Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I mentioned Congressman Doggett, but what I wanted to say on this point that I think is so important, and I will state, it is documented that our Governor has cut the volunteer firefighters. Those are great heroes. We even lost a firefighter just a few months ago when our wildfire started in the spring. Of course, it sort of--I won't even say the term died down--but it has now risen again and attacked a whole new area. We are going to have to ask for Federal aid and we have just, as I understand the facts, through Congressman Doggett, the Governor has just indicated, Governor Perry, that the Federal Government has a role. He has just asked that Texas be declared a national disaster. My question to my fellow colleagues is, then, what will be our response? Prattsville was washed away. There is nothing but ashes. They can't even find a picture book. So are we going to tell them it's off budget, that we're not able to fund it, that it's deficit spending? I think not. I thank you for reminding the American people that Texas is facing its own mount of decline, and those fires, by the way, have not yet been extinguished. They are visible to all of us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2480, ``The Administrative Conference of the United States Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' which authorizes $2.75 million in appropriations to the Administrative Conference of the United States for each of the fiscal years from 2012 through 2014. The Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) is considered both an independent agency and a federal advisory committee, and is charged with providing guidance to Congress on matters of administrative law. The recommendations put forth by the ACUS have resulted in significant savings and increases the efficiency of federal agencies. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have the privilege of having worked closely with the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) over the years and become familiarized with many of their initiatives. ACUS is a federal agency charged with making recommendations for the improvement of administrative agencies and their procedures, particularly with respect to efficiency and fairness. The ACUS was established 50 years ago by President John F. Kennedy and became a permanent independent agency in less than 4 years. The purpose of the ACUS is to develop recommendations for improving procedures by which federal agencies administer regulatory, benefit, and other government programs; the ACUS has served as a private-public think tank that conducts basic research on how to improve the regulatory and legal process. It has broad jurisdiction over administrative procedure to study the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedure used by administrative agencies in carrying out administrative programs, and make recommendations to administrative agencies, collectively or individually, and to the President, Congress, or the Judicial Conference of the United States. Further, the ACUS facilitates the interchange among administrative agencies of information potentially useful in improving administrative procedure, collects information and statistics from administrative agencies and has published extensive reports evaluating and improving administrative procedure. The members of the ACUS represent both the public and private sectors. Individuals from private sector members are generally attorneys and scholars selected to ensure broad representation of the views of private citizens and utilize diverse experience. Over the years its membership spans the ideological spectrum. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia, before his appointment to the bench, served as the chair of ACUS from 1972 to 1974. Justice Breyer was a member of ACUS and actively participated in its activities from 1981 to 1994. In the past, both Justices Breyer and Scalia testified in strong support of ACUS. According to Justice Breyer, ``The Administrative Conference is unique in that it develops its recommendations by bringing together at least four important groups of people: top-level agency administrators; professional agency staff; private (including ``public interest'') practitioners; and academicians. ACUS will typically commission a study by an academician . . . who often has the time to conduct the study. . . . The professor will spend time with agency staff. . . . The professor's draft will be reviewed . . . by private practitioners, who bring to it a critically important practical perspective. The upshot is likely to be a work-product that draws upon many different points of view, that is practically helpful and that commends general acceptance.'' (Letter from Justice Stephen Breyer to Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Chair, Subcomm. on Administrative Oversight and the Courts of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Aug. 21, 1995). The ACUS has made many government wide recommendations; among its most influential recommendations have been ACUS's proposals facilitating judicial review of agency decisions and eliminating various technical impediments to such review. They recommended a model administrative civil penalty statute that has served as the basis for dozens of pieces of legislation. The ACUS has developed and promoted procedures implementing the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, which encourages consensual resolution in a process that takes into account the needs of various affected interests. In addition, ACUS is credited with playing a prominent role in improving the nation's legal system by issuing recommendations designed ``to eliminate excessive litigation costs and long delays.'' For example, Congress, in response to an ACUS recommendation, passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in 1990, which established a framework for agencies to resolve administrative litigation through alternative dispute resolution. It has been noted that half of the budget of ACUS is devoted to trying to find ways to reduce, or eliminate government litigation within and by the Government. The ACUS saves tax payers dollars and in a time of economic crisis every penny counts. The ACUS serves to focus attention on the need for the federal government to be made more efficient, less big, and more accountable. It was viewed as one of the leading federal proponents of practical ways to reduce administrative litigation. In this regard, ACUS actively promoted information-technology initiatives, such as developing methods by which the public could participate electronically in agency rulemaking proceedings to increase public access to government information and foster greater openness in government operations. We have witnessed a number of successes under the ACUS. The ACUS is a vital tool in improving upon a process. There has been a lot of talk on the Hill of late about efficiency, streamlining process, and reducing costs. The fundamental purpose of the ACUS is to find out how to ensure that our government is operating in the most effective manner possible. The more efficiently we are able to operate the lower our cost. It has been estimated that ACUS saved the federal government and the private sector many multiples of its expenditure over the years it was in operation. Just one agency alone--the Social Security Administration-- estimated that ACUS's recommendation to change that agency's appeals process would result in approximately $85 million in savings. ACUS helped federal agencies to implement the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990, which resulted in savings estimated to be many millions of dollars. The President of the American Arbitration Association asserted that ACUS's encouragement of ADR saved ``millions of dollars that would otherwise be frittered away in litigation costs.'' Accordingly, the elimination of ACUS in 1995 was described by several observers as being ``penny-wise, pound foolish.'' Even after its demise in 1995, Congress continued to assign ACUS various responsibilities apparently unaware of the Conference's termination. Finally, after a 15-year hiatus, ACUS was reauthorized and appropriated funding. Currently, President Obama nominated Paul R. Verkuil to serve as chair of ACUS in November 2009 and he was confirmed by the Senate in March 2010. The ACUS formally resumed operations in April 2010. Then since its recent Reauthorization the ACUS has started to do what it does best figuring out ways to decrease expenses and increase efficiency. Current cost-saving projects underway at ACUS include the following: A study on the use of video hearings in administrative agencies and how they can generate ``significant savings;'' a study on rulemaking that focuses on the legal and logistical issues presented by transitioning from a paper-based system to an electronic system for handling rulemaking comments, an examination into how international regulatory cooperation could be improved and lead to trade harmonization. Over the course of its existence, ACUS has promulgated approximately 200 recommendations to improve the administrative process, many of which were implemented, which, in turn, helped save taxpayers many millions of dollars. ACUS is an invaluable instrument established by us that has resulted in significant improvements to federal administrative law.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1933--To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the requirements for admission of nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas. A number of hospitals with unique circumstances experience a great difficulty in attracting American nurses. Hospitals serving mostly poor patients have special difficulties. Some hospitals in rural areas do also. For example: St. Bernard Hospital and Health Care Center is located on the South side of Chicago in the Englewood Community. It is the only remaining hospital in an area with a census in excess of 100,000 and the patient base is almost entirely poverty care or charity care. St. Bernard almost closed its doors in 1992, primarily because of its inability to attract health care professionals, most importantly registered nurses. H.R. 1933 reauthorizes the program for an additional three years. The number of visas that may be issued in each fiscal year cannot exceed 300. An alien may be admitted for three years and this stay may be extended once for an additional three years (the possibility of an extension is new with H.R. 1933). Furthermore, H.R. 1933 allows an H-1C nurse to be able to switch employment between any of the 14 H-1C- eligible hospitals. This prevents those nurses here through this program to have some flexibility in their employment options in the event they run into any hardship at the hospital where they are employed. The Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act, signed into law in 1999 created a new H-1C temporary visa program for registered nurses. The program was modeled after the expired H-1A temporary nursing visa program but limited the number of visas that could be issued to 500 a year and only allowed in-need hospitals who met certain criteria to petition for alien nurses. To be able to petition for an alien, an employer had to meet four basic conditions. First, the employer must have been located in a health professional shortage area as designated by the Department of Health and Human Services. Second, the employer must have had at least 190 acute care beds. Third, a certain percentage (35 percent) of the employer's patients must have been Medicare patients. Fourth, a certain percentage (28 percent) of patients must have been Medicaid patients. Employers had to make certain attestations pertaining to payment of a wage which will not adversely affect wages and working conditions of similarly employed registered nurses; payment of wages to aliens at rates paid to other registered nurses similarly employed by the facility; taking timely and significant steps designed to recruit and retain U.S. nurses in order to reduce dependence on nonimmigrant nurses; absence of a strike/lockout or lay off of nurses; notice to workers of its intent to petition for H-1C nurses; percentages of H-1C nurses to be employed at the facility; and placement of H-1C nurses within the facility. This is a common sense employment-based immigration program that fills a desperate need in some of our nation's neediest hospitals. This program if very limited in who is admitted to work in this country, but fulfills a gap in our healthcare system. The Department of Labor has determined that the following hospitals are eligible for the program, some of which are located in Texas: Beaumont Regional Medical Center, Beaumont, TX; Beverly Hospital, Montebello, CA; Doctors Medical Center, Modesto, CA; Elizabeth General Medical Center, Elizabeth, NJ; Fairview Park Hospital, Dublin, GA; Lutheran Medical Center, St. Louis, MO; McAllen Medical Center, McAllen, TX; Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD; Mercy Regional Medical Center, Laredo, TX; Peninsula Hospital Center, Far Rockaway, NY; Southeastern Regional Medical Center, Lumberton, NC; Southwest General Hospital, San Antonio, TX; St. Bernard Hospital, Chicago, IL; and Valley Baptist Medical Center, Harlingen, TX. The Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 was enacted as a four-year program (beginning on the effective date of implementing regulations) on November 12, 1999. The program expired in 2005 and was reauthorized in 2006 for an additional three years. The program expired in December of 2009 (but some H-1C nurses remain who received approval for three-year stays before this date). The Department of Labor reports that 499 nurses received visas under the program in fiscal year 2007 as did 110 in fiscal year 2008. I urge all Members to join me in supporting passage of this landmark legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 398, ``To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active- duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status, and for other purposes.'' As a Senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, I am proud to support this legislation because in many ways the current immigration system is flawed, and in need of reform. Furthermore, I want to commend my colleague, Rep. Zoe Lofgren for her leadership on immigration issues, especially in her former role as Chairwoman of the Immigration Subcommittee. The debate surrounding how to mend our broken immigration system continues to be polarized, with many differing opinions about how to best address the issues of unauthorized persons in our country. I would also like to commend Rep. Lofgren for introducing this bill, H.R. 398, which addresses one of the many loopholes, oversights, and shortcomings in our current immigration system. This bill makes a simple change that helps our immigration process make more sense--it tolls time period to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status while a petitioner is serving in active duty with the armed forces. It allows those men and women serving our country abroad to focus on protecting America, and not worry about their spouse's immigration status. Under current law, when either a U.S. citizen or lawful U.S. Permanent Resident sponsors an alien spouse, the alien spouse is granted conditional permanent resident status. After two years, the alien spouse and the U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident spouse must jointly file a petition with the Department of Homeland Security for the removal of the conditional status. If the petition is successful, the alien spouse becomes a full permanent resident. The petition must be filed during the 90-day period before the second anniversary of the spouse's becoming a conditional permanent resident, unless the alien establishes to the satisfaction of DHS good cause and extenuating circumstances for failure to file on time. Upon the filing of the petition, DHS interviews the spouses to ascertain whether there was any possible marriage fraud. The interview is conducted within 90 days of the submission of the petition, unless DHS waives the deadline for the interview or the requirement for the interview. As you can see, the 90-day joint filing deadline and the interview that follows, which requires the participation of the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse who is serving oversees in active duty status with the Armed Forces would, without a doubt, place undue hardship on the active duty petitioner. It would clearly be a disruption to the U.S. military to have to facilitate a member of the Armed Forces deployed overseas filing a petition and traveling for a personal interview with DHS. While DHS can choose to delay this process in appropriate circumstances, a blanket tolling of the time periods while a spouse is serving abroad in the U.S. Armed Forces is appropriate. H.R. 398 tolls the time periods of time to file the petition and have an interview for removal of condition during any period of time in which a spouse is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and serving abroad in active-duty status. The spouses do retain the right to be able to file a petition within the normal time period and DHS retains the right to waive the interview requirement in appropriate circumstances. Let's help our military service member by giving them the peace of mind. The tolling of dates would lift the burden on the petitioning military spouse serving abroad from (i) having to establish to the satisfaction of DHS, good cause and extenuating circumstances for failure to file on time and (ii) obtaining a waiver of the deadline for the interview. Lifting the burden on the petitioning military spouse will allow those men and women serving our country abroad to focus on protecting America, and not worry about their spouse's immigration status. I urge all members to join me in supporting passage of this landmark legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am upset, and we should not do this anymore. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my views on ``The Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, is a final hour compromise on raising our debt- ceiling. This plan differs from the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Those measures attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis on the backs of seniors, children, and the working poor. Those measures demanded sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life- altering sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. Today's compromise has arrived just in time to prevent our country from risking the financial collapse of our great nation. Yet, this bill is not perfect In less than 24 hours our nation's clock would have run out to raise our debt limit. This final hour compromise will allow our nation to continue to operate and prevent our country from failing to meet our financial obligations. I have steadfastly stood before this body demanding a raise to our debt limit. I have spoken on the behalf of the average American by making it clear that we should not wait until the last minute. As a country, we have been held hostage by a small fringe group of people, who were narrowly elected. In many ways this plan feels like we have been given a ransom note and now at the last minute we have limited choices, none of which are appetizing. I believe this election was not a mandate to overthrow the American government. It was a mandate to find real solutions and not temporary fixes. Waiting to the final hour, waiting to the last minute, has placed our country in a terrible dilemma. We have not been given the adequate amount of time to review this plan. I will do what is right for my constituents. So that we may live to fight another day and let there be no mistake, we will fight another day. I believe that it is time that we all have come together to find a compromise; however, this bill does not have a perfect solution and there are areas in which I have strong reservation. This is a two phased plan. The first part of the plan includes approximately $1.2 trillion of deficit reduction through the establishment of ten-year discretionary caps. In the first two years, there would be a firewall separating security and non-security spending. Total discretionary spending in Fiscal Year 2012 and 2013 will be limited to $1.o43 trillion and $1.047 trillion, respectively, about $7 billion and $3 billion below Fiscal Year 2011. The security savings would represent roughly $5 billion of the total $10 billion in reductions over this two year period. The plan provides for debt ceiling increases in two stages. The President may request a $900 billion increase now, of which $400 billion is immediately available. This $900 billion is subject to a resolution of disapproval in both the House and Senate. The disapproval measure would be subject to Presidential Veto. Once the debt comes within $100 billion of the debt ceiling, the President may ask for at least an additional $1.2 trillion, which could rise to $1.5 trillion if a Balanced Budget Amendment is sent to the states or the Joint Committee process described below enacts more than $1.5 trillion in savings. This increase is also subject to a resolution of disapproval. I must emphasize that I particularly have strong concerns about the formation of a Joint Committee. As I believe we should not hand over the power of these decisions of this magnitude to a handful of Members of Congress. A Joint Committee that will be given the duty of finding ways to achieve $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. I hope there will be structure and reason when these decisions are made, but again this is just a hope. We should have been able as a body to come to this decision, and because we are at the last minute, this measure is a stop gap way to find further consensus. This Committee will be a joint, bipartisan committee, made up of 12 members, with 6 from each Chamber of Congress, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. This Committee has been charged with finding major cuts in a short time frame with little oversight. There is the challenge where will they find $1.5 trillion in future deficit before we cut our turkeys on Thanksgiving. I will continue to sound the alarm if programs that impact the lives and welfare of the poorest among us are cut by drastic amounts. If the Committee is successful and achieves cuts of at least $1.5 trillion, then the debt ceiling will be raised by $1.5 trillion. If the committee's bill is enacted and produces between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, the debt ceiling limit will be raised dollar for dollar. This plan at the very least attempting to do something that I have been calling for from the very beginning, for now, protects Social Security and Medicaid, but leaves Medicare and other programs that serve the most in need amongst us. Another portion of the agreement will provide additional time for Congress to conduct its due diligence prior to considering an amendment to the Constitution. As unlike other bills that have come before this body this plan is not contingent upon the passage of the balanced budget amendment. The amendment can now be properly considered and a vote on the measure will occur by the end of the year, which will allot about four months of additional review. In the end, it appears that cooler heads have appeared and instead of political rhetoric we have come together to protect our nation. We must continue to work together to save the American people and do what's right for our nation. Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit. Before us is an example of acting in unison to resolve our conflicts. This is the reason the American people placed us in these positions to ensure that we act in their best interest. They have been calling for a resolution and what is before us today represents a long and at times lively debate on how best to serve the citizens of this fine country. Today, we are working under one flag and one nation; we are working in unison to ensure that every American can benefit from this debt-limit increase. There are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, Nation. One single 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. There are times when the stakes are too high, when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must continue to work under one flag and one Nation to protect our economy and to our people. We should not have waited until the final hour to come to this conclusion. I along with many colleagues demanded that we protect the interest of our Nation. Namely, reading the President to utilize his rights under the Constitution to raise the debt limit through executive order if Congress remained grid locked. We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The plan before the House today offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I will continue to fight to for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect the interests of the American people. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. Finally, we arrive at a conclusion that will not result in the poorest among us bearing the majority of the costs. I support this bill and future efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will only support bills that increase jobs for average Americans. We must work together to ensure their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in the Nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving to improve those numbers. I have fought wholeheartedly to safeguard Pell grants and I will continue this fight. Some groups have estimated there will be a shortfall of more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012, but again with the last minute nature of this bill, this remains unclear. There is yet another attack on students by eliminating Direct Loan Repayment incentives on all loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2012. The elimination of both of these provisions will increase the cost of loan repayment and thus the cost of college attendance. The in- school interest exemption for neither graduate nor professional students and the prohibition of financial incentives to students who repay their loans on a timely basis. We should not increase the cost of education for students. The founders of our Nation understood the importance of advancing our Nation. For decades, we have provided free education to all minor residence of the United States from kindergarten through high school. After, having provided free education to all students until the 12th grade I recognize that financial disparities prevent many aspiring students from attaining a higher education. I believe that the plan is a temporary solution to a long term problem. It removes, for the moment, the entire burden of resolving our debt crisis off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. The bill will not immediately result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. Any major cuts to these programs would be and should be unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder their fair share of this burden. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting both programs that benefit the public good and programs that provide assistance to those who are most in need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us between a rock and a hard place as we fight to get back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences. I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas. In my District, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We cannot make draconian cuts to vital social services at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years. Finally, we must come to a place where as a body we recognize that cuts to social programs do not reflect that we are still in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. There continues to be persistent unemployment. When any measure comes before this body, the first questions that must be asked is who will it help and who will it hurt. A raise in the debt-ceiling must include assistance to small businesses which are the true job creators in our country. It must include Pell Grants that will aid students who will join the workforce of the future, by receiving an advanced education today. Just 6 months ago there were members of the Republican Party who would not sit down with us to discuss these matters and now here we are in the final hour. I have worked diligently to ensure that something was done to protect our Nation. I ask my colleagues to look at the facts and consider what will happen to the hard-working Americans who rely on these benefits. Think of programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program, SNAP, that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state. These programs are needed across our nation. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States' poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. Further, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas participate in the program. In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children. In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the Nation. As a result of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 million Texas children overall. Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent history. Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable. When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly than others. Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as grocery stores and medical providers. Programs like Women, Infants and Children, WIC, are targeted to help low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children to eat well and stay healthy. These programs ensure that poverty will not be a reason that a baby does not receive adequate nutrition. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations (at some clinics). More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 1-4. The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone. The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food assistance. More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than $1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer. During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17). In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a time when they needed it most. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America. Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the Nation as the highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of Texas residents was uninsured. Currently, one in four residents within the state of Texas is uninsured and would be in financial stress in case of a major medical emergency. The percentage of uninsured is extremely high and has become one of the greatest challenges faced by the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of Health. Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 counties, 188 are designated by the Federal Government as having acute shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate for health care. I have worked tirelessly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an amendment to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the Nation in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these important hospitals. American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010. Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending. Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would ever consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance. As we continue to discuss the long term necessity of increasing out debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the Federal Government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era. To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the Federal Government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2. We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. If we allow the United States to default on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which in the irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to compete with a surging China. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering the minds of citizens. Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chose to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits to survive. These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession. If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution, Section Four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument must be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interests of our nation must act. We should act, however, so the vulnerable are protected. The President would have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, through executive order if Congress fails to act by the August 2, 2011 deadline. If the President has to use his presidential authority, he should to avoid a collapse--but Republicans should cease the hostage- taking--and adults have to stand up for America and vote to pay America's bills. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who need the protection of an America that pays the bills. I urge my Republican colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos'', and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world''. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is a very tough place to put America. Not Members of Congress; we are paid to come here and do our job. But it is a very tough place to put America. So I have a simple state of facts to present today and listen to my other colleagues, which I will, because it is a tough decision to in actuality support legislation that seems to be driven by thoughts that the only way to get something done is to hold a whole country hostage and to hold Congress hostage. That is simply what we have. On the brink of August 2, we are now throwing something on the floor that is arguably supposed to be helpful. I am concerned that there are nuances in this legislation that will hurt people we all care about, but it's a tough decision not to say ``yes'' to having America pay her bills. I hope, for once, that once we get past today that we will not in any way yield again to the voices of 87 Members who care nothing about America but who simply care about their way or the highway.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It really is about justice for all. The question becomes as we go into our conferences and caucuses to discuss this new debt ceiling legislation: Who will this help? Will it help the small businesses, which are the backbone of America? Will it help the students who are now standing at the doors of colleges and seeing them slam shut? Will it help those in nursing homes who now, because of drastic cuts in Medicaid, will see their places of abode lost? Will it help the hospitals, which care for the sick, because there is no Medicare reimbursement or Medicaid? We are going to be looking at this to see how it helps or hurts the American people; but I tell you who it helps: big businesses. Are they going to now step in and create jobs? Because, when we cut across the board, public sector jobs will be cut all across America. It has always been the government that stoops and comes in to raise the American people up when there is a need. Are we going to help the returning soldiers, 160,000-plus, who have PTSD? For those who want to come into the workplace, will the corporate sector now stand up and be counted? Will only the friends of the Republicans be helped and not the poor and working Americans--where is the justice for all. That's where we needed bipartisanship on something that has already been done a hundred times: the simple raising of the debt ceiling; instead we have put the burden now on the backs of those who cannot speak for themselves.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we will be gathering this morning in a number of conferences and caucuses to assess the work over the weekend that addresses a procedural process that most Americans were never made aware of for the last 100 times since 1917, that we raise the debt ceiling. It is tragic that these two words have become such dastardly words in the American psychic and the American vocabulary, and it has been characterized as reckless spending in Washington more than what it is, which most Americans do at the end of the month, and that is to pay their bills. I had the privilege of joining in a balanced budget process in the 1990s, and, frankly, it was a joy. It was good to do good things in a bipartisan manner on behalf of the American people. Out of that process came something called the Children's Health Insurance Program that helped insure, over these last couple of years, millions and millions of children and, yes, we had a balanced budget. In the course of it, of course, in the rush of doing that budget we skewed the reimbursements for physicians, the doctors that you see in your hamlets and villages and counties and cities and States, the doctors that many of you send to medical school who happen to be your children, the doctors who take an oath to care for the American people. Yes, we skewed their reimbursement. So, now, every year we have to confront the unfairness of how we reimburse our doctors, the doctors who work in public health institutions, county hospitals, clinics. This is what happens when you rush to do something that should be ordinary. So today I rise looking towards the meetings that will go on today. In many of them we will huddle together to try and do the right thing. But I asked months ago for us to raise the debt ceiling, as has been done 17 times for the President of the United States, President Reagan and other Presidents who have asked to have that done, and then begin to look long term. As Mark Zandi has indicated, and a number of economists have said, immediate cuts will be damaging to this economy. But I rise today to speak of the vulnerable persons who really can't speak for themselves. Many people think seniors have lobbyists in one of the major, largest, if you will, lobbying group for seniors, and they do a great job. But I know seniors who really are huddled in small apartments and old, old homes left to them by their deceased spouse, something they paid for but has deteriorated over the years. Because we are not helping seniors with their rehab anymore, and many of them got reverse mortgages that really took them to the cleaners and left them with nonperforming contractors who did a poor job on their homes, these are the seniors who don't have voices. Or, maybe, the vulnerable families in Latino and African American communities where the wealth distinction has showed, where our majority Americans, white Americans, have a wealth factor of $113,000; and, respectively, African Americans have $5,000; and Hispanics, Latinos at $6,000. Now that doesn't cover all. There are people in Appalachia and other places around the Nation where that disparity is very, very strong. But it does mean that there is a population of vulnerable Americans. And the question is whether or not the approach that we are going to take today in doing something as simple as raising the debt ceiling to allow us to pay our bills has a dastardly part to it that causes the laying off of hundreds of thousands of Americans because there is no job creation. Because when you cause us to stop spending money to encourage the economy to move such as the 3 million jobs that were created with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, then there is no job creation. Our private sector is not moving as fast as we would like. We hope this will spur them on, but I have heard that before. I have heard, during the TARP and the bailout of banks, just give us a chance. And you ask any small business around America whether they are able to access capital to build their structure and their business, small businesses that I truly believe are the backbone of America. If we did nothing on this floor but every day do something, give a gift to small businesses and health care, give a gift to them in tax relief, give a gift to them in incentive to grow their business, and you would see Americans being hired. Small businesses are as small as one individual sitting in front of their computer. That is what we should be doing. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about going forward with a complex approach to the debt ceiling while thousands of Americans are out of jobs, where airlines are taking money they should not take, while the FAA is shut down. We have many other problems to take care of while construction jobs are at a standstill. What about the vulnerable Americans? That's what my concern will be about as we go through these meetings and approach this floor today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As an American, I stand here united with America voting ``yes'' on this bill to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Budget Control Act of 2011,'' the Reid Bill, which is a legitimate attempt to resolve our debt-ceiling crisis unlike the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which has attempted to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. We must work together to save the American people and do what's right. We are working under one flag and one nation; there are times in which we are 50 states, and times when we exist as a single, united, nation. One single 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. There are times when the stakes are too high, when we simply must unite as states and act as one. We must today work under one flag and one nation to protect our economy and our people. We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated recently before the House Committee on Financial Services, ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut.'