Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I listened today, I listened to some enormously bipartisan commentary about jobs. As Mr. Waxman knows, our ranking member, we have been working on creating jobs for a very long time. Democrats are hoping for a vote in the other body on the President's American Jobs Act. In the last Congress, although we documented 3 million jobs, I can assure you that our stimulus package created millions of jobs unrecorded because it was emergency funding that did not require that recording. My amendment speaks to clarity, and it is not conflicting with jobs. For those of you who are listening to this debate, it's about the industrial boiler industry. They do have jobs. And I, frankly, believe that the regulations that they have lived with do not impair their ability to promote jobs. What most people don't know is there is an indefinite language, or allows an indefinite time frame for noncompliance. There's no time line for the industry to comply with clean air rules impacting our children, just like this little one being seen by a nurse, suffering from any number of respiratory illnesses. So the bill, in its current form, also gives the EPA discretion to go beyond 5 years. You know how long that is? That may be job-killing time, because when businesses look to move to areas, even if they're older industry, they want to know that there is an effort made to create a better quality of life. This amendment will help the industry. It indicates that the time for compliance is 3 years. And, yes, there may be discretion to expand, but 3 years. I believe this is a fair approach because, in actuality, the rule that the EPA has passed has resulted in 1.7 million tons of reduction in air pollution per year. That's a good thing for job creation. And so this amendment is a simple approach to indicating that outdoor air pollution is damaging. Small particles and ground level ozone come from car exhaust, smoke, road dust, and factory emissions. Why wouldn't we want to improve the quality of life? I can only say to you that out of those polluting elements come chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, sneezing, shortness of breath, and a number of other ailments. So my amendment is a good thing, to be able to talk about jobs, clarity, knowing when you must comply, and preventing premature deaths and protecting our children. But let me say what else this bill does. This bill causes an extra $1 million in new discretionary spending by the EPA to comply. We're supposed to be in a budget-tight atmosphere. We're supposed to be budget cutting. But, my friends, that is not what we're doing here. So I would simply say that even though my good friend indicates that 200,000 jobs would be saved with this particular bill, I don't know where the documentation is, but I will assure you that areas where the boiler industry is that have a defined clarity on what the timeframe is for making sure that you're in compliance, I can assure you that that creates jobs, and that creates a clean atmosphere, quality of life, and clean air for more industry to come into your States for you to diversify. So I ask my colleagues to support a simple amendment that ensures that the compliance is for 3 years, clarifying that to the industry, giving them a time certain to comply, and also giving discretion to the EPA to help America grow jobs. I hope we all will join in growing jobs in voting for the American Jobs Act, and right now I hope that we'll vote for the Jackson Lee amendment that gives clarity in timeframe for compliance, and again, saves lives, like this little one's, that we all want to protect. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2250, the ``EPA Regulatory Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the industrial boiler industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized. Currently, the bill requires the industrial boiler industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set for industry compliance. The bill, in its current form, also gives the EPA the discretion to extend the 5 year deadline for compliance. The EPA would have the authority to extend a three year deadline as well; the three year deadline I proposed can be extended by the EPA, while setting a goal that shows our firm commitment to saving lives. I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the industrial boiler industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued clean air rules targeting 170 different types of facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for both the industrial boiler industry and cement kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, prior to their promulgation. As the Representative for Houston, the country's energy capital, I am committed to creating an environment in which the energy industry and regulating agencies can work together. For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air. Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood. When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective. The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. Providing a time for individuals to support or oppose any regulations is a meaningful first step. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, this rule would prevent the following: 9,000 premature deaths 5,500 heart attacks 58,000 asthma attacks 6,000 hospital and emergency room visits 6,000 cases of bronchitis 440,000 missed work days This legislation not only presents a threat to public health, it also blatantly violates the Cut-Go spending provision. The EPA Regulatory Relief Act requires the EPA to select a regulatory option that is least burdensome to the industrial boiler industry, regardless of alternate options that may be more feasible or cost effective. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will result in $1 million dollars in new discretionary spending by the EPA, and the bill does not offset the authorization. I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and we must not strip the agency of that right. My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you that this Act is going to save more than 200,000 American jobs, but what about the lives we will lose? We do not want to hinder economic prosperity and robust job creation, but let us strive toward an economic climate where jobs can be created by implementing technology to reduce dangerous toxic emissions and protect the American people. It does not have to be one way or the other; in a country of vast innovation surely we can forge a path forward in which we do not have to choose between creating jobs and saving lives. Lest we forget, since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives. Mr. Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, and there are times when we exist as a single Nation with national need. One state did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a Nation, and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times. I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By ensuring the industrial boiler industry must comply with finalized EPA regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you so very much, Congresswoman Sewell, for allowing us to come to the floor of the House and be joyful even though someone has passed. I thank my previous speakers. John Lewis, we salute you always for continuing to be our chronicler, our voice, our steady, if you will, encyclopedia of today, yesterday and tomorrow, what we should be aiming toward as a Nation and as a people but also what we came through. And to stand next to this picture, thank you for allowing me to stand next to such a symbolic statement about who I would like to call Reverend Dr. Fred L. Shuttlesworth. Can I just stand here and say that I knew him? And as well can I say that I had the privilege of following way behind John Lewis's footsteps, Congresswoman Sewell, in working in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference at the time that Reverend Dr. Ralph David Abernathy was alive, that Hosea Williams was alive, that James Orange was alive, and certainly Fred Shuttlesworth was still on the battlefield in places around the Nation. So I want to say to his children and his wife and all of his great legacy in Alabama that he has given birth to much. This picture depicts a monumental statement, both of his status as an American and a patriot, both of what he created. Whether it was a young Senator to be President, President Barack Obama, pushing this icon's wheelchair as we commemorated the legacy of John Lewis, and that is the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, the time when those who spoke loudly on behalf of those who could not speak were brutalized and beaten to unconsciousness simply for the right to vote. Fred Shuttlesworth was known as a man that did not run away from danger. Fred Shuttlesworth joined Dr. Ralph David Abernathy and Martin Luther King and himself in pushing, shoving and pushing the movement in Alabama and around the Nation. At his side as a young man, a President who served this country for 8 years, a Southerner, William Jefferson Clinton, who acknowledges that part of his great legacy or great opportunity was not only the meeting of President John F. Kennedy, but during his lifetime or his Presidency to correct many of the ills that occurred to African Americans and people of the slave history in this Nation, from the establishment of the African American Museum, to the honoring of so many, such as the Tuskegee Airmen, in terms of generating that as he spoke, to the honoring of civil rights leaders, to the bestowing of recognition on Rosa Parks. There are so many things that this President, President Clinton, attempted to do because he got to know and he could understand the walk and the talk of Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth. I am grateful that we have the first African American woman Congressperson from Alabama, and I know that she told you of her family's legacy but also of the salt of the Earth that they are, Alabamans who knew of Reverend Fred L. Shuttlesworth's work. What I am most moved by is the fact that he acknowledges that his beginnings were on a farm, that he was raised by his stepfather and his mother. He came first to be a truck driver, and then got the word that he should go to a school, to the Cedar Grove Academy--a local Bible college--and begin the seeding of understanding in the Scriptures of much of what we who happen to be Christian believe in--but it can be found in so many faiths, from Judaism, to Islam, to Buddhism, and to many other faiths--this whole charitable role that you must take: that it is better to give to others than it is to give to yourself. Even though Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth was a feisty man, he would tell it to you. Don't get fooled by a wheelchair. He was a feisty man. He didn't take much to being offended. As John Lewis has taught us over the years, as we've traveled back to commemorate Bloody Sunday and how entrenched the movement was of nonviolence, Fred Shuttlesworth was willing to, in essence, concede his feistiness to be part of the movement he established first, the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, and of course then to overcome its declaring of being unconstitutional and moving on to other creative ways to create and continue the movement. What I like most since John Lewis told us of the