Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the good intentions of the gentleman, but I am concerned by the interpretation. Let me just share with you very briefly my own State. In my own State, I'm aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones. We are the protectors of America's assets, its waterways, its drinking water, the ability to have the opportunity for clean water for our fish and fishing. I ask you, let's go back to the drawing board. If we have States that are already participating, let's demand, in an administrative process, for EPA to restrain itself, but let's not take away the underlying power that is going to allow us to have clean drinking water and for someone who lives in Crestwood to be able to be possibly cancer free. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2018 ``The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011.'' My amendment restores the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work with state governments to establish standards ensuring all Americans have access to clean and safe water. My amendment strikes the entire bill. The Clean Water Act (CWA) was designed to encourage collaboration between state agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to develop acceptable standards for maintaining the safety of our nation's bodies of water. The EPA was created in 1970 to ensure that our air, land, and water receive adequate protection from pollution and we must allow them to do so for the benefit of all Americans. The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is absolutely not the way to protect our nation's water bodies. The EPA has the expertise and resources for research, standard-setting, monitoring and enforcement with regard to five environmental hazards: air and water pollution, solid waste disposal, radiation, and pesticides. EPA represents a coordinated approach to each of these problems. Seeking to limit the extent to which the EPA can oversee the safety of our water supply threatens the health of American citizens across the country. The EPA has not only the right, but the responsibility to update state water pollution regulations and permit procedures if they discover new threats to health or the environment. The EPA must remain involved in regulating water pollution to ensure a cohesive policy that protects all states from pollution. Should the authority to regulate water pollution levels be given solely to the states, there would be no way to regulate waterways that pass through multiple states. As a Representative from Texas, a Gulf Coast state, I am aware of how tributaries can impact the body of water they flow into. Currently, there is a dead zone, an area of low oxygen where marine life cannot survive, in the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, estimated to reach 9,421 square miles, is due to increased levels of nitrogen and phosphorus that washed into the gulf from the Mississippi River and other tributaries. This legislation prevents the EPA from regulating criteria for pollutants that cause dead zones. My Republican colleagues feel we must pass this bill urgently. They will tell their constituents, and all of the American people that the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act is necessary to issue permits and avoid backlog in mining facilities, factories, agriculture, and other businesses. What my friends on the other side of the aisle will not tell you is that this legislation is helping business at the risk of our nation's health. Those who support this bill will not mention that EPA regulation prevents toxic chemicals and biological agents from entering our surface water bodies and groundwater. Apparently, those championing this legislation do not feel the American people deserve to know the serious health risks that can result from drinking or bathing in polluted water. Breathing the vapors of a polluted water source, consuming meat or vegetables affected by polluted water, and consuming fish that have been exposed to polluted water are all potentially harmful. Mr. Chair, I offer this amendment to strike the entire Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act to protect not only my constituents in the 18th district of Texas, but Americans across the nation from the diseases that result from water pollution. Diseases such as typhoid, hepatitis, encephalitis, and others caused by pathogens in water. Surely the EPA, the states, and the industries involved can work together to prevent pollution levels in surface and groundwater from causing cancer, or serious damage to the liver, kidneys, nervous system, reproductive system, or endocrine system. Surely, we are not willing to sacrifice the health of this nation to pass a bill to benefit industry. A study conducted by Cornell University concluded that water pollution accounts for 80% of infectious diseases, and 5 million deaths per year. I urge my colleagues on either side of the aisle to consider the enormous gamble this Congress is taking by reducing regulations to keep our water safe. Supporting my amendment will strike the dangerous Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, and provide an opportunity for new legislation that fosters compromise between the EPA, the states, and stakeholders, without compromising water quality and endangering the health of American citizens. [From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the chairman very much. I definitely support cooperation between the Federal Government and the State government. That is absolutely the best partnership and one that I encourage. Having been a member of the local city council of my own city of Houston, I also know that unfunded mandates are very much difficult to overcome. But I argue vigorously against the underlying legislation because it does equate to undermining the health of Americans. We need clean water, not dirty water. So this amendment strikes the entire legislation that causes us to ignore a partnership that has been established between the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, which is a State system. And to my count, some 47 States have initially gotten