Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friends have come to the floor of the House. My good friend just came and offered some solutions, and I would say that it's important for Members to have ideas and to be able to engage on behalf of the American people. Every time we stand in this well, we should be rising to make the lives of the American people, those who have entrusted us to be the holders of the values of this great country, we should be moving on on their behalf. So this morning, I'm asking that we get on with it. It's important to be discussing tax reform. But as many of us know, that is a long, protracted process of give-and-take. And many Americans will understand what the payroll tax is all about when they look in the faces of their seniors and themselves and they know that part of that is Social Security. We know for a fact that Social Security has been a lifeline for millions of Americans, and it is solvent, and it's important to know that America is not broke. But the good work of the Ways and Means Committee and the good work of the Judiciary Committee, which is meeting right now--and I'll be heading on to that committee to talk about preventing corruption in business and making sure the American people get their fair share. It is important that we move on. And how do we move on? We do something that Americans have said by and large that they want us to do together, and that is to get past this debt ceiling, do something that has been done time after time after time. Yes, we have grown as a Nation, and the reason is because in World War II we were not 300 million-plus people. We didn't have all the assets and responsibilities. In fact, the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan were longer than World War II, and all of those moneys were spent under the last administration. Tax cuts that for individuals who, by and large, have said, No, thank you, because they want to invest in America. So I'm prepared to join with my many friends to work on moving this country forward, but let's move on. Let's move on beyond the impossible proposal given by Speaker Boehner that focuses on a two vote process for the debt ceiling increase and vote once then come back and fight it out again in 6 months. That is not the consistency and the evenness that is necessary for all of those who are seeking employment or all of those businesses or all of those in the arena of money making. They need an even pathway, they need consistency for the markets. We need to get on with the ordinary business so that we can begin to talk about the growth of this country, education for the young people, making sure the doors of businesses stay open, talk about how do we fix a tax system where we all can benefit. But as long as we are wallowing in the ordinary work, the work that should just go on, we will never reach the point of sanity, which is to sit down at the table of reconciliation and compromise. I know we have it in us. We like each other. But it appears to the American people that we may not like them. So I will just ask, we're nearing the resolution of the debt ceiling, again, to pay the bills that were built up between 2000 and 2008, billions of dollars spent in Afghanistan, billions lost in untoward contracts. We don't even know where the moneys have gone--Iraq, moneys lost; a war that was, in essence, a detour. And let me just say, every time I say that, I always thank our soldiers and their families because they are not a detour. They accepted the call to duty, and we owe them a great deal of appreciation. But the policymakers sent them into wars that are going on and on and on, and it caused this country to pay for these wars. At the same time, there are drastic draconian cuts in the revenue coming into the United States bank account. So here we are, President Clinton having left in 2000 with $500 billion of surplus; we came out of 2008 in enormous debt. So what are we doing today? The debt ceiling is simply saying pay America's bills. And it's also saying to the many countries around the world--which we appreciate buying our Treasury notes. That is of value to the United States. The dollar has been stronger than any other currency, except the manipulation that goes on in China. But it's stronger than the euro. So, Mr. Speaker, it is important to pass the debt ceiling, get past this frivolity of doing it twice. It is time to pass and move forward the Reid proposal which can bring all of us together. And that's what we should do, begin to do, and look at it on behalf of the American people. America should pay its bills.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for his agreement. Let me give a famous quote: ``Can we all get along?'' I mentioned the different agencies that will have oversight. I have listened to a number of concerns about safety, security, and health. I frankly believe we can do it all. We can increase jobs here up to 300,000 and we can pay attention to the issues of environmental safety and security. I think it will be important for TransCanada to be able to address the question of spills, important for there to be discussions about protecting against toxic chemicals, important to disarm farmers--when I say disarm them, about fears about the pipeline in their area. I've worked on pipelines. I know there is a lot of work that goes into construction, a lot of overall State laws that regulate the building. And so putting forward more safety procedures and standards, being concerned about the public health, and making sure that we address the concerns of all Americans is an important step. But I think we have a bottom line here: the importance of lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and as well to be able to ensure that jobs are created here in America. That's what we are sent to Congress to do: to create these jobs, to stand alongside our neighbors and make sure they have a safe environment while they work, and produce an economy that is known only to America, the greatest economy in the world. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment #6 to H.R. 1938 ``North American Made Energy Security Act,'' expressing the sense of Congress that it is imperative that we decrease our dependency on oil from nations hostile to our national interest. Canada has long been a strong trading partner, and increased access to their energy resources will create jobs in the United States. I represent the 18th Congressional District in Houston, TX, our Nation's energy capital. I understand the vital role that the oil and gas industry plays in our economy and will continue to play in the future. Our nation needs a concrete and viable strategy for gaining independence from foreign oil and gas sources. These strategies need balance on the one hand this pipeline will create jobs and on the other we must weigh the costs associated. Upon careful and deliberate considerations of our energy needs, our need for jobs, and our need to protect our national security will result in finding a comprehensive energy strategy that works. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the United States, and is home to nearly 3,500 energy companies and related firms. There is no denying the importance the energy industry has in creating jobs in Houston and across our Nation. I understand the need to put the hard- working people of the Gulf region back to work, and I believe it can be done in compromise with The Department of Interior. We have all heard the famous phrase ``can't we all just get along.'' I believe that we can get along. I have consistently brought attention to our dependence on oil coming from nations in the Middle East who are in turmoil and have shifting views of the United States. I offer this amendment to call attention to the national security implications of our continued dependency on foreign oil imports. I also, offer this amendment to draw attention to the need to create jobs here in the United States. The United States imports 49% of all the oil we use. In 2010, 16% of oil imports came from OPEC countries in Africa and South America, with another 9% coming from OPEC nations in the Persian Gulf. Relying on oil imports from hostile regions greatly weakens our energy security. A variety of events have caused increases in the price of oil over the last decade. In 2003, strikes shut down oil production in Venezuela, increasing oil prices of other OPEC nations. A 2004 terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia caused a sudden increase in oil prices, as did militant attacks in Nigeria in 2003, 2007 and 2008. With the current political unrest brought by the Arab Spring, our oil supply is constantly threatened by hostile nations, and circumstances beyond our control. Oil is an integral part of the U.S. economy. 40% of the nation's total energy requirements are met by oil, including 94% of the energy used in transportation, and 41% of the energy used by the industrial sector. Increases in the price of oil affect average American consumers as well as industry. Last week, the average price of gas in Houston ranged from $3.57 to $3.85, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's weekly retail gasoline index. Increasing the amount of oil imported from Canada is beneficial to both our energy security and economy. Canada provides a far more stable source of oil than many of the OPEC countries, and importing Canadian oil often yields investment in U.S. infrastructure. Additionally, Canada has been a longtime ally of the United States, and an important trading partner. In fact, the U.S. and Canada represent the world's largest two-way trading relationship, and for every U.S. dollar spent on Canadian products, including oil, 90 cents is returned to the U.S. economy. In addition to providing a stable and reliable energy source, the Keystone pipeline XL, which we are considering in H.R. 1938, will generate $20 billion of private sector investment in the U.S. economy, as well as $585 million in new taxes for states and communities along the pipeline route. The American oil and gas industry are inextricably linked to our economy, and we must take steps to ensure that the U.S. remains competitive in the energy sector. According to an independent review of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and its potential economic impact, during the construction period the pipeline will stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy, spur the creation of 118,000 jobs and generate more than $585 million in state and local taxes for the states along the pipeline route. When Keystone XL is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the operating life of the pipeline, according to the analysis. However, there are some aspects of the legislation that require further review. I am particularly concerned about the implications of Congress legislating to force a decision of executive authority, as well as the environmental risks that may be associated with the pipeline. As a Representative of Houston, the nation's energy capital, I certainly understand the importance of the energy industry with regard to our economy. The energy sector creates jobs, and increased energy production is good for the economy, but I do have reservations about the precedent set by this legislation. Ordinarily, we do not require a permit for constructing oil pipelines. However, any pipeline that connects the United States and another country is subject to executive permission, conveyed through a Presidential permit. Historically, any pipeline crossing international borders has required executive permission by way of a Presidential permit. Executive Order 13337 designates the Secretary of State as able to receive applications for Presidential permits. TransCanada submitted its permit applications to the Department of State in September of 2008. Environmental