Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. And I yield now to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Congresswoman Fudge and let me make a commitment to the American people that you can be assured that these Members of Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Tri-Caucus, will stand in the gap to prevent elections from being stolen and your fundamental birthright of voting from being stolen. That is justice, and we will be fighting for justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding. I am just overwhelmed with the words ``breathtakingly arrogant policies.'' I am literally shocked, and let me tell you why. When you want to understand, my Republican friends, why we're in the position we're in, what about the 37.5 percent of the debt being the Bush-era tax cuts of which this bill and any of your negotiations don't in any way suggest revenue?--which the American people understand. Arrogant policies by the President? The Recovery and Reinvestment was only 5.2 percent, creating 3 million jobs. Let me say that again: 3 million jobs. The economic downturn came about with the Iraq war and others. So, today, my friends come on the floor of the House with the Cut, Cap, and Balance. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me suggest to you that the amendments that were put in the bill have destroyed any sense of balance to the balanced budget amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have a new name for the bill, the bill which tap dances around the question of revenue and lifting the debt ceiling, which was done 60-plus times over America's lifetime with Reagan, Carter, President Bush and President Bush, and Clinton. So it's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the benefits bill.'' The losers are seniors and young people and those who need Social Security and those who are disabled. Then, finally, instead of the balanced budget amendment, it is the bust the benefits of those who are in need and of the young people who are looking forward to a prosperous future and expanded opportunities in this Nation. What do we need?--not the Cut, Cap, and Balance. It in no way invests in America. It in no way ends the tax loopholes that are part of our increasing debt. It will block the United States Congress from closing the loopholes of those who make billions of dollars every 3 months. We need innovation, infrastructure and education. That equals jobs. Parents, I don't want to see the end of your children's opportunities by closing elementary and high schools and by disallowing them from going to college. That is what this bill is--not to cut, not to cap, not to balance. It's the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club, and Bust the Benefits of the American People bill.'' Let me suggest to you that these are the losers of this bill. Don't support a bill that will cause the American people to lose the American Dream. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2560, the ``Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011,'' which attempts to resolve our budget ceiling crisis by authorizing an increase in the debt limit while implementing spending cuts, caps on future spending, and requiring an amendment to the Constitution. While I support bipartisan efforts to increase the debt limit, I cannot support a bill that is a clear attempt to enact the policies embedded in the Republican budget resolution and to then enshrine the Republican budget in our Nation's Constitution. This bill should be called the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' It tap dances around raising our debt ceiling and acting in a responsible manner to pay our Nation's debt obligations. Our Nation will be joining the losers club by threatening to eliminate important social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Pell grants. There has been a theme this Congress of focusing 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. H.R. 2560 has earned the name the ``Tap Dance, Loser Club, and Bust Bill.'' I will call it that from this point forward, because that is what it is . . . when something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck . . . Call it a duck!!!! This bill is wasting a tremendous amount of time when we should be focused on paying our Nation's bills and resolving our differences! I stand here today to state firmly that 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 know that the ``Tap Dance Loser Club, and Bust Bill'' is not a realistic proposal. The fact that Congress, a body that typically has its fair share of political battles, has never played political chicken when it came to raising the debt ceiling should give us all pause, and is a testament to the seriousness with which we must approach this issue. However, this time around, my Republican colleagues have created an impasse based upon an ideological commitment to spending cuts. While I understand and share the concern of my Republican colleagues with respect to deficit spending, and will continue to work with them in order to find reductions, now is not the time to put ideology over pragmatism. The reality is that, on August 3rd, the United States will begin to default on its debt obligations if the debt ceiling is not raised. This detour into a spending debate is as unnecessary as it is perilous, as increasing the debt ceiling does not obligate the undertaking of any new spending by the Federal Government. Rather, raising the debt limit simply allows the government to pay existing legal obligations promised to debt holders that were already agreed to by Presidents and Congresses, both past and present. Moreover, the impending crisis would have already occurred were it not for the extraordinary measures taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, including the suspension of the investment in securities to finance the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, as well as the redemption of a portion of those securities already held by that fund. If the United States defaults on its obligations on August 3rd, the stock market will react violently to the news that for the first time in history, America is unable to keep its promises to pay. Not once in American history has the country's full faith and credit been called into question. Once America defaults, investors who purchase U.S. bonds and finance our government will be less likely to lend to America in the future. Just as a person who defaults on a loan will find it harder to convince banks to lend them money in the future, a country that defaults on its debt obligations will find it harder to convince investors to lend money to a government that did not pay. Showing the world that the United States does not pay its debts makes the purchasing of that debt less desirable because it requires the assumption of more risk on the part of the investors. Furthermore, any investors that do continue to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds will demand much higher interest rates in order to cover the increased risk. Once a default occurs, investors figure that the chance of the United States defaulting again is much greater, and will require the government to pay higher rates of interest in order to make the loan worth the risk for investors to take on. Imagine the impact on our stock market if we do not pay our debts. As we have seen throughout the recent financial crisis, a bad stock market hurts not only big businesses and large investors on Wall Street, but small businesses and small investors as well. Families with investments tied to the stock market, such as 401(k)s, pension plans, and savings, will once again see the value of their investments drop. The American people are tired of the uncertainty of the value of their retirement accounts. We must not allow another wild fluctuation to occur due to default and add to the uncertainty still lingering in the minds of citizens. As if another stock market crisis were not enough, the housing market would take another hit if America defaulted. Higher mortgage rates in a housing market already weakened by default and foreclosures would cause a further depression of home values, destroying whatever equity families might have left in their homes after the housing crisis. Moreover, the long-term effects would reduce spending and investment in the housing market. Republicans are attempting to place into our constitution the requirement that we balance the budget every year. In reality, achieving a balanced budget is not something that should automatically be required every year. For example, during economic downturns, the government can stimulate growth by cutting taxes and increasing spending. A constitutional amendment requiring us to cut spending to match revenue every year would limit our ability to respond to changing fiscal conditions and would dramatically impede federal responses to high unemployment as well as federal guarantees for food and medical assistance. As it stands, H.J. Res. 1 requires spending cuts even deeper than those in this bill; in fact, it requires that spending be cut to the levels in the Republican Study Committee budget, levels that were so extreme that fewer than half of House Republicans voted for that budget. Finally, requiring a two-thirds vote to approve revenue increases creates a barrier to fixing inequities in our tax code by protecting more than $1 trillion in spending