have supported bills to stop the proliferation of assault weapons. Not bills against the Second Amendment, but bills that would have stopped Mr. Zimmerman from recklessly walking around with a 9 millimeter, and he was only supposed to be the eyes and ears of his neighborhood. Mr. Speaker, I join in a bipartisan manner, even to the extent of saying we must clean up the Secret Service--I support Mr. Sullivan--and even clean up the GSA, because Gilbane, which has received stimulus dollars from the GSA, has refused to be diverse. To the CEO of Gilbane, this Congressperson you need to call. You are an unfair company, and you're using Federal dollars from the GSA in an inappropriate way. No diverse workforce, and no small businesses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I was in Colombia, South America, this past week with the President for what was an outstanding discussion among 30 Presidents, including the President of the United States. The meeting reenforced our commitment to South America and Central America on business opportunities, small business opportunities, human rights, and the controlling of drug trafficking. At the same time, we had to, in essence, listen and hear about a horrible action that occurred by members of the Secret Service. This does not undermine the Secret Service's long years of service for 147 years, but there must be accountability. I do not think that we should cede any authority to the House Oversight Committee. This is a question of Homeland Security and national security, and we must begin to act immediately for a full investigation. Finally, on the General Services Administration, it should be cleaned up and cleaned out. I know for a fact that is true because monies that are being spent on the Mickey Leland Federal Building--the contractor is Gilbane. They are adhering to no rules regarding small businesses, minority-owned businesses, diversity and workforce, nothing at all. They are overseen by the General Service Administration, which has done absolutely nothing to rein in companies like Gilbane that have done nothing as it relates to diversity of small business and are doing nothing to adhere to the American value that everybody must have an opportunity under Federal funding. GSA, clean up your act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentlelady again for her leadership--I like to call her Dr. Christensen--and for, as my colleague from California indicated, for allowing us to have a vote on a regular basis on behalf of all of America, my constituency, and certainly on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, of which I'll never step away from its definition as the conscience of this Congress, but the conscience of America. I want to thank my colleague, the Honorable Barbara Lee, who knows what justice and fighting for freedom is all about. I'm reminded of the very unique history of Oakland, California, and I think of the movement of justice through the Black Panthers of early years, who did many things; but I remember them for their early breakfasts and nutrition programs, and I call that justice. Let me just thank her for her leadership on this and on many other issues. To my colleague from the District of Columbia, the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, let me thank her as well. Let me indicate that this is Emancipation Day. As I understand, there's a big parade. And President Lincoln, just a few steps away from us, signed the freeing of the slaves in Washington, D.C. You don't know the history of the District of Columbia until you hear it from Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I thank her very much. And I know of her friendship and closeness to John Payton. One of my dear friends and former Federal judges that I know Eleanor Holmes Norton knows, Judge Gabrielle McDonald, likewise came to a similar history. We have talked. I was an Earl Warren legal scholar. And so I know the journey that so many have traveled. So this is a personal statement as I rise to salute John Payton and also acknowledge his wife, Gay McDougall. And I want to say this on behalf of my husband, Dr. Elwyn C. Lee, a graduate of Yale Law School and who knew Gay very well, and I knew her. What a perfect match and a family of justice fighters, of human rights fighters, of individuals who could be as eloquent on the question of HIV/AIDS, international plagues and devastation that impacts so many vulnerable communities, here they are discussing the worldwide siege of AIDS upon individuals but, likewise, can come home and march along the road of justice here in the United States of America. I learned in law school that the law--and I know that Congresswoman Holmes Norton still teaches--I know the law is a jealous mistress. I would say to you that I found that out. Obviously, I'm now in the United States Congress. But I love the law. I love the purpose and value of lawyers. And I encourage young lawyers that if they want to read a story of sacrifice and someone who epitomizes that it's a jealous mistress, read the history of John Adolphus Payton, born in 1946 and passed this past March 22 in Baltimore, Maryland. He, obviously, is from California, but with a law degree from Harvard Law School. That means that the world was his oyster, and it was open to any manner of choice that he could have made in his lifetime. He was a Federal clerk, but he managed to start his life at WilmerHale, which used to be, I believe, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, which is where my husband practiced law here in D.C. for a number of years. What I like most of all is that his reach was so far on the Independent Electoral Commission in South Africa, again, looking for justice. President of the District of Columbia Bar, but he found his way to his calling. He found his way to answer the opportunities that he was given. Being a 1977 graduate of Harvard Law School, he stood on the shoulders of Thurgood Marshall, a graduate of Howard Law School. He stood on the shoulders of the giants that graduated from law school in Arkansas and the other giants that graduated from Howard, and I think he found his comfort level at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, becoming the sixth president. My classmate, Elaine Jones, served in that capacity for a very long time, graduating from the University of Virginia Law School. Today, in the wonderful tributes, she was part of that wonderful memorial service that was held here in Washington, D.C., along with a number of other giants. Let me just say to you that when we think of justice, we have a combination, from the civil rights leaders to the fallen; Dr. King on the balcony in Memphis, Tennessee. But do we know all the lawyers that were part of the matrix of justice, from Thurgood, who held the hand of Dr. King and a number of civil rights leaders, one after another, some of our giant lawyers down in Alabama and Mississippi who were there to bond them out, to petition their case. In the likes of those, John Payton became an unselfish fighter for justice, from his, what I call, victory of Richmond v. Croson, in a 5 4 decision--it was a victory--where he attempted to maintain the affirmative action plan that established just a simple process of assisting businesses to receive opportunities. I want you to know today that because of lawsuits like that, we are suffering in cities all around America because there were those who believed that just a smidgeon of opportunity was too much. Right in my own city of Houston, under the General Services Administration that I hope will be cleaned up--and I know there are good people there--we have Gilbane, a major company, using stimulus dollars and having no concern about the in-depth minority participation of small businesses--the GSA hopeless and helpless at being able to do anything--and having a nondiverse workforce. Gilbane. Let the number go out as an example of what John Payton was fighting against. Then, of course, his valiant fight in 2003 at the University of Michigan, the