impact review has been underway since January of 2009, and has included public comment periods with extensions for additional input from impacted communities. The State Department is afforded primary jurisdiction over the proposal for the pipeline and expects to make a decision by the end of the year. Forcing the State Department and President Obama to render a decision before completing a thorough review is in no one's interest. Currently several agencies have worked together to determine the feasibility of this pipeline. The Final Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be released by the EPA in August, at which time, the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Transportation, Energy, and Homeland Security, along with the Attorney General, and EPA Administrator will be asked for their views. It is imperative that we achieve energy independence; we cannot continue to rely on foreign sources of oil from regions of the world which are unstable, and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence. We must encourage the development of innovative new technologies that create jobs; we must focus on reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, and increasing production of clean and renewable energy sources to truly modernize our infrastructure. Yet, oil and gas companies provide jobs and serve a valuable need, and must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for achieving energy independence. We need new solutions, but they must strike a balance that will support continued growth in the oil and gas industry. However, we must also carefully examine any project that impacts the environment to prevent lasting harmful effects to the nation and the planet. Before a decision is rendered on the current Keystone pipeline XL project, it is essential the proposal be thoroughly reviewed, and all environmental impact be evaluated. We can work together to find a solution to our energy concerns upon which we can all agree. We can take the time to educate farmers who have valid concerns. We can brief environmental groups and seek their input from the planning stages to the implementation of the Process. We must not forget that the Canadian people also have an interest in protecting their environment. Certain parts of Canada are known for their pristine landscapes and nature conservatories. We must be prepared to advance and listen to the environmental concerns raised in the United States and Canada. We must protect both our citizens and the citizens of Canada. The pipeline considered in this legislation transports tar sands oil, a high polluting fuel that produces high rates of carbon emissions. We must consider the potential for leaks and explosions that will release harmful toxins into the environment. I am confident that both parties can find ways to work with the energy industry, the Administration, and other stakeholders to forge a compromise that will protect the environment without an adverse impact on the industry or consumers. Rome was not built in a day; however, it was built on the backs of hard workers. At a time when our citizens seeking employment, many are struggling to live from one check to the next, it is imperative to review opportunities presented to us that will create a significant amount of jobs. We must utilize the technology and the resources we have at hand to advance our understanding of how to effectively process and use energy. We must acknowledge that we need energy. Our need for energy requires a comprehensive energy plan that will create jobs and decrease our dependence on countries that are hostile to our interests and indeed to our national security. The oil resources currently available in Alberta, Canada are second to those available in Saudi Arabia. No one can argue that against the preference of getting oil from a stable country rather than from countries that are constantly in turmoil. Canada has been our longest and strongest trading partner. Our countries share a common boarder and a common language. The sky will not fall if we build a pipeline. There is no doubt that we have all learned from the damage that can result by accidents caused by poor oversight. I have thought about both the pros and the cons. I have carefully studied this issue. I believe that we must use the technology of today to advance the technology of the future. A lot has been made today of the recent pipeline explosion--has anyone asked why it occurred? How to prevent it from happening again? Today, we are faced with looking at ways to decrease our dependence on oil from nations that are hostile to our interests. I support firmly advancing, if not this pipeline, then access to the oil resources in Canada. We must look at the thousands of jobs that can be created. There is .3 billion in revenue that can be generated. In the greater Houston area which has suffered so much job loss this will add thousands of jobs. The arguments made have been balanced ones; however, when placed in context, when balanced against the need for working parents to have jobs that will feed their children during a time of economic crisis, then we must consider all options. I have long been and will continue to be a champion of the environment. Groups who have championed the environment are the very watchdogs we need to ensure its safety. At this time, our relationship with Canada merits careful and deliberative consideration. We must consider all of the aspects of this legislation, and I offer this amendment to express the Sense of Congress that, despite how we will individually vote on H.R. 1938, we are committed to reducing our dependency on foreign oil from hostile regions, or those that oppose the interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and make very clear to the American people that we are dedicated to finding stable energy sources, reducing fuel costs, and creating jobs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I want to join my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, on which I also serve, to note the uniqueness of our times. There's a point that I think is very important about the continuity of existing FBI Director Mueller; and that is that we live not only in dangerous times, but we also live in times where resources are being strained. Questions are being raised about the resources necessary for law enforcement; and certainly a leader who understands the broad needs of the American public and the collaborative needs, collaborating with other law enforcement because of past experiences, is very important. Mr. Mueller, in his 10 years, has had collaborative efforts with all of the Federal law enforcement agencies and has opened up a dialogue between local and State law enforcement agencies. Just ask New York to tell you how important that is; ask Texas or a number of our other large States with assets that are in the eye of the storm of potential terrorist acts. So I join with my colleagues and acknowledge the leadership of the President for asking the FBI Director to stay for 2 extra years and that this does not undermine the 10-year term that is by law. I ask colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1103, a bill to extend the term of the incumbent Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Director Robert Mueller has shown extraordinary leadership, and made fundamental changes to the FBI for the better protection of the American people. Director Mueller has a long and distinguished history of public service. After completing college, he joined the United States Marine Corps, and is a decorated Vietnam veteran. Director Mueller served as the Chief of the Criminal Division in the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco, and prosecuted cases of financial fraud, corruption and terrorism as the Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, before being named U.S. Attorney in San Francisco. President Bush nominated Mr. Mueller as the sixth FBI Director on September 4, 2001, just one week prior to the attacks of September 11. Director Mueller has since led the Bureau in modernizing its approach to law enforcement, and developed an intelligence driven organization with a focus on prevention. By centralizing intelligence management, and coordinating intelligence and counterterrorism efforts, Director Mueller has improved the effectiveness of his agency. Over the last ten years, Director Mueller has overseen the transformation of the FBI, from a reactive investigatory agency, to a far more proactive bureau that uses intelligence to seek out threats before they materialize. His visionary leadership has increased collaboration between the FBI and other intelligence gathering agencies, including foreign partners, established partnerships between the bureau, businesses, private industry stakeholders, and the general public, and greatly increased communication between FBI field offices and state and local law enforcement bodies. During his tenure leading the agency, Director Mueller has increased resources to combat the threat of terrorism, without neglecting its other duties. Just last week, the FBI arrested 16 individuals for engaging in cyber attacks. Last Thursday, the FBI, along with the Drug Enforcement Agency, and other Federal law enforcement bodies, arrested over 70 individuals connected with La Familia Michoacana, one of the most violent drug trafficking organizations in Mexico. Additionally, in the past week, FBI efforts led to indictments on charges of drug trafficking, international kidnapping and coercion, and human trafficking. Under Director Mueller's leadership, the FBI has made unprecedented improvements to face the challenges of hatred and global terrorism; the agency has thwarted a plot to detonate a bomb in the Sears Tower, arrested individuals engaged in a massive recruiting effort to attract young people to jihadist groups, and stopped an attack on Fort Dix. Director Mueller and his agency have achieved these, and a litany of other accomplishments, without asking for applause or recognition. The FBI is America's primary federal agency responsible for investigating and preventing acts of terrorism. Now, more than ever, when we are faced with aggression from an enemy intent on destroying our way of life, the leader of the FBI must be able to meet the challenges ahead. The future of our nation is not entirely of our choosing; we are faced with an assault on our principles and freedoms we did not seek to galvanize, and a confrontation with intolerance and evil we did not expect. With strategic and forward looking leaders like Director Mueller, we will overcome these challenges. As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I agree with the President's recommendation that extending Director Mueller's term for two additional years will greatly benefit our national security. I am pleased at the bipartisan support that this legislation has received.