Freedom Rides--and that is an emotional experience, an emotional set of words to listen to because of the loss of life that attended to those college students and the others who got on buses from Ohio to Illinois, New York--places far from the South. They got on because they were driven by the rightness of the morality of those who were standing for the empowerment of those who had been brutalized. They came from far and wide. I don't know how one could stand by and watch buses be burned to a crisp or could watch those innocent Americans--young and with a great deal of hope--come to the Deep South and be bloodied and be attacked and spit upon. I note that tragic moment when they were brutalized so badly as they came into the area of Reverend Shuttlesworth. They were brutalized as a result of a famous name, though a name of great damage--Sheriff Bull Connor--with water cannons and the violence that he evidenced that woke up America. These brutalized Freedom Riders were, I guess, temporarily taken, John, to a hospital where Reverend Shuttlesworth was concerned about their safety. He didn't concern himself about his safety, but was concerned about theirs. So with a few deacons--and for those of you who understand our church structure, deacons are close to the pastor. They are as men who go with him through fire, storm, rain, and devastation. They went with him to carry these broken bodies out of the hospital, fearful for their lives. He took them to his church where, as many knew in the South, was not a place that was immune to violence, as was evidenced by the Birmingham bombing of a church that killed four little girls in a Sunday school class. But Reverend Shuttlesworth was not fearing his life. He wanted to make sure that those who had come to help them and us could be safe and would not be bombarded in the hospital and be threatened or in fear of their lives. Reverend Shuttlesworth, I want to thank you for allowing me to know you. I want to thank you for staying alive to be able to see the election of the first African American President of the United States. I am grateful that you stayed alive to see America at her best when, in 2008, she came together and unshackled the devastation of race, the ugliness of race, and began to accept that strength and rightness of anyone who desired to be President. Reverend Shuttlesworth, as you lay in rest, let me again thank you for giving us courage, for being a friend to John Lewis, a friend to Martin and to Ralph David Abernathy and to James Orange and to many of the Freedom Riders and song singers that I get to see when I go for that commemoration. What I would say in closure, Dr. Shuttlesworth, is that you wanted us to be engaged in fighting for people who could not speak for themselves. I would imagine that you would want us to pass and vote for the American Jobs Act. I imagine that you would not be accusatory as to why people are unemployed and are not rich. I imagine you would be sympathetic to the people in the streets today, now Thursday, October 6, 2011, and I imagine you would say, Keep on keeping on. I imagine you would say, Have no fear, because our great friend Dr. Martin Luther King told us of a mountaintop, and he said the pathway to the Promised Land would not be easy. He said in his dying days, or in the last hours toward the end of his life, that he had seen the Promised Land. You still lived at that time, and he told us that he might not get there but that he knew that, as a people, as this Nation, we would get to the Promised Land someday. Reverend Dr. Shuttlesworth, you have gone on, and we recognize that our people are hurting, and that they're in the streets and that they're all colors and backgrounds and religions in all areas of this country. You realize that we are lucky enough to have Congresswoman Sewell and John Lewis out of Alabama, and now Atlanta. You recognize that you pass your mantle on, but you are hoping that we are not giving up and that we will always stay steadfast and that we'll fight for those who cannot speak and are yet unborn. For you, Reverend Shuttlesworth, I will be courageous enough to take whatever comes, whatever comes life's way, whatever threatens my life, for it is important to note that there is something greater than life, and it is to make sure that people have an opportunity. I hope someday we'll have the ability to bring this Nation together again and not be wallowing in the divisiveness of Tea Parties and ``No'' parties and people who don't recognize what America is all about. Reverend Shuttlesworth, you saw only what was right and what was just. I bless you, and will say to you that you are a warrior that has fought a good fight. Thank you for that fight. May you rest in peace. To your family, God bless you, and God bless this warrior, and God bless the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is something about having a heart and a philosophy that Americans who are not working want to work; Americans who are not rich simply want an opportunity to provide for their families. I want to congratulate the President today for acknowledging that this economic downfall is not attributable to his actions as a President that happens to be a Democrat. I thank him for mentioning the calamity in China, dealing with the manipulation of currency. It is something we have to address. It is something that has not benefited the United States. I believe as individuals run for the Presidency, they have every right to do so; but every time they make a statement of insult to the American people, I'm going to address it. Mr. Cain seems to want to continue, rather than to talk constructively about how we can bring people together, today he announced that those who are on rallies around this country--some in my district, as we speak--he told them, if you are not employed and you are not rich, it's your fault. Mr. Cain, you need to understand what the common people and person is going through. Understand the common man and stop being high and mighty. I don't know how you can represent all of the people. You need to get a grip and understand what America is all about. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I think the very argument that you just made is one that I would like to utilize and suggest that conformity could be 3 or 5. And I'm suggesting conformity should be 3 years, with the EPA doing just as you said, having the discretion to give more time. I think it shows us, as a Congress, being as balanced for jobs--which I know that you're trying to do--as trying to save lives. And there are lives that are impacted by the conditions that these companies generate.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I've been to the floor before and I've used these famous words, and I think I've even used them in committee: Can we all get along? I just can't imagine that if we queried this industry that so many people would want to, if you will, ignore the facts that are impacting not only our community but our children. First of all, it's important to note that the CBO has established that H.R. 2681 will cost $1 million. I want jobs to continue. I want jobs to be created. I think the service dealing with our industry is important, but I think lives are important. And I cannot imagine in this particular instance why we would want to block the EPA from finding a way to save lives. And so I rise today to introduce an amendment that would establish the fact that compliance would come by 3 years after the implementation of the resolution by the EPA. Remember now that every party has an opportunity to participate, but listen to what is happening with the impact of mercury on our children. If these safeguards are blocked, up to 34,300 premature deaths would be in place. These will be the consequences of it. Over 17,800 more heart attacks; over 180,000 additional asthma attacks; over 3 million more days of missed work or school; and billions of taxpayer dollars wasted treating these preventible accidents--or illnesses, if you will. In addition, I believe that the idea of jobs should not be a threat to life. Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than 5 years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance. There is no deadline set for the industry compliance. That's an unfair imbalance between jobs and lives, and I know that we can find the right balance. These industry leaders are citizens in communities. They support Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. They support PTOs and school athletic teams. Their very constituents are their workers and their families, some of those very families that will be subject to the conditions where schools are near concrete manufacturing companies. It is happening all over America. I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the cement industry, as they're required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting this and have resulted in saving--a 1.7 million ton reduction of air pollution per year. My amendment simply says that to comply with the EPA rules, it should occur no later than 3 years after the rules have finalized. Let me tell you why this is a good amendment. It gets people to work. It gets you focusing quickly on the remedy. It helps you put the remedy in place, and it helps to save lives. This is a task that has been given to the EPA for 40 years. In fact, it was given to the EPA under a Republican administration, as I recall, Richard Nixon. We worked together then because we believed that America could be better by creating jobs but also protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air, but I believe we can do both. We can work together. There is pollution; it does exist. Just come to a city like Houston where asthma rates are up because of the pollution that we have. It is important to find a way to balance the lives of those who are impacted by things like chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation, watery eyes, while keeping our jobs. How do we do it? We rush toward fixing the problem. We rush toward creating the jobs by having the kind of technology that allows us to cure this problem and keep these jobs. Colleagues, I believe this is an important approach. It is to find the new technology that allows us to clean the air. It is not to stall and block the EPA. It is to find a way to get quickly to the solution to be able to save lives. Let me say that I am hopeful that the amendment will be perceived as an amendment that rushes toward helping those who are creating jobs, but it is rushing toward allowing the EPA to save lives. Let us not sacrifice lives for convenience. Let us save lives. My amendment is a very constructive amendment to allow compliance in 3 years. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2681 the ``Cement Sector Regulator Relief Act.'' My amendment requires the cement industry to comply with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules no later than 3 years after the rules have been finalized. Currently, the bill requires the cement industry to comply with EPA rules no earlier than five years after the rules have been finalized. The bill also allows indefinite noncompliance; there is no deadline set for industry compliance. I have offered this amendment to ensure that the EPA has the ability to reduce toxic emissions from numerous industrial sources, including the cement industry, as they are required to do under the Clean Air Act. The EPA has issued 100 rules targeting 170 different types of facilities which have resulted in a 1.7 million ton reduction in air pollution per year. EPA rules are now being finalized for the cement kiln industry and these bills are intended to indefinitely delay compliance with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, prior to their promulgation. For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air. Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood. When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective. The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. The proposed regulations to the industrial boiler industry will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, this rule would prevent the following: 9,000 premature deaths; 5,500 heart attacks; 58,000 asthma attacks; 6,000 hospital and emergency room visits; 6,000 cases of bronchitis; and 440,000 missed work days. The EPA has done its due diligence; a comprehensive review of all aspects of these regulations has been done, and the EPA is currently in the process of revising its proposed rules in order to reflect industry concerns. If the EPA is willing to compromise, the cement industry must be as well. I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks of breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth. Congress passed the Clean Air Act to allow the EPA to ensure that all Americans had access to clean air, and we must not strip the agency of that right. Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives. My friends on the other side of the aisle seem much more interested in stripping the EPA of its authority than passing jobs legislation. It has been nearly 10 months since the Republicans took control of the House, promising the American people they would create jobs. As October begins, they have not offered a single jobs bill, nor have they brought President Obama's American Jobs Act to the floor for a vote. The focus of this Congress must be on passing President Obama's American Jobs Act and other legislation that will create jobs and put the American people back to work. Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit several small businesses at home in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. I was able to roll up my sleeves and get involved with the hard working men and women of Houston. I visited Dr. German Ramos at the Canal Medical Center, where I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Ramos and his employees. I visited Atlantic Petroleum and Mineral Resources where I met with President and CEO Donald Sheffield, and got to work at De Walt Construction Company, owned by single mother Wanda De Walt, who employs 15 people and wants to hire more. I also had the opportunity to visit floral shops, beauty salons, bakeries and other small businesses throughout Houston. I spoke with these entrepreneurs and small business owners who represent America's biggest job creators, and their message was clear. These business owners and entrepreneurs encouraged me to work to pass powerful bipartisan, specific proposals to create jobs. It was a privilege to perform the hands on duties these hard working Houstonians do every day. We must engage and support entrepreneurs, innovators and small businesses to create jobs. I will be proposing a bill that will create jobs, and I look forward to bipartisan support. Madam Chair, there are times in which we are 50 individual states, and there are times when we exist as a single nation with national needs. One state did not defend the nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. One state, on its own, did not end segregation and establish civil rights. Every so often, there comes an issue so vital we must unite beyond our districts, and beyond our states, and act as a nation, and protecting the quality of our air is one of those times. I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to uphold the EPA's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. By ensuring the cement industry must comply with finalized EPA regulations, we are protecting the quality of the air that all of our constituents breathe. Surely preventing illness and premature death by ensuring every American has access to clean air is not controversial. Again, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of visiting small businesses that created jobs, anyone from doctors who worked 7 days in their office to companies who could sell anything to anybody to a beauty school that had people who were trying to be independent contractors; they created jobs. And I'm going to talk about them in the weeks to come. So I'm begging, I'm begging this bipartisan House to put the American Jobs Act on the floor. That's because the GOP, of course, for 39 weeks has put one bill after another. One put off or destroyed 700,000 jobs. That was the spending bill. Another, about the Patient Bill of Rights, destroyed 300,000 jobs. But 65 percent of Americans say we want jobs. They're at First and Independence right now. They're down at Wall Street. They're on Main Street. They're telling us, we want jobs. We want our teachers back, our firefighters back, we want our police back. We want to rebuild our schools. We need payroll tax relief so our small businesses can hire someone else. We want J-O-B-S. it's a simple point. Put the American Jobs Act on the floor. Listen to the American people, the people in Wall Street that are arrested, 700 of them are crying out in pain. Let's respond to the American people. That is our job.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. We were in a Judiciary Committee hearing on the importance of protecting this Nation from weapons of mass destruction and then in a hearing on the Homeland Security Committee, on which I serve, in trying to ensure that we secure this homeland and also respect the privacy of our citizens. I believe that is a very important challenge. I wanted to come to this floor to call for civility and understanding. Those are two conflicting terms. But as a member of the Judiciary Committee, having the privilege to oversee the Constitution of the United States, I hold very dear the idea of the Bill of Rights, which allows our citizens the right to the First Amendment, the right to association, and the right to freedom of religion. But sometimes you have to call upon your right to explain or to express your abhorrence with ugly speech. So I want to say that over the past couple of days, we have had Herman Cain shouting out about brainwashing of a certain population of people, African Americans, who I guess he suggests that we are not educated persons and as different as any other population of Americans. The greatness of Americans is that we are mosaic, we are diverse. Though I may challenge the philosophy of the Tea Party and have great abhorrence of their views, I would never suggest that those individuals didn't thoughtfully think about who they wanted to associate with. So again to Mr. Cain, get your vocabulary straight and understand that we have a brain as well and make choices on our interests. Then my good friend Hank Williams, who I guess professes to be one of America's great philosophers, when he was posed a question about the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House attempting civility through what a lot of Americans do, playing golf, he chose to use a, what I think was both an unhelpful and disgraceful comparison. Now, I don't know who he was calling what, but he used the phrase that it would be like the Prime Minister of Israel meeting with Hitler. And one would have to argue, am I defending the Speaker of the House or the President of the United States? I'm defending the idea that ugly speech should be called out any time it is utilized. Mr. Williams, you might stick to the penning of a new hit that you haven't had for a long period of time, although I'm sure you have many fans, for you to characterize any leader as the dastardly and heinous person that Hitler was, the dastardly and heinous and horrific acts that he perpetrated on people who were innocent. From those who happened to be of the Jewish faith to Polish people to people of many different backgrounds that lost their lives in this disgraceful era that was led by Hitler during the time that Germany was led by the Nazis. What a disgraceful statement. So I would ask that we understand that America is a great country because people view us as being tolerant of so many different things. And I conclude by suggesting that those who are watching those on Wall Street who have gathered now, 700 of them were arrested, college students may be out of their classes at 12 noon, and I say hurray for people who are standing up and asking the question, where is my country going? I want to take it back. I do believe in saving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, Pell Grants that are on the cutting board. I want a job, and I want banks to be able to give access to credit to small businesses. Of the five that I visited over my time in my district, and more that are coming as I go to many others, I hear over and over again, are we going to respond to the needs of small businesses or are banks going to continue to crush the backs of small businesses by not lending them credit? People have a reason to be upset. But we don't have to use ugly talk. But don't judge people because they're out in the streets. I disagree with the Tea Party because of the stranglehold that they have on this Congress that doesn't allow us to come together in a civil manner and come together on behalf of the American people. But at the same time I recognize their constitutional rights, recognize the constitutional rights of those that Wall Street and other places have chosen to be arrested because they don't like what is going on in this Nation. They don't like the fact we are in an obstruction form of government, that we would take from those who need us most and we would use them to balance the budget. I'm going to stand with the people who are out in the streets and say, you are right--and tell Hank Williams to try and write another song that might get him a hit so he doesn't have to talk so much.