affirmative action case that is maintained today as he defended the school's use of race as their admission processes--again, not using it destructively. That is, I think, one of the arguments that is not a legal argument, but he found a way to justify--the trial court of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court defending undergraduate school's use of race in their admissions processes and the loss in the United States Supreme Court by 6 3--but in any event, maintaining the fight and taking cases that were not popular. John, thank you. Thank you, Gay, for sharing him. And then a 2009 case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. The municipal district in Austin, my State, challenged the validity of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Payton assisted in the arguments, leading to the Supreme Court's 8 1 decision upholding section 5. He was our firewall. On the question of section 2 and section 5, he was the holder of the truth, the arbiter, the outside partner to the Department of Justice that wanted and needed to do right. Finally, the local attorney for the plaintiff in 2010, Lewis v. City of Chicago, in which a group of African Americans seeking to be firefighters contended that they had properly filed a charge of discrimination. It is my understanding that that case has moved along and that John prevailed so that truth would be the call of the day. It is important to hold him up as the man of armor who is nonviolent. And he held as his victory call the Constitution and the laws that were passed to help the unempowered. I've always said that the Voting Rights Act is not the black Voting Rights Act or the Hispanic Voting Rights Act. It is the Voting Rights Act to have one vote, one person for every single American. My hat goes off to John Payton, and I salute him as a soldier on the battlefield for justice, for what is right, never wavering with his quiet demeanor, and for his strength in the courthouse. I ask the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to stay the course. I ask you to never whimper and never weaken. And I say to you that your soldier is going on to be a general in the justice cause in a place beyond. I beg of you to carry forward. Let me just read these citations that were in honor of him, just very briefly, from a statement from the LDF, where they spoke about the city of Chicago, the Lewis case, which vindicated the rights of over 6,000 applicants. As I indicated, that case prevailed. They called him fearless, a guiding light, a brilliant advocate, a mentor and a teacher who believed that American democracy thrives when it embraces all of our voices. Thank you to the Legal Defense Fund. And then, from one of the major law firms, partner Walter Dellinger had this to say: John Payton was a towering figure. He was just flat-out brilliant and combined that intellectual power with a deep and empathetic commitment to justice. Everyone who knew John will remember forever his infectious good spirit and uninhibited laugh. Every encounter with John was a learning experience. Let me close on this note because I know that John would have been in the midst of discussing this travesty of justice as relates to Trayvon Martin. Trayvon obviously was a symbol of the injustice of this Nation when police and a State prosecutor became judge and jury. I don't want to interfere with the process of justice. Mr. Zimmerman is arrested. But let us not rest on our laurels because we pushed for the arrest that should have been. We know that there will be a rocky road proceeding toward holding Mr. Zimmerman accountable. More importantly, let me make it very clear on the floor of the House that every mode of justice that is needed for a fair trial I support. If it is to remove the judge, as the defense has asked for, let that be considered in an unbiased manner. If by chance the prosecution asks for a change of venue because this jury pool in this region will be tainted, then so be it. But what we must also say--and let me be very clear--I, as a Democrat, and I hope my friends on the other side, are not afraid of dealing with gun violence and the overuse of guns in America, as responsible legislators should be. And so to my good friend, Bill Cosby, let me say to you that the call has been answered many times. There are many bills dealing with gun violence. There are many bills to rein in the reckless use of guns, the use of the assault weapons, the issue of individuals not being checked at gun shows and the gun show loophole. It only takes responsible leadership to move it forward. And I salute the Brady Center that will be with us in Washington tomorrow for recognizing that there are people who are willing to take a stand-- not against your Second Amendment rights. God bless you for those rights. You have those rights. I celebrate those rights. But I cannot celebrate the fact that a man that was on the Neighborhood Watch, which is the eyes and ears, was walking around with a 9-millimeter and shot dead an unarmed, helpless 17-year-old boy and snuffed his life out because we refused to address the question of everyone being able to carry a gun, whether trained or not. Mr. Zimmerman was not a police officer and should not have acted as if he was the law, the judge, and the jury. So to my good friends on the floor who will come up after me, let me just end my note by saying to John Payton, in instances like Trayvon, I know that your voice would have been heard on the civil rights of the question, but your voice had been heard through places where many of us were not there and did not know. And so I agree, and salute the words that were offered in tribute to you by so many of your colleagues, certainly these last words that indicate that you were, in fact, fearless; you were, in fact, a guiding light; you were, in fact, a brilliant advocate, mentor, and teacher; you were, in fact, an eagle with wings who stood widespread over America, and when there was a doubt about justice, you led the troops of the NAACP in a nonviolent, Constitutional law-saturated effort to ensure that justice would be done. May God rest your soul for a job well done, good and faithful servant, and may your family and Gay know how much we loved you and appreciated the war that you waged for justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about justice in America. Thank you Congresswoman Christensen, and my other CBC colleagues. I appreciate your leadership in convening this Special Order on Justice, Trayvon Martin, and our good friend John Payton of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. How ironic that in the span of a couple of months in a historic election year, we lose one of our precious youths to a senseless and irresponsible act of injustice; while at the same time, a man who in the tradition of the late, great Justice Thurgood Marshall, dedicated his life to paving the long, winding road of justice so that the Trayvon Martins of the world could live life, go to school, and travel Westward and Eastward, as they pleased. That did not happen in Trayvon's case, and that is why I believe these issues of justice are of the utmost importance. It is necessary to figure out the best possible way for this Congress to be involved in addressing racial profiling and hate crimes. Before we begin I wish to offer my deepest condolences to the family of Trayvon Martin. I was pleased that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have begun to investigate the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon. And as most of us are surely aware, there was finally an arrest in the case last week of the man with the gun, who shot the boy, which will get the wheels of justice to start turning. I hosted a rally in Trayvon's honor in Houston, TX and just returned from another rally in Miami held several weeks ago. There were hundreds of men, women and children all asking for justice. ``I am Trayvon Martin'' and ``We are all Trayvon Martin.'' This case has captured the nation's and indeed the