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. And let me thank you for persisting in discussing these issues with our colleagues. You have been determined, and your leadership has caused us to have this, I think, very thoughtful discussion more often than not. I'm also pleased to be joined by my friend and colleague from Virginia, who has developed tenure on these issues dealing with the budget and has always been helpful, Mr. Scott, on really sort of getting us through the weeds. And in an hour or two, or approximately an hour and a half maybe, the President will speak to the Nation. And I believe that this President truly appreciates democracy and, frankly, has no problem with coming to the American people in a straightforward and honest manner. But it really is important I think to educate ourselves, to educate our colleagues, because with all the chatter, it seems as if they've lost their way. Soon after the President speaks tonight--I believe around 9 o'clock-- Mr. Boehner will come forward. But if our Republican friends come forward, are they coming forward with facts? Will they educate the American people to inform them that the debt ceiling has been raised 100 times before? Will they educate the American people that probably for the first time in 2011 they have actually put ``debt ceiling'' in your vocabulary. Now it's going to be highlighted in Webster's dictionary. Most Americans did not know that terminology, but I think those of us who remember our history and those who studied the Constitution--even those of us who are lawyers remember the importance of studying the Constitution, and will always remember the words the ``full faith and credit of the United States.'' Even in difficult days that keeps the country going. Why? Because the world buys America's Treasury notes. They buy it willingly and openly and excitedly, which means that our dollar is strong and that people are happily holding on to the Treasury note, again, because they believe that America will never default on her debt. Now if you wanted to get more detailed, I'd refer you to the 14th Amendment, section 4. There's a lot of chatter about what it means, but the clear language says that the public debt shall not be questioned. Of course it lists wars and other issues that occurred in the historical perspective of that amendment, but scholars have not formed opposition to the thought--hardcore opposition--that it also lives today and really means that we must recognize the public debt and pay our bills. So full faith and credit and a constitutional premise for doing what we should do. So why don't we just move forward so that on August 2, or even before that, we will not have to face our seniors looking for their Social Security check, or maybe even visit a nursing home, as I have done over the last 2 weeks and before, and see seniors who are able to pay their way, but others who are on Medicaid. So I don't think that we should suggest that this is a drama and a dramatization to say that some seniors will be put out on the curb because they depend upon Medicaid. Even those who worked but had jobs that did not allow them to have a 401(k) or long-term care, they depend upon Medicaid. And as we look at the plan that we will hear tonight, it's been put on the Web site by Speaker Boehner, there is a great deal of fear that Social Security--or apprehension might be the word that we want to use--that really the Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security safety net are in the eye of the storm. And so when you look at no tax hikes-- which we have heard a number of people raise their voices on that, and I think it should be noted that the Obama administration and this Democratic leadership in the last Congress gave tax cuts over and over again, and particularly gave tax cuts to the working and middle class. The stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, gave tax cuts. But how do you truly say to the American people that we're trying to do what you do, which is to tighten your belts, that is, looking realistically at the right kinds of cuts--and most economists will tell you that the cuts should be long range. They tell you it makes no sense to talk about cuts overnight. In fact, it's unrealistic. The family sits at the kitchen table trying to balance their books. It is almost impossible for them, in the next 24 hours, to have a total change. They have to, over a measured period of time--maybe someone gets another job, maybe someone finds an increased amount of wages, and then they, over time, cut their budget and begin to pay bills. America has to pay its bills right now. But over the timeframe, we need to look for ways to raise revenue. So let me just share with you: A friend of ours, a colleague, Congressman Bishop has shared this very potent poster that is very easy to understand. We need to allow those tax cuts for a small percentage of the American public--and this is not a class warfare situation. I believe it is important for people to enjoy their wealth, to create wealth, to create jobs, but this is what we call equal sacrifice, accepting the burden of being an American, rising to the cause when you're called upon to serve. No one can compare to the men and women right now as we stand here that are on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one can compare to families who are welcoming flag- draped coffins home right now because their soldiers died on the battlefield. We can't compare to that. But right now America needs all of us, and she needs us to stand up and be counted. And so there are wealthy persons like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who for a long period of time indicated that these tax cuts need to expire. Here is the revenue right here. There are 30,000 households that report incomes of more than $1 million. One day of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires expiring gives us $120 million. That may provide the resources for our national parks and wildlife. It may as well shore up hospitals that really depend upon Medicare reimbursement. It might help in a military family's pay increase. Then of course if you take one week of allowing those tax cuts to expire, here is revenue to the Federal Government--here you get $857 million. That is one week. Just a reminder, in terms of moneys that were spent, we created 3 million jobs--and I'll get to that. I think I'm going to hold that point because I want you to see the difference--$857 million comes in for one week. That's Pell grants for our students; that's allowing research at the NIH for cancer, cures for cancer and as well for heart disease, stroke, neurological disease; payments for those suffering from mental health needs. And then if you just go 1 month of the expiration of the Bush cuts, you have $3.43 billion. Now in the Recovery and Reinvestment, the President, because of the crisis he faced--which was none of the Clinton surplus was left; it was all gone because of two unpaid wars-- he had to come in and save us. So about $800 billion in the Recovery Act put 3 million jobs on the table. It created 3 million jobs. Just imagine what would happen if those tax cuts expired. We would have $3.43 billion, and we would have the opportunity to multiply that, which I think goes in about six times--math on the floor of the House-- a little less than that, four times. It would create 4 times 3 million: 12 million jobs--real quick math here. So the question is, and let me reverse that math because I see Bobby Scott looking up. I thought it was 343; it's only 3. So I won't do any math on the floor of the House, but I will say that it will create jobs. Because we had $800 billion--I was reading that as $343 billion. So it was $3.43, and then if we do 1 year of Bush cuts, it will be $41 billion. And so we can take a portion of the $800 billion and we can see the jobs that will be created by $3 billion and $41 billion. What I will say to you, my friends, is that the announcement that is going to be made by the Speaker doesn't give us that flexibility. It truly undermines the safety network of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, but it also puts in some elements that clearly undermine the running of this country. A balanced budget amendment is not realistic for the United States because the Federal Government takes care of 50 States, not just one. And our friends will tell us that these States have balanced budgets. It's okay when you're taking care of one household, but if you're taking care of 300 million households plus, when that particular State that needs the Federal Government--like Missouri during the horrible tornados, or Alabama, or the floods, or any other manmade or natural disaster--they want us to be able to help them. A balanced budget amendment would not allow that. And then the caps to control spending do not allow the discretion to be able to make priorities when priorities are necessary. The last point I want to make about what our Speaker will be announcing tonight to calm the markets is that this is going to be a bifurcated process. Let me say to my colleagues, if you are having fun now, just think about 4 months from now or 6 months. We will have to go through this again. Another debate about the debt ceiling. And I remind you, we have raised it 100 times before. Most Americans have never heard of it because we worked with the Presidents, like President Reagan who in 1983 wrote his own Republican Senate majority leader, Senator Baker, and said you cannot not pass the debt ceiling. It is incalculable to think of America defaulting on her bills. So here we go with a proposal that would cause us to have to vote twice in a 6-month period. What does that mean? It means that a young couple trying to buy a house sees a surge in their interest rate. It means if you have a credit card, it may be defunct only because you cannot afford to pay the surging interest rate. Fees for you to buy a house might skyrocket. Housing costs might go up. Houses might stop being built. So I would simply ask my colleagues today: let's be Americans. Let's look at what we can do together. Just allow these tax cuts to expire and allow us to be able to calculate this amount of money. And, again, $3.43 billion and $41 billion makes a difference in the lives of Americans. So I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands for allowing me to share some thoughts and to hopefully dispel some myths, and also some fears. It is $14.3 trillion. It is a big number, but economists will tell you that America is not broke. It's not broken, either. It is at a stage when we need to come together to raise this debt ceiling and go back into regular order. Whether I agree or disagree with what the House Republicans bring forward in the appropriation process, we can hassle that out on the floor of the House. But we will allow America to pay her bills. And soldiers on the battlefield will not fear that grandparents are not getting their Social Security, or worrying about their family members getting compensation that they are truly due because of the sacrifice that their loved ones are making on behalf this Nation. I believe America is going to stand up and be counted.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. To add to what my colleague just said, we are also in a climate of fighting against terrorism, and in order to secure the homeland, you have to make choices about how you invest, so I have a different opinion. I think, if you invest money, you get innovation and you get jobs; and none of what has been said by Speaker Boehner says anything about innovation, jobs, and he has no, seemingly, understanding of the importance of securing the homeland. Mr. Speaker, I am joined this evening by Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to call upon Congress to pass a bill that increases the debt ceiling so that we can avoid economic disaster and continue to work for the American people in repairing our economy and creating jobs. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit and to resolve our differences over budgetary revenue and spending issues, I cannot support any measure that unduly constrains the ability of Congress to deal effectively with America's economic, fiscal, and job creation troubles. 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. In reality, that limit has already been eclipsed, but due to accounting procedures by Treasury Secretary Geithner, the debt limit can be 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. United States Treasury bonds have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or investor could make. For foreign nations and investors, 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. 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. 