Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me just say, Madam Chair, to my disappointment, I wanted to reserve to engage with my friend. But let me just say this: that care involves home residential care, skilled- nursing facilities, and it will likely double from the 10 million services in 2000 to, as I said earlier, 26 million people. So it makes sense to accept my amendment that would allow this macroeconomic study to look closely at the benefit and the burden of not having long-term care. I can assure you that we will be better informed to be able to have those instructions, and I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #2, to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.'' My amendment would delay the repeal of the CLASS PROGRAM until the completion of a macroeconomic study. We must determine the costs of not having long-term care insurance on the federal, state, and local governments before we repeal programs, like CLASS, that are self sustaining. CLASS is not tax payer funded! The lack of affordable care is a very serious problem which, if not addressed, will only add to our growing national debt. H.R. 1173 would repeal Title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. I ask my colleagues to ensure that the 26 million Americans, who will need long term care services in the near future, will be able to purchase this care at reasonable prices. The CLASS Act is a noble and notable attempt to legislate this issue but when the Administration realized that the legislation did not do what we thought it would they came forth and did the right thing and deemed it to be unsustainable. Policy won out over politics because it would be easy to obfuscate and forge ahead with implementation even in the face of an obviously problematic bill. This indeed was a bold act of integrity for the Department of Health and Human Services. The inclusion of the long term care infrastructure (CLASS) in health care reform was a signature issue for one of the foremost advocates in this bicameral body, the late Senator Ted Kennedy who worked tirelessly to achieve its enactment. As Raymond Scheppach, former Executive Director for National Governors' Association noted, ``failure to reform the under-funded, uncoordinated patchwork of long-term care supports and services is a failure to truly reforming health care.'' This failure defines the revolving door of our health care system. An estimated 10 million Americans currently need long term care services, and that number is projected to reach 26 million by 2050. Nearly half of all funding for these services is now provided through Medicaid, which is an ever-growing and inexorable burden on states and requires individuals to ``spend down'' or, become and stay poor to receive the help they need. This spend-down activity runs contrary to the American notion of putting something away for a rainy day, or to allow for passing on to your heirs so that they can see a better day than you. Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may double today's level. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self sustaining, at no cost to tax payers. As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035. Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care. In addition, individuals 85 years and older are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million people 85+ in the United States; this figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from 1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or moderate memory impairment in 2050. Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford. An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 63% are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the remaining 37% are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million). The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68% for people age 65 and older. By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 10 million using services in 2000, to 26 million people. This estimate is influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care. Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community, about 30% (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs-- three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about 25% are 85 and older and 70% report they are in fair to poor health. 40% of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near poor (with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level). Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long- term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7% to 16.7% of the 65+ population. In comparison, 2.1%, or over 3.3 million, of the population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, first of all, let me say that I was on the floor yesterday regarding the CLASS Act and my approach to the CLASS Act. And I recognize that we have had some difficulty with putting together the right balance, the right financial structure for a very large program. But it does not mean that it does not have purpose. The CLASS program deals with long-term care. In my readings I've determined that private families and loved ones have given in essence $450 billion in private care, meaning that they have taken care of their loved ones on their own; $101 billion has been spent by the Medicaid program. And I said yesterday that I've had the experience of taking care of a dear mother who I lost in 2010, and right now an aunt who I am taking care of in 2012. And I've seen a number of friends and others who need long-term care. And so the idea of disposing of it to me seems incomplete, without projecting back to Health and Human Services how can we get this done. My amendment would not repeal the CLASS Act until the completion of a macroeconomic study. We must determine the cost of not having long-term care insurance on the Federal, State and local governments before we repeal any programs like CLASS that are self-sustaining. CLASS is not taxpayer funded. The lack of affordable care is a very serious problem which, if not addressed, will only add to our growing national debt. H.R. 1173 would repeal the CLASS Act in its totality, and I believe that that is the wrong direction to go. And so I would be offering my amendment to help 26 million Americans who need long-term care services in the near future. The CLASS Act is a positive intent, and it deals with the fact that we all must have balance of burden and benefit. We have to recognize that there are those whom we have to help. My amendment would ask for that study to be engaged and to ask for the Secretary to come back with an analysis of how devastating the impact would be and how high the deficit would grow. As the former executive director for the National Governors Association noted, failure to reform the underfunded, uncoordinated patchwork of long-term care supports and services is a failure to truly reforming health care. Long-term care is not just for the elderly. It's for those who have had catastrophic illnesses, maybe the injured football player or the injured skier or a major accident when our loved ones need our attention. And, oh, how much can be done with long-term care. How do I know it? My mother went into a nursing home and could not walk--but she walked out. Yes, there is value to helping people restore their lives. And baby boomers are already turning 65; 10,000 people will turn 65 every day as of January 1, 2011, over the next 25 years. And I'm grateful that because of health care and the Affordable Care Act, they will be living longer. Therefore, I'm asking that we not throw the baby out with the bath water. Allow the Secretary to do this study and to do this study that will be helpful to all of us. By 2050, the number of individuals using long-term care will increase. I would like to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011.'' This bill would repeal title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports, CLASS, Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information, clearing house. H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by 2020. The CLASS program would allow the disabled to be treated with respect and class. Yet, once again, instead of focusing on creating jobs, instead of finding means to reduce our deficit, instead of addressing the most pressing needs of our nation today, my Republican colleagues have put forth a measure that targets the aging and the disabled. They are supporting a measure that literally lacks class. This measure is a blatant attempt to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act one title at a time. Like many Members of this body, I am disappointed that the Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS, has not been able to implement the CLASS provision of the Affordable Health Care Act. Although the CLASS program is not perfect, I cannot in good conscience support repealing it at a time when we have no viable alternative for affordable long- term care. We have a growing aging population some of whom will require long- term care. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self-sustaining, at no cost to tax payers. As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035. With each generation, Americans have been fortunate to live longer lives; we continue to plan on how to meet the needs of the aging and the disabled. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care. Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may be double today's level. Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford. In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long- term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion, for persons of all ages. By 2005, this number has risen to $206.6 billion. Unless we act now, the costs associated with long-term care will continue to rise. As it stands, families are bearing the brunt of these costs. Less than a decade ago those who needed long-term care spent nearly $37.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses. This is not sustainable for the majority of families; less than a decade ago we were not recovering from a recession. The issue before us today is how we intend to treat our aging and disabled at a time when they are in need of assistance that will have a direct impact on their quality of life. CLASS comes into effect when a person is at his most vulnerable. For example, when individuals are unable to clothe or bathe themselves. CLASS would allow some individuals to remain in their home. It gives the aging, the disabled and their families a viable option. Long-term care encompasses a wide range of services for people who need regular assistance because of chronic illness or physical or mental disabilities. Although long-term care might include some skilled nursing care it consists primarily of help with basic activities of daily living, such as bathing, eating, and dressing, and with tasks necessary for independent living such as shopping, cooking, and housework, in essence helping people who need help. Traditionally, most long-term care is provided informally by family members and friends. Some people with disabilities receive assistance at home from paid helpers, including skilled nurses and home care aides. Nursing homes are increasingly viewed as a last resort for people who are too disabled to live in the community, due to a number of factors, cost being one. Madam Chair, I believe that we must leave the framework that exists in place and work with seniors, families, industry, HHS and others to find a way to make the CLASS Act or an alternative long-term care program work. We cannot and we must not allow Medicaid to continue to be the only affordable long-term care service available to Americans. American families should not have to spend down their savings or assets to access long-term care. We must not forget that this is an issue we must address. As of January 1, 2011, baby boomers will begin to celebrate their 65th birthdays for that day on 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years My career in Congress has been dedicated to expanding access to affordable, quality health care for the residents of the state of Texas, Houstonians, and all Americans, and the CLASS Act furthers that goal. It is clear that the CLASS Act is not perfect, and almost no piece of legislation can ever be, but that's why we rely on the professionals in federal agencies to work on implementation of the law. I strongly believe that we can find a way to make this program work and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will work with me to ensure that affordable long-term care is available for anyone who needs it. American families spend almost twice as much on health care through premiums, paycheck deductions, and out-of-pocket expenses as families in any other countries. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas that is the envy of many. Yet, they do not receive significantly better care than countries that spend far less. Considering the amount that we spend on health care, it is surprising that Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. Our health care system was in need of an overhaul. The landmark bill signed by President Obama in 2010 is designed to provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it. Under the Affordable Health Care law more than 32 million additional Americans are expected to get insurance, either through an extension of Medicaid or through exchanges where low and moderate income individuals and families will be able to purchase private insurance with federal subsidies. A key part of the new health law also encourages the development of ``accountable care organizations'' that would allow doctors to team up with each other and with hospitals, in new ways, to provide medical services. There are dozens of good provisions in the Act that will ultimately benefit the public, if they are not repealed one title at a time. The CLASS Act is a good provision too--I stand by that notion-- but just improperly designed. At this stage, any change is difficult and change especially during a recession is extremely difficult. It is not possible to change a system as large and as hugely flawed, as ours without some disruptions. We are using fresh thinking and innovation to make sure everyone benefits--our citizens, our health care providers, small businesses, large corporations. I think the public is starting to slowly accept it. Over the course of several years and as more beneficial provisions take effect, this law will be more accepted, popular and possibly expanded. Unfortunately, some in this Congress seems intent on not just undoing the CLASS Act, but the entire Affordable Health Care law. Everyone should have equal access to affordable health care and affordable health care service. Repealing a program that is intended to assist the aging and the disabled is not where this Congress should be spending its energy. We should be focused on legislation, like the one I proposed that would reduce the deficit, boast our nation's energy production, and create jobs. It appears as though my Republican colleagues seem more focused on putting forth bills that would cut taxes, cut services to the aging and disabled, and cut discretionary spending. Our priority should be to focus on legislation that will create jobs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment, No. 1 I believe.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My good friend from Georgia, some things bear repeating. I love February 2. It happens to be my daughter, Erica's, birthday. Some call it Groundhog Day. I call it a day of great celebration for a bit of joy that came into our lives. So it's a day for many that is happy. It's a day that many humorously look forward to great weather. Some remember our good friend, Bill Murray, and it is a day that symbolizes repetition. Sometimes the pain of Americans deserves to be repeated over and over again. And I'd like to answer my good friend, not speaking for Mr. Pallone, but, in actuality, we have the opportunity now to have bipartisan hearings. Nothing is precluded. Mr. Pallone's statement was accurate. He was not writing the structure of long-term care. He was indicating that, for Americans, it was vital. What is disappointing is that my friends on the other side of the aisle are willing to give up so easily. I don't understand that. Where's the American genius? Of course, they will cite HHS; but they know that Congress directs HHS. They know that the repeal of this legislation for long-term care will simply kill the opportunity for Americans to find relief. As we look to the future, we are just a month away until taxes go up on middle class families, and Americans looking for work lose their unemployment insurance, and seniors face losing access to their doctors. We could be working on that, move the conference committee a little faster. But we're now adding an extra burden. Let's repeal the CLASS Act. It doesn't disturb me that HHS has made several tries, and in a time frame has not found a cure yet. But knowing research and knowing science and being near and in the community of the Texas Medical Center, I know how long it takes to get a good answer in health care. But what I do want to stress to my friends, can they deny that 82 percent of Americans say that taking care of relatives who are aging or ill is demanding? Eighty-two percent of them say that; 72 percent indicate that taking care of them is overwhelming; 56 percent said that as they are taking care of their sick relatives, they are getting ill. Yet we want to abandon the discussion on long-term care when I've already said on the floor of the House that $450 billion of that long- term care is already in private hands. It's in families. It's through their labor. They are overwhelmed. Only $14 billion is in the private industry sector. See how much they're standing up to the bar, and $101 billion in Medicaid. We have to find a solution that balances benefit and burden. Listen to a constituent from Texas who took care of her son after he was seriously injured in a roadside bombing while patrolling in Iraq. She did not return home 7 years in order to be with her son. Debbie initially took a leave of absence from her job, but ended up resigning to become a full-time caregiver for her son. Because she no longer had a paid job, and her husband was the only one working, they had to start using their retirement savings to survive. Her son is now better, great news, and active in the community. And she continues her work. But the catastrophic impact to the family continues on. Rhonda has gone from a part-time, visiting caregiver to her elderly parents to a live-in, full-time caregiver. Even after the death of her own 23-year-old daughter in a car accident, and her only brother becoming disabled after an illness, before 2001 she was a full-time working mother of two. Where is the relief for these humans, these individuals, these people in need? Where is it? It's in the amendment I offered that indicated that it is important to note that long-term care is important, and a study should engender to be able to determine that. But more importantly, let's, again, look at this in a way that we take our time and look at the macroeconomics and take into consideration how we can best configure this. But let me tell you very clearly that if we repeal this CLASS Act, the burden will fall on local and State governments and the millions of caregivers who already, through their own effort and their own toil, with love, I will tell you with love, expend $450 billion that we don't compensate them for, lose their jobs, raise the deficit, add to the debt because they are not able to take care of themselves. And as we see, some 76 million baby boomers, Mr. Chairman, going forward. Let me just say, don't repeal this bill. It bears repeating. Help those who need your help. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Today, I am joined by Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to call attention to the grievous threats posed by to H.R. 1173, ``The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011'', to key provisions in the Affordable Health Care Act. H.R. 1173 bill would repeal title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. This piece of legislation is yet another example of the Republican Majority failing to act on the top priorities of the American people. At a time when we should be focused on building our economy; advancing underserved and underrepresented communities, addressing the needs of our Nation's seniors; and focusing on the deficit, as well as, unemployment insurance. Instead of generating bold new ideas to help small businesses hire more Americans, to aid in the revitalization efforts of our manufacturing industry, to advance the cause for energy independence, to address the needs of families hurt the most by this economic down turn. Instead, The Republicans have brought forward a bill to repeal a self sustaining program for the aging and the disabled. The CLASS program is meant to help someone who is unable to bath, cloth, or conduct basic life actives. We should not be attacking programs that are designed to address issues of long term care. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by 2020. Individuals need long-term care when a chronic condition, trauma, or illness limits their ability to carry out basic self-care tasks, called activities of daily living (ADLs), (such as bathing, dressing or eating), or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (such as household chores, meal preparation, or managing money). Long-term care often involves the most intimate aspects of people's lives--what and when they eat, personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the bathroom. Other less severe long-term care needs may involve household tasks such as preparing meals or using the telephone. Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may be double today's level. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self sustaining, at no cost to taxpayers. As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035. Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, baby boomers have begun to celebrate their 65th birthdays for that day on 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care. Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford. In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long- term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion (for persons of all ages). By 2005, this number has risen to $206.6 billion. Individuals 85 years and older, the oldest old, are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million people 85+ in the United States. This figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from 1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or moderate memory impairment in 2050. An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 63 percent are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the remaining 37 percent are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million). The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68 percent for people age 65 and older. By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 13 million using services in 2000, to 27 million people. This estimate is influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care. Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community, about 30 percent (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs--three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about 25 percent are 85 and older and 70 percent report they are in fair to poor health. Forty percent of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near poor (with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level). Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long- term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7 percent to 16.7 percent of the 65+ population. In comparison, 2.1 percent, or over 3.3 million, of the population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994. While there was a decline in the proportion (i.e., prevalence) of the older population receiving long-term care, the level of disability and cognitive impairment among those who received assistance with daily tasks rose sharply. The proportion receiving help with three to six ADLs increased from 35.4 percent to 42.9 percent between 1984 and 1994. The proportion of cognitive impairment among the 65+ population rose from 34 percent to 40 percent.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to wear a yellow ribbon to remind us of the wonderful troops who were able to come home finally from Iraq. I want to congratulate the city of St. Louis that introduced and held the first Welcome Home the Troops from Iraq parade on January 28. I look forward to communities around this Nation raising up their voices to say thank you to those who worked and dedicated their lives and their commitment to the freedom of this country. That's why, Madam Speaker, it's so important that we do our work. Not a minute should we wait to pass the payroll tax extension, unemployment extension, and the ability of our seniors to see their doctors with the Medicare fix for our doctors. What we say to our soldiers by welcoming them home is all in our acts and our deeds, how we treat their relatives, their friends, and extended family members and community. It's time for Congress to wait not one minute to extend the American Dream to all and provide this benefit to those who are in need.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1022, ``Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act.'' This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives for the commemoration and interpretation of the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the national parks. America's national parks are a treasure of nature's magnificent wonders--84 million acres of the most stunning landscapes anyone has ever seen. The story of the national parks is the story of people from every conceivable background who were willing to devote themselves to saving a portion of the land they loved. Among them were Buffalo Soldiers. Our country began the arduous task of rebuilding itself after a brutal civil war. In this war former slaves fought in Union regiments to pursue the ultimate goal to end slavery. These Black soldiers were later used in 1866, when Congress created six segregated regiments that ultimately became four black regiments that later became known as the original Buffalo Soldiers. Because of prevailing attitudes following the Civil War, these soldiers could only serve west of the Mississippi River. Their main charge was to protect settlers as they moved west and to support building the infrastructure needed for new settlements to flourish. Buffalo Soldiers conducted campaigns against American Indian tribes on a western frontier that extended from Montana in the northwest to Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona in the southwest. They engaged in several clashes against such great Indian Chiefs as Victorio, Geronimo, and Nana. ``Buffalo Soldiers'' was the name given the black cavalrymen by the Plains Indians. Reason for the name is uncertain. One view is that the Indians saw a resemblance between the black man's hair and the mane of a buffalo. Another view is that when a buffalo was wounded or cornered, it fought ferociously, displaying unusual stamina and courage. This was the same fighting spirit Indians saw in combat with black cavalrymen. Since Indians held the buffalo in such high regard, it was felt that the name was not given in contempt. Those Buffalo Soldiers not only fought in conflicts along the western frontier, but they were indispensible in the treacherous and desolate trails of the Wild West. They helped protect and build up our new country as it expanded west. They built roads. They protected new territories