into the system and have worked to ensure that they have clean water. Why do I suggest that this is a very challenging approach to take that the underlying legislation has? Because it prevents the EPA from taking actions to revise outdated State water quality standards. It makes a State the final arbiter of whether an NPDES permit, a license for better water quality, is in fact to be implemented so that one State may do something that impacts negatively on another State. These are the people we're concerned about: a working nurse and a healthy baby, or we are concerned about a gentleman by the name of Mr. Caldario, who is a resident of Crestwood, who indicated some years ago that he was worried about the water he drank for years without knowing what it was contaminated with--``Cancer Study Triggers Fears in Crestwood,'' which I will submit for the Record. His final sentence states, ``I can't help but wonder if what happened to me had something to do with the water.'' My amendment is straightforward. It strikes the language of this bill. It says let's go back to the drawing table. I want to be able to help Members, but if you have 47 States that have been engaged in this process, let's find a way that we can come together and have clean water and not dirty water. This is a straightforward amendment that says that this is overreaching. The EPA would be prohibited from resolving conflicting State decisions on protecting water quality. Join me in supporting the Jackson Lee amendment. 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. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand this morning and simply ask the question, where are the jobs, and why have we been here for some 27 weeks and we have not been able to say to the American people we are on your side? Let me deviate for a moment and say the debt ceiling that has consumed us is a procedural matter that has occurred over the years and decades of Presidents, Republicans and Democrats. And so let's not castigate President Obama and say a deal would not be made because he is here. Let's look at ways of finding jobs. The energy industry, for example, has a program that says veterans to jobs, energy jobs. Let's have youth to jobs, 18-35, energy jobs, and begin to create the jobs that Democrats have been fighting for, putting on the floor of the House, job creation. Let's have the energy industry broadly look at a tax structure that is responsible and invests back in America. And let's realize that the vulnerable cannot be the brunt of our confusion about the debt ceiling. This is not a fight that we need on behalf of the American people. What we need to do is to say to the American people here is a job, and we are staying on this floor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to create jobs. Now is the time for jobs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I wish to raise concerns this morning that are international and domestic. I rise today to ask the question, when will Dr. Assad, the President of Syria, begin to act in a manner that respects the human dignity of the people of Syria. It is a tragedy to watch as the Arab Spring continues in many countries that I have visited and to see one country that one had hoped would realize that a civilized government respects the dignity of its people. Syrian Americans are crying out and reaching out to Members of Congress and leaders across the Nation to attack this horrific violence that is occurring in Syria: The mutilation of a 13-year-old boy; the slaughter of individuals in the street; and, seemingly, the absolute arrogance of the President of this Nation. Many of us have thought that Dr. Assad, the son of the former president, would recognize that the 21st century does not in any way tolerate the kind of abusive and oppressive leadership that has occurred in the past and that it is high time for the leadership to be vested in the people. Now, we know that there has been a constant tension and brutality as it relates to Israel and the border and Hezbollah, something that has to be addressed, and I have cried out over and over that the dominance of Hezbollah and Syria must cease as well for any entity that does not recognize the existence of any other State, no matter what the State, and in this instance--Israel, it is an absolute abomination. But now, in American vernacular, they have added insult to injury, killing their people, blood in the streets, ignoring the international calls. So I am gratified for the stance that we have taken, and I want it to be a stronger stance, a stronger position. How dare you attack the United States Embassy. How dare you violate international law that allows sovereign nations to exist peacefully among themselves. How dare you confront the United States flag by means of the United States military. How dare you violate the human dignity of your people. And so I'm calling upon world leaders, the United Nations and all of those who have the responsibility of protecting the human rights of all people to denounce the actions of President Assad, denounce the actions of those violent and abusive people in the streets who are killing their own people, and listen to Syrian Americans who have asked for a peaceful resolution. No, we are not calling for war despite the tragedies in Yemen where the president refuses to step down, the conflicts in Libya where the president refuses to step down, the difficulties in Egypt and on and on and on. But as for the people of that region, we should take heart in America that they have attempted to create a democratic community and a nation of states. The Arab League needs to speak. And we need to denounce the President of Syria and ask him to step down. That leads me to America's role, Madam Speaker, in this crisis that has now been made by our Republican friends. To my colleagues, America is not broke. We're not in the same posture as some of our European friends. But we are in a ridiculous posture because there's no way in the world that families who are trying to make ends meet don't also attempt to seek revenues--a new job or a raise or multiple jobs. How many of our families are doing that? No, we are not raising taxes on the middle class. We are, in fact, trying to establish a quality of life for the middle class in protecting Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. Don't laugh at those. Those are infrastructures that have allowed senior citizens to live. It has allowed our hospitals to stay open and our doctors to work. And yet we have, in the other body, an individual who has a ludicrous and absolutely absurd proposal that's not going to give anybody relief--let the President of the United States sign off on the debt ceiling. We haven't even tested whether that is constitutional. In fact, we don't know if the debt ceiling itself is constitutional. And so I'm arguing and begging for leaders of consciousness to sit down and work on behalf of the American people, raise the debt ceiling and stop the foolishness.