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. 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, some of 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 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. Raising the debt limit simply matches the amount the United States is allowed to borrow to the amount it already owes. 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. Credit rating agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poors stand ready to downgrade the triple A rating that America currently enjoys. 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 them back. 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. Furthermore, any investors who 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. With uncertainty still lingering in the markets and in the minds of citizens, we must not allow another wild fluctuation in the markets to occur due to default. One of the major reasons that the job market continues to remain so stagnant is the fact that the flow of credit to small businesses that enables them to hire and expand has slowed. 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. They knew that the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act'' was not a realistic proposal and that it was not going to pass the Senate. They just wanted to waste time. Mr. Speaker, along with the Congressional Black Caucus, I believe that Congress should increase the debt ceiling to meet the obligations the United States has already promised to undertake. By refusing to do so, it endangers our economy and the recovery of our jobs. Last week Republicans introduced the ``Cut, Cap and Balance Act'' which I aptly named the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' Because it tap danced around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our nation's debt obligations. That bill would have forced our nation to join a losers club as it would have eliminated important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. The theme for the Republicans seems to be a focus on cutting programs for the most at need and ignoring the need to focus on Job creation. This bill busts the hopes and dreams of our children, seniors, and military families. It busts the hopes to grow our nation in the future. The ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' was just a distraction and now we have the opportunity to once again get serious about raising our debt. We can not continue to waste a tremendous amount of time. The Deadline is right around the corner. The American people cannot have a government that is the embodiment of living check to check. We must do something NOW! For a moment think about the American people. Step back and envision the faces of those who will be impacted if we are not successful in finding common ground. They are the faces of the the elderly who will not receive their social security payments. They are the faces of children and infants who will not receive their WIC benefits. They are the faces of hardworking every day Americans, including the multitudes of poor working families who will not be able to receive the benefits they need from government run programs that are keeping them from falling into homelessness. When you think of our future, also see our present. Without raising this debt limit we are putting the present and the future of Americans at risk.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I think you said playing politics. Is that the same as a schoolyard game of playing chicken? And in the course of what you just said, is there any light for creating jobs in this approach that is being taken, where you have no revenue and you have cuts, with no plan? I see no opportunity for creating jobs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Colleagues, Mr. Chairman, if I might, I just wanted to start by acknowledging the loss of our valiant Capitol Police, Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson, who were honored today. I just wanted to acknowledge the men and women of the United States Capitol Police for their service, and my sympathy again to the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson. I also wanted to make note of my worshipping with the Norwegian Seamen's Church yesterday in Houston and let the Norwegian people and the people of Norway, of course, know that America stands with them during this very difficult time. I thought it was appropriate to acknowledge those tragedies because it is a time when we have had to come together. And I also believe that as we look at where we are today, this should be an opportunity for us to be able to come together. So I'm disappointed in this legislation because it really does not seem to call us to do that. I want to remind America and my colleagues that we are 50 States, but there are times when we act on behalf of our States and districts and there are times when it is important to exist as a single nation. One single State did not defend the Nation after the attacks on Pearl Harbor; we came together. One State on its own or one region did not end segregation and establish civil rights; we did it together. There are times when the stakes are so high that we simply must unite. And so I raise the question of: Where are we with this bill that seems to attack both clean air and clean water by repealing requirements that prevent pesticides sprayed from chemical companies from entering rivers and streams? I come from the energy sector, and I believe that the energy sector creates jobs. I also believe that we can be a good neighbor, strong in our domestic development and production, but also concerned about clean air, clean water and the environment. When you listen to those who have worked in this area for so long, you hear opposition from the Wilderness Society that says this Interior bill is an extreme assault on America's bedrock--environmental protection; the Clean Water Network that says these severe spending and budgetary cuts in this bill include not only cuts but a series of policy riders, really having no place in the appropriations process; and the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, Physicians for Social Responsibility, these budget cuts and/or policy riders would impact EPA's ability to do their job. I don't know if our Members realize that in 2011 we cut 16 percent from the EPA; now we want to cut 18 percent, over $1.5 billion. That cripples the very agency that protects our water and our air, protects our children and our elderly. What is the response to our responsibility to be the custodians of this wonderful Nation? What a beautiful country we have. And then to hear that another one-third is being cut from the National Landscape and Conservation System that does monuments and trails and our wild rivers. How many families pack up in times that are hard and take those family members on a road trip to travel the beauty of this Nation--the tall mountains, the deep valleys, and the wonderful rivers? Well, let me tell you what this legislation will do. It will be a bill with a litany of additional cuts, important for programs that cut climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is a program that, in essence, assaults what we're trying to do here in America. How many friends know that we have been able to prevent 230,000 deaths each year by regulating toxins in the air? We've already heard my colleagues come to the floor of the House and talk about the rising increase in many cities of asthma. So let me make it very clear: We want to create jobs. I have joined together where we can deregulate and de-entangle the regulations that would keep us from creating jobs. But I also believe that when it comes to protecting the Nation's assets, we join together as Republicans and Democrats. I remind you that none of this creates jobs. I remind you that we have already engaged in these cuts. Isn't it interesting that in regular order we are now doing, even though there is disagreement, what our friends on the other side of the aisle said they can't do? That's why they're not raising the debt ceiling. But I will tell you that these draconian cuts, along with the draconian debate on the debt ceiling, is what is going to undermine America. Let's stand as Americans unified to fix this crisis. First, I would like to thank my friends in the Congressional Progressive Caucus who are here today to stand up for the environment, and the health of our constituents. I am saddened that so many of my Republican friends are willing to sacrifice the quality of the very air we breathe, and water that we drink. This harmful legislation cuts the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 18 percent, in addition to a 16 percent cut in funding for FY 2011. This is unacceptable; in order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise instead of haphazardly slashing the EPA budget. The cuts to the EPA budget included in the bill reduce funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, grants for state implementation of environmental programs, and restorative funding for the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. The Administration estimates that cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund will cut off funding for nearly 400 wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, resulting in thousands of lost jobs. These cuts purposefully 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 risks, such as typhoid, hepatitis, cancer, and organ damage. This legislation has attached several riders to further undermine the Clean Water Act, by repealing requirements that prevent pesticides sprayed by chemical companies from entering rivers and streams, and stopping the EPA from treating coal ash as hazardous waste. 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 aggravated asthmas. As a Representative of the 18th District of Houston, I am firmly committed to protecting the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we need for our survival. Since 1999, Houston has exchanged titles with Los Angeles for the poorest air quality in the nation. The poor air quality is attributed to the amount of aerosols, particles of carbon and sulfates in the air. The carcinogens found in the air have been known to cause cancer, particularly in children. The EPA is the very agency charged with issuing regulations that would address this serious problem. Those regulations should be of course fair while doing the job they are intended to do. But, my friends, the disregard this bill shows for the health of the American people does not stop there. Another rider prohibits the EPA from finalizing regulations to reduce mercury emissions from factories. There is no reason why Energy, jobs creation and the environment cannot work harmoniously. Not only does this legislation irresponsibly eradicate life saving provisions of the Clean Air and Water Acts, it also cuts the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) budget by 78 percent. The LWCF funds many park and outdoor recreation areas that contribute over $700 billion to the economy and facilitate 6.5 million jobs. This bill makes a litany of additional cuts to important programs that cut climate change prevention programs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It is full of perks for special interest, and reduces our ability to facilitate the upkeep of National Parks, protect the Grand Canyon, and add species to the endangered species list. I am outraged that my friends on the other side of the aisle would consider passing this legislation that compromises our access to healthy air and clean water; that reverses EPA regulations that were implemented to save lives. Public lands, national parks, the air, the water, the wildlife in this nation belongs to everyone, and I cannot support a bill that trades the quality of these precious resources for benefits to big business and special interest groups. 