through the tax code-- spending that often benefits special interests, like owners of corporate jets--and well-to-do Americans. H.R. 2560 cuts $111 billion in FY 2012, places firm caps on future spending, and is contingent upon House and Senate passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. H.R. 2560, is yet another attempt to enact the policies that Republicans approved with their budget resolution this spring--to end the Medicare guarantee while continuing tax breaks for special interests and the wealthy. It requires immediate and steep spending cuts starting this October that will put more Americans out of work while the country is still recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression. It caps total spending--including mandatory spending programs, such as unemployment benefits, that are designed to grow when the economy is bad--for fiscal years 2013-2021 at lower percentages of the economy (Gross Domestic Product, or GDP). While it is clear that the country cannot continue on an unsustainable fiscal path, the bill limits spending to a percentage of GDP that the country has rarely achieved in the past. For example, the bill limits total outlays to 19.7 percent of GDP in 2018; outlays were at or below that level in only 12 of the last 43 years (from 1997 through 2004, and from 1969 through 1972). Enforces the Republican budget resolution by limiting total federal outlays--including Social Security and Medicare--at the Republican budget's percentage of GDP in fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Automatic sequestration again would occur if the levels are breached. More immediately. H.R. 2560 requires passage of a specific type of a so-called ``balanced budget'' constitutional amendment by both the House and the Senate before the debt limit can be increased. This new hurdle makes it even harder for Congress to increase the debt limit by August 2, which it must do to avoid fiscal calamity and higher interest costs for consumers and the government alike.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the Budget Committee as well for the great work that he has been doing. As I listened to my friends discuss this question of being responsible, I want to at least announce breaking news that our friends in the other body have come up with a semi-solution on revenue and on the question of how we would cut. They are seeking to be responsible; and today in this body, we are not. I heard a tutorial about the green light and the red light, which, as a Member, you understand green is ``yes'' and ``no'' comes up red. What the red will mean is to stop the insanity, to stop the loss of our moral compass, the responsibility to pay America's bills. What the green light will mean is that America, in fact, would not be paying the bills of our families. We wouldn't be paying Social Security; interest rates would spike; the U.S. dollar would decline; and our credit would literally go out the door. Being without responsibility is what we are planning to do. Then we will lose the ability to pay for the Medicare of American Seniors and would no longer keep America's hospital's open and doctors paid. So don't be fooled by the green light tutorial. We, frankly, are going to lose our way. We'll close hospitals. We won't have the ability to provide for our seniors, and these are the very persons that my colleagues over here believe that they are helping. But the main point that I want to emphasize very quickly is that the Constitution of the United States already says that the validity of the public debt of the United States in the 14th Amendment, section 4, shall not be questioned. Let me tell you today that a balanced budget amendment will destroy the United States, and it will not allow us to pay for those in need. Tap dance, losers' club, bust the benefits. That's what this bill is. Tap dance, losers club, and bust the benefits. That is what will happen to all of us. Americans like the friends and families of our military personnel will suffer.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I just heard celebration just a few minutes ago regarding the passage of the Cut, Cap, and Balance that really should be named the Tap Dance, Establishing the Losers Club for Americans, and the Busting of Benefits for Americans bill, because what we are doing is tap dancing around the responsibility of this Congress to in fact raise the debt limit as we have done 60 times. And, of course, we are establishing losers by the very fact that interest rates will go up, Social Security and other benefits, Medicare will be gone, U.S. credit will be downgraded and the Chamber of Commerce and hundreds of businesses will in fact be begging for us to lift the debt ceiling. But, more importantly, we will cause America's lack of paying her bills to hurt families and businesses. And let me introduce you to the losers. Now that this bill has passed, welcome to the losers: soldiers and their families, their grandparents and mothers and fathers who are back here in this country while they are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today we just voted H.R. 2650 to in fact establish a club of losers for these patriots who have served their country. What a shame. What a shame.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would like to thank the manager and chairwoman of this particular hour, sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, and for those of us who care, along with many of our members in the Congressional Black Caucus and in this Congress, I think it is important to note for our colleagues that there are many Members who truly believe in their heart that we can find a common path, a bipartisan path, and are in angst, if you will, because they want to represent their constituents in the best way possible in what seems to be the tyranny, in some instances, of the majority. Frankly, I do believe in the democratic process. I believe that if you are a victor in elections, you have the right to define your agenda and to present it to the American people. But there's some instances where the American people call upon us to have those agendas set aside so that we can work for America. So I want to thank the gentlelady for her great work on the Affordable Care Act. We are beginning to see many who never had access to health care begin to be, if you will, the beneficiaries of preventative care, the parity with mental health issues, more health professionals that we work so hard on in the Congressional Black Caucus, and of course, access to health care for those with preexisting disease. But I want to talk tonight to reiterate some points that were made about the double-digit unemployment among African Americans and the 36 percent unemployment among youth and just make the point to the American people, to my colleagues, that no jobs bill has been put forward by our Republican friends, absolutely no job bill. This is now July 18. A supermajority is on the other side. They could do so much alone, without any votes from Democrats. Democrats have been pushing for a jobs bill. The Congressional Black Caucus will be leaving out in a couple of weeks to visit cities all over America to not only say we care but to talk about jobs. This summer we were going to close city pools and community centers in Houston, with temperatures of 100, 105 degrees. I felt if we couldn't find public moneys, let's work to find private moneys. We were able to open over 10 to 15 community centers and pools in my congressional district. For me it was being able to find resources, meaning that some came forward to give the resources, but, more importantly, it created jobs for youth who could be, if you will, lifeguards. As I visited these pools and talked to young people who would not have had a job, obviously a small measure, but to at least acknowledge the desperation that we have for jobs. As we go out as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we'll be embracing corporate leadership and others to have job fairs so that individuals can have it. Just a summer or two ago, I had a job fair in the teeming heat and thousands showed up, so much so that people were lined around the block. Americans want to work. And in a bipartisan partnership, wouldn't it have been just great for Republican colleagues, no matter whether they're a tea party or no party, to come together and say the first act that we will engage in will be creating jobs. And out of that job creation comes growth. We've done a great job under President Obama, and we in the Democratic Party have done a great job. We've actually been creating private sector jobs every single month, and as well we did create 3 million jobs under the American Recovery and Reinvestment. That should be very clear. And the loss of numbers or the bump in unemployment is, as our colleague indicated, for all of America, was because public sector jobs were being willy-nilly dispensed with--front liners, first responders, sanitation workers, teachers, firefighters, ambulance drivers--all over America by Republican Governors. They laid the people off en masse. In many instances, they didn't need to. There could have been ways to work it out. But they laid them off en masse, and that gave the bump to the unemployment. But where does that lead us today? And what I want to focus on is the fact that I want to make it very clear that members of the Congressional Black Caucus have supported many bipartisan efforts to turn our economy right side up. We have worked on infrastructure issues. We have supported transportation legislation to fix America's bridges, highways, dams, because we know how important it is. We have helped resolve our budgetary issues, our revenue issues. We have voted in unison in a bipartisan way for some legislation that may not have been in total agreement with many of our views but we did it for America. We voted for a balanced budget amendment that generated the Children's Health Insurance Program. And we need to continue to discuss this, where we are today, because we need to help the American people. And I've heard the concerns of my constituents. Today, I was at an announcement of the use of neighborhood stabilization funds, where we work with Habitat for Humanity and open the door of houses for those who weren't ever able to have a house. Oh, you should have seen the excitement of those families. But the seniors there were asking me: Are we going to get our Social Security check? You can't go anywhere in your district where people are not up in fury. They want to know how we can get this done. I think it's important to note a little bit of history. 