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am so glad to have the opportunity to join the gentleman from New York and to specifically focus on his leadership, along with my colleague from Maryland, who, as we were developing the Affordable Care Act, worked so hard on some of these finite issues ensuring that we had the oversight over insurance rates. We tried to do everything that we could to produce legislation that embraced the concept of Medicare, for example, recognizing and respecting Medicare and then broadening the concept to ensuring that all people had access to health care. But isn't it interesting just a few months later we are standing in the well of the House and we are literally having to hang on to the commonsense program of Medicare. If I could, I would like to frame the discussion in this manner. You have articulated a very commonsense approach that in any debt ceiling-- by the way, let me give my editorial comment. I have voted for a clean debt ceiling just simply to pay America's bills. Unfortunately, that didn't carry the weight of the day. But what I will say is that the discussions that are being crafted in the media, or at least have been perceived in the media that our Republican friends want to provide to the American people, is that we are broke, is that we have no way of doing anything. I want to be very clear, I am aware that Americans are out of work. I am aware that we have had 6 months without a jobs bill and that Democrats are trying to put one on the floor. But I want everyone to know that we have had a significant recovery because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. So we are moving forward except for the fact that we have got to get jobs. We have had seven consecutive quarters where the GDP has grown. So to make our seniors the brunt of what we have made up in terms of saying we have no money, we cannot think any other way, we have to hit someone who has paid their dues, if you will, is simply wrong and unfair. As I have said, we are not where we want to be, but the sacrifices that Democrats have made in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act have put us forward. In addition, we have seen growth. Now we have a budget. First of all, we started off in 2011 with a budget, a Ryan budget, that then suggested that we were so broke we had to voucher Medicare. Frankly, vouchering Medicare is extinguishing Medicare. It's eliminating Medicare as we know it. It is telling a senior that you need a dollar's worth of health care, we can give you a quarter. We are going to give a senior who has invested in America, who has worked all of his or her life, who, as my colleague has said, maybe has fallen on difficult times with a 401(k) and certainly that is because markets have gone up and markets have gone down, and you are going to say now you are going to get a quarter. Now bring us forward. That bill, of course, was passed by the House, predominantly Republican, with any number of Members who believe there is nothing wrong with that. It has gone nowhere in the Senate. Now we are at a crucial point where the President has asked for us all to be adults, to sit around the table and talk about how can we work this together. Can we do it with the airplanes and jets? Can we let the Bush tax cuts expire? Can we call upon our friends in the energy industry that is leaps and bounds in profits to craft or to understand a way that we can recraft those particular provisions to bring that money here into the Federal Government? And I would say to my good friends in business, where it might be, the climate of the United States allows you to thrive. You are doing better because you live in a democracy, you live in a place where we respect property, where we don't run into a corporation and say, you know what, I think I am going to take about, you know, half a trillion dollars from you if you have that much. Just send that check over to the United States Treasury. We don't do that. So I want the point to be made tonight that we are on the side of the angels, because it is absolutely ludicrous to not see the difference in life span pre-1965, before Lyndon Baines Johnson, a fellow Texan, announced his desire in the Great Society to find a way to, in essence, respect the senior citizens, the elderly. And at that time he was probably looking at individuals in their 60s because of the wear and tear and the lack of health care to be able to give them an extra lifeline. To say that he was right and to make sure, I just want to add these points as I come to a close, to be able to suggest that the millions of seniors who now have access to guaranteed benefits are in jeopardy because of the games that are being played about the debt ceiling, a simple, procedural vote, if you will, that allows the debt ceiling to be raised so that we can pay our bills, something that we have done, if I may put in the Record, some 74 times since 1962 with no quarrel whatsoever. Finally, I would argue this: many of those on Medicare are families of veterans, themselves, obviously, may have served, even though I know that they have veterans benefits. But they are people who are willing to sacrifice to build this country. They are seniors. For us to take away this lifeline is unspeakable. And I hope that as Democrats we will draw a few friends, a few reasonable friends to know that there should be no tying of raising the debt ceiling to Medicare. There should be a tie to raising revenue. That's the commonsense approach to take.