world's attention, as many folks around the world ask what's going on in the United States, the nation which touts liberty and justice on its coins, dollars, and in our engagements with those in the international community. John Payton, the sixth Director-Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, left us late last month, at the age of sixty-five. But his legacy did not leave. John Payton was one of the most formidable advocates of his generation, and he litigated and argued some of the most important civil rights cases of his time. In a legal career that spanned private practice, government service, and public interest law. He led the litigation department of the venerable Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering law firm, served as corporation counsel for the District of Columbia, and until the very end, led the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. A true warrior for justice, John litigated case before the Supreme Court, such as, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, in which he won a decision in the U.S. Supreme Court overturning a monetary judgment against the organization under Mississippi's secondary boycott law; City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., in which he ably, albeit unsuccessfully, defended a minority contracting municipal ordinance; and perhaps most notably, two cases in which he defended the University of Michigan's pursuit of diversity in admissions, Gratz v. Bollinger, and Grutter v. Bollinger. Most recently, in 2010, John successfully argued and won Williams v. City of Chicago,an employment discrimination case against the city's fire department. Under his leadership LDF won five Supreme Court cases, including a successful defense of the recently extended Voting Rights Act. I had the privilege of knowing John Payton for many years. It is said that success has many parents, while failure is an orphan. There were many who were responsible for the 2003 landmark affirmative action cases that saved diversity in higher education, thereby keeping the doors open to selective colleges, universities, graduate and professional schools. John litigated both cases in the trial courts, in the court of appeals, and in the Supreme Court. He argued Gratz, and his work was essential to the victory in Grutter. John's was a passionate voice for racial and social justice. But even in the toughest cases--in which the odds were stacked against his side particularly in the current Supreme Court--John's work and his voice were no less forceful, excellent, and passionate. When the Supreme Court struck down Richmond, Virginia's minority contracting program in City of Richmond v. Croson by a narrow 5 4 vote, it was in spite of the Herculean effort put in by John Payton and his staff. It is important to recall that the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowly approved of congressionally mandated racial preferences to allocate the benefits of contracts on federally sponsored public works projects, while generally condemning similar actions taken by state and local entities to promote public contracting opportunities for minority entrepreneurs, which came about because of years and years of de facto and de jure discrimination; some of it documented, but certainly much of it not. Bad actors usually do not leave their scripts lying around. Disputes prior to City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson generated divergent views as to whether state affirmative action measures for the benefit of racial minorities were subject to the same ``strict scrutiny'' as applied to ``invidious'' racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, an ``intermediate'' standard resembling the test for gender-based classifications, or simple rationality. In Croson, a 5 to 4 majority resolved that while ``race- conscious'' remedies could be legislated in response to proven past discrimination by the affected governmental entities, ``racial balancing'' untailored to ``specific'' and ``identified'' evidence of minority exclusion was impermissible. John had done the best that could be done, and a Supreme Court increasingly hostile to programs and efforts specifically designed to include African Americans and others who had been historically excluded from opportunity was on its way to becoming a forum in which they were unlikely to win. Yet John, in the aftermath of Croson, tirelessly traveled the Country, meeting with attorneys in the public and private sectors in an effort to properly craft contracting programs and to ameliorate the effects of the decision. John did not accept defeat. He simply went back to work.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, unemployment is going down, but there are people still unemployed. Right now we have a Senate bill on transportation, and many don't understand what that means. There is a wide gamut of highways and mass transit and infrastructure ready to be signed by the President of the United States so that millions of Americans can go to work, and this body won't allow us to vote for a bill that has already passed the Senate. Higher funding levels to be able to build, build, build. More jobs, 1.9 million annualized. Buy America, do I love it. Buy America, making sure that we buy the products right here in America so that not only are we building with American workers but are also supplied by them. Providing guaranteed transit funding for all of America. The crumbling transit infrastructure, we're providing for it. And in Houston, Texas, we need those moneys, and we need the operational moneys. So here's my point: Unemployment is going down. The President is moving forward on employing and empowering Americans. And they won't put the Senate bill, the bipartisan bill, on the floor. Today we need to vote for the jobs here in America. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 146 for H.R. 4281, I was detained because of meeting with constituents to allow the Senate Transportation bill to come to the Floor to save jobs and support new construction for transportation and infrastructure. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 146, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just last week, I had the privilege of coordinating and working with other Members of Congress to hold a briefing with Judiciary Committee members to discuss the jurisdiction of the hate crimes. We were privileged at that time, in the midst of their mourning, to have there the parents of Trayvon Martin. I had the further privilege, though not wanted, to be in Sanford, Florida, before their city commission in order to discuss the absolute dereliction of duty that occurred in this terrible tragedy. Now, many have raised the question of race. Let me be very clear: the race question comes into factor only because of jurisdictional Federal laws with which they are now investigating this case; but this is a case for every American and every parent. As our Speaker did, it is a case to which everyone can ask the simple question. The State and Federal jurisdictions are looking at this, and they should review it. For those of us who believe that the perpetrator should be arrested, we maintain that. He should have been arrested and should be arrested; but this is a question for every parent: When you send your children out to get Skittles and a tea, whether they should come back alive or whether you should have to find them in a morgue. I remain persistent on finding justice for Trayvon but also justice for all of the other young people and others who have been victims of crimes like this, with guns, where people have used their language of suspiciousness and where all they were doing is walking on the streets of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for yielding to me and, again, join my colleagues in thanking him for his leadership, as well as the chairman of our CBC Budget Committee, Mr. Scott, the work that Congresswoman Moore does on this committee, and all the others that have gathered here. And I thank my good friend for a vigorous debate. I would only say to you that in the course of our debate this evening and today, we've heard of the mountain of debt and the need to cut, cut, cut. It is all right to have a difference of opinion, but what I would argue is that there are documented economists that say that if you invest in human capital, if you invest in people, then you build up the economy, you make things, you make things in America. I don't want to leave Americans, if you will, on the trash heap of despair. I don't want to leave bodies straddled all along the highways, those who are knocking on doors of colleges, those who are trying to get into primary and secondary education, seniors who are cast out on the streets out of nursing homes. That's where we're going.