where they escorted settlers, cattle herds, and railroad crews, while battling Mexican revolutionaries, outlaws, rustlers and hostile Native American tribes. The Buffalo Soldiers were the protectors of the western frontier. Buffalo Soldiers played a central role in protecting national parks-- Yosemite, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. They were, in fact, our national parks' first ``guardians.'' These Soldiers kept the park free from poachers and from the ranchers whose grazing sheep destroyed the parks' natural habitats. They built roads, including the first wagon road into the Giant Forest of Sequoia. At a time when most of the country would not recognize their humanity, these brave patriots stood up to fight and protect a country that was just as much theirs as any other American. And I think it is fitting and symbolic that at a time when our Nation was rebuilding itself after being torn apart, it was former slaves and children of former slaves--Buffalo Soldiers--that rebuilt and protected our new and expanding country. As our country progresses, there will continue to be sites of historic and cultural significance that need to be added to the national park system. Commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the national parks will ensure the historical contributions of the Buffalo Soldiers will always be remembered. Celebrating the role of Buffalo Soldiers serves to interpret, articulate, collect, display and preserve historical artifacts, documents, and other historical memorabilia relating to these brave men. It is America's mandate to acknowledge and reflect America's diverse stories. The story of Buffalo Soldiers is an underrepresented cultural theme in our national parks. Commemorating Buffalo Soldiers in the history of the nation's national parks is a step in the right direction. It reflects our cultural heritage and ensures their stories are told for our children and grandchildren to enjoy throughout posterity. At this time I would also like to take a moment to thank a special Legislative Fellow in my office, Byron McKie. He has been working diligently to enhance the opportunities of children through STEM education.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's a pleasure to join the gentleman from California and my colleagues from the great State of Oregon, the great State of Illinois, and the great State of New York. I heard earlier this evening that it's okay to say happy new year up until the end of January, which happens to be today; and I certainly wanted to start the year off right by joining you again and really pleading with our colleagues. I just want to briefly talk about what my good friend from New York mentioned with regard to reigniting the American Dream, which I am zealously advocating, really, across my State and across the Nation; and I am adding to that: building ladders and removing obstacles. I also see the work of the gentleman from California as really focusing in on an age-old problem. I want to call up a dear friend who is the former chairman of the Transportation Committee, Chairman Oberstar. Just a few years ago he watched his own community have a horrific incident that many of us in America continue to be shocked at, the collapsing of a bridge, the literal collapsing of a bridge and, of course, there was loss of life, devastation and fear, and an economic loss for people who could not be connected. That's not the America we know and love. So why this is so important--and let me just suggest that there are so many variables--there are thousands of soldiers coming home from Iraq who are willing to sacrifice their lives for us, and those who have come back are now seeking opportunity. That's another component of individuals who want to work, although this administration, this Congress has been excellent in veterans preferences and seeking to employ them. Every one of them will say they don't want a handout. They have been able to do massive work overseas that gives them the skills so they could be engaged in the reconstruction, the infrastructure work of airports, highways, high-speed rail, trains and transit, and we can give them the opportunity of reigniting the American Dream. We know that what we must do is build on the working class and middle class. We must build on opportunities for young people who may choose a 4-year college, but as the President said last Tuesday, may choose a community college that gets them into job skills. So most economists will say that this is not a time to be, in essence, Scrooge. When times are hard, you invest in human capital. And as someone who represents one of the largest airports in the country, George Bush Intercontinental Airport, and is also in a community that has Ellington Airfield and Hobby Airport, it is truly key to be able to work on the infrastructure. As someone who comes from the coastal areas--and I want to present to the gentleman my legislation that talks about deficit reduction and restoration of coastal areas using the energy industry-- but looking at it from a positive sense, all dealing with manufacturing, because manufacturing does matter. Let me just say this in conclusion: Our friends or those who want to speak negatively are absolutely wrong that we don't have the genius of manufacturing. In fact, I can document that factories are coming back to America, that the high cost of labor for our friend and sometimes challenging ally, China, is going up, that the cost of having factories there is difficult, and there are obstacles such that now our American companies who are even thinking of going are looking at the agility of the skills of American workers. You cannot underestimate the genius of American workers, the enthusiasm of American workers, the willingness to go into factories, the ability to build them, and I take on anyone who has suggested that our logistical or supply chain does not work. Frankly, let some of our military personnel who are now coming back, who are going into civilian life, let them show you how to do a logistical supply chain. So I believe that manufacturing is here to stay. Just a news clip today talked about an individual who, with tears in his eyes, was talking about bringing back manufacturing of furniture in the Carolinas. I think in this instance it was North Carolina. He was excited. He was emotional about the fact that his father had left him this legacy. He was bringing it back. Despite some of our friends who are talking about they can't make certain iPhones here in the United States, I frankly believe that our technology sector is alive and well, and that we're going to be building more, and certainly the infrastructure begs out, in tribute to our dear friend, Chairman Oberstar, and many others who have talked for years, as I joined him, and as I join my colleagues, to say that I believe we live in the greatest country in the world. I believe that there is nothing better than reigniting that American Dream, and I believe that once we move the obstacles and build the ladders, we'll be building airports. We'll be talking about high-speed rail. Thank you to this administration for not abandoning it. We'll be doing the trains, we'll be doing the infrastructure, and we'll be putting people back to work. I can't imagine a better way to start off the new year. I must leave this in tribute to a pastor's words I heard on Sunday: 2012 will be the year of uncommon favor. That's because we are not going to give up on the American worker and this great Nation. I thank the gentleman for coming to the floor and allowing me to share with him.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Long-term care is needed by a projected 15 million people. As I indicated, chronic conditions, trauma, or illness brings you to this, but the real idea is personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the bathroom. Do you want to put in the sunset of life or in time of great desperation the idea that no one is thinking about how we can best do long-term care? This repeal turns a light out, closes a door, abandons those family caregivers who are already giving $450 billion of their time, their heart, the devastation--Medicaid giving $101 million, but personal is $14 billion. Mr. Speaker, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Let us not, if you will, pass this bill that denies that America has a heart in the most difficult times of Americans. Who would raise their hand and say, I want someone to help me in my personal hygiene, I need someone to help me get to the bathroom, or something even more? This is what we're talking about. This is not the way to do it, Mr. Speaker. I demand that we vote against the CLASS Act repeal. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res 522, ``Rule Providing Consideration on the Bill H.R. 1173, `The Fiscal Responsibility and Retirement Security Act of 2011'.'' This bill would repeal title VIII of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Supports (CLASS) Program--a national, voluntary long-term care insurance program for purchasing community living assistance services and supports. Title VIII also authorized and appropriated funding through 2015 for the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information (clearing house). H.R. 1173 would rescind any unobligated balances appropriated to the National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information. The CLASS Act was designed to provide an affordable long-term care option for the 10 million Americans in need of long-term care now and the projected 15 million Americans that will need long-term care by 2020. Individuals need long-term care when a chronic condition, trauma, or illness limits their ability to carry out basic self-care tasks, called activities of daily living (ADLs), (such as bathing, dressing or eating), or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (such as household chores, meal preparation, or managing money). Long-term care often involves the most intimate aspects of people's lives--what and when they eat, personal hygiene, getting dressed, using the bathroom. Other less severe long-term care needs may involve household tasks such as preparing meals or using the telephone. Estimates suggest that in the upcoming years the number of disabled elderly who cannot perform basic activities of daily living without assistance may double today's level. CLASS provides the aging and the disabled with a solution that is self-sustaining, at no cost to tax payers. As the estimated 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 become elderly, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will nearly double as a share of the economy by 2035. Baby boomers are already turning 65. As of January 1, 2011, baby boomers have begun to celebrate their 65th birthdays. From that day on 10,000 people will turn 65 every day and this will continue for the next 20 years. It is reasonable to assume that over time the aging of baby boomers will increase the demand for long-term care. Repealing the CLASS program does nothing to address the fact that private long-term care insurance options are limited and the costs are too high for many American families, including many in my Houston district, to afford. In 2000, spending from public and private sources associated on long- term care amounted to an estimated $137 billion (for persons of all ages). By 2005, this number rose to $206.6 billion. Individuals 85 years and older are one of the fastest growing segments of the population. In 2005, there are an estimated 5 million people 85+ in the United States; this figure is expected to increase to 19.4 million by 2050. This means that there could be an increase from 1.6 million to 6.2 million people age 85 or over with severe or moderate memory impairment in 2050. An estimated 10 million Americans needed long-term care in 2000. Most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 63% are persons aged 65 and older (6.3 million); the remaining 37% are 64 years of age and younger (3.7 million). The lifetime probability of becoming disabled in at least two activities of daily living or of being cognitively impaired is 68% for people age 65 and older. By 2050, the number of individuals using paid long-term care services in any setting (e.g., at home, residential care such as assisted living, or skilled nursing facilities) will likely double from the 10 million using services in 2000, to 26 million people. This estimate is influenced by growth in the population of older people in need of care. Of the older population with long-term care needs in the community, about 30% (1.5 million persons) have substantial long-term care needs-- three or more activities of daily living limitations. Of these, about 25% are 85 and older and 70% report they are in fair to poor health. 40% of the older population with long-term care needs are poor or near poor (with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level). Between 1984 and 1994, the number of older persons receiving long- term care remained about the same at 5.5 million people, while the prevalence of long-term care use declined from 19.7% to 16.7% of the 65+ population. In comparison, 2.1%, or over 3.3 million, of the population aged 18-64 received long-term care in the community in 1994. While there was a decline in the proportion (i.e., prevalence) of the older population receiving long-term care, the level of disability and cognitive impairment among those who received assistance with daily tasks rose sharply. The proportion receiving help with three to six ADLs increased from 35.4% to 42.9% between 1984 and 1994. The proportion of cognitive impairment among the 65+ population rose from 34% to 40%.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and let me thank my colleague from Texas. This is a very important debate. It brings about a lot of emotion for two reasons for me. In that same year on our debate on Affordable Care Act, I lost my mother, and she was in need of long-term care. As I speak, there are two elderly, senior-citizen relatives who likewise are in the midst of long-term care. They are of a different era. They did not have the opportunity to plan as much because of their economics and because of their station in life for their later life. But as I've watched the intensity of the care, I realize that we cannot make health care a political football. I remember distinctly that very emotional time in March of 2010, and my recollection serves me not one friend on the other side of the aisle, not one Republican in this House, voted to help save the lives of Americans and provide them with a safety net of health care. My good friend from Massachusetts has already given a litany of provisions that are already saving lives, from the 26-year-old being on insurance to not being kicked out of the hospital and many others. But let us focus on long-term care, a very personal part of one's life; 21 million people in 2008 had a condition that caused them to need help with their health and personal care. Many of them may be young people who've had serious, catastrophic illnesses and/or accidents. Medicare does not cover long-term services and supports--about 70 percent of people over 65. But the real point that I want to make is if you want to talk about money, let me tell you how many of the family caregivers or how much their kind of help is equated. Some $450 billion comes out of the family's either personal care or resources. This is not a throwaway. This is not throwing money away. We recognize that the administration has thoughtfully said it needs to look at this long-term care in order to do it right. So I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts that this should not be a throwaway; this should be a fix-up. One of the amendments that I had suggested was the idea of letting the Secretary come forward with best practices. For no one can intrude into the most personal time of your life when you are desperately in need, when you are catastrophically ill, or when you have aged to the point that there are people who you need to do the most personal things in life, in essence, to clean you up because of personal hygiene.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So I'd like to say thank you to her and wish her well and to say, as I've said before, she is an American hero because of the courage. Certainly we acknowledge those who lost their lives and those who were wounded on that tragic day, but what a symbol that this Congresswoman represents, this American represents to all who seek a better place. I ask our colleagues to enthusiastically support H.R. 3801.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I thank the manager of the bill and rise today to support H.R. 3801. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee and know the importance of emphasizing utilizing resources in a partnership and, in fact, passing a law, an authorization for that. We all know there's a firewall between a civilian government and its Department of Defense, and that's why I think this bill is particularly astute and particularly important, authored by our friend Gabby Giffords. I thank her for her thoughtfulness to ensure that, as we put assets together, we have the act of law to ensure that it is properly done. As a member of a border State, or a resident of a border State, having been to the border many times, having walked the border from California to Texas, having been on the border at night, having been on the border with Customs and Border Patrol, I can see what these assets can do to help stop the scourge of drug cartels and drug trafficking, and certainly making sure that those who come into this country come in for the right reason. I also had the privilege of serving as part of the region that we are associated with in the structure of this Congress and served on the steering and policy committee with our friend. I consider her a gift that keeps on giving to this Nation; and I really do believe that, as she pursues her own health issues, as she continues to espouse those values that she did when she was here. I think America's a great country, and she is an example of that and her husband, Mark, who served so well in exploring our universe. We, in Houston, owe her a debt of gratitude, for you could not imagine the love and affection of Houstonians who had never met Congresswoman Giffords as she healed in our community.