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank you for your passion. What you're saying makes me think what we're doing even to the younger generation because you just made a point that it's lasted for over half a century, if I could use that term, over 50 years. And it is a framework that can be in place for those who are young. And if we take it apart, we will not have this structure that has been helpful. There is no reason to ignore modernizing. We're not against that, looking at ways to improve Medicare. But that's not what our Republican friends are saying. They're talking about ending it as we know it, vouchering it. And there's a story about the running of the bulls. And frankly, I have this image of a voucher plan, or the plan that will come about through cuts in guaranteed benefits, of the running of the bulls, the running of seniors running toward, trying to get that last voucher that is being handed out, trampling each other because they're seeking that one lifeline that they need. In addition, we need to be very real about Medicare. Medicare is the infrastructure of our hospital system. You cut into Medicare, you're talking about closing hospitals, you're talking about eliminating physicians, and you're talking about ending care as we know it. Is there any understanding to the fact that we need to be adults and sit down? When I left my city of Houston, I spoke to my constituents on Sunday. I held a press conference to indicate my commitment to helping to preserve Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. The idea was that this will impact our city. You will see jobs lost. We have the Texas Medical Center. It will see businesses close and people have the inability to care for themselves or their senior family members. So this simple issue of a debt ceiling speaks, I think, very eloquently to the need for common sense. And you have laid out very clearly we've had it for this period of time, we've been able to keep a structure that has helped to save lives, it has this amount of life, it can have a longer life as we continue to improve it and to ensure that there is no waste, fraud, and abuse. And for me, I cannot imagine, I cannot imagine a picture of seniors trampling each other to get that last voucher or having to be told by their government, a country that they've served and worked for and raised their children in, there is no room at the inn for you, there's no opportunity for your health care, there's no more Medicare; by the way, we had to pay tax cuts or we had to give the billionaires and rich folk the long period of time of tax holidays, and we just didn't have any opportunity for you. That is unacceptable. It is un-American. And I think we can do better. And we need to fight to protect Medicare as we are doing as Democrats. And I would encourage and welcome my friends, my Republican friends, to join us in doing the right thing.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much for leading us in this discussion. The message should be albeit we have some concerns, we are not broke. We need to fix jobs and investment and we need to save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. They have not contributed to our debt, and we cannot allow seniors to run like bulls to seek medical care in this great and wonderful country. I, for one, will not stand for it. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of points that I would just like to bring really to the attention of my colleagues and to indicate that I hope we can do better. That's my message: I hope we can do better. I hope we can do better than having two Presidential candidates in the Republican Party sign a pledge that would suggest that children of slaves were much better off than the children of African American parents today. We know that we have a high number of single parents throughout the United States raising children. But just read the slave narratives and the biography of Frederick Douglass to know that there were no marriages among slaves--it was not allowed--and that children were torn away from their parents. And husbands or wives or those who had given birth or created children were torn away from each other. Slavery was a destructive part of this country, and never compare it with the life that we have today. I would also suggest that if we are negotiating the debt ceiling, we should not have leaders in the room that make the statement that we'll have no resolution because President Barack Obama is President. I'm insulted, offended, and it is not becoming as adults.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was on official business on last Friday, July 8, with the privilege of seeing the last shuttle launch in Florida, the Atlantis, a very important issue for my congressional district and, I might say, a mighty, magnificent expression of American genius. Because of that, I missed the following roll call votes on Thursday, July 7, which I would like to submit into the Record. I will read them very briefly. For roll call vote No. 521--and these were under the Defense appropriations bill--I would have voted ``yes.'' For roll call vote 522, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 523, I would have voted ``yes.'' For roll call vote 524, ``Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted ``aye.'' For Friday, July 8, when I, as well, missed votes for that reason, official business, for roll call vote No. 525, I would have voted ``no.'' For roll call vote 526, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 527, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 528, which interferes with the chaplain's duties in the United States military, I would have voted a resounding ``no.'' For roll call vote 529, I would have voted ``no.'' Roll call vote 530, I would have voted ``no.'' And for roll call vote 533, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 515-524 on Thursday, July 7, 2011. I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 