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 and the growth of this Nation, more flexibility was needed to expand the government's capability to borrow money expeditiously in order to meet the rapidly changing requirements. That's where this came from. This is not a Democratic idea. This is not the idea of President Barack Obama. To address this need, the debt ceiling was established in 1917, allowing the Federal Government to be the umbrella on a rainy day, to come to the aid of Americans during emergencies, to be able to address the question of war and peace. This wasn't something we developed just to agitate Members who believe they are the fiscal hawks of all time, even more so than President Reagan, who understood that the government had certain roles. Since the debt limit was first put in place, Congress increased it over a hundred times. In fact, it was raised 10 times in the past decade, which includes the era of President George Bush and the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress last came together and raised the debt ceiling in February of 2010, and it did so with the idea that we were working together. We understand that we are at $14-plus trillion. There's no one who is happy with a growing debt. But many economists will tell you that a deficit is sometimes important to take care of a country's people. Who knows what is going on in Japan right now because they need to take care of their people. They need to ensure that those who are impacted by the tsunami and the earthquake and the nuclear implosion can be taken care of--the sick people, the displaced people. And when I say not knowing what's going on, we know that they are growing a deficit. But our country is not like Portugal and Greece, and economists that we listened to 2 weeks ago said on the record that this Nation is not broke. Let me say it again, Americans. Don't be intimidated and frightened to believe that America is broke. We can solve this problem. The way in which we are able to address it, the assets that we have, will allow us to extend the cuts over a 12-year period. Every reasoned economist in America says you cannot cut our spending overnight; you cannot cut it. So Congress is entirely within its right to be thoughtful on this issue of the debt. And it is also important to note that what makes us so strong is we have something called United States Treasury bonds, which have traditionally been one of the safest investments another country or an investor can make. And other countries, including Americans, buy Treasury bonds. Our children are given Treasury bonds. 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. This is constitutionally worded. And so my friends who are drawn to the tea party are suggesting that we go straight to the brink. But when you go to the brink, as my colleague has said, you begin to shake the markets. They begin to shudder. And the impact comes to the hardworking American who has been so fiscally responsible that they have put away savings for their children's college, savings for themselves if they retire. They have been dutiful. They have been respectful. But what we will do is force this market to get so shaky that those savings may be jeopardized. How can we do this--the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Tea Party? If it's a registered party or a group of people, if there are members who have come here wearing the banner, they can do nothing more than adhere to that. So we are here on the floor tonight to look for compromise and reason and to say, in turn, with the proceeds from the bonds that the Federal Government of the world's largest economy is able to finance its operations. That's us, the United States. Let me remind everyone we have the largest economy in the world. America is not broke. We have to do better. We have to extend our cuts. We have to balance over a period of time, almost like a household, where they begin to try to analyze what they'll be able to pay and what they'll have to cut out. You've heard families say, We've stopped going out as much as we've gone out. There are unemployed persons who have to make more devastating cuts and go into their savings. That's why I say: Where is the jobs bill that the Republicans are supposed to put on the floor of the House? Where are the jobs? Somebody used to say in an advertisement: ``Where's the beef?'' So this week, my friends, we're going to be spending a whole week addressing the question of a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance. Before I just address to you who will be hurt on Cut, Cap, and Balance--it's a balanced budget amendment that came out of the Judiciary Committee of which I'm a member--I just want you to know that every State can stand up here and say that, but I want to put it on the record that it has come to my attention that: Social Security beneficiaries in Texas, 3,440,442, likely will be impacted. The total number of Social Security beneficiaries in Harris County--that's where Houston, Texas is, which is the fourth largest city in the Nation and is a very diverse city--is 429,760, which might include SSI, which is for those who are in need of moneys because of their children or they're disabled. There are 780,000 seniors and individuals with disabilities in the metro area who are currently enrolled in Medicare--the lifeline of our seniors--and there are currently 145,000 individuals in the district, the 18th Congressional District, who are on Medicaid. It's interesting to note that the Medicaid issue has not even been discussed. So here we have a week of Cut, Cap, and Balance. Frankly, the Treasury bond is in jeopardy. The marketplace of innocent, hardworking Americans who have saved and invested in those bonds, who owe nations around the world, who bought what they thought was a rock-solid investment are now teetering because we're willing to take this week to discuss a bill called Cut, Cap, and Balance, which the President of the United States has already indicated that he intends to veto, and there's a question of whether or not the Senate will even address this bill. So we will spend our time wasting and debating so that someone can get a political mark. Let me express my understanding of Members who need a political mark: I voted for a bill that will never pass and could never be a useful tool in the United States. You can go home, as you bang your chest, and suggest, I showed them. I told them what it was. I voted for the Cut, Cap, and Balance. By the way, there is no doubt that this will possibly pass, because Republicans have a supermajority, but do you know what this is? This is playing political chicken. Who will blink? We have never played political chicken with the raising of the debt ceiling. We have never put the American people in this jeopardy. We didn't do it to Ronald Reagan. We didn't do it to Jimmy Carter. We didn't do it to the first George Bush, a distinguished Texan. We didn't do it to President, as I said, Carter. We didn't do it to President Clinton. We didn't do it to President Bush, who was just in office, but here we are with President Barack Obama now at a time that we think we have to do this. This is based upon an ideological view that does not look to the American people. So let me tell you who is hurt in all of this so that we can understand real people are involved. I'll just call this ``working Americans'' and this little one who will represent millions of children across America. This is who this will impact. In the State of Texas, our Governor has already cut $4 billion from education. He actually took the stimulus money that was supposed to be for education. Governor Rick Perry decided to just snatch the moneys away and put it in a rainy day fund. It looks good when you're going to run for higher office to show off that you saved money. You haven't saved any money. You took the money out of the children's mouths. You're closing schools. You're closing school districts. You're taking away teachers. You're building up the class sizes. You're making our country second and third class in education while other countries are moving forward. So that's who we'll hurt. Just take this little one who is not yet in school. This