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. We just saw a very moving ceremony to acknowledge our dear friend and colleague, and again, I offer my appreciation of her service. But in the course, we mentioned her staff as well, and I wanted to make sure that I added my appreciation to Congresswoman Giffords' staff. That leads me to say that we depend upon the staffs of this House and our personal staffs and committee staffs. Not often do we get to know them personally. But I rise today to salute Steve Perkins, who will be retiring, and to thank him for his service to this august body. To each and every Member, remember that those who serve in this body do not recognize Democrat or Republican; what they recognize is the great service to America. Mr. Perkins has served this Congress with excellence, commitment, and dedication. He truly should be commended and admired and respected for his service to the Nation. I wish him well in his retirement, with his family, his children, and his grandchildren, and I know that he will continue to be a very special person in the hearts of all of us. Steve Perkins, we thank you for your service. Thank you for letting us know how much you care about this institution, how much you care about us. Let me say we care about you. Thank you for your service to this Nation and to this great body, the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week, I came to the floor of the House to challenge the utilization of words because words matter. Candidates who are charging each other with a variety of sins decided to call President Barack Obama, who tonight will give us the State of the Union, the ``food stamp President.'' For many of us who know our history, we might recall that in the 1940s and beyond, there were many who were on government cheese. In fact, many people I know today smile about that government cheese and peanut butter that they were given. They include doctors and lawyers and leaders of this Nation, teachers, people who are expanding opportunities for others. This Nation is a great country, and we are reminded that many who start from humble beginnings can ascend to the highest office or the barons and the leadership of corporate America. So the negative connotation of ``food stamp President'' is to denigrate those who receive it rather than to suggest that there are opportunities in this Nation that no other country can provide. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about and look forward to the President's State of the Union as he speaks about income equality and challenges us, as a Nation, to come together, to move forward on expanding jobs, such as the President's American Jobs Act. But I raise for thought the problem of how we will come to that point. I'm looking at an article that suggests that ``Made in the USA'' may be a relic of the bygone. It uses one of our most famous, one of our most imitated companies in the world, Apple, which speaks to the genius of America. I will never step away from acknowledging that we are the inventive, the innovative, the genius, the creative population because we've been given freedom by our Constitution. But when you ask the question why the iPhone is manufactured elsewhere and you hear comments about why the genius of this particular company has not been translated into a number of jobs, why decisions have been made to move manufacturing overseas, and you ask the question where is the corporate social responsibility, for example, and where is the generosity in terms of hiring American workers, well, we know that the international economy is intertwined. Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers even when it wasn't the best financial choice. We call that ``American generosity.'' But I understand the bottom line. So it is important that we begin to look at the items that the President is talking about, jobs skills training, and to find a way to restore the modern manufacturing that will bring more jobs to America. Why do these companies move overseas? In this article, it suggests because of the supply chain and the way factories can be put up and put down in these foreign countries. Now, you tell me why we can't do that. I believe we can. It is all about focus and logistics. And tonight, as the President expands on his Kansas speech about how we are a great Nation, I'm looking for ways to end that income inequality, to come together and make sure that those who make much can have the ability to share those dollars but yet still make a grand profit. I want to see us improve our supply chains and logistics. I want to see us get factories up and bring them down. We restored the American auto industry by commitment, dedication, and sacrifice. At last I heard, General Motors now is the number one manufacturer of automobiles in the world. How did it come about? Because Democrats came together and joined around, with a bipartisan support, the idea that we can create jobs; we can manufacture jobs. Let me just say this: I will accept the challenge tonight that the President will offer, and I will realize that a food stamp family today providing for their children are the presidents and CEOs and astronauts and inventors of tomorrow. That's the kind of Nation that we are. I say it always, and I will say it again. ``Food stamp'' is a denigrating term when you say ``food stamp President,'' as if the President does not want to create jobs. We're tired of the buzzwords and innuendo about certain groups, but I believe that we have a way of coming out of this. Mr. Speaker, now is the time. It is an urgency of now. It is the justice and equality that Martin Luther King and many other great leaders spoke of. It is this mosaic Nation of people from all walks of life that have shown the world we're the greatest Nation in the world. I'm looking forward to pursuing that in the 21st century, building jobs and saying, ``God bless America.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome our colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Gabby Giffords, back home to this House, a place that she served ably and is serving ably today, to thank her for her courage and to thank her for accepting the challenge of what an American hero is. Many have called her that; for in the course of this enormous tragedy, she stood tall and still continues to do that today. I want to thank the medical professionals, the emergency medical professionals, and many in Houston, Texas, TIRR, one of the best renowned rehabilitation hospitals in the world. But most of all, as Congresswoman Giffords comes back, let us give as a gift, both on behalf of the American people and this Congress, that we can work together to improve the lives of all Americans. That I believe would be her challenge, and that would be her call. As she comes back today, serving the people of Arizona and serving the American people, we want to say: Thank you, Congresswoman, for your courage and for being a model for the American people and challenging us to do the best.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from California for the recognition and also for the leadership. I might say to my colleagues that whenever we come to the floor of the House to do the people's business it is an important effort, and this motion to instruct is truly the people's business. I want to applaud you for framing the urgency of answering the call of doing what we need to do with respect to 160 million Americans who need payroll tax relief--again, tax cuts for middle class and working Americans, not a discriminatory treatment of only the top 1 percent being able to sing the song ``Oh Happy Day,'' but to allow those who get up every day, some working with their hands, some working with the genius of their minds, and being able to get tax relief from this Congress. I also know that the American people are looking for immediate relief as it relates to jobs. And I join with my colleague, Chairman Larson of the Democratic Caucus, about the American Jobs Act and the President's initiative on putting teachers and firefighters, police and construction workers to work, creating jobs and cutting taxes to put in the American people's pockets, and, as well, to provide job training and extended unemployment incentives. But I do raise this question as we look to protect Medicare and, yes, to provide the doctor fix, which is so important to Houston, with the large Texas Medical Center and the large population of seniors. I join with my colleagues to urgently move toward that. But may I make it very clear that unemployment benefits are not a handout. It is not given to people who have not worked. It is given to blue collar workers. It's given to white collar workers. It's given to people who have worked and contributed to this economy. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to suggest in the most insulting way to give drug tests and to suggest that people need a GED, I can assure you people want to get a GED. But when you talk of the body politic of unemployed workers, 14 million people can't find jobs because there are no jobs to be found, and we are working to create jobs. So the issue is: Help us pass the American Jobs Act, and help recognize that those who get unemployment benefits, Mr. Speaker, are Americans who have worked, who deserve this kind of insurance. I join in passing the payroll tax motion to instruct and the unemployment benefits. Let's do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First, I want to speak to the gentlelady's last comment and say that you have been a champion for the Virgin Islands. I have had the privilege of having several meetings there. They are generous people, they are our neighbors, and so I personally want to say, experiencing and understanding the impact of the loss of a major entity is something many of us have gone through. In this instance I wanted to say, yes, we will stand with you and be of help. I'm introducing legislation that deals with trying to look at the energy industry in a way to help it grow in a fair way, to be environmentally safe, and I know that you are certainly someone who is a champion of the environment but have found that that business is served economically, and I want to make sure that we have these kinds of industries, and they are not mutually exclusive. I don't have the facts of what has generated this action, but we need to be helpful. My legislation talks about using the energy industry to also support improving the environment, and I think that creates jobs as well. So I just want to say that I look forward to working with you and thank you for bringing that issue to our attention, because voter protection gives people the opportunity for expressing their views. We know that the opportunity for work and for jobs is crucial as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege. I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution. I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy. As a Member of this body, I firmly believe that we must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades, minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter ID'' requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century, these efforts continue. Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2007. This legislation is considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress-there is no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the future. The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to citizens of all U.S. states. By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act. Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to respond in a way that the VRA did. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327- 28: Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country. Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights legislation because they could lose more of the African American and liberal votes. No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and freedoms. 3 State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I'd like to thank Dr. Christensen, which I enjoy calling her that because she has been of such value and service to this Congress and to this body, the Congressional Black Caucus, and thank her for her leadership in convening this very important discussion on voter protection. I'm very delighted to be joined, and I thank him very much, by Congressman Bobby Scott, who has served and we are serving on the Judiciary Committee. And I know that he remembers that in about 2006, 2007, after years of rumors of the Voting Rights Act ending, we clarified it by coming together in a bipartisan manner and over months of hearings, convinced a then, I believe, Republican and moving into a Democratic Congress, but a bipartisan Congress, that the Voting Rights Act was needed, and it needed to be reauthorized in certain sections. And so our stand today is to reinforce that issue. And so I would like to thank, again, Congressman Rangel, who so movingly told of his long journey and walk to support the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Fudge, who has been a champion in her State in Ohio, Congresswoman Lee, and then Congressman Scott, who all bring to the table a personal story about voter protection. But I must make mention of our friend Congressman John Lewis, who is the epitome of the civil rights movement around the idea of voter protection and enhancement. Many of us are not aware of Mr. Filner, who was one of the Freedom Riders and celebrated the Freedom Riders in the last year, their 50 years. My colleague Congressman Al Green, who led the NAACP in Houston during times when we were under siege as it relates to voting opportunities. And I remember working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the South in the aftermath in the 1970s of the Voting Rights Act actually going to many States, from North Carolina to South Carolina to Georgia and Alabama, where African Americans were still not registered, had still not had the full impact. I remember walking miles with Prairie View University students to allow the students to vote. So this is a cause for which we have been on a long journey, and it saddens me that we are here again today fighting for voter protection in the year 2012 as we look to our Presidential elections. I might offer to my colleagues the words of Barbara Jordan, who could not have come to Congress if it had not been for the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Sitting in the Judiciary Committee she offered these words: ``I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.'' She said that of course during the impeachment hearings of Richard Nixon, but really the point was that she felt that the Constitution breathed life, if you will, into the rights of Americans, and the Constitution spoke to the voting rights of African Americans and others through the 14th and 15th Amendments. But over the years, we had not been protected. And so the Congress, through the leadership and sacrifice of Dr. Martin Luther King, whose monument is magnificent, they passed the Voting Rights Act. The constitutionality was challenged in 1966. It barely got passed. And the Supreme Court said this: Congress has found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting. This is what they found over the years in the Deep South; that it was constant, it was ongoing because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systemic or systematic resistance to the 15th Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of evil to its victims. That was a landmark case in 1966, South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Attorney General of the United States, to reaffirm the Voting Rights Act of 1966. Here we are now almost 50 years plus where we are fighting this case again, and I might add, in not too friendly a climate. First of all, fraud is offered, and I notice that my colleague mentioned the unfortunate facts or the circumstances in Iowa where one Republican presidential candidate was declared a winner and then now another. And I did not hear voices being raised about whether there was fraud. Maybe it was a miscount, a mistake. But you didn't hear the outrage that we have heard over the seeming increase, or the effort to increase, the votes of poor people and minorities, and in particular Latinos and African Americans. Might I just say with a sense of pride, the Honorable Barbara Jordan added Texas to the Voting Rights Act coverage by adding language minorities in I believe about 1978. But the thought that fraud is bad and should be prosecuted, but a photo ID does not prevent voter impersonation, that it doesn't work-- requiring a photo ID amounts to discrimination. Eleven percent of the entire voting-eligible population, 2.1 million, do not have a government-issued photo ID. You're discriminating against them. Twenty- five percent of eligible African American voters do not have a qualified voter ID. A 2006 nationwide study of voting-age citizens by the Brennan Center for Justice of the New York University School of Law found that African Americans are more than three times as likely as Caucasians to lack a government-issued ID. You talk to many of our seniors and they were born with midwives. My mother, God rest her soul, we could not, as long as we looked for her birth certificate, could not find it, but she did have a voter registration card. Nationwide, 18 percent of eligible voters over 65 lack an ID. Voter ID laws are costly and add to the deficit. Missouri estimates that the ID law would cost the State over $20 million to implement, and it goes on to say North Carolina, $14 million. This is a shame on us. This is a pox on our House. And it is a pox on our House because fraud cannot be documented. As my colleague indicated how ironic it is that a student ID, students at State colleges, private colleges, historically black colleges, Hispanic-leaning colleges can't use a credible ID that colleges take great pride or great efforts to secure. Photo ID. Young people who we want to see cherish the democracy of this country can not in fact use their ID. But yet a gun ID can be used. Just a few weeks ago in the Judiciary Committee--somewhat related--we were trying to pass legislation that says if you have a gun ID in Georgia, you can use your gun permit in another State. We're willing to give all of these rights to those carrying a gun ID, which may in fact jeopardize our law enforcement officers in all of the different States by not knowing who's in there carrying a gun permit. But yet the sacred and simple act of being able to vote for a person of your choosing causes the ire of so many State legislatures who, after the 2010 election and the misrepresentation that there was fraud in the 2008 election, maybe because we elected the first African American President, or some crisis generated this response, we have this kind of map that