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. This amendment has rectified a job killing flaw that was present in the previous version of this bill. Finally, we have a relatively clean continuing resolution that does not contain any of the job killing riders that I alongside my Democratic colleagues fought so hard against. Mr. Speaker the bill before us today is an attempt to reach a much needed compromise in the nick of time. By passing this bill today we will enable the government to remain open and continuing to serve the needs of the American people. At a time when the central issue before our country should be jobs and the creation of jobs to advance our economy. We keep retuning to measures that result in inaction and today we have done what the American people expect, found common ground. However, we lost a lot of precious time that should have been focused on jobs. Instead, we spent weeks on portions of this measure that were not going to garner support. The current Continuing Resolution would extend the FY 2011 discretionary funding level at approximately 98.5 percent for agencies and programs through November 18 of this year. This approximate 1.5 percent cut seeks to bring the level of funding in line with the Budget Control Act, which capped FY 2012 discretionary spending at $1.043 trillion. It also contains various anomalies, including: keeping the postal service solvent through Nov. 18; extending flood insurance through Nov. 18; cutting funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (Pakistan, Afghanistan); giving DC access to its local funds; authorizing DHS to work on national special security events; and renewing import restrictions against Burma. I have consistently implored my colleagues to come to the aid of Americans as they have always done during times of natural disaster. This measure now provides $2.65 billion, a number which OMB Director Jack Lew has said should be sufficient through Nov. 18. Additionally, it requires the Homeland Security Department to provide a full accounting of disaster relief funding requirements for FY 2012 no later than 15 days after the date of enactment, and to provide an account of their requirements to meet the department's needs in FY 2013 in the President's budget request next year. It also extends, through Nov. 18, parts of the flood insurance program, including the extension of potential new contracts for flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program. Finally we as a body are reflecting the level of compassion that the American people have come to expect. We have stopped using Disaster Relief funding as a political football; and instead addressing the needs of Americans who find themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters. I hope that this is a reflection that now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is the perfect time to come together for a partisan position that would only have caused more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason. Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses. Small businesses need access to loans and other lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. They are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are no longer being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs. At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is finally a measure that would allow small businesses to get the support they need. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of clean up and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA, addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak. We must continue to fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The devastating hurricanes we have had in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. Our federal response to those events in the past only demonstrates a need for significant and consistent improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators, forcing hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility. We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of Small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been emergency funding. Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions. On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi river region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than l00 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan. We should not be focused on any measure that would be a job killer, or any measures that would be an affront to growing small businesses or will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small business loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses. The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time. A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's. We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development. American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration, SBA, a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America. I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses. There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output. Women owned businesses have increased 20 percent since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance. My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses. According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration, SBA, set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23 percent of contracts to small business, 5 percent to women-owned small businesses, and 3 percent to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.'' Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them. Facts: Small businesses are important because they: (1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, (2) employ just over half of all private sector employees, (3) pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll, (4) generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, (5) create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product, GDP, (6) hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers), (7) are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises, (8) made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007, and (9) produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Republicans appear to be on a mission to cut programs that help families and that will buttress small businesses. At a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach is important to ensuring that small businesses receive the support they need. We have temporarily achieved that balance in this measure. I stand here once again calling for measures that will advance job growth, create new jobs, and help small business. American families need measures that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, all of us value constructive conversation and dialogue. In fact, I believe the Republican debates that have been occurring are valuable and insightful for the American people. I have no quarrel with the First Amendment and one's right to speak as one desires. But I take issue with Mr. Herman Cain's very insulting and demeaning comment on a whole body politic of people, African Americans, when asked the questions why they have made choices, political choices as they have made, and he chose to suggest that African Americans are brainwashed. I take issue, Mr. Cain, with your very unfortunate choice of words, because if you look chronologically and historically at African Americans, they voted Republican; they voted Democrat. They were in love with the idea of President Lincoln, who, of course, is known to have freed the slaves, and voted for Republicans for a number of years. Democrats and African Americans both vote their interests, their interest in saving Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, their interest and investment in this Nation and relief from the burdensome taxes by the Bush administration. So, Mr. Cain, get your facts right. We're not brainwashed, and I am absolutely insulted by your ludicrous insinuation of African American intellect in choosing their political party. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the past 40 years the Congressional Black Caucus, has earned the reputation as the conscience of the Congress by providing a voice for the voiceless and fighting for the forgotten. This summer, we worked diligently to live up to and maintain our reputation. To address unemployment and the need for job creation solutions in underserved communities, the Congressional Black Caucus called upon private and public sector partners to immediately remedy the crisis by going into communities with legitimate, immediate employment opportunities for the underserved with the ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative--which included nationwide town halls and job fairs. During the month of August, nearly half of the Congressional Black Caucus traveled the country and saw firsthand how unemployment continues to devastate our communities during the ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative. Nearly 30,000 people from all walks of life attended CBC Jobs Initiative events in Cleveland, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, and Los Angeles. Given the substantial coverage of the events, our nation's citizens will have great difficulty saying they were unaware of the suffering of millions of unemployed Americans. Like us, they too saw the lines wrapped around city blocks with hopeful citizens searching for a job opportunity to provide economic security for themselves and their families. We all know that job fairs and town halls are not sufficient to address the jobs crisis; however, it is a small step in the right direction. The unemployment numbers released in August demonstrate that there is a significant hemorrhage in the African American community that is not being addressed, which has resulted in extremely high job loss. Overall unemployment remains stagnant at 9.1 percent while unemployment in the African American community has risen dramatically from 15.9 percent to 16.7 percent. Well into the 112th Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus continues to urge the Republican Leadership to address unemployment in any meaningful way. We cannot afford to watch a segment of our community suffer from depression level unemployment, hoping that overall solutions will trickle down and fix the problem. It is clear that method will not work. Therefore, the Members of the CBC unanimously co-sponsored and introduced the Congressional Black Caucus ``For the People'' Jobs Initiative Resolution (H. Res. 348) to urge the House of Representatives to immediately consider and pass critical jobs legislation. Additionally, CBC members have introduced over fifty job creation bills since the beginning of the 112th Congress, launched a national jobs initiative, and provided nine job creation proposals targeting our nation's most vulnerable communities in this document. We believe that through Creating, Protecting, and Rebuilding those who have suffered relentlessly from our country's great recession would be granted another chance at perusing the American dream. We stand at a critical point in our nation's history. The time for bold action on jobs is now. Every American has the right to be gainfully employed and CBC Members will not rest until there is equality in access to jobs and economic opportunity.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 686, ``Utah National Guard Readiness Act.'' The bill requires the conveyance of certain public land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, Utah, to support the training and readiness of the Utah National Guard. Our National Guard and in some instances combat soldiers of tomorrow must have access to training. Our troops must receive the training they need prior to being deployed in combat zones. By allocating parcels of land for that purpose helps to ensure our nation's security. Camp Williams, located 26 miles south of Salt Lake City, is a professional training environment operated by the Utah Army National Guard. The Utah Training Center consists of 24,000 acres of combat areas resembling the same types of environments encountered by those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those facilities include small arms weapons firing ranges, artillery firing points, demolition, grenade and crew served weapon ranges. This parcel of land will allow for specialized winter, desert, mountain, and amphibious training. Urban environments include the Mac MOUT Shoot-house, dismounted/mounted maneuver areas and the recently opened FOB. Leadership and individual training is enhanced by utilizing the rappel tower, leadership reaction course and Afghan Village. This facility seems to be well equipped for training the Utah National Guard. The Utah National Guard has possessed facilities and trained at Camp Williams since 1912. H.R. 686 would convey 420 acres of land within the boundaries of Camp Williams, without consideration. The acreage proposed for conveyance is already withdrawn for military use by the Guard. This land transfer will open access to property along a major transportation corridor with all the utilities and services necessary to support expanded military use. The Utah National Guard already owns and operates several buildings, an air traffic control tower and a tactical airfield on portions of this property. Placing the land in the State's name for use by the National Guard consolidates ownership patterns in the headquarters area and allows the State of Utah to bond for future Guard facilities. Transfer of title to these lands expedites the building and expansion of Camp Williams training facilities and would improve the readiness of the Utah National Guard. Additionally, the bill includes a provision directing that the land revert to federal ownership if it stops being used for National Guard or national defense purposes.