515-524 because I was on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote 521, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Welch of Vermont, ``An amendment to limit the use of funds to not more than $200,000,000, provided by title IX under the heading `Operation and Maintenance, Army,' may be available for the Commander's Emergency Response Program. Also, the amount otherwise provided under such heading is reduced by $200,000,000,'' I would have voted yes. For rollcall vote 522, on agreeing to Amendment No. 4 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Cole of Oklahoma, ``An amendment numbered 4 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds be used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order regarding the disclosure of political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of enactment of the this Act,'' I would have voted nay. For rollcall vote 523, on agreeing to Amendment No. 97 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Frank, ``An Amendment to add a section at the end of the bill which reduces the total amount of appropriations by $8,500,000,000 not to be derived from amounts of appropriations made available by title I (``Military Personnel''), under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' in title VI, or by title IX (``Overseas Contingency Operations''),'' I would have voted aye. For rollcall vote 524, on motion to suspend the rules and agree as amended in H. Res. 268, ``Reaffirming the United States commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes,'' I would have voted aye. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Chair regarding my absence from rollcall votes 525-533 on Friday, July 8, 2011. I was not able to cast my votes during rollcall 525-533 because I was on official business. I would like to state for the Record how I would have voted had I been present. For rollcall vote 525, on agreeing to Amendment No. 1 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce funds made available by this Act for `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' by $250,000,000,'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 526, on agreeing to Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce the amounts made available in sundry sections of title IV,'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 527, on agreeing to Amendment No. 3 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Flake of Arizona, ``An amendment to reduce the amounts made available in sundry sections of title IV,'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 528, on agreeing to Amendment No. 77 to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Huelskamp of Kansas, ``An amendment numbered 77 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funds to implement the curriculum of the Chaplain Corps Tier 1 DATD repeal training dated April 11, 2011'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 529, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Polis of Colorado, ``An amendment to prohibit use of funds in the bill to maintain an end strength level of troops in Europe to more than 30,000 and to reduce military personnel accounts accordingly'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 530, on agreeing to an Amendment to H.R. 2219 offered by Representative Kucinich of Ohio, ``An amendment to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in or against Libya except under a declaration of war against Libya pursuant to clause 11 in section 8 of article I of the Constitution'' I would have voted ``nay.'' For rollcall vote 533, on agreeing to a resolution H. Res. 340 to ``Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1309) to extend the authorization of the national flood insurance program'' I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Young, who is the chairman of the subcommittee, and to Mr. Dicks, who is the ranking member, for their long years of service. To my colleagues, good news today: the announcement came that the President of the United States would send the same sympathy letter to families of those soldiers who committed suicide in battle as of those who had fallen in different ways in battle. The reason that is good news is, in a sentence I am reminded of, the President and his office indicated that they did not want to stigmatize the mental health concerns of our soldiers. I want to pay tribute to the Defense appropriations committee for its work on post-traumatic stress disorder and to make note of our late friend, Congressman John Murtha, who worked with Houston on establishing a new post-traumatic stress disorder center. I am grateful for that because, as in all of our States, many of us are facing a large numbers of returning soldiers from both Iraq and Afghanistan. So I ask for my amendment to be supported to increase research and development funding for post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, which affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's armed services. My amendment would increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000. It will be offset by reducing general operations and maintenance and activities of the Department of Defense. I believe this is critical in ensuring our country's military strength as we move toward the 21st century. We obviously were aware of post-traumatic stress for those who follow the military in all of our wars. We've seen it every day by our Vietnam soldiers, those who came home without welcome. We see it in the numbers of homeless soldiers, many of them Vietnam vets. Over the years, members of the military and veterans have seen a drastic increase in the number of cases of PTSD and TBI. PTSD cases in the military have risen from 1,614 total cases in 2000 to 88,719 total cases in 2010. Additionally, it is reported that 17 percent of all active duty soldiers, 25 percent of reserve soldiers, and 19 percent of Vietnam veterans suffer from PTSD. Traumatic brain injuries in the military have increased from 10,963 total cases in 2000 to 178,876 total cases in 2010. We know that the kinds of explosives that are now used in war cause