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. So I am standing here to try to end the elimination of Medicare and the destruction of jobs and the taking of money from the poor. The CBC budget is responsible in that it's ending the mortgage interest deductions for vacation homes and yachts. It provides additional tax relief for the middle class. It provides a $25 billion increase for education and job training; $50 billion in transportation infrastructure, creating jobs; rolling back the harmful cuts to American Federal employees, recognizing that they provide services that are needed; $12 billion above the President's budget regarding NASA, with advanced research and development programs--that's the genius of the 21st century, providing more funding for the National Science Foundation. And, yes, we believe in justice. We support full funding of the Department of Justice, with funding for Cops on the Beat, Second Chance, the civil rights division. I will tell you that the message tonight has to be that we don't want to take food from poor people. We don't want to make it harder for low-income students to get a college degree, squeeze funding for research, education, infrastructure. We want to take people off that trash heap of despair and let them walk into glory. Let's support the CBC budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership, along with Congressmen Grijalva and Ellison. I rise to support the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget. I announce today that the Republican budget, according to the Economic Policy Institute, is a job killer--1.3 million jobs will be lost in 2013, 2.8 million jobs will be lost in 2014, and 4.1 million jobs will be lost in 2015. It will also, in essence, defund the Affordable Care Act, which will eliminate access to health care for many women dealing with reproductive health, dealing with essential health benefits, and also coverage of family planning services. It will cut $1.7 trillion from Medicaid. But the Budget for All will provide a direct opportunity for the School Improvement Corps, the Park Improvement Corps, and Student Job Corps, creating jobs. It will save TRICARE and personnel. The CBC budget doesn't impact personnel, wages and benefits and pensions for our soldiers, but it ends the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and saves money in doing so. It extends the earned income tax credit and the child and dependent care credit. It responsibly and expeditiously ends all of our military presence, but, more importantly, it creates an atmosphere for economic improvement and development by providing jobs to our young people, stopping the taking away of the lifeline of Medicaid. Support the Budget for All. Support the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many people are smiling about the argument in the Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, but I will tell you those children born with sickle cell and asthma are praying that ObamaCare survives. Those elderly persons who fall into the doughnut hole with Medicare part D are praying for ObamaCare to survive. I am as well, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in a humanitarian approach in service to our Nation: Help those who cannot help themselves. As we look forward to a vigorous debate on this Republican budget, I hope that we stand together against ending Medicare, destroying jobs, and moving forward on the lopsided help that we give to the wealthy over the poor. Victimizing the Victim I also want to say that Trayvon Martin's parents were here yesterday, and I want to stand against victimizing the victim. We say to them in a forceful way that it is important for justice to be done, that justice is to assure the arrest of Mr. Zimmerman, who will not be alleged guilty but will be innocent until proven guilty. Now is the time to heal this Nation and to recognize that this case must move forward with justice for a little boy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday evening on business. On H.R. 2779, rollcall vote No. 127, I would have voted ``yea''; H.R. 2682, rollcall vote No. 128, I would have voted ``yea''; and rollcall vote No. 129, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today a number of postmasters from the United States Postal Service were in my office, and they had a very good idea about how important the U.S. Postal Service is, the jobs that it creates, and how we should find solutions. In my own community, heavily occupied by seniors, they cried out when post offices were closed that were close to their community, where they were able to walk and secure their checks. Some of them like to come directly to handle their business. We are better than closing down post offices in rural and urban America, and we're better than not finding a solution to employ hardworking Americans in an efficient and effective manner. I look forward to working with our postal family, those hardworking Americans all across America who have been the good Samaritans to determine whether our seniors were in need of bringing medicine to homebound patients, bringing information and helping small businesses. We can work to solve this problem efficiently and effectively.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor John Sullivan the House Parliamentarian, who is retiring after serving 28 years. John has dedicated his career to public service. Prior to arriving on Capitol Hill, John served our nation for 10 years in the Air Force. I have known John for nearly two decades. In that time, I have often been impressed by his in-depth knowledge of House Floor procedure and the legislative process. John has a calm, knowledgeable, and warm demeanor. It is no small feat to be well-liked by Members of both parties. Debate on the House Floor can be contentious at times; however, it is a positive reflection on John's expertise that he been able to consistently offer his assistance to Members in a manner that balances the rights of Members from both sides of the aisle. John, I hope you enjoy your retirement.