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 must unite as states and act as one. Our Nation's parks are maintained by the National Park Service. The Park Service is responsible for preserving, restoring, and maintaining our Nation's monuments for the enjoyment of all Americans. Recently, the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial has joined other historic sites on our Nation's Mall. Martin Luther King, Jr., gave his life in the pursuit of a dream. His ``I Have a Dream'' speech has been read and heard by millions of men, women, and children around the world. The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial is one of many cherished sites honoring men and women who have advanced the society we know today; historic sites that include Freedman town and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. When the Republicans cut the National Park Service, they cut our ability to maintain and preserve our Nation's monuments. The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic site is operated by the National Park Service (under U.S. Department of the Interior). This legislation contains $2.5 billion for the NPS, which is $132 million below last year's level. Operation of the National Park System is funded at $2.2 billion, which is $10 million below FY 2011 enacted levels. This funding will allow all National Parks to remain open and NPS activities to continue through next year without furloughs or reductions in full time or seasonal employees. These cuts result in the loss of jobs and the loss of our Nation's cherished and prized history. The EPA has a broad responsibility, for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air pollution, water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. The EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems. There has been a systematic effort to tie the hands of the EPA's ability to protect our environment and thereby protect the long term health of our Nation. Cuts to the EPA are just another means to bring down the agency. The EPA can keep our environment safe without hindering job creations. There are many critics out there who despise the EPA because they say that it is a burden to economic growth. I say that this is nonsense, for healthy populations are the foundation for prosperity. Let us not forget what happened in Woburn, Massachusetts in the 1980s, where numerous families were afflicted with cancer as a result of toxins being placed in the water. It was the work of brilliant lawyers in conjunction with the EPA who proved that the chemical entities involved deliberately placed toxins in the water. Let us also not forget The Love Canal of the 1970s near Niagara Falls either. In this region, scores of women had miscarriages and many more were contaminated from chemical wastes in the water. Are supporters of this bill encouraging our country to go back to a time when these problems were common? Because the issues associated with Woburn and the Love Canal are well in the past, supporters of cuts to the EPA must feel that the water people drink is perfectly safe to drink and does not need to be regulated. Just last year in the small town of Crestwood, outside of Chicago, it was discovered that town officials were secretly introducing tainted well water into the town water supply for years. The people were told that the water came from Lake Michigan. When the story broke, the Department of Public Health conducted a survey of disease rates and found that men in the town had high rates of kidney and gastrointestinal cancer. I, for one, will not tolerate this and I know the American people will not tolerate this as well. The American people will not tolerate the fear of turning on their faucets and wondering whether or not the water coming out has lead, plutonium, or wastes from chemical entities. Protecting the quality of our air and water, protecting the health of each and every one of our constituents, is an example of a time when Congress must consider the implications beyond our districts and our states. Surely preventing 230,000 deaths each year by regulating toxins in the air, and ensuring that millions will not lose their access to healthy drinking water is not controversial. I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents they represent, and take essential steps to protect the environment. Until that time, I cannot, and will not, support this damaging legislation.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my good friend did what many of us did, my neighbor in Louisiana. I went home to Texas, and interacted with so many constituents, many of them asking the question: Why? I believe it's important to ask the question: Why not? Let me tell you, my friends, that we don't need to politicize the debt ceiling, which has been raised many, many times, but we do need to tell the truth: for if the debt ceiling is not raised, trillions of dollars will be lost, not of those of us who sit on this floor, but from the portfolios and packages for seniors and 401(k)s. If you want to talk about $1 trillion, talk about what will be lost to our seniors and hardworking Americans in collapsing their 401(k)s. There is no option. There is not an option for the short term. That's a joke. That's politics to start us back again in April or March. Let's go forward with the proposed Reid plan. Let's get a deficit reduction; raise the debt ceiling; cut what we can and go into regular order. That is the responsible, adult way to go. America is watching. America is looking. I am not going to stand by while trillions of dollars are lost. I ask my Republican friends to join us in a reasoned response to America's concerns.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I'm excited about the number of Members who welcome guests to the United States Capitol. It is an important place because it belongs to the American people. I'm delighted that the Poindexter family has joined me. But many of those people who have traveled have traveled by airplanes and have gone through the Nation's airports. I am the ranking member on the Transportation Security Committee addressing security issues across America; and I am disappointed, but I would like to say a little outraged, that right now the FAA bill is held up on minor issues such as whether or not we'll allow our workers to engage in discussions about their work conditions. It is being held up because the bill cancels FAA and air traffic controllers in small airports and the supplemental support, if you will, the supplemental support that has been given to small airports in rural areas. It's time to get to work. Our Republican friends need to stop holding up this bill for minor issues so that Americans can fly in safety and security.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. My friends are back again, those that we have a great deal of respect for. And I am reminded of my colleague, Congressman Cummings, who mentioned the enormous amount of foreclosures that our military families experience. Maybe we're not clear on what our new board really does, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let me make it clear. It makes prices clear; it makes terms and conditions clear; it ensures that mortgage disclosures are short, relevant, and understandable by consumers and lenders and military families; it lets consumers shop for the best product of that price; and it helps consumers understand the true cost of a financial transaction. It acts like a cop on the beat for our consumers. The Financial Stability Oversight Board has its role--to review the actions. But let me tell you what this bill has just done. In the Dodd-Frank bill, it has been a defined time schedule for the review to take place. So if you are, in essence, hanging with a bad foreclosure or some bad actions, this oversight board can review quickly the decision that the consumer board did to protect you. But you know what has happened now? They have given the oversight board an indefinite amount of time. This is in the backdrop of undergraduates carrying record-high credit card balances, $3,173. What my amendment does--it restores reality. It restores a definitive time, a time certain that the oversight board can review the regulation that has given you relief so that you can benefit from the consumer protection. Is that not a simple premise? I ask my colleagues to accept this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number #3 to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment will improve certainty with respect to Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) regulations by restoring current time limits in which the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) must review and act on a petition to overrule a CFPB regulation, and restores a provision allowing a petition to expire if the FSOC fails to act within 45 days of the filing of the petition or upon expiration of a temporary stay. Under my amendment the FSOC chair may stay the effectiveness of a regulation at the request of a single FSOC member for 90 days. If the FSOC chair does not stay the rule, the FSOC must vote within 45 days of the date the petition is filed. If the FSOC stays the rule, the vote must be taken before the stay elapses. If a vote is not taken within these time frames, the petition is deemed to have been dismissed. This is a basic and reasoned approach to ensure that rules issued by the CFPB are reviewed in a timely fashion by the FSOC and will not result in an endless delay and an endless issuance of stays which would thereby render any CFPB rule ineffective. Providing the FSOC with unlimited time to review CFPB regulations is yet another way in which this legislation undermines the authority of the CFPB and the necessity for consumer protection standards. CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial institutions from employing unfair practices. This legislation would allow the Financial Stability Oversight Council to review regulatory measures passed by the CFPB without any time constraints. Under H.R. 1315, the FSOC can avoid making decisions, suspending CFPB regulations in the process, providing the FSOC with a method to circumvent the authority of the CFPB without being held accountable. A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card procedures and other consumer services. The collapse of the housing market in 2008, and the financial crisis that followed proved how intertwined our financial system is. When securities collapse, due to failing mortgages, credit becomes scarce and companies lay employees off. Losing a job and prolonged unemployment can lead to the loss of one's home. In order to truly safeguard against the irresponsible practices that led to the financial crisis of 2008, we need an agency, such as the CFPB, to ensure that consumers are protected. It will protect consumers like Charles, who was forced to seek a loan from a small, private lending company he had never heard of. The company required a cosigner for the loan, and stipulated the cosigner had assets worth far more than the loan. When Charles defaulted on the loan, the company went after his cosigner and his assets from the successful small business he owned. Despite efforts to modify the loan based on Charles' unexpected economic circumstances, the lender targeted his cosigner, resulting in devastating effects to his credit rating. The predatory loan company went as far as to assign Charles a new loan to cover his debt, using the same cosigner, despite knowing that Charles had no way to pay either of the loans, effectively ruining the credit of both Charles and his cosigner. If the FSOC is able to indefinitely delay the implementation of CFPB rulings, it greatly reduces the