is a hardworking nurse, who represents working Americans. This is who will be hurt because, on the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill, though they say they are protecting Medicaid, Medicare and others, you're going to find out that we literally are not going to be able to run this country. My colleague came from Missouri. Everybody saw the tragedy of Joplin, Missouri. So the Cut, Cap, and Balance is going to hurt them. I'm going to call this the ``Tap Dance bill'' because they're going to be tap dancing around all the people who are going to be hurt. Next who is going to be hurt are our military families. Now, they say that they're taking care of veterans' benefits, but this is active duty military. They need to be paid. They say they have classified or taken out the security. Well, have they taken out the grandmammas of these soldiers and their wives? Have they taken out the parents of these soldiers and their wives who need Medicare and Social Security? Have they taken out the sisters and brothers who need student loans? No. So they're tap dancing around the fact that they say they're not hurting these people. It's not the Cap bill. It's the ``Tap Dance bill.'' That's what it's going to be. Then, rather than the Cut and Cap bill, they're going to organize the ``Losers' Club of America.'' We're going to open up a losers' club with what is going to go on on the floor tomorrow. The ``Losers' Club'' will be the American people-- children, seniors, college students, the jobs that we want to make through the infrastructure. How many people have driven on freeways and bridges and hit potholes? It's because America's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. So very quickly let me just say that, as these poster boards take their own life, the ``Losers' Club'' tomorrow is going to pronounce that we will be giving gifts to millionaires. They'll get $200,000 because the bill tomorrow is worse than the Republican budget. So the millionaires will get $200,000. Remember what I said. They call it the Cut, Cap, and Balance. I'm calling it the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust bill.'' So we're going to give millionaires $200,000 a year while seniors will be paying an extra $6,000 a year for their Medicare because it will bust Medicare as we know it. Now, how did we get to where we are today? Why are we in this false status where people are saying, ``Don't raise the debt limit''? We brought it on ourselves. The Republicans were in charge when the Bush tax cuts came in, and they never wanted to have it expire. That was a big fight when we came in and when the President came in. That was a big fight. Out of compromise, he said, Let's be fair. So you can see the Bush tax cuts are 37 percent of our debt--37 percent. So, to talk about why we're here, look at what the Republicans have done. Then you have the Iraq war--11 percent. So it's interesting that now they're going to be fiscally responsible, yet they're the cause of the debt. Let me finish by just saying that I am glad to be here with the Congressional Black Caucus. I want to rename the bill as the ``Tap Dance, Losers' Club and Bust the American People bill''--bust the safety net for America. I want to thank the gentlelady by simply saying that I love this country, and I believe we can come together. I have great respect for my colleagues who have a different view, but what I beg of them to do is to take the Constitution and cherish it like we all do. As to that opening part that says, ``we the people,'' we are now calling on Republicans and Democrats and members of the Tea Party who are in this Congress to be part of the ``we the people.'' Let us not in a frivolous manner take up the floor time that it is going to take to work on a bill that will never be signed and take it away from the resolution of the debt ceiling, which then causes the markets to go in a tailspin. I want to save the American people, and I, frankly, believe that we have the right to do so. I will simply close by saying to you: Martin King, whose monument will open in just a few weeks, gave us a wonderful challenge--the time that he asked this Nation to believe in his dream. And he gave us the further challenge of the night before his death. He indicated that he had been to the mountaintop, and he looked out and saw the Promised Land, an opportunity for all of us, no matter who we were, to have an equal opportunity in this country and to respect views but always look for the greater good. But he said that he as a person, he didn't think that he would get to the Promised Land, but he knew that we as a people, we as Americans, would get to the Promised Land some day. I still believe in that dream and in that charge. And I am asking for my colleagues to work with us to be able to do that--this time on behalf of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So in Joplin, Missouri, the floods, the tornadoes--and let me finish on this. We served on Homeland Security. We have seen the death of Mr. Karzai's brother, his very close aide. We have seen Pakistani police officers shot down in a massacre by the Taliban. This is a very serious climate of terrorism in this world. And the tragedy, the backdrop of 9/11 where we had to bail out the airlines, where we had to rebuild New York and other places, that is a responsibility of America. That's why there is a Federal Government. And if we are to play with this through the Cap, Cut, and Balance, the balanced budget amendment, we will be the tap dance, we will be the losers club, and we will bust the rights of Americans to call upon their Federal Government when they are in need. This is not a time to play with the lives of Americans. I believe that we are ready to compromise but not to engage in frivolity when it is serious and when we have to do what the American people need us to do. I am very glad to be with the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands tonight, but I couldn't leave the podium without emphasizing that homeland security cannot be undermined and diminished. It is extremely important and does well to serve and secure the American people. Let's do right by the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady. I want to thank her so very much for her leadership but I wanted to-- when I said the bust, I want to equate it to the balanced budget amendment. That is what this Cap, Cut, and Balance is; it is a balanced budget amendment. But let me be very clear, because you said something very important. The balanced budget amendment, if it was passed, would virtually guarantee that future budgets would cut and end Medicare as well as drastically cut Medicaid, just like the Republican budget. The balanced budget amendment takes two-thirds of the House and the Senate to pass. It is almost impossible for it to pass. And we are not like States where States do balance but they only have to take care of their State.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 33, ``The Church Plan Investment Clarification Act.'' This legislation will allow church pension plans to participate in collective trusts. Collective trusts allow pension plans to combine assets to invest in various stock and non stock options. This provides pension plans an opportunity to diversify investment portfolios, while sharing risks and transaction costs with other pension plans. Under current law, thousands of church pension plans are denied participation in collective trusts, rendering them unable to pool their assets and reap the benefits of collective buying power. Many churches, as a result, experience difficulties and incur expenses when diversifying pension plan investments. I support the Church Plan Investment Clarifications Act to amend the Securities Act of 1933. Amending current securities legislation will broaden the existing exemption to collective trusts to include church pension plans. This bill will clarify that clergy and lay workers are able to invest in collective trusts, despite their unique tax status. The Act affords church pension plans the same securities law treatment that is extended to governmental plans. Churches provide invaluable services to our communities. Across the Nation, church pension plans will benefit from this bipartisan bill, including churches in Houston, Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District. Churches such as the Bellfort Seventh Day Adventist Church, New Light Christian Church and the Community of Faith Church. This legislation will be of great significance to the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, the St. John Missionary Baptist Church on Dowling, the Brooks Hollow Baptist Church, and Houses of worship throughout our community and Nation. These faith institutions in Houston, as well as throughout the country, will no longer have to individually bear the burden of high fees on investment transactions for their retirement plans. The clergy and lay workers that will benefit from this legislation have spent their entire careers serving others. The least we can offer in return is the opportunity for these pension plans to pool their resources in order to decrease costs associated with funding their retirement plans. This bill is also supported by The Church Alliance, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the YMCA Retirement Fund, the Church Pension Group, and others. I thank my friend from Illinois for sponsoring