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably detained on the following votes: On rollcall 134, the Crowley amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote 135, the Eshoo amendment, I would have voted ``aye.'' On rollcall vote No. 136, the Owens amendment, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That's right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. And you're right. There are cases across America. Members have raised cases in conversations that we've had, and we need to have all of that in an inventory so we can, out of this tragedy, say to those parents: Trayvon counts. We care. Young people count. Children count. Your community counts and our communities count. I wanted to share that. I'm not going to let this go. As for the Judiciary Committee; the Congressional Black Caucus; the Tri-Caucus, which involves the Asian Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus; letters that have been written by a number of Members of Congress; the work of Congresswoman Brown--and the Progressive Caucus, I know, is a willing partner when it comes to issues of justice--we are not going to let this rest without finding some relief and rest for this family. And I thank the chairman for his personal story. I met the young man, and we've all traveled together, our family, at the Dem caucus events where families come together. I will just conclude by simply holding up, again, this picture. And for those who don't know the terminology, let me just show. He is in football attire here; and we don't know what college he would have gone to or what football team, if that had been his choice, that he would have played on. Let me just put this up. If you can see it, this is an innocent face. But he is wearing a hoody. And if anyone needs to know, I have a hoody. It's my local college's paraphernalia that you buy, and you wear it to the game, and it has a hoody. And it's something that I think everybody has seen in this country. I see nothing on here that says: Bad guy. Criminal. Shoot me. That's not what we do in America. I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to share and to say that we will find some resolution to this. I will simply conclude by saying that I do believe in an optimistic America. Revealing my pain about this young man is pain for all those whose names we have not called. But in believing in an optimistic America, I want to be a problem solver. I want to solve this problem or answer this problem with respect to Trayvon Martin. I want to say that as I perceive this product that has been produced, this Budget for All, I am so grateful that over 90-plus members of the Progressive Caucus saw that the right route to take was the optimistic upturn, positive, open opportunity budget to give to all of America. That's what we should be supporting, not the downturn, the ``no way out,'' but really that there is a new day for America. I yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his courtesy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That is correct. What I don't understand, and what we will be, if you will, perusing is, where did this case go wrong and the fact that the Federal Government has to come in when things go wrong. Someone said to me in my office that this case has riveted like Emmett Till's case riveted.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. You're speaking as a parent, and I think everyone can appreciate that. You really highlighted it. In this instance, of course, we have to look and see whether there was a hate crime or if his civil rights were violated. But you're absolutely right. We had nothing to go on. We had a person walking. We have the police, themselves, and so many of us have worked to ensure that the guns on these streets don't go after our law enforcement officers because, obviously, there are many who believe the more guns the better off we are--guns, guns, guns. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. It's just guns, guns, guns. So he has a concealed weapon. I'm not here to cast any aspersions, but as the reports are coming out, he has some challenges--meaning Mr. Zimmerman-- to his record. He has some challenges. With that in and of itself, the officer should have brought him in, but there is no evidence of that. Maybe they did, but there is no evidence of that, and they should have done, as you indicated, the normal police work. He has a defense, so be it--that of a concealed weapon permit and ``stand your ground.'' But you have a dead person, and you have no witnesses, at least not that the police have offered to say Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Gonzalez said that they were in a knockdown, drag-out. There is not any glimmer of information that has come out. The young man happened to be a person of color. We have placed to a bipartisan vote both hate crimes laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and other bills that have been voted on in a bipartisan manner simply because we don't want America to violate those very precious rights. I want to just share with you, because, as I said to you, I've got a neighborhood watch, The Washington Post says, Experts say neighborhood watches shouldn't be police.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. He was a boy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. He is certainly a lawyer who's practiced law, but I have met Mr. Ellison's wonderful family of youth and young people, a young man. That's what happens. People don't realize that we have families on both sides of the aisle. Good Republican friends who've been with our families. So whatever you see us saying here on the floor of the House, we are particularly sensitive and warm toward Members' families because we are, in essence, despite our policy debates, we are a family here. So I simply wanted to indicate first to give good wishes to Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who is now with her constituents in a major protest in Florida on this sad and tragic incident. I wanted to say that we will gather on Tuesday to present an opportunity for the case to be heard on this issue and the Federal Government's responsibility or authority. One of the things that in this budget we are very keenly sensitive to are the needs of the Department of Justice. Again, an optimistic budget, because the Department of Justice is the armor in many instances that will come in and help a community when they cannot get help locally. Mr. Martin was killed on February 26. He was buried on March 1. Today is March 22. It was only when his parents came out or used their grief that they're still grieving to start asking why, law-abiding citizens who were waiting for the city attorney and waiting on the chief of police, waiting on the Governor of the State of Florida to say something. Nothing was said. So, as the voices began to raise and the astonishment and outrage began to percolate, Mr. Ellison, it was not isolated to Florida or Sanford. If you listen to the various media outlets, parents, no matter what their background, were calling and asking, What about my child? I think it is important that we show this young man. It could be any of our family members. Can we imagine our youngsters wearing the clothing of the day--hoodies, sneakers, jeans. Do I need to remind you that Mr. Trayvon Martin was simply getting some Skittles, on the phone with his girlfriend, walking back to where his father was and going to look at some games. In this instance, it was basketball. I come from local government. You come from State government. We know about Neighborhood Watch. We champion Neighborhood Watch. We have this Community Night Out, Police Night Out, whatever it is, and all of us have gone to it. We tell neighbors to watch out for each other. It's important for it to be said this was not watching out for each other. The basic 911 tape, if you frame it, the call came in, that's the right thing to do. The description I may not adhere to, some of the words in the description, but so be it, you described this individual as such. But it came back and asked the specific question, ``Are you following him?'' ``Yes.'' ``Do not do that.'' This youngster, football player, babysitter--likes to babysit, eating Skittles--a fun food to eat with a basketball game--was on the sidewalk. Not coming out of a window, not knocking on a door, not standing in front of a door, not on a lawn--walking on a sidewalk, which the Progressive Caucus has stood many times on that First Amendment right, we've stood many times. He was walking, and we are now in an abyss of darkness in terms of what next happened, but the description is, this young boy was shot point-blank in the chest. We have to call upon the Federal resources. We've called for a Federal investigation. We've been joined by many colleagues. We have tapes of witnesses, meaning people inside their homes, saying they heard shouting and crying for help. We've heard people ask the question: Why didn't the neighborhood watcher stand down in the car? Move away? We've also heard the author of the ``stand your ground'' bill--which, by the way, is in 20 or so States--a Republican State representative, articulate in newspaper clips that it is not a pursue and attack. It is that you can stand your ground upon someone coming, but it is not a pursue and attack. I just wanted to indicate that it is important for Members of Congress--and I believe there is a sense of outrage. We are not taking this to the level that does not respect the family that is mourning. We're not creating hysteria. We are only begging for the relief of others whose names have not come up. There are people calling in and telling us about cases from the west coast to the east coast, to the North and the South. So I wanted to indicate that we will be joining as Members of Congress in hearing the circumstances, as much as we can, on the theory of the Federal Government's responsibility or authority. I think that is the more appropriate approach to take. I want to thank the gentleman for letting me articulate, I think, just the sheer horror of having our kids leave our home--for innocence--and not come back. As a mother, I believe that, and as one who sees this, I believe we owe that family a response.