greater damage, or more damage, or damage of this kind to our soldiers. Also, in May of this year, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate it is unconstitutional. We are grateful for the work that has been done, but this court said many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care. This is simply unacceptable. The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IED attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States. I was listening to a soldier on the television speak about his injuries and then he mentioned the fact that a soldier in front of him, his comrade, his friend, stepped on the IED, but the vast damage was to all of those who were around him. And so we know the collateral damage is as severe as it might be in any other form of mass war. We see the loss of life, but we see the injuries remaining. We must in turn care for them, and when they return home we must make it a priority--as I know this committee has done--to increase the resources. Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts, however we must not allow these debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. I believe in Congress and its wisdom, and I believe it is committed to taking care of our warriors. As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they come without the desire for glory or appreciation. But whenever you talk to a vet, they are looking to make sure that they have the care that they need. Increasing the amount of resources, however small this amendment offers, helps in finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI, and is the first step that Congress can add to the work that is already being done. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in areas that are outside of some of our largest centers are less likely to be diagnosed. We should not wait. I believe we are of good mind and good will when it comes to our soldiers. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chair, today I rise to ask for support of my amendment to increase research and development funding for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, that affects our men and women who serve selflessly and bravely in our Nation's Armed Services. My amendment will increase research and development funds for PTSD and TBI by $500,000, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense. I believe this is critical to ensuring our country's military strength as we move forward into the 21st century. Also in May of this year, a three judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Veterans Affairs' treatment of mentally ill veterans is so inadequate, it is unconstitutional. The decision said, ``many veterans with severe depression or post-traumatic stress disorder are forced to wait weeks for mental health referrals and are given no opportunity to request or demonstrate their need for expedited care.'' This is simply unacceptable. The courageous men and women of the Armed Forces brave IEDs, attacks, injury, and horrific violence to protect the safety and security of the United States, and we must, in turn, care for them when they return home. We must make this a priority and increase the resources available to help prevent and treat PTSD and TBI. Members of Congress may disagree when it comes to the level of commitment and resources of the United States to foreign wars and conflicts. However, we must not allow those debates and discussions to cause us to fail to properly care for these brave soldiers when they return home or when they are injured. Congress must separate the war from the warrior, and Congress should never fail to care for our warriors. As the members of the military return to their homes and their families, they do not come home seeking glory or appreciation, but no soldier should have to come home to inadequate treatment or care for the injuries they sustained protecting the freedom of all Americans. Increasing the amount of resources specializing finding ways to prevent and better treat post-traumatic stress disorder and TBI is the first step Congress can take to providing veterans with the services they need. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. America shouldn't wait until soldiers with these injuries are discharged to begin treatment. The Department of Defense needs to spend more resources on how to detect and treat PTSD and TBI earlier. These soldiers need to be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment to ensure no solider is left behind.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to take a moment, since I have just followed my amendment, to thank Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks for seeing an expanded category of individuals suffering from PTSD and accepting my amendment and working with us. I want to thank Dr. Broun for his service and for his direct view of what happens to great Americans, soldiers who have sacrificed and they cannot function because of PTSD. So I am grateful for that. And the reason why I say that, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, is because many people don't realize the work that the Defense Appropriations and the Pentagon does on a number of health issues. One of them happens to be cancer. I have heard in coffee clutches or around dinner tables that cancer is an epidemic. It seems appropriate for the Defense Department, which has been at the cutting edge of technology over the years, such as the Internet--can be in the lead. So I intend to offer an amendment that I would like to discuss with Mr. Young and Mr. Dicks, but I intend to withdraw. But it is very important. This amendment would increase funding under title 6, Defense Health Programs, by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenance and activities at the Department of Defense. I am hoping my colleagues will work with me on this, and I hope they will be reminded of a young woman by the name of Yolanda Evette Williams, who was an outstanding medical professional who fought against this triple-negative strain of cancer and left behind a husband, a mother, and two children. It is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I