this important legislation, and urge my colleagues to work together to pass the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, flying in today, our plane was delayed. I didn't have the opportunity to advance my support for H.R. 33, the Church Plan Investment Clarification Act of 2011. I want to acknowledge the sponsorship of Congresswoman Biggert and indicate that under current law thousands of church pension plans are denied participation in collective trusts, rendering them unable to pull their assets or reap the benefits of collective buying power. Many churches, as a result, experience difficulties and incur expenses when diversifying pension plans. Our churches, our houses of worship provide invaluable service, and many of those in my own community--the Bellfort Seventh Day Adventist Church, the New Life Christian Church, Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church, St. John Missionary Baptist Church on Dowling, Brookhollow, and many others, work throughout our community. We are blessed to have Lakewood Church in our community, as well, that works very hard, a church leadership that I've known for many, many years. So this bill has been supported by the Church Alliance, the Seventh Day Adventist Church, the YMCA Retirement Fund, the Church Pension Group, and others. And I thank my friend from Illinois, as I said. Churches do missionary work. Their workers need to have the ability to have their pensions. And I close by saying there are those suffering in Kenya, they are dying, the Somalians who left because of the devastation of the drought, and I know our faith community wants us to do something about it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida. He has certainly awakened a number of issues and Members on his important discussion, and I wanted to join in his commentary. Mr. Speaker, we will be leaving shortly, and I'm glad that we will be returning on Monday for very serious business. Many of us have been in meetings today, engaging in solutions rather than distractions as relates to the business of the American people. None of us have experienced, I believe, the attention to the issue of the budget as much as we've had that attention now from our constituents on, will the debt ceiling be raised? There has not been a time in these past couple of weeks that I've gone home when businesspersons, students, seniors, working families have not asked the question: Will we get it done? I am an optimist, and I've said to them, Yes, I expect that. In fact, I've already gotten it done. I voted on the clean debt ceiling raise, or lift, some many weeks ago, and that was the right thing to do. The reason is that, over the last couple of decades, we have had 60-plus increases in the debt ceiling, starting with Ronald Reagan, including Bush I and Bush II, President Clinton, and President Carter. It's interesting that, for some reason, the tension in this discussion has really gone beyond understanding. Let me be very clear. We have had such an intense couple of months that we have not had the opportunity, really, to engage as Members of Congress. Our committees have been fairly tense and rapid. Our schedules have been such that we've been here one week and gone the next. I know that there are new Members of the 87 members of the Republican Conference with whom I would have some things to agree on, and I would appreciate having that opportunity, but this is a time now, without the opportunity to get to know all of the members of the Republican Conference who are new, when we have to get to know each other around solving America's problem. As I indicated, when a clean debt ceiling was put on the floor of the House, many Democrats voted for it. Democrats and Republicans were on the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles committee. At one point in the discussion with President Obama, the leadership of the Republican House agreed to do the larger package of $4 trillion as relates to the debt ceiling: revenues and cuts. It makes sense, doesn't it? That's what households do. They look at where they can bring down their budgets, but they also say, Now what can we do to increase that revenue? People who are unemployed want to increase revenue by getting a job, and so I don't fully comprehend why it is such a complicated process to participate in. What makes it difficult is we have leadership in the other body--that is Republican--that says their main job is to defeat President Barack Obama in 2012. I didn't hear that discussion from Democrats during my fellow Texan's tenure as President, George Bush. There were policies that we disagreed with, including the Iraq war, but there was no concentrated, continuous effort and statement, ``My main job here is to bring down President Bush.'' That was not the language that we used. So how did we get the leader of the minority in the Senate suggesting that his main job is to bring down the President of the United States? That's what Mr. and Mrs. Jones--mom and pop--all over America don't understand. They don't understand it. We all take a pledge of oath, and we all have the same Constitution in our hands. We know that this body of lawmakers is looked upon as the most powerful lawmaking body in the world. We don't walk around with a lot of big shoulders, but that is how we are perceived. I happen to have been at the European Union, discussing the conditions in Greece and Portugal. They are far different from that in the United States. First of all, economists will tell us this country is not broke, that it has the ability to fix itself. Let us not cast out despair and desperation and frustration to the American people. We are Americans--not arrogant, but we are patriots. We can get this done. Why is there such a devastating attitude from my friends on the other side of the aisle that it is the end of the world--the death knell? Those people who are looking forward to job creation and jobs are listening to this rancor, this discourse, and are saying to themselves, There is no hope. There is no hope. I agree with that. There has to be hope for the children of this country. There has to be hope for the young men and women that are on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan and places around the world. There has to be hope. The reason why I know that there is hope is because my own industry, the energy industry, just created a program called Veterans to Jobs through the energy industry. I'm asking them to create one for those who are 18 to 35. Businesses are still alive and well. The financial services or the banking entity must be involved in providing access to credit for our smaller businesses who are creating jobs, but we are alive and well. And so I believe what we should do is to go forward with a package that is reasonable, that lifts the debt ceiling, as we did for everyone else. I would vote for a clean debt ceiling, lift it up, and then begin to, with great common sense, plan our budget and our cuts. Mark Zandi has said that, an economist that has worked for a number of Republicans such as John McCain, former Presidential candidate. Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel? All economists will say you don't make immediate cuts in this fiscal year; you project them out. Just like a budget in households, they move out. They do what they're going to do for the month of June and then for the month of July and then for the month of August. But, no. I am particularly sensitive to the fact that only this President, only this one, only this one has received the kind of attacks and disagreements and inability to work, only this one. Read between the lines. What is different about this President that should put him in a position that he should not receive the same kind of respectful treatment when it is necessary to raise the debt limit in order to pay our bills--something required by both statute and the 14th Amendment? Why isn't it addressed in the manner? It's all right to disagree or agree on the balanced budget amendment. It's all right to talk about how we're going to appropriate. In fact, in this House, the Republicans are getting their way, gutting and cutting everything that we can find. It's all right to have that disagreement. That is the give-and-take of democracy. When you win, you're the majority; and if we can't find a way to agree together, then the majority wins. I understand that, but I do not understand what I think is the maligning and the maliciousness of this President. Why is he different? In my community, that is the question that we raise. In the minority community, that is the question that is being raised: Why is this President being treated so disrespectfully? Why has the debt limit been raised 60 times? Why does the leader of the Senate continually talk about his job is to bring the President down, to make sure he is unelected? It's 2011. It's not 2012. You need to play those politics in 2012, not now. And so we can move forward. You may disagree with me. I believe it's important to preserve Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, lifelines for our community. And many of us believe that that will not dash the hopes and dreams of Americans to make sure that seniors and the disabled and those who are retired and those who need these resources, children who need Medicaid, it's not unseemly to protect them in the course of our discussion on budget cuts. It's not unseemly to