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society. Their hard work and perseverance exemplify the work ethic we stand for as a nation, and I can think of no place better than the rotunda to honor their leadership and sacrifice in service to this country. The rotunda of the United States Capitol offers the perfect venue to show the necessary respect to three men who risked their lives to change the course of history in the name of the United States of America. In the tension of the Cold War, when it seemed the existence of the free world had been brought into question, these three men stepped directly into harm's way in service to their country. A ceremony in the rotunda will evoke the honor and respect that we owe to these three brave men, and I offer my full support for the use of this space. The Congressional Gold Medal is an award bestowed by Congress for outstanding deeds or acts of service to the security, prosperity, and national interest of the United States. The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian award, and these men are deserving recipients. The importance of this event is particularly relevant to the 18th district of Texas given the city of Houston's role in the Apollo legacy. Not long after President Kennedy set our nation on the course of putting a man on the moon, Houston became a key player in the realization of that goal. Before uttering his famous phrase, Neil Armstrong, communicated with Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center from the surface of the moon, stating ``Houston, the Eagle has landed.'' The historic lunar landing remains a cornerstone of the American legacy, and at a time when the very existence of NASA sits in question, it is especially important that we deliver a ceremony that will propel the memory of NASA pioneers into future generations. Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr. were called to service by their country, in a time when two great nations challenged each other and boldly raced into space. In the bleak years of the Cold War, we conquered a new frontier, and in turn understood things about the universe we never thought possible. These men played an important role in American history that will benefit generations to come, and are well deserving of this honor. It is in a spirit of deep appreciation that I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting S. Con. Res 29, authorizing the use of the rotunda of the United States Capitol for an event to present the Congressional Gold Medal, collectively, to Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., Michael Collins, and John Herschel Glenn, Jr., in recognition of their significant contributions to society.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 670, ``To convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands'' conveys to the government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands submerged lands surrounding such Islands and extending three geographical miles outward from their coastlines. The Act provides the American public, more specifically the occupants of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, with added ways to use and enjoy land surrounding their coastlines. It is in a spirit of encouraging the most beneficial use of natural resources that I support the idea of providing an expanded use of otherwise unused land to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. It is the responsibility of all Members of Congress to fulfill our moral obligation to promote harmony between Americans and their natural resources. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 670, to convey certain submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in order to give that territory the same benefits in its submerged lands as Guam, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa have in their submerged lands.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 470 ``Hoover Power Allocation Act of 2011,'' which Amends the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 to modify, commencing October 1, 2017, certain statutory schedules governing contracts for delivery to specified localities in Arizona, California, and Nevada of hydroelectric power generated at Hoover Dam. The Hoover dam represents hope and prosperity that is possible if we, as legislators, do our job well. To many the Hoover Dam represents hope, and with this bill we can ensure good management of this facility into the future and hopefully create more jobs! In the depths of the Great Depression, when like today a slow economy and high rate of unemployment caused great strife in the lives of American citizens, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed enormous leadership in launching the Hoover Dam project. Instead of abiding by the general wisdom of the era, that isolationism and fiscal austerity would insure the quickest economic recovery, FDR chose to use government resources to help those who were suffering the most. Through public works programs like this one, the President was able to put a massive amount of Americans back to work and construct some of this country's most impressive and meaningful structures. After construction began in 1931, it took only five years to complete, finishing two years ahead of schedule. The initiative and perseverance shown by the American workers, many of whom gave their lives to the dam, exemplifies the American spirit at its best. When people have a reason to believe in their government, they will respond accordingly in their own lives. Now it is our turn: we must ensure effective management of the dam's power production into the future.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 473, ``Help to Access Land for the Education of Scouts Act,'' which requires the conveyance of specified National Forest System land in the Ouachita National Forest in Oklahoma to the Indian Nations Council, Inc., of the Boy Scouts of America. This legislation is appropriate and necessary for the continuation of the very principles that Boy Scouts of America stands for. Currently, the Indian Nations Council serves more than 28,000 youth and 5,500 adult volunteers throughout 18 counties in eastern Oklahoma. Over the past century, the Council has positively impacted hundreds of thousands of Scouts and their families. However, due to the increased growth of the scouting program in Eastern Oklahoma, attendance at Camp Tom Hale has surpassed the maximum number of available campsites and program capacity. In turn, the organization has been forced to turn away many scouts and their families. There is a critical need to serve more scouts. However, more land is needed to ensure the quality of camping and experience for the scouts. Boundaries need to be extended to help accommodate more scouts, and to maximize their camp experience. Boy Scouts of America is a prominent values-based organization that has helped to mold young boys into model citizens, while simultaneously building character and promoting physical fitness. I do not feel that anyone, or the lack of sufficient land should deprive more of our youth from taking full advantage of all of the possibilities that Boy Scouts of America, specifically, the Indian Nations Council provides. I believe it is the responsibility of myself, as well as my colleagues, to ensure that we do everything in our ability to ensure that we pass H.R. 473 so that we can aid our young men in their development. If passed, H.R. 473 will allow the Indian Nations Council to purchase an additional 140 acres of U.S. Forest Service land immediately adjacent to the existing Camp Tom Hale facility. To add to this, the Indian Nations Council can expect to have more scouts participate in their summer camps, without the burden of having to turn eager scouts away. H.R. 473 can benefit the overall well being of the public by providing the Indian Nations Council of Boy Scouts of America with the adequate and necessary space needed to accommodate the growing number of scouts. It is essential that we pass H.R. 473 because organizations such as Boy Scouts of America are the driving force behind the leaders of tomorrow. By providing these young men, as well as their adult leaders with the proper space they need, we will simultaneously provide our youth with a place where they can live up to the morals and standards of the organization's mission.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 765, ``The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011,'' which amends the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 to require the term and acreage of permits for the operation of ski areas and associated facilities on National Forest System lands to be governed by provisions under the Act relating to such permits and other applicable law. Furthermore, this legislation provides for the issuance of permits for the use and occupancy of suitable lands within the National Forest System for skiing and other snow sports and recreational uses authorized pursuant to this Act. The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act provides the American public with added ways to use and enjoy federally governed land. It is in a spirit of encouraging increased camaraderie, outdoor recreation and enjoyment of nature that I support providing an expanded opportunity for Americans to benefit from the natural resources in their own back yard. It is the responsibility of all Members of Congress to fulfill our moral obligation to promote harmony between Americans and the vast opportunities for outdoor recreation throughout the country. Additionally, this legislation serves to create revenue by allowing for additional permits, bolstering ski and winter recreation industries. In the State of Texas, we have nearly 675,000 acres of public land that the U.S. Forest Service manages. This land is divided into four National Forests in east Texas and the National Grasslands in northeast Texas. Of the four National Forests, the 18th district is home to the Sam Houston National Forest. The Sam Houston National Forest consists of 161,508 acres with 47,609 acres in Montgomery County, 59,746 acres in San Jacinto County, and 54,153 acres in Walker County. The national forests in Texas were established by an act of the Texas legislature in 1933 that