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the cochair of the Progressive Caucus for once again reminding America of America's greatness. That's why over 90-plus Members join together to be members of the Progressive Caucus. We have a sense of optimism that reflects our commitment to investing in human capital. Earlier today, I had the opportunity of listening to a discourse about the transportation bill, and I will point to what we've done with infrastructure. There was the representation by the majority leader that we're living in hard times, we don't have money, that we can't be looking, for example, at the Senate bill and we can't move forward. And I just listened as our minority whip spoke about the urgency of moving forward on an infrastructure bill. What I think is important, and really the theme that I wanted to focus on as I listened to you in my office--I just left about 12 constituents who are the beneficiaries of community health clinics, one of the items that we've supported as a Progressive Caucus for a very long time and championed along with the Tri-Caucus, to put in the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, the 2-year anniversary is tomorrow. The point is that we have optimism. We have the sense that America can get it done. You've just put up a very telling poster that when our Republican friends begin to talk, we're headed toward a pathway of devastation: no Medicare, no Medicaid, allowing reckless investments or speculation to occur, jobs overseas, and not focusing on our recovery. By the way, we understand a balanced budget. We are using war savings for the people of the United States of America. Our troops come home, and we realign our national security focus. I think most Americans will understand that, even national security experts will tell us that it is probably a challenge to think we will have a ground war invasion like we've had years past ever again, that we're now fighting a war on terrorism or acts of terrorism. Certainly, as we look to tell others to, in essence, become unnuclearized, we too must join the world's family because it's only one-upmanship. I would just say that we do not disarm our Nation. We believe in defending our Nation, but we believe in doing it in a smart way. What we have done is that we have these words, ``comprehensive economic recovery,'' but I'd like to say this is a smiley-faced optimistic pathway for Americans. Don't you think young people who are now sophomores, juniors, and seniors in college looking for their bright day--does anyone remember as we come upon May how exciting it was to look forward to a college graduation, a trade school graduation? You were just tickled pink. You were making sure your invitations were out. You were hoping that all relatives could make sure they had no conflicts. You really wanted Grandma there or your aunt there or your favorite brother there or Mom and Dad there or family there. This was an exciting time. The Progressive Caucus budget speaks to that excitement and optimism and hopefulness. Our budget has an infrastructure bank that allows the private sector to come together and effectively bring about infrastructure projects in all manner of areas, from the hamlets that are so small, to the villages, to the county governments, to the city governments and State governments. I introduced a surface transportation bill that has been slowed, another bill that would generate income and transportation security and recognize that we must secure our surface transportation. In this bill, we proposed a 6-year $556 billion reauthorization bill that, over 10 years, would lead to a $213 billion increase in transportation funding. What it would also do is create many jobs that provide for small contractors, minority-owned contractors, women-owned contractors. It would create work. It's an optimistic view. The making work pay tax credit from 2013 2015 is about let's let folks who are working, let those get a benefit that makes sense. Then we have more than $2 trillion in domestic investment packaging. Just let me mention the idea of when you work with emergency jobs to restore the American Dream, getting people out where improvement is needed--student improvement, park improvement, student jobs, neighborhood heroes, community health clinics, federally qualified clinics, and child care corps--getting folks to work. In my town, Mr. Ellison, in the Southwest as you well know, we had a great drought in the last year. Volunteers are trying to plant trees, but I tell you we could stand for a Heroes Corps, we could stand for a Community Corps to get out there and help us re-seed America, if you will. We know that. We know the Job Corps. But this is a concept that gets folks out working. I also want to congratulate the University of Houston-Downtown that is heavily minority that just won the distinguished honor roll recognition for the largest amount of community service done by a campus across the Nation, cited by the Department of Education. That means people are ready to put that to work. Tax credits for investment in advanced energy. I've got a company right in my community that's been awarded for its new, innovative work on energy, manufacturing, capital access for entrepreneurs of small business. Now, let me just say this. I am excited about the 3 million Apple 3s that were sold because I think that is optimistic, and it employs the genius of America and it goes against the sad, deflated concept. Now, let me be very clear. I am not ignoring the unemployed Americans. I want to be very clear on that. I don't think the Progressive Caucus has for a moment. We did a job tour. We're going back out again. We have no reason to dismiss the person who is now sitting unemployed. What I want to say is there is some optimism. We've got to get all of those folks to be part of this new surge of optimism which this Progressive Caucus budget, if passed, would generate. But I want to just say this to my good friends at Apple. Bring the jobs home. You are manufacturing Apple 3 in China. I certainly believe in an international framework. I know that everything can't be made in America, made at home. But I do know that aspects of the talent that you're using in China can be found here in the United States. And the cost of shipment--I can tell you you can save some dollars. Let's put our thinking caps on for companies like Apple and find a way that you can balance those resources. I'm just going to cite General Electric. I know that we had put a real heavy heat on General Electric. I am told by their employees they are bringing jobs home. I met with some employees in my district who have indicated that they have been bringing them on home. I looked at them. They were real. They were alive. So, they have jobs, and they said they work for General Electric. Let's have a number of companies looking that way. Let me quickly just mention because this is all exciting, and I think people need to hear about excitement