protect military families. It's not unseemly to be able to provide an increase in salaries for the young, if you will, enlisted man or woman who, on some occasions, have been on food stamps. So I am prepared to do the hard things that we did in 1997 when we had a budget resolution crafted by a divided government, if you will, and we produced a Children's Health Insurance Program and a balanced budget without a balanced budget amendment. There are some fixes that we are still living with, such as the physician reimbursement that came about. As what happens when you do that, something has to be fixed. We're still suffering with the physician reimbursement which came about through the 1997 balanced budget. So balancing the budget on a balanced budget amendment is not all peaches and cream. It can truly be destructive. But I am willing, in the long range, with common sense, coming from Texas, to look seriously at how we can work together for cuts, but revenue enhancers. I just had a meeting with industry representatives this morning--one of the industries that happens to be in the eye of the storm--and there was a consensus saying we are prepared to look broadly at tax reform. We would like to give our ideas. I said, You deserve to give your ideas, as you deserve to let everyone know that we're in the business of creating jobs. But we cannot do this in the background of the hostility, of the inappropriate treatment and behavior around President Barack Obama. So what are we prepared to support? I believe, again, that we can come together around a reasoned response, and that reasoned response, again, are revenues and cuts. And I believe that we can move this before August 2. We only have to be able to convince the new Members and the leadership--the point man for the Republicans--that it is better to stand as a whole Nation than to bring us down. There are those who believe this is what will happen before August 2. And, frankly, it is a challenge. We have already lost $150 billion right now. Our colleagues need to know that. By all of this fooling around, we're losing in the markets $150 billion to $200 billion. You want to know where the unemployment came from? We've been creating jobs in the private sector, but it's our States that have been laying off hundreds and hundreds of thousands upon thousands of public workers--fire fighters, police, sanitation, teachers that we will never get back for our children. When they enter the fall classes, 35, 40, maybe 50 will be in a class. What kind of America is this? And what kind of an America would lay off the public sector employees-- which, by the way, were the doors and opportunities that were opened to minority Americans. Large numbers of minorities are public sector employees. You are literally killing our community with the high number of unemployed. We are at double digits in the African American community. I frankly believe that, as an American, I should look out for all interests, and that's why I believe we should stop the tomfoolery and come together as Americans. And yes, I will have to make sacrifices. We have laid out our parameters--mine are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--but what can we do together? And what can we do where the pain is distributed? And what can we do with the respect given to everyone--Speaker, Majority Leader, minority leader, whip, leadership in the other body? How can we come as those entities, respect the bodies that they represent, and we who are Members of Congress represent our constituents in that respectful manner, and most of all, respect the Office of the Presidency and, as well, to respect this President, President Barack Obama. I hope someone will say that what it appears to be is not in fact accurate, but historically it seems to be nothing more. And I simply close in accounting for that attitude is the very visible debate, and in my memory, of the Affordable Care Act. And I have never seen the level of depicting of a President of the United States by Americans as I have seen during that debate; never seen it. I did not adhere to the burning in effigy of any President during the Iraq war--at that point it was President Bush. The shoe throwing, I spoke vigorously against that. You do not disrespect our President. You agree or you disagree, but not in the way that I have seen. I simply close this afternoon by saying that it gives me a great sense of affection--I'd say pride, for lack of a better word--in what this country stands for. I believe that America can solve any problem that she puts her mind to. The tumultuous sixties is part of my history, a segregated America is part of my history, and during that time one felt, could we ever come through this? The bloodshed, the hanging, the brutality. But isn't it wonderful that a man by the name of Martin King rose along with others, too many to name, and carried the mantle of peace, the drum major for peace, and he came through all of the contentiousness and all of the conflict and raised his voice and said, ``America can do better.'' And a President who I am most proud of by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson used his political astuteness and crossed very difficult lines, the Dixiecrats and others in the United States Congress who couldn't imagine supporting any manner of civil rights legislation. Isn't that a miracle? What we thought we could not do. And that President, who I owe such a great debt of gratitude, that master of the political process, Lyndon Baines Johnson, the creator of the Great Society of which many of us now benefit from, Pell Grants and Medicare and housing, that person we call the President at that time orchestrated groups that possibly would never speak to each other and voted to change and move America forward. And so I ask the question: What makes President Obama different? I cannot imagine coming this far in my life and that of my children's life and that of others to come to a point where we would use the uniqueness and the difference of this President to treat him differently. If that is not getting in our way, then there is no reason that we cannot come together and solve this problem. As some would say, this is not rocket science. It is voting for the right approach, and that approach is revenue and cuts. I will go home to my district and engage with anyone who desires to engage in these discussions--we see each other as we walk about and go about our duties--and give them the sense of optimism that I have. As I do that, I will be in a meeting discussing why the North Forest Independent School District, one of the last remaining districts with a 70 percent plus African American population, has been closed by Governor Perry and the Texas Education Agency. Why? Seven thousand students and parents now looking as to what is their next step. Why is it closed? Is it because you underfunded them and didn't provide them with the resources? Is it because we have no interest in getting our hands into the mix and trying to help bring up the scores with teachers and salaries that can meet the needs of students who are in a property poor area? I'll go home and deal with that. In the course of dealing with that, I'll talk to those parents about hope, about the greatness of this Nation, and about the fact that we're going to do our job. And, as well, I'll talk to them about the sense of pride and respect we have for the President that this Nation elected has come out of the history that I am very well aware of. We would hope that the same respect that was given to the first Irish Catholic President, the same respect and interest that has been given from any President that brings to bear a unique and valuable perspective, would be given to President of the United States, the American President, our President. He is no different from any other President that has served. I beg this House and I beg this Congress to treat him with the dignity that the office deserves. Get on with our work, get on with solving the problems for the American people, a vastly diverse and richly multicultural Nation. I am grateful for that. God bless this Congress. God bless this President. God bless the United States of America. We can do this job. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I intended to vote ``aye'' on the Schiff amendment on yesterday, July 14, 2011, to the Energy and Water bill that was under consideration. I incorrectly voted ``no.