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Reid plan offers the compromise that the American people want, demand and need. I stand here with so many of my colleagues calling for the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs that protect the interests of the American people. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. I support this bill and efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues. I will not support any bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. This plan will result in a $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit, $416 billion of which would automatically occur when the President submits a written certification to Congress that the debt ceiling needs to be increased. The remaining $784 billion in borrowing authority would be subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval, and Congress would have 55 days to act to reject the increase. Under this bill, after that initial increase, the President would be authorized to seek another $1.2 trillion increase once the debt limit is within $150 billion of the debt ceiling, with the entire $1.2 trillion subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval within 15 calendar days. The plan I support today establishes statutory caps on discretionary spending that would apply for ten years. These caps would operate similarly to caps established with bipartisan support in the 1990s. If Congress exceeds the caps, across-the-board cuts would enforce the limits. Further additional savings in FY 2012 by security spending would be capped at $606 billion, or $3 billion below this year's level. Security spending would be $19 billion below the Republican budget. This plan finds even more savings by limiting funding for ongoing wars (the so-called ``Overseas Contingent Operations'') that could be provided outside the discretionary spending caps. Some of my Republican colleagues have been critical of the Reid bill's proposed savings on war funding. However, winding down the wars, which this year will cost about $160 billion, will produce very real savings, as both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office acknowledge. In fact, the Republicans endorsed this approach when they voted for the House GOP budget earlier this year. My home state of Texas ranks 43rd in education, and last (50th) in the nation in people over 25 who only have a high school education. This bill will protect the hopes and dreams of people who are striving to improve those numbers. It safeguards Pell Grants and maintains the current maximum grant at $5,550. Our country has such a firm belief in education, so much so that we as a people have provided free education to all students until the 12th grade, but after that moment with high school diploma in hand a higher education should not become a battle between the haves and the have nots in our society. This plan would end graduate and professional students' eligibility for subsidized Stafford loans, as proposed in the President's FY 2012 budget. Graduate and professional students would be able to receive unsubsidized federal student loans, and would continue to be eligible to apply for deferment, forbearance, or other loan repayment assistance. The $18 billion in savings are used to address projected shortfalls in the Pell Grant through FY 2013. Madam Speaker, the bill will reduce waste, fraud and abuse by promoting efforts to improve enforcement in several areas. The anti- fraud efforts promoted by the Reid bill include: continuing Disability Reviews and SSI redeterminations; Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement; health care fraud and abuse control; and Unemployment Insurance improper payment reviews. According to CBO, these steps would save $11 billion over 10 years. The Boehner proposal plan and all the plans proposed by my Republican colleagues they have all just cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Their bills have essentially been a rehashed version of the same bills that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks cuts from domestic spending while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. The proposals offered by my Republican colleagues has been nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that those plans will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits. The Reid plan, before us today protects Social Security. I believe that the plan before us is an example of shared sacrifice. It removes the entire burden off the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens. The Reid plan will not result in dramatic reductions in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This would be and should be unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill places us back on the right track. We should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences. In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010. Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending. Childhood hunger continues to be a real and persistent problem in the Houston/Harris County area. The number of people participating in the Food Stamp Program in Texas has increased by 82 percent since 2000. However, only 60 percent of those eligible for food stamps in Texas participate in the program. In Harris County, only 75 percent of children approved to receive free lunch participated, and only 39 percent of children approved to receive free breakfast took advantage of the benefit. Participation numbers are similarly low for those students approved to receive reduced-price lunch and breakfast. During summer months, participation in these federal nutrition programs drops significantly. In Texas the summer participation rate was only 8.1 percent of low income children. In 2008, when the recession first hit, 22.9 percent of Texas children were living in poverty, the fifth worst rate in the nation. As a result of the economic downturn that began in late 2008 in Texas, and parents losing their jobs, the child poverty rate increased to 24.4 percent in 2009. That is 163,000 more children falling into poverty, or 1.6 million Texas children overall. Many people assume that Texas was not hit as hard by the recession as other states because our unemployment rate is still below the national average. While our unemployment rate is low compared to the U.S. (8.2 versus 9.8 percent, respectively, in November 2010), it is still nearly double where it stood in November 2007 (4.4 percent). In fact, Texas' unemployment rate has been around 8 percent for the last 16 months, which is extremely high given Texas' recent history. Nearly one in three Texas children has no parent with a full-time, year-round job, making them particularly vulnerable. When a household falls into poverty, children are exposed to increased parental distress, inadequate childcare arrangements, and poor nutrition. In past recessions, it took many years for employment and incomes to rebound, and low-income families rebound more slowly than others. 72 percent of Texas' working families in poverty have at least one parent without health insurance. Public benefits such as health care or nutrition assistance help families bridge the gaps in difficult economic times and are critical in reducing the effects of a recession. Cutting these supports will hurt child and family well-being and damage the Texas economy by taking money out of the private economy for critical local businesses such as grocery stores and medical providers. The supplemental nutrition program, WIC, helps low-income pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and young children eat well and stay healthy. WIC provides nutrition education, nutritious foods, referrals to health and human services, breastfeeding support, and immunizations (at some clinics). More than 802,000 Texas children ages 0-4 (40 percent) received support through WIC. When you look at infants alone, 67 percent received WIC supplements, compared to only 35 percent of children aged 1-4. The program has grown by more than 176,000 kids between 2000 and 2009, with an increase of 66,000 children from 2007 to 2009 alone. During the recession, more families needed greater assistance with basic expenses. SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) provided benefits to over 3 million Texans, more than half of which are children (ages 0-17). In January 2011, more than 2 million Texas children received assistance from SNAP, an increase of nearly 700,000 kids since January 2008. Furthermore, because of added funds from the ARRA, monthly benefits rose 13.6 percent, giving added assistance to families at a time when they needed it most. The dramatic rise in applications for SNAP initially overwhelmed the already beleaguered state workers who enroll families in these federal benefits. In November of 2009, 43 percent of SNAP applications were not being processed within the federally mandated 30-day time period, leaving hundreds of thousands of families each month waiting for food assistance. More than 2.8 million Texas children participate in the school lunch program, and close to half of them also receive breakfast. More than $1.3 billion of federal funding is used to support these programs during the school year. Many counties in Texas also run summer nutrition programs so that kids who depend on school lunches have access to good nutrition when school is closed for the summer. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America. Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues even consider fighting to pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era. To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over l00 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2. Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations. We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The opponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will allow America to compete with a surging China. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens. The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension and Reid's plan is a long term solution which averts serious consequences. As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market. Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill. Texas has the unfortunate distinction of leading the nation as the highest percentage of residents uninsured. More than 5.8 million Texans--including 1.5 million children--lack health insurance. Texas' uninsured rates, 1.5 to 2 times the national average, create significant problems in the financing and delivery of health care to all Texans. One in every four Texans lacks health insurance coverage, and that number is one in every three in large cities like Houston and Dallas. According to the Gallup poll, an average of 26.8 percent of Texas residents was uninsured. With only 75% of the residents being insured, this means that one in four residents within the state is unprotected and could be in financial stress in case of a medical emergency. This extremely high percentage of residents lacking health insurance coverage is one of the biggest challenges the Texas Department of Insurance and Department of Health face. Here's an idea that wouldn't cost Texas a dime but would save millions of dollars every year: Remove all barriers restraining nurses from practicing to the full extent of their education and training. No state needs primary care providers more than Texas, which has a severe shortage. Texas ranks last in access to health care and in the percentage of residents without health insurance. Of Texas' 254 counties, 188 are designated by the federal government as having acute shortages of primary care physicians. Of that number, 16 counties have one and 23 have zero. If every nurse practitioner and family doctor were deployed, we still couldn't meet the need. Texans are desperate for health care. I have worked effortlessly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to gain bipartisan support for successful passage of an amendment to the landmark healthcare reform bill that made sure no hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs without these important hospitals. American families spend almost twice as much on health care--through premiums, paycheck deductions and out-of-pocket expenses--as families in any other country. In exchange, we receive quality specialty care in many areas. Yet on the whole, Americans do not get much better care than countries that spend far less. Americans do not live as long as people in Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe. This should clearly indicate that health care reform was needed. The landmark bill signed by President Obama will provide coverage to millions of people who currently lack it. They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive. These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession. If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be helped by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.'' Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a this bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit. There is in these difficult times no tea party, no Democratic Party, no Republican Party. There is only one party--there is only one party-- the party that is the embodiment of one nation--America and we should stand for Americans and one America--I vote ``yes'' to save America from default and to honor the full, faith and credit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning we join together to express our commitment to one Nation. Unfortunately, we are in a collapse and a crisis because we are, as my good friend from Michigan said, drawn and strangled by those in the Tea Party who believe that America belongs to only one group. Well, I stand here today to say that we must not take the Tea Party's words that say ``do not surrender.'' That is a selfish position. You do not play surrender games when you work on behalf of the American people. You wonder why the economy is slow? Because it is strangled by inertia and lack of action in raising the debt ceiling. Let's join together in a bipartisan way to lift the debt ceiling. If not, the President has constitutional authority to lift the debt ceiling and get Members to move forward and on helping this country protect the 401(k)s, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid of the American people. Mr. Speaker, we are one Nation, not the Tea Party nation. We should represent the people of the United States in creating jobs, we can move the economy, and we can show the world that America is run by adults and we stand for the American people. I believe I stand for one Nation and to represent all of the people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. First of all, thank you for allowing us to really talk about how great America is--I agree with you--and we are not broke. Chairman Bernanke said fast, undefined cuts will hamper the economy, and he is nonpartisan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. So what do we need to do? We need to look at our history. Twenty million jobs were created under the Democratic Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton--and then this President, with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that we supported, 3 million jobs. We know how to do this. What I would say to my friends is that we have the responsibility to be not ``any'' party, but Democrats are here to be for the American people, and this weekend, Democrats will be the ones standing in the gap for the American people. I am proud of that. My last point is, there is no shame in taking care of the vulnerable. The last thing we want to do as we leave this place in these next couple of days with the debt ceiling in place, as it should be, is to leave behind us seniors who may be thrown out of nursing homes because we didn't do what was right. So I say we can do it, and we can do the debt ceiling in the way that creates jobs and protects the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. The gentleman from California is very kind for leading this effort, and I'm delighted to be here. We've really got a regional, national perspective here: the gentlemen from Colorado, from Connecticut, the gentlelady from Ohio, and, of course, the gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from Virginia, and Texas. Texas is a big State. I heard a colleague on this side of the aisle say that Texas has got all kinds of articles to talk about how great a State it is. It's a great State, but when you don't spend money on people, you wind up like Texas, being 43rd in education, or you wind up having the State with the largest number of individuals without health insurance, and so I have joined my colleagues today because I truly believe, standing on this side of the Chamber, that there is an opportunity for bipartisanship. But yet we have individuals who have been influenced by signs that say No Surrender. No Surrender. Those words were more appropriate for our Founding Fathers as they stood against oppression. No Surrender. But these words are not appropriate against the American people, that we won't surrender, no matter what happens to the American people, we in this Congress are so influenced by voices that truly do not have the concept of invest and grow, and they don't have the concept of Make It in America. What a wonderful statement about the greatness of America. Not No Surrender but Make It in America, because America is not broke, and the voices of negativism that would propose legislation that would have us cut without investment, cut without revenue, means that we surrender on the American people. I wanted to mention that we haven't said what is happening to local government. Here is a major headline that says States Feel Pain Over Debt Impasse. We all come from the people, outside of the Beltway, and what is happening to the States is that the markets are being troubled. I had a press conference and a meeting with my city comptroller whose investments are in Treasury notes. It's not just what we do here on the floor of the House. Our cities will have a troubled economic infrastructure if the Treasury notes that they have invested in all of a sudden drop with severe, if you will, losses. And so I wanted to say that this is more than just us, it is more than one person in a leaky boat, it is many of us in a leaky boat. Just in the last 48 hours, to the gentleman, the Dow went down 200 points. In the last 12 hours coming in today, the Asian markets and our markets have seen a dramatic drop, and as you well know, we were here until 11 o'clock at night trying to wait until the conference, in essence, got itself together. So let me just say that the debt ceiling from my perspective should be a clean one, but we should go forward with innovation, investment, and balanced cutting. We should preserve our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Finally let me say this. If the States are being troubled now and people are being influenced by the language or the words No Surrender, can you imagine what happens when 6 months from now the bill that passed with no Democrats, we would come back again to the American people, tell them to be fearful about Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, tell our students they might not have Pell Grants for the second semester, tell people in the midst of buying a house their interest rates will skyrocket, because we'll be back again trying to debate the debt ceiling, and if various draconian measures are not passed such as balanced budget amendments by three-fifths, two-thirds, we will have another default. We need to be focusing on what is good about America. Make it in America. Invest, innovate and grow, and have mutually balanced sacrifice. That's what will make us great.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady very much. Last night, the Democrats were here waiting while the Republicans could not get their own conference together. If any of you were watching the national news, it was not because we were not ready to vote and to move forward on a compromise. It was because those who believe they had a landslide victory are still talking about elections instead of talking about the American people. This is the worst bill that any American could ever imagine in the history of this Nation. I tell you that because this bill will in fact default the American Government in 6 months, and it will not adhere to the Constitution, which says the Declaration is the promise and the Constitution is the fulfillment. We actually have the authority, Mr. President, under the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling by way of acknowledging that the public debt should always be recognized. But in this particular legislation, in 6 months if we do not cut by $1.6 trillion and pass a balanced budget amendment, the Nation will default. And the balanced budget amendment is not by a majority. It is 60 percent of this Congress will stop the American people from receiving their just due. We will not have Social Security. We will not have Medicaid. We will not have Medicare. In actuality, the mandate will cause us to support the Republican Study budget, which is $9 trillion in cuts, 70 percent of discretionary funding. That means all of your Medicare, all of your Medicaid, all of your Social Security. Madam Speaker, I ask the American people to call in and say, stop the madness and compromise. Do what is right. Mr. President, if not, raise the debt ceiling under the Constitution. You have the authority. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt-ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life-changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the Treasury Department $365 billion in FY2011. We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated in a recently before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Boehner plan does just that it will cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. This is nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits. Anyone who believes that this plan will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits. I state here today that the Boehner proposal is ill-conceived and fails to offer a balanced approach to decreasing the deficit. Instead of requiring shared sacrifice, the Boehner plan places the entire burden on the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens, while doing nothing to close corporate tax giveaways and increase taxes on those most able to afford them. The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years through strict new spending caps. Most experts predict that the first round of cuts would target discretionary programs, including education, infrastructure, job training and law enforcement. The Boehner plan would then require an additional $1.8 trillion in savings to be identified by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time. Given the magnitude of these additional required savings, it would result in deep draconian cuts in federal entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A repeal of health reform's coverage expansions. And a dramatic reduction in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This is unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden. The Speaker's plan requires a vote on an ill-advised constitutional balanced budget amendment in both chambers of Congress by the end of this year. The details surrounding exactly which proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment will be voted on are unclear. However, earlier proposals that have appeared in the House of Representatives, including H.J. Res. 1, would have a devastating impact on discretionary spending and on our modest economic recovery. Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and ratification by three fourths (\3/4\) of the States. The Founders purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an amendment altering our nation's founding document on such short notice; an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may have? By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it. The Speaker's plan will result in for $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit in two stages, with the two debt ceiling increases being conditioned upon enactment of an initial set of spending, cuts and a later, second deficit reduction measure. I do not believe that Congress should yield its authority to what amounts to a Commission. Boehner's plan creates a 12-member joint congressional committee to develop a plan for an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction that Congress would vote on in December. In addition the Speaker's plan authorizes the president ito submit a $900 billion increase in the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling immediately after enactment of this bill, and a $1.6 trillion increase if the $1.8 trillion deficit reduction measure is enacted. Both debt limit increases would take effect automatically unless Congress enacted resolutions of disapproval. The Speaker's plan also requires the House and Senate to vote by the end of the year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I have stated before this will tie the hands of Congress. Finally, as noted above, the Boehner proposal provides only a short- term extension of the federal debt ceiling. This means that the gridlock that now prevails in our government will continue for the remainder of the 112th Congress. According to the Center on Budget and Policy, recent reports have suggested that rating agencies will downgrade the U.S. credit rating if the Boehner proposal is enacted. This would result not only in higher interest costs to the federal government but also would raise the interest rate paid by individuals and families on car loans, credit cards and mortgages throughout the United States. Taken together, all of these factors would undermine the nation's fragile recovery. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences! In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of American living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011 or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States' poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my Republican colleague's desire for instant gratification through deep spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans. Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American dream. Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010. Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending. Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America. As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing our debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era. To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2nd. Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations. We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this lime around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which in the irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The proponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete with a surging China. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens. The Speaker's plan is a short term fix for a long term issue. It is a patch rather than a proper repair. Boehner's plan requires that Congress address debt ceiling once again in a short span of time, which will once again lead to market uncertainty in a time when we are trying to rebuild our nation. This plan is not good for Wall Street and it is not good for the American people. The Speaker's bill is a short-term debt limit increase that will only ensure that Congress will go through this exact same standoff again in the next few months. Short-term proposals risk further uncertainty and the potentially damaging downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension is not sufficient and could result in very serious consequences. While Democrats support deficit reduction, we support doing it in a balanced way that provides certainty to the economy. As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market. Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre,'' and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill. They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans benefits to survive. These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature of our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession. If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President, to protect the interest of our nation, must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own, through executive order if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.'' Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts and Constitutional amendments into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to my colleagues today about the relationship between the United States and Morocco. Today, with chaos and conflict spreading in North Africa and the Middle East, it is important that the United States recognize and encourage those countries that share our democratic values and support reforms so badly needed in the region. There is no better friend and ally for America in North Africa than the Kingdom of Morocco. You may ask, ``How has the country fared during the recent crises in the region?'' Morocco has largely avoided the tensions, confrontations, and violence common to other countries. There have been few disturbances in the country; and demonstrations for better governance, more transparency, and jobs have been largely peaceful and constructive. Ties between the Moroccan people and the King are quite strong and it is this bond that supports the partnership that the King has called for in the process to reform the constitution through a consultative process and national referendum--steps unheard of in other parts of the Arab Middle East and North Africa. Recently, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Taieb Fassi Fihri, visited the United States to talk about the reform process in Morocco, and to consult with United States government officials about how to bring greater stability, security, development, and democracy to the region. He met with senior officials in the White House and State Department. On March 23, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton met with the Foreign Minister to discuss concrete steps to renew and strengthen the strategic relationship between the United States and Morocco. She called it a ``very special relationship,'' and praised the King for his continuing actions to promote reform and enhance economic, political, and social development in Morocco and the broader region. As Secretary Clinton remarked, ``We also look forward with great optimism to further deepening our strong and strategic partnership in working with Morocco on so many issues.'' Among the areas discussed with the Foreign Minister were cooperation on resolving the Western Sahara conflict and promoting Human Rights. With regard to the Western Sahara, the Secretary reiterated that the Obama Administration policy is consistent with that of the two previous administrations; and that the Moroccan autonomy proposal for resolving the conflict was ``serious, realistic, and credible.'' The Foreign Minister provided the U.S. government with an update on recent progress in promoting Human Rights and was advised by the State Department that the new reforms were largely satisfactory and met U.S. government concerns. Among the key changes already launched by Morocco in December 2010 are new and independent institutions and collateral mechanisms to promote human rights in all areas of Morocco, including the Sahara, protecting whistle blowers, providing authority to bring charges against human rights violators, and setting up new channels for reporting human rights abuses. Additionally, a stronger level of human rights protections are included in the constitutional reforms proposed by the King in his speech of March 9, 2011. From an international reporting perspective, the new process adopted by Morocco will link the new Moroccan Human Rights institutions with the various Special Rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Commission. Unfortunately, others who either lack this information or chose to ignore it are supporting a monitoring proposal that ignores the core issues of the Western Sahara conflict: supporting and respecting the rights of the refugees held in the camps in Tindouf, Algeria. The proposal does nothing to address much more serious issues at stake in Western Sahara concerning terrorism, and trafficking in persons, guns, drugs and other contraband. Morocco has met the State Department's criteria for enhanced human rights protection and reporting, and should be applauded for taking this initiative as part of its continuing reform process and desire to improve the lives of all Moroccans, including the Western Sahara. Morocco is working hard to become the standard bearer for progress, reform, and development in the region. We should do all we can to support these vital efforts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Ms. Slaughter, for your generosity. And I want to thank the gentlelady from Maine for recounting the prayers of Americans. And I would ask them to continue to pray, because compromise is part of the democratic way. But my friends on the other side did not tell you correctly why we are now involved in frivolous activity on the floor. We're not raising the debt ceiling. And the reason is there are 53 Senators in the other body that have signed a letter that said they're absolutely not going to vote for this draconian presentation. And the reason--and let me call the roll. The reason they're not going to vote for it is because it is a short- term solution to a long-term problem. It has no revenues along with cuts. Sixty-four percent of the American people say balance it, cuts with revenues, to invest in our Nation. Let me read the roll why Senators are not voting, the other body is not voting. Democrats recognize this is not the way to go. You will lose your Medicare. Pell Grants will not be available for our young people. Medicaid will see in its loss seniors being put out of nursing homes. And then we'll have Social Security, our safety net, being trampled on. The loss of America's savings. The Dow went down 200 points yesterday. Just wait until under this bill we do it again and again and again, Americans will lose their shirt. The American Dream of buying a home will be lost. And all of our mobility systems, America's railroads and airports and airlines, will be jeopardized. Pay our bills. And if we cannot pay our bills, Mr. President, use the Constitution and use the 14th Amendment if we cannot pay our bills. To my friends on the other side of the aisle, many of us have already voted for a clean debt ceiling. We're willing to do it again. But we will not suffer the idea of a one-sided government that takes away entitlement, that caps spending that is for those who are in need and balances an amendment on the backs of those who are suffering from devastating disasters in States like Missouri, States like Alabama, with all of the flooding. This is not the way to go. Vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on the underlying bill. Pray for America. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the House Amendment to S. 627, the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt- ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life- changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion from the Federal Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the Treasury Department $365 billion dollars in FY2011. This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion dollar increase in the debt ceiling, while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. It's nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public can be hit up again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences! In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of Americans living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children, WIC, Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the Nation, 20.7 percent of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4 percent of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my Republican colleagues' desire for instant gratification through deep spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans. Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American dream. Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010. Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,000 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending. Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America. As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing out debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the Federal Government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era. To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the Federal Government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2. Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations. We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the Federal Government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The proponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete with a surging China. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering the minds of citizens. As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would. spending and investment in the housing market. Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre'', and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill. They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits to survive. These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live in; a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos'', and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world''. Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts and Constitutional amendments, into the traditionally non- political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the ``Budget Control Act of 2011,'' which, like the previous debt- ceiling bills introduced by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by demanding sharp cuts to domestic programs that ask average Americans to make life- changing sacrifices while not asking America's wealthiest individuals and most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share. In my lifetime, I have never seen such a concerted effort to ransom the American economy in order to extort the American public. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support a bill that unduly robs average Americans of their economic security and ability to provide for their families while constraining the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. The Budget Control Act of 2011 cuts $22 billion dollars from the Federal Budget for FY2012. Robert McIntyre, of Citizens for Tax Justice testified before the Senate Budget Committee that tax loopholes for corporations, big business owners and business investors cost the Treasury Department $365 billion dollars in FY2011. We need to change the tone here in Congress. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it best when he stated in a recently before the House Committee on Financial Services. ``We really don't want to just cut, cut, cut,'' Chairman Bernanke further stated ``You need to be a little bit cautious about sharp cuts in the very near term because of the potential impact on the recovery. That doesn't at all preclude--in fact, I believe it's entirely consistent with--a longer-term program that will bring our budget into a sustainable position.'' The Boehner plan does just that it will cut, cut, cut without taking into full consideration the serious cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This bill is essentially a rehashed version of the same bill that President Obama promised to veto and the Senate vowed to reject. It asks for $917 billion in cuts from domestic spending for a $900 billion dollar increase in the debt ceiling while demanding nothing in revenue from the nation's wealthiest. This is nothing more than a ransom note, irresponsibly raising the debt ceiling for only a few months so that in just a short period of time, the American public will be hit again for $1.6 trillion in cuts from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits. Anyone who believe that this plan will not result in a serious cut to Social Security should consider this . . . Social Security represents 20 percent of all federal spending, making it unrealistic to think such large cuts in mandatory spending will not affect Social Security benefits. I state here today that the Boehner proposal is ill-conceived and fails to offer a balanced approach to decreasing the deficit. Instead of requiring shared sacrifice, the Boehner plan places the entire burden on the backs of seniors, the middle class and our nation's most vulnerable citizens, while doing nothing to close corporate tax giveaways and increase taxes on those most able to afford them. The Boehner plan calls for large cuts in discretionary programs of $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years through strict new spending caps. Most experts predict that the first round of cuts would target discretionary programs, including education, infrastructure, job