and opportunity. We already talked about the manufacturing community's tax credit, tax credit for the production of advanced technology vehicles. Again, everybody is saying we're slow on the hybrid, we're slow on the electric car. But all of that can create opportunity, tax credits for alternative fuel commercial vehicles, which is very possible. Double the amount of expense startup expenditures. So that means that if you've got a startup, we're going to double what you can expense. I think that makes a lot of sense. Young people are the ones that are always starting startups. We need to encourage that. Enhance and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit. That is right in the line of the Texas Medical Center. Many of our medical research hospitals, MD Anderson in the 18th Congressional District, while it's our neighbor, is working on new technology. This fits an optimistic view on how we can cure the worst of the worst. Let me also say that I want to make mention that we are dealing with tax brackets, and we are looking, I think, at sensible policies dealing with capital gains and State policy. What I would say to people who are listening to us: Get on our Web site and give us your input. We're interested in what you have to say. As well, let me just put in a pitch that no one likes the season when April 15 comes around. But we've tried to make our tax reform palatable. As far as I can see, we have left alone the charitable tax exemption. I tell you there are those who are very concerned that we leave little room for those who have that on the table, have everything on the table; that they would attack the charitable tax exemption and not go to some of the ones that the Progressive Caucus has focused on, because this nonprofit, this foundation, said they would be stopped in their tracks. I had one foundation, one nonprofit talk to me today and say how challenging it is to get funding for the disadvantaged and programs that deal with intercity. So I want you to know that the Progressive Caucus recognizes the value of the charitable tax deduction, and you don't find that on our table. I want to say something to Mr. Ellison. I wanted to mention, for a moment, Trayvon Martin.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, today we again are considering H.R. 5, the ``Help Accessible, Efficient, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act.'' This bill is intended to change what some of my colleagues on the right believe to be a broken medical malpractice liability system. Quite paradoxically, many supporters of H.R. 5 are vocal opponents of the recently passed health-related federal law, the Affordable Care Act, whose anniversary we celebrate here tonight. It must be stated that many Americans celebrate with us and dine in good health--thankful that this Congress came together to pass health care 2 years ago. Foes of healthcare reform claim that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the Federal Government some authority over states, was abused to pass the healthcare law. Under the rules of this Congress, House sponsors of any bill must explain Congress' constitutional authority to pass it. Rather ironically, H.R. 5's sponsor, Representative Phil Gingrey (R GA), cites the Commerce Clause as he tries to enact sweeping legislation that would completely overhaul State tort law and undermine hundreds of years of precedent. Yet, for my colleague, Mr. Gingrey, his statement represents a complete reversal from his position on the Affordable Care Act, which he has called ``the government takeover of our healthcare system.'' Which might explain why my colleague Mr. Woodall from Georgia submitted an 11th hour amendment during the Rules Committee Hearing on the rule for H.R. 5, striking the Commerce Clause mention from this bill. The Woodall Amendment struck almost two pages from their bill--and reading it I can see why. It reads: Effect on Interstate Commerce.--Congress finds that the health care and insurance industries are industries affecting interstate commerce and the health care liability litigation systems existing throughout the United States are activities that affect interstate commerce by contributing to the high costs of health care and premiums for health care liability insurance purchased by health care system providers. This sounds strikingly similar to the arguments being advanced against the Affordable Healthcare Act. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either health care affects interstate commerce or it doesn't. Which is of course the impetus for the amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia. What a dilemma to find oneself in? Trying to gut the Affordable Healthcare Act, but using the precise argument supporting Congress' power to regulate. While the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations do not identify a constitutional right to health care for those who cannot afford it, Congress has enacted numerous statutes, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, that establish and define specific statutory rights of individuals to receive health care services from the government. As a major component of many health care entitlement statutes, Congress has provided funding to pay for the health services provided under law. The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress ``to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.'' The Supreme Court developed an expansive view of the Commerce Clause relatively early in the history of judicial review. This power has been cited as the constitutional basis for a significant portion of the laws passed by the Congress over the last 50 years, and it currently represents one of the broadest bases for the exercise of congressional powers. The Supreme Court accords considerable deference to a legislative decision by Congress that a particular health care spending program provides for the general welfare. If enacted, H.R. 5 would, among other things, cap the noneconomic damages that a plaintiff in a health care lawsuit could recover. It would also preempt existing State laws on proportionate liability, allow courts to reduce contingent fees, and abolish the collateral source rule. Studies and empirical research have shown that caps diminish access to the courts for low wage earners, like the elderly, children and women. In fact, the American Bar Association has studied this issue for over 30 years. If economic damages are minor and noneconomic damages are capped, attorneys are less likely to represent these potential plaintiffs. And frankly Mr. Speaker, many of these plaintiffs are not very likely to be able to afford access to legal services. The equal scales of justice would be tipped. Those affected by caps on damages are the patients who have been most severely injured by the negligence of others. These patients should not be told that, due to an arbitrary limit, they will be deprived of the compensation determined by a fair and impartial jury. The courts already possess and exercise their powers of remittitur to set aside excessive verdicts, and that is the appropriate solution rather than an arbitrary cap. Let the courts and judges do their jobs and judge. While the system may need some tweaks to help control ballooning medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors, it is imperative that as we make changes, we are careful not to remove incentive for doctors to perform their duties at the highest standard. We must not leave victims of malpractice without viable recourse. The bill before us today is not new; in fact, it was first introduced in 2005. As written, the HEALTH Act would severely limit the ability of injured patients and their families to hold health care and medical products providers accountable. The bill is so broadly drafted that it would also limit remedies against the for-profit nursing home, insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and even against doctors who commit intentional torts, such as sexual abuse. Let's take a look at