authorized the purchase of lands for the national forest system. These lands are operated under a Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. Fishing, trapping, and public hunting of white-tailed deer, feral hog, waterfowl, dove, other migratory game birds, squirrel, quail, rabbits, hares, predators, furbearers, and frogs is permitted. Other outdoor recreation opportunities include camping, hiking, bicycling, and wildlife viewing. In 1960, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act codified into law the practices that had governed the management of national forests in Texas for 30 years. This act emphasized that resources on public lands would be managed so that they are used in the combination that will best meet the needs of the people, that the benefits obtained will exist indefinitely and that each each natural resource would be managed in balance with other resources to meet present and future public needs. Management plans outline direction for a forest under the multiple- use concept. However, even the most carefully planned system of management cannot foresee environmental or natural factors which can cause drastic changes in a forest. Fire, storms, insects and disease, for example, can alter the way a forest is managed. H.R. 765, ``The Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act of 2011,'' provides for the issuance of permits for the use and occupancy of suitable lands within the National Forest System for skiing and other snow sports and recreational uses, highlighting the climate and recreational opportunities unique to specific regions of the nation. Since our nation's founding, we have marveled with immense pride at our vast natural resources, and this legislation serves to celebrate them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me indicate to the gentleman first of all that I thank him for accepting the amendment, and I conclude my remarks by saying that my asking for a roll call vote is not in any way a reflection of my lack of acceptance, but I am just so gratified for this timeframe that I hope that the gentleman will encourage those to support the amendment. Therefore, let me say to the gentleman--I finish on this note--there is some thought that we are putting in another regulatory scheme, but I think the important point from my perspective is that there was value when Richard Nixon signed the bill on how do we find a way to make this work so that we save lives and we create jobs. I think my amendment provides the opportunity for that kind of input, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #4 to H.R. 2401, ``The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act,'' which extends the public comment period from 90 days to 120 days. The Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation (TRAIN) Act establishes a committee to conduct studies and review the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations based upon the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule (MATS) and the Cross State Air Pollution (CSAP) Rule promulgated. This committee is composed of Administration officials from different federal agencies and under H.R. 2401 will analyze the effect of the regulations on the economy, U.S. competitiveness in the global market, employment, and energy production and cost. In effect this is creating more regulations and more bureaucracy at time when Republicans are calling for all of us to tighten our belts. So now before us is a Super Committee for the Budget and again we are going to have a Super Committee for Clean Air. We already have an agency charged with protecting our air. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been up to the task for 40 years. According to the EPA, the pollution reductions required by the rule they have proposed will yield health benefits of $120 to $280 billion per year, which is 150 to 350 times the cost. I have always been a stalwart for a firm balance between the needs of the energy industry and our environment. But then there is just plain common sense. The TRAIN Act goes overboard. It is a extreme response that does not add value to ensuring Clean Air. The argument proposed by some of my colleagues has been that this will cost jobs. Implementing regulations will create jobs. Old power plants and other utilities will have to hire workers in order to fulfill the requirements of the regulation. The EPA has determined that this will not be overly burdensome to the industry. We as a body must ensure that the regulations issued by the EPA will not destroy any industry but at the same token TRAIN is too extreme. It creates the very bureaucracy that we neither need nor want. At a time when these regulations will both decrease health costs and can create thousands of jobs, why would my colleagues propose a bill that will only slow job growth. It has been 260 days and the Republicans, who have been in the majority, have not presented a clear and consistent job growth package. Instead time and time again they have put forth measures to cut Medicare and social security at a time when so many of our constituents are dependent upon those resources to cover health costs and living expenses. The TRAIN Act, which I could easily consider a bill like a steam train and it steams right through the power of the EPA to regulate clean air, requires that the committee publicly publish its initial findings and then provide the public with 90 days to comment. If this flawed bill is going to pass at least my amendment is an attempt to take into account the number of interested parties who may wish to give their input and extends the public comment period from 90 days to 120 days. I have offered this amendment to ensure that everyone who wishes to comment will have ample opportunity to do so. My home state of Texas was not initially included in the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. When my state was added, there was no time provided for public input, a courtesy that was extended to the other 6 states included in the Cross State Air Pollution Rule. Stakeholders throughout Texas were afforded no opportunity to discuss the impact of including Texas at the last minute. Had there been opportunity for public comment, the EPA and stakeholders would have been able to work together towards a consensus. The proposed regulations have different impacts on different stakeholders, and it is extremely important that everyone's point of view is considered. An open dialogue that encourages frank and productive communication can foster compromise. As the Representative for Houston, the country's energy capital, I am committed to creating an environment in which the energy industry and regulating agencies can work together. For more than 40 years the EPA has been charged with protecting our environment. There has been a consistent theme of chipping away at the ability of the EPA to protect our air. We have to consider the long term costs to public health if we fail to establish reasonable measures for clean air. Outdoor air pollution is caused by small particles and ground level ozone that comes from car exhaust, smoke, road dust and factory emissions. Outdoor air quality is also affected by pollen from plants, crops and weeds. Particle pollution can be high any time of year and are higher near busy roads and where people burn wood. When we inhale outdoor pollutants and pollen this can aggravate our lungs, and can lead us to developing the following conditions; chest pain, coughing, digestive problems, dizziness, fever, lethargy, sneezing, shortness of breath, throat irritation and watery eyes. Outdoor air pollution and pollen may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma. There are serious costs to our long term health. The EPA has promulgated rules and the public should be allowed to weigh in to determine if these rules are effective. The purpose of having so many checks and balances within the EPA is to ensure that the needs of industries and the needs of our communities are addressed. Providing a time for individuals to support or oppose any regulations is a meaningful first step. This bill is a step in the wrong direction. The EPA has spent years reviewing these standards before attempting to issue regulations. In terms of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Rule the new standard will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The EPA estimates that for every year this rule is not implemented, mercury and toxic air pollution will have a serious impact on public health. Think for a moment about the lives that can be saved. We are talking about thousands of health complications and deaths. What more do we need to know. According to the EPA this rule would prevent the following: 17,000 premature deaths; 11,000 heart attacks; 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma; 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits; 11,000 cases of bronchitis; and 850,000 missed work days. The second rule that is targeted by this bill is the Cross State Air Pollution (CSAP) Rule. As a Representative from the State of Texas, I have a few reservations about the rules implementation in my home state; however, the rule can be more fairly implemented. This rule will significantly cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions released into the atmosphere. The regulation impacts 27 states where power plant emissions cause poor air quality that affects neighboring states. It is important to know that the EPA designed this rule again by keeping the lives of our families, our children, our communities and the environment in mind. According to the EPA this rule when implemented will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 cases of aggravated asthmas. Sometimes we can get caught up in the numbers and forget the people behind each. If these rules are allowed to be implemented there are 51,000 more people who will be able to spend another day, week, month or year with their families. These are our friends and family members who with the implantation of these rules can enjoy another cup of coffee. The prolonged or indefinite delay of these life saving regulations threaten the very air that Americans, our constituents, breathe. I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I certainly do not want to repeal regulations that protect the 18th Congressional District's access to clean air. The analysis required by this legislation is focused solely on the impact of EPA regulations on economic competitiveness, fuel prices, and employment without taking into consideration the public health benefits of the regulations. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard Rule will significantly reduce mercury and toxic air pollution from power plants and electric utilities. The Cross State Air Pollution Rule will significantly cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions released into the atmosphere. The regulation impacts 27 states where power plant emissions cause poor air quality that affects neighboring states. My amendment will not affect the intent of the bill; it merely ensures that should this ill conceived measure pass that there is plenty of time given for our constituents who live in states affected by mercury and toxic pollution and cross state air pollution to weigh in on the public health aspects of these regulations. I have offered this amendment not only to benefit those who live in states that would be affected by these regulations, but also to ensure that the industry being regulated has ample time to provide their input. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have worked tirelessly to foster better relationship between the energy industry and regulating agencies. With an open dialogue and productive communication, we can forge compromise that will protect the environment without harming economic growth, and the intent behind this amendment is to do just that. As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, I can attest to the importance of a healthy energy industry. My district is the energy hub of Texas and is recognized worldwide for its energy industry, particularly for oil and natural gas, as well as biomedical research and aeronautics. Renewable energy sources--wind and solar--are also growing economic bases in Houston. I understand the economic impacts of regulation, but we must also act responsibly. We cannot ignore the public health risks associated with breathing polluted air, nor can we pretend that these emissions do not exacerbate global warming. Alternatively, we certainly do not want to hinder job creation and economic growth. Lest we forget that since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. This bill may very well jeopardize the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, our public lands, and our public health by deep funding cuts in priority initiatives. The least that can be done is to extend the opportunity for the committee formed by this bill to hear the concerns of the public. I am sure this will certainly go a long way to encourage robust discussion on health, job creation and economic improvements without putting the environment or the American people at risk. I encourage my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to strike a balance between the EPA and the energy industry, forge compromise that will protect the environment without harming economic growth by extending the public comment period from 90 to 120 days. My amendment does not change the intent of the bill, it creates the opportunity for communication and consensus. September 21, 2011. Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned public health and medical organizations, we write to state our strong opposition to any efforts under consideration by the U.S. House of Representatives that hinder the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ability to protect health through the implementation the Clean Air Act. Majority Leader Eric Cantor's August 29, 2011 memo to House Republicans specifically called for passage of bills including H.R. 2401, which would indefinitely delay the EPA's proposal to reduce mercury and other toxics from power plants and would block implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, a finalized rule that is expected to prevent the premature deaths of thousands of Americans each year and to make it easier for states downwind of pollution sources to achieve healthful air for their residents. The memo also signals plans with H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2861, which would delay EPA efforts to reduce mercury and other toxics from industrial facilities and cement plants. Further, it signals plans to thwart EPA's ability to propose a health standard for particulate matter, calling for passage of HR 1633, a bill that would block the completion of the review of the health effects associated with deadly soot or particulate matter and prevent EPA from even proposing a standard and receiving public comment on that standard. We urge you to oppose this plan and ask that you, instead, support protecting public health. This Rep. Cantor-led effort would impact EPA's ability to implement the Clean Air Act: a law that protects public health and reduces health care costs for all by preventing thousands of adverse health outcomes, including: cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, emergency department visits, hospitalizations and premature deaths. A rigorous, peer reviewed analysis, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, conducted by EPA, found that the air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act will save $2 trillion by 2020 and prevent at least 230,000 deaths annually. Additionally, the public supports EPA's efforts to implement and update the Clean Air Act. A recent bipartisan survey, which was conducted for the American Lung Association by the Republican firm Moore Information and Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research indicate that those pushing riders or otherwise interfering with EPA are out of touch with voters. The survey shows that over seventy percent of voters do not want Congress to stop the EPA from setting stricter pollution limits and sixty-six percent of voters would prefer that EPA set pollution standards, not Congress. We believe that in an ironic twist, the Majority Leader's memo lays out an agenda that will expose the public to levels of air pollution that can make them sick or kill them. This agenda will certainly drive up health costs for all as people continued to be exposed to life-threatening air pollution. We ask you to support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and oppose all efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward the continued implementation of this vital law. Sincerely, American Lung Association. American Thoracic Society. Physicians for Social Responsibility. American Public Health Association. Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise today to support my amendment. I call my amendment ``Can We All Get Along?'' It is an amendment simply to ask that all of those who are impacted by this proposed legislation have an expanded time to be able to present their views. It is a ``can we all get along?''-type amendment because it is important to note again that those of us who come from different States, whether it's Illinois or Texas, recognize that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Clean Air Act were formulated under a bipartisan Congress and were signed, as my colleague reminded us, by President Richard Nixon. Republicans and Democrats voted for the Clean Air Act and for the Environmental Protection Agency's jurisdiction. It's important to note that there is not only a value in what the EPA does but that there are organizations, such as the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, the American Public Health Association, and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, which need their input and are concerned about this legislation. So my concern as we move forward on the transparency and regulatory analysis of impact is how much time has been given for the public comment. My State, in fact, has been impacted for the lack thereof of public comment. I believe that there are civilians who are not businesses who should be protected and given the opportunity to have input. For example, it's important to note that the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule, which I don't think my colleagues can in any way dissuade me from believing, has been the basis of preventing 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 cases of aggravated asthma, 12,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 11,000 cases of bronchitis, and 850,000 missed days. The idea of putting a superlayer over the already existing regulatory scheme, to me, sounds like we are adhering to the supercommittee concept, which many of us, by way of absolute necessity, voted on during the debt ceiling debate; but we realize that the responsibility of the purse strings is in the United States House of Representatives. Well, the law has given authority to the EPA and to the Clean Air Act as its authorizing aspect to be able to control and balance. I believe we should create jobs; but the question becomes whether or not the TRAIN Act, in the format of adding another layer of review, actually does that--or does it create another level of bureaucracy that we neither want nor need? At a time when these regulations will both decrease health costs and can create thousands of jobs, why would my colleagues propose a bill that would only slow job growth? It has been 260 days. I think we should, as I started out, get along, try to create jobs, recognize the value of the EPA, find a way to be able to resolve the present conflict on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule but not eliminate the authority and the oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency. What I would say to my colleagues is that the EPA has protected all of our constituents. Therefore, I think it's important to pass this amendment because it's about constituents. It's about constituents no matter what side of the aisle they're on. This is an amendment that moves the public comment from 90 days to 120 days. There may have been some who wanted to comment who cannot comment because they did not have the amount of time. So I would ask my colleagues to support this ``can we all get along?'' amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, we love you, Carrie Meek. And I am delighted to rise today to admit that Carrie Meek, Congresswoman Meek, was a mentor to me and someone who drew the admiration of Republicans and Democrats and did some unique and remarkable activities here in this Congress. One, as a freshman, she pushed enough to become a member of the Appropriations Committee and led graciously during her tenure. And then she worked very closely with Republicans and Democrats to fight to ensure that cigarette packages had warnings about the impact--the negative impact--on groups like African Americans. Carrie, do you remember the picture that we took with Rosa Parks and some of our colleagues, and how gracious you were? And do you remember the 25,000 people in Florida when they were trying to overturn affirmative action? And yes, you walked as long and as hard as anybody else. So, Carrie, I think the jobs bill that the President has could be named after you, where it provides some 80 percent compensation to small businesses to hire people. That sounds like Carrie Meek. And I think we can resolve the CR and provide for those who have suffered disasters and do the right thing. That sounds like Carrie Meek. So I'm here to pay tribute to our friend, Carrie Meek, and to thank her for sending her son, Kendrick, who is a great friend, and to let you know that we need to follow in the pathway of Carrie Meek that brings us all together to pass the jobs bill, a bill that could really be named after you Carrie, and as well to ensure that we protect those who have been harmed by disasters. Thank you, Congresswoman Carrie Meek.