training and law enforcement. The Boehner plan would then require an additional $1.8 trillion in savings to be identified by the end of the year as a condition for raising the debt ceiling again at that time. Given the magnitude of these additional required savings, it would result in deep draconian cuts in federal entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A repeal of health reform's coverage expansions. And a dramatic reduction in safety net programs for vulnerable Americans, such as food stamps and unemployment and disability insurance. This is unacceptable, and each is avoidable if corporations and the wealthy are required to shoulder a fair share of this burden. The Speaker's plan requires a vote on an ill-advised constitutional balanced budget amendment in both chambers of Congress by the end of this year. The details surrounding exactly which proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment will be voted on are unclear. However, earlier proposals that have appeared in the House of Representatives, including H.J. Res. 1, would have a devastating impact on discretionary spending and on our modest economic recovery. Passing an amendment to the Constitution is one of the most serious processes the United States Congress can undertake, requiring a two thirds supermajority of support in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths (\3/4\) of the States. The Founders purposely made the amendment process a long and arduous one. Do my Republican colleagues really expect Congress to capriciously pass an amendment altering our Nation's founding document on such short notice; an amendment that will fundamentally change our country without reasonable time for debate; without the opportunity for a hearing or questioning of witnesses; without any reports as to what impact it may have? By tying the fate of whether the United States pays its debt obligations to the historically prolonged Constitutional amendment process, the Republicans who support this bill have demonstrated, at this critical juncture in American history, that they are profoundly irresponsible when it comes to the integrity of our economy and utterly bereft of sensible solutions for fixing it. The Speaker's plan will result in for $2.7 trillion in deficit reduction and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt limit in two stages, with the two debt ceiling increases being conditioned upon enactment of an initial set of spending cuts and a later, second deficit reduction measure. I do not believe that Congress should yield its authority to what amounts to a Commission. Boehner's plan creates a 12-member joint congressional committee to develop a plan for an additional $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction that Congress would vote on in December. In addition the Speaker's plan authorizes the president to submit a $900 billion increase in the, $14.3 trillion debt ceiling immediately after enactment of this bill, and a $1.6 trillion increase if the $1.8 trillion deficit reduction measure is enacted. Both debt limit increases would take effect automatically unless Congress enacted resolutions of disapproval. The Speakers plan also requires the House and Senate to vote by the end of the year on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. As I have stated before this will tie the hands of congress. Finally, as noted above, the Boehner proposal provides only a short- term extension of the federal debt ceiling. This means that the gridlock that now prevails in our government will continue for the remainder of the 112th Congress. According to the Center on Budget and Policy, recent reports have suggested that rating agencies will downgrade the U.S. credit rating if the Boehner proposal is enacted. This would result not only in higher interest costs to the federal government but also would raise the, interest rate paid by individuals and families on car loans, credit cards and mortgages throughout the United States. Taken together, all of these factors would undermine the nation's fragile recovery. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing on cutting programs that benefit the public good and for the most at need, while ignoring the need to focus on job creation and economic recovery. This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our nation's bills and resolving our differences. In my district, the Texas 18th, more than 190,000 people live below the poverty line. We must not, we cannot, at a time when the Census Bureau places the number of American living in poverty at the highest rate in over 50 years, cut vital social services. Not in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment, when so many rely on federal benefits to survive, like the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) that fed 3.9 million residents of Texas in April 2011, or the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) Program that provides nutritious food to more than 990,000 mothers and children in my home state. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans living in poverty nationwide. According to the 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the US Census, a family of four is considered impoverished if they are living on less than $22,314 per year. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. In 2008, there were 15.45 million impoverished children in the nation, 20.7% of America's youth. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty, 2.2 million of them children, and that 17.4% of households in the state struggle with food insecurity. There is no doubt that we must reduce the national debt, but my Republican colleague's desire for instant gratification through deep spending cuts to benefits, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is reckless and threatens the financial security of millions of Americans. Instead of closing corporate tax loopholes to reduce the deficit, the Budget Control Act cuts discretionary spending, and requires Congress to draft proposals to cut at least $1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security. This is an outrage, and an insult to the American dream. Forcing Congress to draft plans to cut 1.8 trillion from Medicare and Social Security forces Members to disregard the best interests of their constituents. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors, including the 2.9 million Texans who received Medicare in 2010. Any cuts to Medicaid would be just as damaging. Harris County has one of the highest Medicaid enrollment records in Texas. Limits and cuts to Medicaid funds would significantly hurt the citizens of Texas's 18th District. Harris County averages between 500,4300 and 600,000 Medicaid recipients monthly, thousands of people who may not have access to healthcare should Congress sacrifice Medicaid to cut spending. Yes, we must take steps to balance the budget and reduce the national debt, but not at the expense of vital social programs. It is unconscionable that in our nation of vast resources, my Republican colleagues would pass a budget that cuts funding for essential social programs. Poverty impacts far too many Americans and social safety nets provide these individuals with vital assistance Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are content to conclude that life simply is not fair, equality is not accessible to everyone, and the less advantaged among us are condemned to remain as they are, but I do not accept that. That kind of complacency is not fitting for America. As we continue to discuss the necessity of increasing out debt ceiling, I have heard the concerns of many of my constituents and the American people regarding the size of our national debt and the care with which taxpayer money is spent. I, too, am concerned about these issues; for to burden future generations of Americans with tremendous amounts of debt should not be a way to avoid our fiscal responsibilities to the American people. However, the task of resolving our debt ceiling crisis must take precedence over other concerns, including political ideology. The game is up, and the American people understand that increasing the debt ceiling has nothing to do with any new spending and everything to do with paying off the obligations that we have already agreed to and promised to pay. Prior to the existence of the debt ceiling, Congress had to approve borrowing each time the federal government wished to borrow money in order to carry out its functions. With the onset of World War I, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements of funding a major war in the modern era. To address this need, the first debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the federal government to borrow money to meet its obligations without prior Congressional approval, so long as in the aggregate, the amount borrowed did not eclipse a specified limit. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress has increased it over 100 times; in fact, it was raised 10 times within the past decade. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February 2010. Today, the debt ceiling currently stands at $14.3 trillion dollars. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be artificially avoided until August 2nd. Congress must act now in order to avert a crisis. Never in the history of America has the United States defaulted on its debt obligations. We must be clear on what this issue means for our country. America has earned a reputation as the world's most trusted borrower. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For investors around the world, purchasing a U.S. Treasury bond meant that they held something virtually as safe as cash, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. In turn, with the proceeds from the bonds, the federal government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. If the United States defaults on its debt obligations, the financial crisis that began in 2008 would pale in comparison, according to economic experts. The ensuing economic catastrophe would not only place the U.S. economy in a tailspin, but the world economy as well. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This unnecessarily places the American public and the economy between a rock and a hard place. Either Congress sides completely with the radical agenda of the Tea Party, which irresponsibly pulls the chair out from under the average American while polishing the throne of the wealthiest. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the federal government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. The proponents of this bill are putting the country at serious risk of losing its status as the world's economic superpower. Our allies will lose faith in our ability to manage global economic affairs. Our status in the world will be diminished, which will undermine our leverage on the world stage that allows us to command the respect and compliance of other nations when it comes to decision-making. This bill will reduce America's ability to compete with a surging China. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens. The Speaker's plan is a short term fix for a long term issue. It is a patch rather than a proper repair. Boehner's plan requires that Congress address debt-ceiling once again in a short span of time, which will once again lead to market uncertainty in a time when we are trying to rebuild our nation. This plan is not good for Wall Street and it is not good for the American People. The Speaker's bill is a short-term debt limit increase that will only ensure that Congress will go through this exact same standoff again in the next few months. Short-term proposals risk further uncertainty and the potentially damaging downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. The markets have made it clear that a short-term extension is not sufficient and could result in very serious consequences. While Democrats support deficit reduction, we support doing it in a balanced way that provides certainty to the economy. As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market. Increasing the debt ceiling is the responsible thing to do. Congress has already debated and approved the debt that an increased ceiling makes room for. However, my Republican colleagues have chosen to use this as an opportunity to hold the American people hostage to their extreme agenda. Even prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Christine Todd Whitman have criticized the radical elements of their party who insist upon holding up the entire political process in order to flaunt their extreme, irrational, and unrealistic ideology. Senator McCain has called the Tea Party's stance and the way they have conducted themselves during this manufactured crisis ``bizarre'', and I am inclined to agree. Their agenda for this country is even too radical for Speaker Boehner, with the Tea Party vowing to reject their leader's own bill. They live in a world that is not the world that the American people live in. In their world, they believe that taxes are always too high, even on people making over a billion a year in a struggling economy; that any increase in revenue is fundamentally wrong, even if it comes from large corporations who use tax loopholes at the expense of our job-creating small businesses; that investing anything in our economic future above tax revenues is impermissible, even in the midst of an economic downturn; and that tax cuts for the wealthy are always the nation's top priority, even at the expense of people that depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans benefits to survive. These beliefs place them on the fringe of American society, and yet due to the nature our political process, they have held up the entire government and placed our economy on the precipice of a turbulent second recession. If Congress cannot find a resolution then Congress will open the possibility that the President may invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution, Section four, which states ``the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned.'' The argument can be made that if Congress will not resolve our nation's pending default then the President to protect the interest of our nation must act. The President would then have to consider his powers under the Fourteenth Amendment which may grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling, on his own through executive order and if Congress fails to raise the debt limit by the August 2, 2011 deadline. As a body we should not place the President or our country in this position. For those reasons I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by this bill. I urge my colleagues to return to the world in which the vast majority of Americans live; in a world in which our shared destiny is determined by reasonable minds and good faith efforts to compromise. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that defaulting could ``throw the financial system into chaos,'' and ``destroy the trust and confidence that global investors have in Treasury securities as being the safest liquid assets in the world.'' Instead of injecting ideological spending cuts and Constitutional amendments into the traditionally non-political business of raising the debt ceiling, we must work quickly to pass a bill that makes good on our debt obligations and restores confidence in American credit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. There is no doubt, Mr. Young, that you are the renowned expert on Alaska. So I don't rise to counter that. And in fact, I come from the other open, wild State that likes their own self- determination, and they just associated you with the State of Texas. I remind my colleagues that there is water in Virginia, there's water in Massachusetts, and there's water all along. But I rise to support the gentleman's amendment because frankly, the last time I talked to the very important Coast Guard, they're short on money. Frankly, I want the Coast Guard to be in the port of Houston doing their job as it relates to protecting the coastline of America from terrorists. They are involved in that. They are not, in essence, an agency that can just expand its resources. I would just raise the question. I think the gentleman from Washington was very engaging and cooperative by saying how can we work this out. My interpretation is, in opposing the language that's in the bill and supporting Mr. Dicks, is that we have, in essence, a legislative earmark, and that means that all of us can rise up and try to solve our problems in that way. I would like to get back to regular order. And I cite for all of you just another example. We've got a legislative earmark when one of our Republican colleagues has decided to shut down the FAA. That's an example. And lost in the doing of that is $2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 American construction jobs, 3,000 FAA aviation engineers furloughed, safety analysts, career professionals in 35 States and in my own city of Houston. I want to get on the floor and put an amendment on the floor to get that Member out of the business of stopping the FAA from doing its work--$200 million per week is being lost. Nobody is saying anything because we're also not doing regular order by fooling around with the debt ceiling. Nobody can come together and act like adults and say, Let's just raise the debt ceiling so the American people can go on with their business. Now we've got a Member that says ``my way or the highway'' and shutting down the FAA. You can't run the government like this. And I think the message of the amendment that is on the floor is not that we don't respect Members' personal knowledge of their States, it's just that we can't go willy nilly and change laws just for isolated incidences. And I apologize to Mr. Wild, but you can see I'm pretty agitated about a situation where we're quietly allowing the FAA not to work. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, who knows what danger is around because the FAA is not functioning? Who knows what jeopardy we're putting for seniors and students and families and people trying to buy a home because we're fooling around with the debt ceiling? So I just think we're in a pattern here. Do what you want to do and forget the heck of the American people and forget that we live in a big country and that we should be for all of the people. And if we need safety on our waterways, we need to find a way to work through our issues. I don't like the way individuals were handled. I agree on that issue. But I certainly don't like the way we're handling our business with the debt ceiling when we are literally putting ourselves under jeopardy. And I encourage the President to do anything he needs to do to save the American people and to be able to move forward so that we don't lose all of our resources and opportunities for the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients of America. And I hope he stands up and recognizes this is a ridiculous position to be in when the FAA is not even functioning. And my Bush Intercontinental Airport can't even continue doing its construction work, and the people who need the work are thrown out on the streets because they can't work because one lone Member wants to get up and talk about the FAA and foolishness about not protecting small airports and not allowing our airport employees or our employees such as air traffic controllers and others to be able to confer about the quality of work issues. So I would just suggest that you might be able to find a solution, Mr. Young. I know you know all of the issues about that. We have a lot of water from where I come from. I think Mr. Dicks has put forth a perfect question and then an answer to the idea of whether or not your amendment or language would have a far-reaching impact beyond Mr. Wild and the unfortunate behavior of two individuals that I understand may not be here. Let's look at this holistically, as we need to look at this Nation. Let's come together as adults representing the American people. I thank the gentleman for the time. I ask support for Mr. Dicks' amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, we are in some tough times, but I believe it's important to have a structure in this government that provides oversight over the environment of this country. And however one may quarrel with regulations that may seem a little steep, the work of the Environmental Protection Agency is important. And as we stand here today, this legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut in funding for FY 2011. Thirty-four percent. This is unacceptable. In order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise, instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget. These cuts purposely limit the EPA's ability to ensure that all Americans have access to drinking water that does not contain harmful pathogens and toxins that expose Americans to serious risk such as typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage. The assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our drinking water. This bill also takes drastic steps to weaken the Clean Air Act. A rider is attached that will prevent the EPA from implementing the Cross State Air Pollution Rule, a regulation that was implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 heart attacks, and 400,000 cases of aggregated asthma. I've never seen an EPA director work as hard as Administrator Lisa Jackson. Although we have had some outstanding administrators, she has worked to work with Members across the aisle. But these cuts reduce funding for the very programs that keep Americans, our constituents safe. And I cannot speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but I cannot afford to have these cuts impact the people of Houston and around the Nation. Since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the Nation. And so it is important that we find a way to increase the funding for the EPA. And as this bill makes its way through the floor, I am continuing to work to do so. And I start first with this effort. And I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Let me explain to you about the Old Acres Home Citizens Council. This is a historic African American community located in Houston, Texas. The Council partnered with the University of Texas to conduct a study to assess the community's health risk. It was determined that a local landfill could be the cause for the community's health-related problems, enormous cancer in that area. As a result of the study, the Council was awarded a $20,000 grant from the EPA Justice Small Grants Program, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, commonly known as the Superfund, which, obviously, it was in some years past to conduct tests to detect, assess, and evaluate the risk to human health from hazardous substances. The goal of these Small Grants Program evaluation projects was to investigate whether there were hazardous substances in the runoff from the adjacent landfill. This community needed those resources. The Council used the EPA grant funds to hire an EPA-approved environmental consultant to take soil and water samples from the backyards. The results of the sample analysis revealed high concentrations of toxic substances, many of which are harmful to humans. Since 2002, the residents of Old Acres homes have observed water and substances seeping from the landfill into their back yards. This runoff collects into pools of standing water. Due to poor drainage, these standing pools became engorged and then flood, thereby increasing exposure of residences to potentially hazardous substances from the landfill. This was the work of the EPA. It educated a poor community of seniors and others about the conditions of their neighborhood. This funding that takes away from EPA also takes away from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and, of course, impacts communities like that of the Acres Home Community in the 18th Congressional District. My friends, we cannot gamble with the safety of the American public, the cleanliness of air and water, the quality of the environment for future generations. We need to restore this funding, and I have made this effort to do so. I will continue to do so. Since the debt limit was put in place, we have always paid America's bills. We fight today to raise the debt ceiling, but at the same time we're cutting away at America's safety and America's need for environmental protection. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for Acres Home Community in Houston, Texas. With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield again, I am going to continue to work on this issue. I know that we're going to take a vote on this. I, as they say, will come back again on the floor, because I think this is a very important issue. I thank the gentleman for yielding to allow me to again express how important it is that the EPA be funded more fully than it has been.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, I didn't thank both you and the ranking member for a very tough task, and I think my overall intent was the need for increasing the funding in EPA. As we make our way through this process, does the gentleman see, in the consultation with the other body, any opportunity to restore any of these funds to the EPA?

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I'm able to rise and speak about legislation that involves one of our closest allies, Canada, and because this is a relationship with Canada, and because it is an international issue, I'm assured that in the process, we will have significant oversight that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Attorney General who will have to comment on this application before the conclusion and the final decision. That is good news. I also think it's important, as we discuss what the potential of this relationship is and the opportunity for oil coming from a friendly neighbor, to be reminded that many of us have said over and over again that we must cease to rely upon foreign oil. In fact, in a Senate hearing when Egypt was beginning to, in essence, explode, Members said, watch Egypt, and we must lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Obviously Egypt is not one of our major sources of energy, but they were beginning to see the ripple effect in the Mideast of what has been called the Arab Spring. For many of us, we realize that it is a long, long winter as our friends in the Mideast seek peace. So this is an important statement about our commitment to creating jobs, but also it is an important statement on relieving or ceasing the dependence of the United States on foreign oil. Let me just take one State's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston area, providing $48 million in State and local taxes, increase the gross State product by $1.9 billion. But I don't choose to be selfish in my amendment, and my amendment is a sense of Congress that says that it is the sense of Congress that the United States must decrease its dependence on oil from countries that are hostile to the interests of the United States and that Canada has been a strong trading partner, and increasing access to their energy resources will help create jobs in the United States. If I were to add to that, I would say continue the strong relationship between the United States and Canada. In addition, I think it is important to note that the President of the United States has indicated that we should decrease our reliance on foreign oil. In this instance, I believe that we are making an effort toward that. Do I believe that we should, in essence, cross our environmental Ts? Absolutely. So I would ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

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