effectiveness of the bureau, and weakens the Dodd-Frank mechanism for consumer protection. We need this Bureau to safeguard the interests of consumers like George, a disabled veteran from Texas, whose doctor helped him apply for loan discharge, under the Disability Act. A 100% disabled veteran, extenuating circumstances caused George to default on his loan; regardless, his request for loan discharge was denied. As a result of being denied a discharge, George, a registered nurse was not able to renew his nursing license. Which left George without a nursing license and thereby without a license he lost his ability to maintain a nursing position. A job as a nurse would have allowed George to have an income in order to pay back the loan. George found himself in a viscous cycle. George, a man who has honorably served his nation. A man who was wounded in battle . . . that George now a man who cannot pay his loan, cannot attain a license, and cannot find a high paying position. If George was educated on the consequences' of taking out a loan . . . he might have made a different choice. The Bureau gives financial consumers a frame of reference before agreeing to often confusing and convoluted loan schemes. The CFPB would also prevent predatory companies from taking advantage of people like Carol. One day, while cleaning her home, Carol received a phone call from a debt management company. This company told Carol that they would be able to get her creditors to lower their interest rates, which would allow Carol to pay off her credit card, mortgage and car loan debt in a shorter frame of time. Carol was told she would save at least $2,500 and would save much more. Carol was skeptical, especially when she heard the price was $499, but the salesperson assured Carol she would see lower interest rates within the first 30 days of the program and that these savings would more than cover the fee. The company kept the initial fee, and drove her further into debt by doing nothing to attempt to find solutions to pay her existing debt. She had fallen victim to a scam. I offer this amendment to ensure that the CFPB exists to enforce regulations to protect consumers, rather than an ineffective body that is used as a tool for political grandstanding. If we are serious about providing the American people with a protection mechanism, we must do so by way of action, not by telling the public what they want to hear. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady. I'm asking my colleagues to support this amendment, which restores a 3-month review. There are people in America that don't even know what their interest rates are on their credit card. The Consumer Protection Bureau will help that. We need oversight that is refined and defined to be able to protect the consumer. With that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have great respect for my friend from West Virginia, but I'm so glad she said 90 days. My friends, that is 3 months. They want to take away 90 days and put it forever. Almost like Dorothy, we're going to the Wizard of Oz, land of Oz, forever and ever and ever. And so individuals like Michelle, whose home was damaged during the hurricane, who got costly repairs but had wage cuts and then found that their house might be in foreclosure, they sent a company $1,400. The company told them there was nothing they could do and they were foreclosed on. The Bureau, being able to protect them from that now, has oversight over positive regulation, and that oversight to review it or to eliminate it goes on and on and on while Michelle and her husband walk the streets. Or Jacob, who wanted to just come as a retired mechanic to buy a CD. He wanted to speak to a financial advisor. He was talked into buying a $3,000 up-front fee. The man he talked to wasn't even in the bank. He only made $25,000. He wound up losing $12,000. They want Jacob to wait forever and ever and ever. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me just say as I yield to the gentleman, the ranking member and chairman at the time of passage of this bill, I was given a litany of ills that can attack consumers. I'm glad we have this board, and I'm glad that we are looking to restore the two-thirds oversight to protect these individuals and the nurse and the child. I ask support for the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank Mr. Frank, and I thank the ranking member, and I thank the managers of this legislation as well. Mr. Chairman, I have become friends with my two poster pictures here because I do think they symbolize sort of the composite of America. My amendment, I think, focuses on making sure that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is something that consumers asked for-- sometimes under the Christmas tree or during the gift-giving season, you get a gift that you may not have asked for, but you know there's a problem or you know you want something, and all of a sudden that gift shows up. That's what the Dodd-Frank bill did with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now my friends want to defang, derail and delay this very important legislation. The bureau is one of the strongest provisions of the Dodd- Frank bill, and it was created to consolidate the authorities responsible for consumer protection. It is an important bill because, American consumers, you need to have strong protection: credit cards, buying a car, student loans. We're not trying to undermine businesses. We're simply trying to create an even playing field. My amendment empowers the consumer board and ensures that it will be able to issue the rules that will protect the average financial consumer. The bill that we're speaking of, as written, empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule a consumer victory by a simple majority vote. This will literally turn the authority of the CFPB around and weaken consumer authority. My amendment restores the two-thirds responsibility, or the two- thirds vote, that is needed to overrule a good vote for the consumers--a good vote for this nurse who may be buying a car; a good vote for this little one whose parents may be overburdened with credit card debt because they signed on to credit cards with enormous interest rates of which they are unaware; or it may be able to help these military families, many of them suffering because of the sons and daughters, husbands and wives who are overseas--to be able to say to these families, you can get a home without being defrauded. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, number 4 to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protections and Safety Act. My amendment will ensure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) will be able to make effective decisions on behalf of the public by restoring the two-thirds majority vote in order for the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to overturn a CFPB ruling. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is one of the strongest provisions in the Dodd-Frank legislation passed last year. The Bureau was created to consolidate the authorities responsible for consumer protection. American consumers need a strong independent CFPB to police credit and payment markets and to put consumer protection first. The widespread economic crisis has threatened consumer wealth. The impact has reached consumers worldwide. Many Consumers lost their assets, incomes, and ultimately confidence. Consolidating these regulatory authorities allowed the bureau to exert its influence and enforce consumer protections. With this newly defined power afforded to the CFPB came a new era of oversight. The CFPB has stopped unfair practices, protected the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and held big business accountable to prevent bailouts at the expense of the taxpayers. The CFPB's Functions The CFPB will look out for people as they borrow money or use other financial services by: Implementing and enforcing Federal consumer financial laws; Reviewing business practices to ensure that financial services providers are following the law; Monitoring the marketplace and taking appropriate action to make sure markets work as transparently as they can for consumers; and Establishing a toll-free consumer hotline and website for complaints and questions about consumer financial products and services. My amendment empowers the CFPB and ensures that it will be able to issue rules that will protect the average financial consumer. H.R. 1316 as written empowers the Financial Stability Oversight Council to overrule regulatory measures passed by the CFPB with a simple majority, instead of the two-thirds majority in current law, this change to a majority vote will make it easier to weaken consumer protections for the CFPB. This will literally return control of rules governing financial products back in the hand of the very agencies that were not able to neither foresee nor offset the financial crisis we are currently recovering from. My amendment restores the 2/3's vote to overturn regulations of the CFPB and it restores the rights of the consumer. A strong and independent CFPB is the only way to ensure that the best interest of the consumer is protected. This bureau was designed to increase transparency and equality in mortgage practices, credit card procedures and other consumer services. Allowing the CFPB to set and enforce clear and consistent regulations is a fair and cohesive way to safeguard against the type of practices that contributed directly to the financial meltdown of 2008. Cities and towns across the nation are still struggling to recover from the collapse of the housing market, and subsequent financial crisis. According to study of 20 metropolitan centers throughout America conducted in 2010 by the National League of Cities, Houston, where I represent the 18th Congressional District is still suffering an unemployment rate of 8.3%, and a foreclosure rate than has risen more than 60% since 2007. I seek to restore the two-thirds majority needed to overturn a regulation issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection to safeguard hardworking Americans from fraudulent practices, and predatory loans. This amendment will protect people like Chris from McKinney, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to particularly thank the Out of Poverty Caucus: Congresswoman Lee, Congressmen Towns, Conyers, Honda, and a number of other Members who have joined that caucus and all of us who are here on the floor who are members of that caucus and who believe that this could not be a more important time. A few days ago, I got on the floor to rename the Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation that was passed that would cut $6 trillion out of the hearts and needs of the American people. I called it the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the Benefits'' bill because this is not a question of Members who are standing here today, wanting to recklessly spend your money. In fact, we are excited about opportunities that help boost the middle class, but we want to remind our colleagues that there are Americans who are impoverished. Do you know that there are Americans who are on the front lines-- young soldiers of the ages of 18, 19, 20, and 21 who have come out of places like the Delta in Mississippi or the Fifth Ward in Texas or the Appalachian Mountains or from the urban centers around the Nation--who are suffering from the highest degree of poverty, not poverty that they have generated on themselves? Yes, there are issues sometimes with legacy poverty: families that have never broken the cycle, who are living in public housing or, even worse, who are living in housing that is not fit to be lived in. Travel in some of the shoes that many of us travel in, and go to places in America where there is no running water. So we come today to acknowledge the fact that there is poverty in America. In my own State, the people who are living in poverty rose to 16.3 percent in 2007 and to 17.2 percent in 2009--and we happen to be the second largest State in the Nation. Those are large numbers of individuals. We have the highest number of soldiers in the State of Texas who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom have had to access food stamps. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that there are currently 5.6 million Texans living in poverty. 2.2 million of them are children. So I stand here today. Let our eyes rest upon what poverty truly is. This little one is a symbol of what poverty really is. It is the innocent and those who cannot speak for themselves. Over 50 percent of the children who are in foster care in Harris County--that is in Texas--happen to be minority children, African American children. I remember my late colleague Mickey Leland was so overwhelmed by the depth of children who were in crisis and in need that he organized something called the ``crisis cradles'' so that, when babies had to be taken out of a distressed home in the middle of the night, they could come to a comforting place. Those babies were in poverty, were in crisis, and they became part of the foster care system. That is a system that needs money, not because they're deadbeats, but because they are innocent children who have come into home situations where women are impoverished, where there may be abuse. Poverty comes in all forms. 3.9 million residents of Texas rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program. This is all discretionary funding which the $6 trillion would devastate--again, tap dancing around lifting the debt ceiling. President Reagan said to Majority Leader Baker that it would be an incalculable devastating result if, at the time that he was President, the debt ceiling was not raised. By the way, it was raised 17 times. Does anyone understand that, constitutionally, the debt ceiling may be unconstitutional? The 14th Amendment, section 4--read your Constitution--says that all debt of the United States, public debt, should be recognized. So just to conclude, Mr. Speaker, we come today to let America know: Should we let this little baby be part of the losers' club or should we let our soldiers and their families and grandmothers and grandfathers be part of the losers' club? We are standing here today for the impoverished, and we are committed to fighting for them. I would like to thank my friend from California for managing this time and drawing attention to the millions of Americans living in poverty. In the coming weeks and months, this Congress will continue to debate the debt ceiling and budget. However, as we discuss cuts, it is imperative that we not lose sight of how funding reductions affect the American people. CFPB regulations enacted by the bureau are designed to protect the average consumer from fraud and abuse, and prevent financial institutions from employing unfair practices. In 2009, there were 43.6 million Americans throughout the nation living in poverty. The 2010 Federal poverty threshold, determined by the U.S. Census, is that 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. In my home state of Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, the percentage of people living in poverty rose from 16.3 percent in 2007 to 17.2 percent in 2009. 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. 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 when in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and persistent unemployment so many rely on Federal benefits to survive. In April 2011, 3.9 million residents of Texas relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Access Program (SNAP) and other food stamp programs to feed their families. The Republican budget reforms SNAP benefits into block grants, and caps the amount of Federal funding available to the program, with no guarantee that the allocated funding will be sufficient to meet the demand of low income families struggling with hunger. The Republican budget also cuts $504 million from the Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Program, which provides nutritious food to struggling mothers and children. The USDA reports that more than 990,000 Texas families rely on WIC for essential nutrition to keep mothers and their children healthy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates changes to Medicare under the Republican budget plan will triple the cost for new beneficiaries by 2030 and increase costs for current recipients, including the 2.9 million people in Texas who received Medicare in 2010. The Republican proposal will enact damaging changes to Medicaid, threatening healthcare resources for the 60 million people, half of them children, that rely on this program to stay healthy. A block grant for funding or a cap on federal Medicaid spending would increase the cost for states and the low income families who benefit from the program. 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 under this budget. 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 benefitting children and the elderly in order to finance $800 billion in new tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. 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. I firmly believe that all Americans can come together to protect the most vulnerable citizens in the Nation, to provide relief for the poor and the hungry, because 43 million of our fellow countrymen living in poverty, 15 million of them children, is simply unacceptable. Finally, where are the jobs--cutting $6 trillion will not create jobs. I am here to create jobs for the poor and our American families. I urge every Member in this Chamber to look at what unites us rather than what divides us. We are linked by our compassion, and bound by the fundamental edict of the American dream that says we will strive to provide our children with a better life than we had. We can, and we must reach a compromise that will not cut valuable services from those who need government the most. I thank my friend, the gentlelady from California.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Republican friends jumped for joy when they passed a draconian bill that would cut $6 trillion and jeopardize a lifeline for millions of Americans, and that is Social Security. We have all been referring to a President that endeared himself to this whole country, President Reagan. His letter to Senator Baker said: The Nation can ill-afford to allow such a result. The risk, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: The Senate must vote to raise the debt ceiling--in 1983 when the country was much smaller. But what do we face here? Frivolous activity like Republican freshmen who, in their manner of affect, showing disrespect for the Office of the President. One Member said: ``I have a challenge for the President. I dare him, I double dare him to even think about cutting Social Security.'' What about the Member? Should he be dared to not cut Social Security? The Republican vote yesterday already cut Social Security. And you've just cut Social Security as Republican freshmen. Why don't we engage in negotiation and let the approach be negotiation and resolution--not obstruction. Why don't we engage in negotiation and work together as a Nation, as the American people want? I would like a little more respect from my colleagues for the President of the United States, President Barack Obama.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer and much more secure. The American passenger has value. Those dear souls who lost their lives on 9/11 who were not exposed to this concept of terrorism had value. The American passenger is entitled to safety and security. Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives, babies, family members, businesspersons, associates, colleagues. They're American passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security, I believe we need more than what is presently moving in this bill that has not come to the floor, and I believe we should move on with the conferees to be appointed because, as I said, I sent my language to the initial negotiation. We need to move on so there's an opportunity for us to work this idea. But this is more than a study. We don't need another study. We have already seen the mishaps. On 9/11 we discovered the value and importance of these particular workers, and we now have discovered the problem. I ask my colleagues to raise the question and to question this rule and this bill, or this extension, because we are putting our American passengers in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, as we consider yet another extension for FAA programs, I rise today to discuss a key issue that I urge the conferees on the FAA Reauthorization bill to consider. Prior to H.R. 658 being sent to the Senate, I offered an amendment to establish a mandate that at the top 20 U.S. airports, there shall be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times. This is a matter of national security. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep, or being locked out of the control tower, or for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times. I submit that by simply having a codified policy that at the busiest and most critical airports we mandate there be personnel redundancy in control towers, we can make the aviation system much safer. The American Passenger has value. The American Passenger is entitled to Safety and Security. Think about the people on planes flying across our country. They are our grandmothers, husbands, wives and babies. They are American Passengers and their lives have value. To ensure their safety and security we must insist that Air Traffic Controllers are vigilant. To ensure their vigilance we must set reasonable minimum standards. After 9-11, we discovered the vital importance of protecting our domestic airspace. Air Traffic Controllers are part of the front line of defense to protect the ensure the safety of our air space. If they lose contact with a plane, they can alert authorities. If an Air Traffic Controller at a major domestic and international airport is asleep at the wheel who will make that call? It is unfair to put the lives of American passengers at high volume airports at ANY time in the hands of one individual, who may at some point be incapacitated. Even pilots have co-pilots. What if the Controller fell ill? What then? What would you tell those passengers on the plane? Hope for the best? We need to provide the support that Air Traffic Controllers need in addition to the responsibility. This language I support creates a mandate, that at all times there must be a minimum of three air traffic controllers in the tower during hours of airfield operation. I commend Secretary LaHood for ordering a second air traffic controller to be on duty overnight at National Airport. However, the Secretary's action simply evidences that there is no current mandate for multiple air traffic controllers. According to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, most airports operate 24 hours a day with two controllers in the tower for the midnight-to-6 a.m. shift. The operative word is ``most'', we must act to create a uniform nationwide standard, verifiable and enforceable by the FAA. Again, safety and security are mutually needed to protect the public. This mandate of 2 air traffic controllers on duty at the top 20 airports is vital to America's National Security. I urge the conferees to adopt this important provision.