shows practically 40 States, it looks like, all but 11, that require photo ID, that photo ID is requested, that photo ID legislation is proposed. Congresswoman, I ask on what basis have we now taken the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act to do it? Let me just share these points as I come to a close and ask that we continue the efforts. I look forward to a voter protection meeting by the Congressional Black Caucus in Houston. The State of Texas has the voter ID law that is now being pre-cleared. I understand that all of my colleagues are in the middle of redistricting, but let me just say this is not in any way promoting Texas, but I believe that we may be the singular case that is going to ascertain the integrity of the Voting Rights Act and voter protection. Right now Texas is in three courts: the Supreme Court, the District Court of Appeals here in the District of Columbia, and the San Antonio Federal Court. We are fighting on three different levels. I might say this without any punitive comments intended. We had an interim plan, and this is under the Voting Rights Act, that one person, one vote. And Congresswoman, I think it is important to note that the Voting Rights Act protects all Americans. Its premise is one vote, one person. Its premise is not fraud but opportunity. So when we have the redistricting and some sections of the Voting Rights Act protect the idea of one person, one vote, we take these cases not for personal promotion, meaning Members of Congress and State legislators, but to ensure the integrity of the vote. So when the court ruled in San Antonio just briefly that the plan did not work, that the State of Texas wrote and gave us a new plan, the State of Texas went to the Supreme Court--not the individuals trying to protect the right of voters--went to the Supreme Court to stay that plan. Well, the Supreme Court did render a decision. We're still in the midst of our confusion. But I just have to put this on the record. The Supreme Court assessed us, the ones who did not appeal, $18,000 to pay for printing. For those of us who are lawyers, we are simply questioning in wonderment how you can charge individuals who did not take the case up to the Supreme Court, who were being guided by the Federal Court, who had a plan and assessed us $18,000. I simply say here is another way that you can not protect voting, because inevitably, those who are on the side of the Voting Rights Act are not rich. We inevitably in many instances are not the State. It's the State coming against those who are trying to say, ``One vote, one person.'' I bring this up just as I close. Let me just say that, in the course of the hearings that we had in reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, we discovered that there were problems with voting across the country. In 2004, nearly 4,500 people reported problems with ballots that were coming to them; 1,000 people reported voting intimidation; 7,000 reported registration problems. Also, as you well know, the status of voting laws now, meaning the voting ID or voter identification, limits the kind of voter ID you can use. It excludes the most common forms of identification--student IDs, Social Security cards--and they offer no alternatives. There are changes requiring proof of citizenship as a condition for voter registration, limitations or the outright elimination of early voting opportunities, and barriers to first-time voters by suggesting that there is no same-day registration. So I would simply argue that this is an important Special Order that you have tonight. What I feel in my heart is that we have to educate the public. They have to raise their level of, not anxiety, but of cause, in that they have a cause. They've got to get their marching shoes on again. They've got to get their shoes of being the carriers of justice as those civil rights legends and heroes did. They've got to get like the movie ``The Help'' when those domestics, those people who work for others, walked in the Montgomery Bus Boycott because they were trying to do for others. So I want to thank you for allowing me to share with you this evening. I also want to indicate that this very fine letter that was sent by Members of Congress to the Attorney General on July 25, 2011, should be upheld; that of these voter ID laws that may suppress the vote, we want to have voter protection by having a vigorous review of all of these laws, and one of them happens to be the voter ID requirement in the State of Texas. Thank you for allowing me to participate in an opportunity to share and in an opportunity to tell a message to our colleagues that the justice of voting is justice for everyone and that the protection of voting is the protection of voting for everyone.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a gentleman by the name of Andrew Adler located in Atlanta, Georgia, and writing for an Atlanta, Georgia, newspaper offered instructions to the prime minister of Israel on how to protect that great nation. He suggested an attack on Hezbollah and Hamas and an attack on Iran. And then he gave number three: Give the go ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a President deemed unfriendly to the nation of Israel. That President, I need not say, happens to be the President of the United States now. Words matter. Mr. Adler has been called upon to apologize, and he did. But he has brought shame to Jewish Americans, to Americans and Israel. And, frankly, the latitude in which he thought he could talk about assassinating the President of the United States without in any way a suggestion of, if you will, challenge, is an outrage and disgrace. I believe in the First Amendment, but words do matter. We should come together and be unified as a Nation, find ways to disagree with each other without raising words that are hostile and devastating. I beg for this Nation's leaders to stop calling names and talk about policies and how to build this Nation up. I'm outraged, Mr. Adler. An apology is not enough.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague in saying that our troops will not be forgotten. I continue to wear a yellow ribbon, as we're doing in our community in Houston, in welcoming home the troops from Iraq. That's why I rise today--to challenge those who are in the midst of the Presidential campaign to be cautious about ill-conceived and ill- spoken words. When one of the candidates, the Governor of Texas, calls the leadership of Turkey ``Islamic terrorists'' and says that Turkey is run by Islamic terrorists, I can assure you that those words are ill- conceived and inappropriate and absolutely wrong. Turkey is one of the United States' strongest allies. It's a member of NATO, and it is seeking at this time membership in the European Union. There is constant dialogue between our country and Turkey. We are encouraging, of course, Turkey's diplomatic efforts to engage with Israel; and frankly, our troops have benefited from some of the needs taken care of through efforts by Turkey. So I would just encourage that we not pour fuel and fire together and that we recognize Turkey and others of our allies live in very difficult areas. Therefore, we need to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Check your facts. I don't believe the democratic country of Turkey is run by Islamic terrorists. You're wrong and it is inappropriate.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 98, ``Relating to the disapproval of the President's exercise of authority to increase the debt limit, as submitted under section 3101A of title 31, United States Code.'' This Joint Resolution is designed to prevent President Obama from raising the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion. Under the agreement reached last summer, which Republicans supported, the President was given the authority to raise the debt ceiling. Republicans are now putting forth a resolution that is a direct contradiction to the agreement which we all felt was the right decision for our country. Today we are here pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 that this body passed last summer. In the course of our efforts numerous concessions were made to placate Republicans just to do the business of the American people; to pay our bills and ensure that essential services were taken care of for the infirm, the elderly, our children-- in short: the most vulnerable in our society. This Republican led resolution is nothing more than an attempt to obstruct the government; the measure is expected to fail in the Senate. In the end, this measure will be a tremendous waste of both Congressional resources and time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Fairy tales are supposed to end with a wonderful ending, something such as never, never again or it ended happily thereafter. Well, let me tell you the true story of the American people. They don't want us on the floor today talking about not paying their bills to them. They want us on the floor right now to create jobs, to bring down the unemployment, to give them payroll tax relief, and to give extension for unemployment for those who are seeking jobs. And they don't want us to deny food stamps to young soldiers whose incomes don't allow them to provide for their families. They want us to get to work. Here I am. I'm ready to get to work.