the collateral source rule which is the common- law rule that allows an injured party to recover damages from the defendant even if he is also entitled to receive them from a third party. Common third parties, that is, collateral sources, include a health insurance company, an employer, or the government. To abolish the collateral source rule would be to allow or require courts to reduce damages by amounts a plaintiff receives or is entitled to receive from collateral sources. But there is a reason that the common law adopted it: it is preferable for the victim rather than the wrongdoer to profit from the victim's prudence, for example buying health insurance or the good fortune in having some other collateral source available. One commentator has also noted that, when the collateral source is the government, and the benefit it provides are future services, such as physical therapy, there is no guarantee that it will provide such services for as long as they are needed, as government programs may be cut back. Moreover, I don't many people willing to literally give an arm or leg for cash, but accidents happen due to negligence. Awards serve to educate the public but also serve the added purpose of providing a disincentive for bad actors. There are a number of reasons why this bill is flawed though, and not just the collateral source rule. Its scope is extremely broad and encompasses much more than necessary to simply protect doctors from high insurance premiums. It contains a sweeping preemption of state law. It reduces the statute of limitations on malpractice claims. It severely restricts contingency fees, discouraging lawyers from taking on malpractices cases. And it essentially strips victims of the right to bring a claim against drug and medical device manufacturers. According to a November 2010 study by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about 1 in 7 patients experience a medical error, 44 percent of which are preventable. These errors cost Medicare $4.4 billion annually. U.S. Dept. of HHS, Office of the Inspector General, ``Adverse Events in Hospitals: National Incidence Among Medicare Beneficiaries'' (November 2010.) Amendment: Exemption for Irreversible Injury Because this bill is so overbroad, I introduced an amendment in the Rules Committee Hearing on H.R. 5, with my colleagues, Congressmen Quigley and Hank Johnson, which would have helped to close the wide gaps created by this bill. My amendment carved out an exemption for healthcare lawsuits for serious and irreversible injury. This would have exempted victims of malpractice that resulted in irreversible injury, including loss of limbs and loss of reproductive ability, from the $250,000 cap that H.R. 5 imposes on non-economic damages. As individuals who are blessed to have all of our limbs and use of all of our senses, it is difficult to understand how challenging day- to-day life can be for someone who lacks these things. However, it is nearly impossible to imagine the stress and challenges faced by someone who has suffered irreversible bodily injury because of the negligence of another. Imagine going to the hospital for minor pain and leaving with no limbs because of thoughtless mistakes made by the trained experts who are supposed to take care of you. For Connie Spears, a Texas woman from Judiciary Chairman Smith's district, this exact nightmare is a reality. As a patient who had dealt with blood clots in the past, and had a filter installed in one of her heart's main arteries, Ms. Spears went into a San Antonio hospital complaining of leg pain. She was made to wait, eventually treated, and was discharged. However, three days later, when her legs were the color of a cabernet and she was delirious, she called 911. When Spears, who was rendered unconscious, was treated at a different hospital, they determined that the filter in her artery was severely clotted and had caused tissue death in her legs, as well as kidney failure. Weeks later, Connie Spears regained consciousness, and learned that doctors had to amputate not one, but both of her legs in order to save her life. As a result of negligence by the emergency room doctors who initially treated Ms. Spears, she lost her legs, and nearly her life. To make matters worse, when she attempted to seek the aid of a lawyer to handle her case, she was unable to find an attorney to represent her. She was repeatedly told, ``You have a great case, but not in Texas.'' In 2003, state lawmakers in Texas passed tort reform laws, similar to the one proposed today, that make it extremely difficult for patients to win damages in any health care setting, but especially emergency rooms. It caps damages at $250,000, like H.R. 5, and requires patients to prove that emergency room doctors acted with ``willful and wanton'' negligence--a near impossible standard to prove. A plaintiff would essentially have to show the medical professional or company had a vendetta against them to recover. This nightmare has also become a reality for Jennifer McCreedy, a San Antonio single mother who fell and severely injured her ankle and sought treatment at an emergency room. Despite the severity of the break, the bone in her ankle was never set, a common practice done to prevent excess swelling, and she was not seen by an orthopedic surgeon. She was sent home and told to wait until the swelling went down. However, the swelling did not go down, and a surgery that should have only taken one hour, took four. Because of the swelling, the surgeon had to slice her Achilles tendon, and wounds that refused to heal required grafts. To date, Ms. McCreedy has endured five surgeries and has been rendered permanently disabled, curbing her ability to work and provide for her family. As a result of the negligence of those emergency room doctors, Ms. McCreedy went from a hard working, financially secure mother and homeowner, to dodging creditors and nearly losing her home to foreclosure. For victims of malpractice who have suffered irreversible injury, like Connie Spears and Jennifer McCreedy, it is impossible to put a price tag on the stress and pain and suffering they have already endured. Furthermore, it is outrageous that we would attempt to pass a law that puts a cap on the future challenges they are sure to face. It is inhuman to neglect the emotional price paid by victims of egregious acts that result in such serious, irreparable harm. We should not deprive patients who have suffered injury as a result of one of these drugs or devices of the right to receive compensation from the manufacturer or distributor of such. As we strive to become a healthier, more competitive nation, we need all the outstanding doctors, nurses and other health care providers we can get. They must be unconstrained by excessive health care liability premiums. We also need our nation's students to be excited and encouraged to enter the life sciences without the fear of being crushed under the weight of excessive liability premiums. Placing caps on medical liability recovery does not necessarily lead to lower liability insurance premiums for doctors and health care providers. In fact, there is evidence that insurance companies have raised premiums in states like my home State of Texas and in California which use medical liability caps to reap an unearned profit at a time when health care lawsuits and the damages from those lawsuits were declining. If it is the intention of this House to pass legislation that will reform the system of medical malpractice liability in a sensible manner, then it is imperative that we strongly consider the amendments offered by myself and my Democratic colleagues last night. Let's not send a flawed bill to the Senate. Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their work on these bills--though I hold out hope that Members of the Judiciary Committee and this body could come together for the good of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 119 on H. Res. 591, the Rule on H.R. 5, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''