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2608, ``The Small Business Program Extension and Reform Act of 2011,'' which provides for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 at the expense of job creating efforts. The bill before us today is almost identical to the bill that we voted against yesterday. Mr. Speaker the bill before us will hurt jobs. The central issue before our country is jobs and the creation of jobs to secure our economy. We need to focus on talking about jobs. Instead, we are now once again focused on a measure that was rejected yesterday. The amendment added to this bill is clearly a desperate attempt by my Republican colleagues to pass their own ideological Continuing Resolution. This amendment would keep the same offset for disaster relief which will result in a $1.5 billion cut to the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM), which has been a proven job creator, it created 35,000 jobs in the private sector. The purpose of the program is to enable American businesses to build the cars of the future that could be sold to China, rather than the reverse. It is intended to give us a technological boast in the auto industry. As if this was not enough, the amendment adds an additional cut--a rescission of $100 million from the Recovery Act Renewable Energy Loan guarantee program, which is another cut to a program that creates jobs. A move to secure the votes of members concerned about the few party interests not the interests of Americans. This legislation causes the loss of American jobs! The only broken record that I want to hear is the mantra of how to create jobs. Let us focus on putting the American people back to work, rather than bringing back measures that failed to garner support yesterday. I implore my colleagues to recall the reasons they rejected this measure in the first place and to do so again. Americans have always come to the aid of those in need, after a natural disaster. Americans demonstrate a level of compassion that should not be damped by measures like the one before us today. Disaster relief funding is not a political football; it addresses the needs of Americans who find themselves the victims of unforeseeable natural disasters. It is born out of our nation's desire to aid those who are in need. Now . . . now is not the time to trample on the needs of small business owners. Now is not the time to delay assistance to those who need support from FEMA. Now is not the time for a partisan position that will only cause more Americans to suffer while they have to wait on Congress to find balance. Now is the time for balance and reason. Small businesses have long been the bedrock of our nation's economy. Even with the advent of modern-day multi-national corporations most of our day-to-day purchases take place at ``mom and pop'' small businesses. This piece of legislation holds small businesses hostage in order to make a demand that has never been made by Republicans before. This demand changes their practice during previous administrations. In the past my colleagues declared disaster funding as emergency spending and did not require offsetting emergency spending. This bill would offset the $1 billion in FY11 disaster relief funding using a program that is a proven job-creator, a program for small businesses. The very small businesses that are currently in need of access to loans and other lines of credit in order to build their businesses and create jobs. The very small businesses that are the life blood of our economy. These businesses, the ``mom and pop'' shops across our nation are being held hostage by my colleagues across the aisle at the expense of jobs. The future successes of their businesses are being held hostage in order to demand offsets of funds that have not required such an offset in the past. These funds would aid victims of natural disasters. To propose such a measure at a time when our economy is so fragile and when so many are struggling to survive is unfathomable. At a time when our nation needs every single job we can create. Before us is a job killing measure. We need job creation to help families survive on smaller and smaller pay checks. Before us is legislation that places a halt on this growth. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the first time in our nation's history have added to this piece of legislation a requirement that disaster aid be offset. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) needs the $6.9 billion in funding which has been approved in the Senate last week without requiring offset. My colleagues have cut this funding in half. They have offset this funding by decreasing the funds allotted by ending the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing loan program. These cuts cost Americans tens of thousands of jobs. Under the previous administration Republicans supported disaster relief without requiring an offset, on eight separate occasions but today they want to require cuts that will result in job loss. As the Representative for Houston, which suffered severe damage in 2008 as a result of Hurricane Ike, I understand the importance of cleanup and rebuilding in the wake of natural disaster. Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) addresses the challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak. We must fund disaster relief. These are unforeseeable events. The devastating hurricanes in Texas in recent years is a perfect example. Our response to those events have demonstrated a need for significant improvement. During Hurricane Katrina, there were insufficient quantities of generators that forced hospitals to evacuate patients. Local governments waited days for commodities like ice, water, MREs, and blue tarps. Evacuees from Texas arrived in Shreveport and Bastrop shelters that were grossly unfit for occupancy, and 2,500 people were forced to use the same shower facility. We must prepare our first responders with the best information and training to quickly analyze and share information to understand alerts and warning systems, evacuation planning, mission assignments to other agencies, contingency contracting, pre-staged resources, Regional Hurricane Plans and exercises, communications support, citizen preparedness, disaster housing, and long-term recovery planning. In order to accomplish this we must fund FEMA, not at the expense of small business but because Americans come together at times of crisis. This should be what it has always been--emergency funding. Emergency preparedness is not the exclusive responsibility of the federal government or individual agencies within it. State and local officials, nonprofit organizations, private sector businesses, and individual citizens must all contribute to the mission in order for our Nation to succeed at protecting life and property from disasters. Recovery and mitigation are critical to protecting communities from future threats, and our ability to respond will suffer if we do not focus attention and resources on those missions. On any given day the City of Houston faces a widespread and ever- changing array of threats, such as terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the Nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. This collaboration and cooperation undergirds our security posture at our borders and ports, our preparedness in our communities, and our ability to effectively react to crises. Consider the devastation that was brought by the tornadoes in Alabama and the Southern United States, the flooding that has impacted the entire Mississippi River region, from Montana to Tennessee, and tornado that claimed more than 100 lives in Joplin, Missouri, have shown us that there are disasters we cannot predict, and forces of nature for which we cannot plan. This legislation is a job killer, it is an affront to growing small businesses and will destroy thousands of jobs. I have been firmly committed to supporting small businesses and this legislation as written will fail to help create the jobs we need at this time. We should not prevent the growth of small business in order to address the unrealistic demands related to disaster relief funding. Moreover, 99 percent of all independent companies and businesses in the United States are considered small businesses. They are the engine of our economy, creating two-thirds of the new jobs over the last 15 years. America's 27 million small businesses continue to face a lack of credit and tight lending standards, with the number of small businesses' loans down nearly 5 million since the financial crisis in 2008. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, these small businesses account for 52 percent of all U.S. workers. These small businesses also provide a continuing source of vitality for the American economy. Small businesses in the U.S. produced three-fourths of the economy's new jobs between 1990 and 1995, and represent an entry point into the economy for new groups. Women, for instance, participate heavily in small businesses. The number of female-owned businesses climbed by 89 percent, to an estimated 8.1 million, between 1987 and 1997, and women-owned sole proprietorships were expected to reach 35 percent of all such ventures by the year 2000. Small firms also tend to hire a greater number of older workers and people who prefer to work part-time. A major strength of small businesses is their ability to respond quickly to changing economic conditions. They often know their customers personally and are especially suited to meet local needs. There are tons of stories of start-up companies catching national attention and growing into large corporations. Just a few examples of these types of start-up businesses making big include the computer software company Microsoft; the package delivery service Federal Express; sports clothing manufacturer Nike; the computer networking firm America OnLine; and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry's. We must always ensure that we place a high level of priority on small businesses. It is also important that we work towards ensuring that small businesses receive all the tools and resources necessary for their continued growth and development. American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America. I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses. There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output. Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance. My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses. According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.'' Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them. Facts: Small businesses are important because they: (1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, (2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees, (3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll, (4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, (5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP), (6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers), (7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises, (8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007, (9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Republicans appear to be a mission to cut programs that help families and will buttress small businesses. At a time when there are Americans faced with the perils which arise during cleaning up after a natural disaster. Now is not the time to force those Americans to wait on a partisan battle, to pick a fight that has not been fought in eight previous authorizations of funds for disaster relief. There needs to be a balance when determining which programs to cut and when. A balance to finding the funds that will address national disasters. A balanced approach is important to ensuring that small business receive the support they need. I stand here once again asking my colleagues to remember that just yesterday we opposed this bill. I implore you to do this once more. I support small business and job creation. I will not support small business growth being held hostage to the unrealistic demands made by my Republican colleagues. American families need measures that are job growers rather than measures that are jobs killers.