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. And I want to associate myself with his very detailed and well-stated opening statement on this legislation. I think the premise should be that all of us agree on the importance of the FAA. I have served as the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee and now serve as its ranking member. Through that timeframe, I have seen the overlapping need to view particularly FAA's work and particularly air traffic controller work as part of both the safety and security of this Nation. I remind my colleagues of the activist role that air traffic controllers in particular took during 9/11. During the massiveness of confusion and the loss of the destination or the placing of three of our major airlines and planes that were flying in, airplanes, the air traffic controller was really a team that was on the first response, if you will. So their work is enormously important. And my colleague mentioned some numbers that I think are extremely important: $1.3 trillion is what we find as the revenue in the airline industry, 11\1/2\ million jobs, a 75 percent increase in employees within 20 years and 1 billion in the next decade. I want to say that this means that we have a great obligation to protect the American traveling public. I also want to associate myself with the idea of not protecting our small airports and disadvantaging those airports by this legislation. And again I assume Chairman Rockefeller's comments play to that as well. But I had offered an amendment that was sent to the Senate to establish a mandate that at the top 20 United States airports there should be no fewer than three air traffic controllers on duty during periods of airfield operations. I firmly believe this provision will ensure that air traffic control towers at high-volume airports in this country will be appropriately staffed at all times. Mr. Speaker, we engaged with the conference committee very diligently. We have all heard the recent stories of air traffic controllers falling asleep or being locked out of the control tower or, for whatever reason, not being able to be on the job, on duty at critical times. Now, I know that air traffic controllers reflect the diversity of America and the various ills and concerns. We also know they have long concentrated hours and it's a difficult job. Just recently there was a question of whether or not an air traffic controller was inebriated on the job, whether he drank on the job or he came to the job, he or she, with this condition. But if that was the case and there was one air traffic controller there, there's zero. If that was the case and there were two, then there was one.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the epidemic across America of voter suppression and requiring voter ID. Do you realize that in almost every election in my own State of Texas there has been discrimination, intimidation to voters? Where we used to be able to use a birth certificate, a utility bill, government check, paycheck, and other documents, now we cannot because someone suggests that someone will steal someone's birth certificate to impersonate a voter. I don't think that's right. What we need now is to eliminate the poll tax of the 21st century. Barbara Jordan recognized that voting is a right, not a privilege, and she stood in the gap to ensure that Texas was covered by the Voting Rights Act. Barbara Jordan would not be here today if we had the voter intimidation that we're seeing growing across America. Eliminate voter intimidation by elimination of the oppressive voter ID requirement by returning to the standard and acceptable requirements such as birth certificates, current utility bill, government check which provide the protection to protect the vote so that seniors and others will not be stopped from voting. Introduction Good morning Members of Congress, Congressional Black Caucus Members. Today, we address an issue that disturbs the very foundation of our Nation; the right of each and every citizen to participate in electing their representatives in government. Enshrined in our Constitution by our Nation's founders, this fundamental right is the linchpin of our democracy. Unfortunately, the right to vote was not recognized for all people in this country at its inception. Indeed, for the several decades after the signing of the Constitution, the right to vote belonged to white men who owned property alone. Through a long-fought effort by dedicated activists, courageous legislators and judges, and with the gradual evolution of public sentiment, the voting franchise was extended by law to all white men, non-white men, women, native Americans, and then finally, to all citizens over the age of 18. However, even though the right to vote was legally recognized for all citizens of age, there have always been sinister efforts to suppress the vote of certain citizens who were guaranteed the right to vote by the Constitution. Through poll taxes, grandfather clauses, literacy tests, intimidation and outright violence, voter suppression remained an agenda by those who do not believe in the principle of one person, one vote, and who seek to keep certain groups from participating in our democracy. Voter ID Voter photo identification legislation a recent phenomenon and the latest tactic of the voter suppression agenda. Only a decade ago, in any of our 50 states, a voter could set out on election Tuesday and be permitted to vote in his or her respective state without being required to present a photo ID to election officials Alarmingly, since that time, 15 states have adopted photo ID requirements for voting. In fact, at least 34 states have introduced legislation requiring voters to produce photo IDs at the voting booth in this year alone. Seven states, including my home state of Texas, have adopted the strictest form of voter photo ID legislation with the fewest exceptions. This raises the question: what caused these states to, after more than two centuries of holding elections without photo ID requirements, impose such a burden on voters? Proponents of these laws argue that voter identification fraud is an epidemic in America, while there has been little documented evidence. Voter impersonation fraud occurs when one person votes using the identity of another. In order to obtain a state-issued photo ID valid under these statues, states often charge fees. Moreover the documents used for proof of identity in order to obtain photo IDs, such as birth certificates and social security cards, also cost money. When added together, along with transportation costs, the amount of money required to obtain an acceptable form of identification can be substantial for a citizen who lacks the financial means to do so. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, a Supreme Court case decided in 1966, outlawed the Jim Crow requirement that a citizen pay a poll tax in order to be allowed to vote in an election. (Majority Opinion by Justice Douglas) In its decision, the Court said--quote--``We conclude that a State violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.'' However, with voter photo ID requirements, those who would suppress the rights of citizens to vote would have vote a way to implement a backdoor poll tax. Voters without valid, non-expired state or federal government issued identification documents will be burdened with the expenses of obtaining one of those prescribed forms of ID. Because of the state's so-called ``rational basis'' for requiring photo identification in order to vote, Indiana's state photo ID law was upheld by the Supreme Court in Crawford in 2008. The effects of such a ruling are unduly discriminatory and target specific groups of voters: low income voters, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, disabled voters, and college students. I will leave you to guess which party has been behind the concerted and overzealous efforts by state legislatures and governors to push these discriminatory bills. Eleven percent of the population, or roughly 21 million people, do not have a government-issued photo identification document. Nationwide, depending on the state, African-Americans are 2 or 3 times as likely as their white counterparts to lack government-issued photo identification. Nearly a fifth of our seniors do not have government-issued photo IDs. We must remember that voting is a right under our Constitution, not a privilege. We must prevent this effort to turn back the hands of time in order to prevent eligible voters from exercising their Constitutional rights. Texas Now, I am sad to report that my home state of Texas has been the latest victim of the systematic effort to suppress votes all around America. In late May, Governor Rick Perry signed into law the Texas iteration of voter photo identification legislation, which was based upon the extremely restrictive Indiana photo ID law. The history and current state of discriminatory voter suppression in Texas is so pervasive that any substantive change to its election law must be submitted by preclearance to the Department of Justice under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This makes Texas one of the 9 states in our country that must submit election law alterations, such as photo ID requirements, to the Department of Justice before the changes are permitted to take effect. The law is set to take effect in January next year. Currently, Texas election law allows voters to use their birth certificate, a current utility bill, a government check, a paycheck, official mail addressed to them, and other documents in lieu of a driver's license issued by the state or a U.S. passport. These documents have long been sufficient in the state of Texas to prove one's identity for the purposes of voting. However, once the new law takes effect, those alternative forms of identification will be unavailable to citizens of Texas. In fact, Texan voters will be unable to use their birth certificate, which is issued by the State of Texas, in order to vote. Now, this fact is particularly revealing, especially in light of the purported reason for passing voter photo identification legislation, which is to combat a ``supposed'' widespread problem of voter impersonation fraud. If we are to accept their argument that the voter photo ID laws are for the purpose of preventing voter impersonation fraud, then why not continue to allow people to use birth certificates? By banning citizens from using their state-issued birth certificates, we are required to believe the ridiculous and unfounded notion of people stealing other people's birth certificates in order to show up at an election to vote! Where is the sense in that? I don't know about you, but I have never heard a single case in which a person stole someone else's birth certificate and then showed up at the polls and voted as that person. No, the fact that birth certificates were removed from Texas election law as a permissible form of identification reveals that voter impersonation fraud is merely a pretextual argument; a guise under which the real purpose of suppressing the votes of certain people can be achieved. That is something for which we cannot stand. However, while a birth certificate is no longer good enough to prove your identity for the purpose of voting in the State of Texas, ``coincidentally'', the new law does allow voters to use concealed handgun licenses in order to be permitted to cast their ballots. There is no doubt that the Texas Voter ID law was specifically crafted with the intent to impose new obligations on the rights of certain Texans to vote, while attempting to preserve the rights of other citizens they believe to be predisposed to voting a certain way. This is wrong in the State of Texas, and it is wrong in America. Conclusion In the Harper Supreme Court case, Justice Douglas closed his majority opinion with these words: ``Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.'' Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining, please.

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