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman, and I really do want to thank our appropriators. This is a tough, tough business. I certainly want to thank the ranking member whom I've had the privilege of working with and thank the chairman as well, because this is a tough dilemma that we are facing. I think I come with a unique perspective. I live in hurricane and flood country. Houston is the site and was the recipient of hundreds of thousands of Katrina survivors coming in from New Orleans. We have faced our own ups and downs, most recently with Hurricane Ike, and I walked the beach with both former President Clinton and former President Bush when we went down to Galveston and looked at the amazing devastation. So many of us were concerned about the tragedy in Joplin, Missouri, and other places, and then the constant flooding. I have talked to Members of Congress where there is flooding going on in their district as we speak. But here is the dilemma that we have and the reason that I rise to raise the question of the recapturing of already designated funds and to realize that these are not funds that were just sitting in a pile unused. These funds are not only already designated--I would like to say appropriated--high-speed rail dollars but, as well, these funds will generate thousands of jobs. As I read the amounts of moneys that were designated, $450 million were going to be utilized for necessary repairs in New Jersey. That means that my friends on the floor of the House have made a sacrifice, and I appreciate that, but high-speed rail is a valuable and necessary investment in America's future. I truly believe that there could have been a compromise, where resources could have been used for the flooding problems in the area that my colleagues have spoken about, the needy areas, and still leave an amount that would have been shared for high-speed rail. Let's create jobs together. That is the restoration of those flood areas, and I would almost ask the question without knowing as a member of the authorizing committee for Homeland Security, what other opportunities might have been in place to be able to utilize those dollars for the disaster that has occurred. But I will tell you, it is no doubt as you go across Europe and see the value of high-speed rail, new technology, that America is far behind with its high-speed rail investment, the new technology, the new science, the new kinds of cars that are being produced that will create jobs, in essence putting the cars together, manufacturing the cars but then the assembling of the cars now being placed in cities around America. Those are real jobs, long-term jobs. The decision that the administration made was a thoughtful decision. Let me thank Secretary LaHood for understanding the value of high-speed rail, and I would suggest that the proposal that we have for Texas does impact rural Texas. It is a proposal for high-speed rail from Houston to Dallas, going through our rural communities, creating the opportunities for jobs but creating the opportunities for investment in the purchase of land and the growth of business. All of that has an impact in creating jobs. That's what we are all here for. We are here to be the rainy day umbrella for Americans who are in trouble, and as well we're here to create jobs, which Americans are so desperately in need of. So I am disappointed that we didn't find the happy balance, and I believe that we could; that we couldn't measure the amount of resources that might have been able to be utilized for our friends that have just experienced a disaster and not completely gut monies that are already designated, appropriated. It's almost as if we came in and said there's a pile of cash, and I'm not going to bother to identify what it's supposed to be used for. I would hope that there would be a method of reconsideration. These are fair gentlemen on the floor of the House. I've worked with all of my colleagues here. And I would just raise the question of why would we, in essence, zero out high-speed rail, not only for our urban centers but for our midwestern areas that are desperately in need of jobs, and for the southern areas that now are looking to the future for high-speed rail to create jobs and to create the quality, excellent, superior mobility system that Americans deserve--not the country of America, but the people of America deserve. I would argue vigorously for a reconsideration of the funding and the restructuring of the funding to ensure that we have high-speed rail, create jobs, and deal with our friends who are in need. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of funding for high speed rail, and the importance of ensuring that money designated for high speed rail by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is utilized to build high speed railways. I must express my concerns about the offset in the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. There is no doubt that recent flooding in the Midwest has devastated communities and greatly impacted the region's economy. The Army Corps of Engineers must have the resources to address the damage wrought by the flooding of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, but I urge my colleagues to consider the source of this funding. The funding allocated for high speed rail in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will do more than update our Nation's transportation system; high speed rail creates jobs, increases tourism and is environmentally sustainable. The Department of Transportation recently awarded $15 million for a high speed rail project in Texas. The funding was awarded for engineering and environmental work to develop a high-speed rail corridor linking Dallas and Houston, where I represent the 18th Congressional District. The demand for high speed rail in the state of Texas is significant. The second most populous state in the Nation, Texas' population is forecasted to grow by an additional 9.4 million people by 2035, a 38.9 percent increase over projected 2010 levels. Additionally, the population growth is not going to be spread evenly across the state. According to the Texas State Data Center, 92 percent of the 2010-2035 population growth will occur in the existing metropolitan counties. High speed rail is an investment in the future of the state. Receiving this funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was a tremendous opportunity for Houston, and the entire state of Texas. The award will allow our state to make critical investments in infrastructure that will increase mobility and allow for better commercial and private growth of our cities. A long time supporter of high speed rail, I supported the Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, and secured $150 million dollars for the metro solutions light rail project because high-speed rail projects and other transportation investments represent the potential to create hundreds of jobs, enhanced mobility, and future economic development for Texas, and the entire Nation. I commend the Chairman for recognizing the need for emergency funding in flood stricken areas. However, there are plenty of places from which my colleagues can offset funding. I cannot support an amendment that offsets funding from critical infrastructure projects that create jobs. I urge my colleagues in the Majority to explain why they would rather take funding from projects that create middle class jobs than raise taxes for billionaires. We must repair the damage done by flooding, but we must also invest in the future of America. Other nations around the world have shown us that the future is high speed rail. It is our responsibility to make critical investments in infrastructure projects, like high speed rail. I urge my colleagues to think about the consequences of continuing to provide tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans at the expense of middle class jobs and improvements to our Nation's infrastructure. Offsetting funding for high speed rail for emergency disaster relief is not a responsible course of action. My Republican colleagues constantly talk about creating jobs, yet time and time again, they turn away from opportunities to do so. The time for rhetoric has passed; what the country needs, what our constituents need is action. Offsetting funding for high speed rail, slashing funds that will create jobs is the wrong action, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member for the courtesies extended to me. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect funds provided for science under title 3 of the Department of Energy's energy programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, known as STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices. Let me, first of all, say I consider this a jobs bill. I'm excited when we talk about jobs here on the floor of the House and recognize that America has changed. As a former member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and a member of the Aviation subcommittee and Space subcommittee dealing with NASA's commitment and mission in human exploration, I believe that America's future is not only today but in front of her and focused on science and technology. The importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce is crucial. Over the last 50 years there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. Now let me be very clear. I'm a member of the Manufacturing Caucus, and I believe that we should restore manufacturing in this country. We are so well placed to be multitasked, boosting our manufacturing and then, as well, moving forward to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, it is important that we recognize that our valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained. I believe my amendment focuses on that very program and focus. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future, we're investing in job creation, and we're investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. It is important to note that under this legislation, workforce development for teachers in science has taken a hit. But I believe what we should do is make sure that we emphasize that those resources be kept in and at some point add to those resources. And the reason I say that is, workforce development programs for teachers and scientists provide funding to graduate fellowship programs that help train the Nation's top scientists, a crucial, crucial effort. The United States faces a critical shortage of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers. We will need an additional 283,000 teachers in secondary schools setting up by 2015 to meet the needs of our Nation's students. This qualified teacher shortage is particularly pronounced in low-income districts. So in order to move forward, let us protect the scientific aspect of the work of this government. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 30 percent of fourth-graders and 20 percent of eighth-graders cannot perform basic mathematical computation. So I have long recognized the need to improve the participation performance of America's students in science, technology, engineering, and math. I worked with one of our corporate leaders to ensure that private funding was given to one of our inner city school districts to establish a program without comparison in its excellence focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. And as I conclude with that generous offer, let me mention in 2006 only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in engineering compared to 25 percent in South Korea and 33 percent in China. So let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we have had programs that have been very effective, such as the Harmony Science Academy in Houston, that devotes an impressive amount of time and resources educating the city's youth, minority youth in math and science and even doing research in cancer. Finally, I want to thank Dr. Reagan Flowers, who has implemented a dynamic program on STEM technology in the Houston area and a national program. I would like to congratulate Mae Jemison, one of our astronauts, the first African American woman to go into space, who likewise has an outstanding program, and the Ron McNair Program, one of our astronauts who lost his life sacrificing for the American people, challenging us and challenging our capacity. His program run by his family is another excellent program. In conclusion, from Ben Franklin to NASA to Silicon Valley, the success of the competitiveness of America has always depended on the knowledge and skills in the STEM field. This amendment will help us focus on expanding that for all Americans. I thank the gentleman for his generosity. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Appropriations Development Bill. My amendment will protect funds provided for science under Title III of the Department of Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices. As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. The economic base has built upon the base of manufacturing of durable goods and added the processing and analyzing of information. In the 21st century we can manufacture goods and expand information technology--both create jobs. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens. The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation . . . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap between our Nation's workforce and those of our international counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that purpose.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman, and again I thank my friends on the floor of the House, and I did not acknowledge my friend the ranking member. I offer myself as a person who seeks to collaborate and fix problems. So my second amendment says let's work together, but there are times when the heart of the matter has to be addressed. My amendment strikes the language that really is the heart of the matter. It strikes the language in the bill, ensuring that the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways can still exist. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree. My amendment strikes the language that allows States, 50 States, to conflict against each other and one-upmanship--I'm going to do this; no, you're going to do this. This standardizes the issue of clean water. This stands up for people like those in Crestwood, Illinois, that wonder whether the water caused cancer, kidney cancer, in a 30- year-old. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me refer my colleagues again to basic facts. Forty-seven States have entered into agreements with the EPA because they have decided, in spite of the challenges that we all have on making sure that we do the right thing, that it is the right thing to do, that clean water is our priority. And I would offer as a viable picture a recollection of Americans who had to live through histories when water was not clean. We did have that era in our lifetime, or at least in the lifetimes of many. I would argue that that is not the life we would like to go back to. This particular section is protecting us against pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities coming from a vast variety of chemicals, industry, and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe drinking water. Do you want a jobs bill? Then you create the companies that are going to help us keep our waterways clean. Put people to work cleaning water. Put people to work complying with the right thing to do to ensure that we have clean drinking water, to ensure that babies and working moms and families can turn on that faucet, and to ensure that they can drink that clean water. We want to work with industry. We want to be able to come halfway, but we don't want to return America to a time when you would dip down. You find in developing nations the enormous number of diseases that children have because they do not have clean water. Go to some of our developing nations. See what they're washing themselves in. See what they're drinking. That's not America. We have the opportunity to be the kind of nation that works with our businesses but also the kind that fights for our children and provides the opportunity for clean water. I ask my colleagues to stand with us and to strike section 2 to allow us, one, to go for a compromise if we can, but also to stand for those who would welcome clean water. Let's end diseases that can be caused in this reckless manner. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to support clean water in America. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011,'' which ensures the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to have authority to oversee issues related to the standards for and issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. My amendment will strike section 2 of the bill, ensuring the vital role played by the EPA in determining whether or not certain pollutants enter our waterways. Providing States with nearly unlimited authority to determine which pollutants can enter our waterways does not take into account issues that arise when States disagree. The EPA is a unifying body, issuing regulations that ensure all States have standards that they must follow. Bodies of water cross State lines, and the water quality standards of one State are very likely to impact neighboring States. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that all wastewater discharges to surface water receive a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 47 States, including Texas, where I represent the 18th Congressional District, are currently authorized to issue NPDES permits. Texas has been authorized to issue these permits since September 14, 1998. The pollutants that degrade surface water, rendering it unsafe for drinking, fishing, swimming, and other activities, come from a vast variety of chemicals, industry and other sources. By regulating the sources that dispense these harmful pollutants, the EPA is able to ensure that all States have access to safe water bodies. It is important that the EPA be able to set a universal standard that all States follow. States may lack the resources and funding to adequately implement the NPDES program and properly regulate sources of water contaminants. Additionally, States may not have the resources or expertise needed to continually evaluate regulations in order to ensure that water remains safe. Preventing the EPA from regulating the levels of pollutants in bodies of water may give jurisdiction over the issuance of permits to the States, but it certainly will not allow States to set their own standards for water quality. If the EPA is not able to set universal standards, downstream States will be subject to the water quality of upstream States. Contaminated groundwater will spread beyond State borders, impacting the lakes, reservoirs, and agriculture of nearby States, putting the people and the economy of its neighbors at risk. In 1906, Missouri sued Illinois for discharging sewage into a tributary of the Mississippi River that ultimately rendered drinking water unsafe in Missouri. Restricting the EPA from holding all States to the same standards will inevitably lead to many suits of this nature. I believe this bill sends us in the wrong direction when it comes to protecting our nation's bodies of water. This bill leaves a false impression that the EPA is an organization that arbitrarily picks and chooses what chemicals States can and cannot permit to enter our precious waters. Rather, 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, including an important standard for clean water. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge opposition to this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Is it my right to close, Mr. Chairman?