offer this amendment to increase funding for research, not to take away moneys from others, but I would certainly like to, out of this discussion, have this kind of cancer looked upon as we are doing our research to develop a targeted treatment for the triple-negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods such as hormone- and gene-based strains have higher survival rates than the triple-negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. Just to say a word about Yolanda, she was a dedicated member of the Good Hope Baptist Church. She was a graduate of Texas Southern University. She received a number of degrees. She was a member of the Jack and Jill. Her mother was a medical professional, Dr. Lois Moore. She was a chief clinical officer for the Atrium Medical Center Hospital in Stafford, Texas, having a long history, even though she was very young, of her commitment as a nurse to medical care. This young woman did not have a chance because of this enormous strain that does not have a high survival rate. It is treatment, is hormone- and gene-based strains, and it has, as I said, a difficult time of survival.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I appreciate it. Let me just say, breast cancer accounts for one in four cancer diagnoses among women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and another 6,000 will die. This impacts all women, of all backgrounds, and my interest is to make sure that every subset has a seat at the table, Chairman Young, so that no matter what ethnic background you come from, you will not, in essence, suffer the opportunity for full research. My amendment was $500,000. It is in tribute to the honor and the leadership and the life of Yolanda Williams. I would like to ask my colleagues here on the Appropriations Committee to allow me to engage with you and to possibly modify, as we go forward, language to just say that this money will be available for difficult strains of cancer so that her life will be honored and that we would be able to move forward. In conclusion, I would indicate that I had the privilege and honor of paying tribute to Ms. Williams at her home-going service. I want to offer to her family again, her husband, her children, her mother and all her family members, my deepest sympathy for this valiant American woman. With that, I know that we will work together. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #67 to H.R. 2219, the ``FY2012 Department of Defense Appropriations Act.'' My amendment would increase funding under Title VI Defense Health Programs by $500,000 in order to fund research related to triple negative breast cancer, and will be offset by reducing the general operations and maintenances and activities of the Department of Defense. Triple negative breast cancer is a specific strain of breast cancer for which no targeted treatment is available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' I offer this amendment to increase funding for research in order to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer strain. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. Breast cancer accounts for 1 in 4 cancer diagnoses among women in this country. It is also the most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2011, more than 26,000 African American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer, and another 6,000 will die from the disease. Between 2002 and 2007, African American women suffered a 39 percent higher death rate from breast cancer than other groups. African American women are also 12 percent less likely to survive five years after a breast cancer diagnosis. One reason for this disparity is that African American women are disproportionally affected by triple negative breast cancer. More than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women. Mr. Chairman, last month, I spoke at a funeral for Yolanda Williams, one of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Yolanda died from her battle with triple negative breast cancer. Like many other women who are diagnosed with this aggressive strain, she did not respond to treatment. Yolanda, wife and mother of two daughters, was only 44 years old. This strain of breast cancer is not only more aggressive, it is also harder to detect, and more likely to recur than other types. Because triple negative breast cancer is difficult to detect, it often metastasizes to other parts of the body before diagnosis. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed. Research institutions all over the nation have started to focus on this dangerous strain of breast cancer. In my home city of Houston, Baylor College of Medicine has its best and brightest minds working tirelessly to develop a targeted treatment for the triple negative breast cancer subtype. It is time for the Department of Defense to follow that example and commit additional funding to study the triple negative strain. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting women across the nation from this deadly form of breast cancer by supporting my amendment. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady. I went to the Libyan Embassy at the very start of this horrific crisis and stood with the Libyan ambassador that resigned and called for the resignation of General Qadhafi. Today I continue to call for the cessation of the violence and abuse against the Libyan people. But we have to address this question away from the cloud, as I indicated, of politics. We must adhere to the Constitution, Congress' right to declare war, but I can't understand this now backside debate about the War Powers Resolution being constitutional. For some of us, we believe that the contents of it insist that it is. So my point to my colleagues is, the Kucinich resolution was on the floor, and every Republican had the opportunity to vote for it. Why we are here again with a resolution that imitates the debate that we had, I believe the underlying principle and premise is to embarrass this administration and President Obama.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning as someone who has opposed the Iraq war and consistently opposed the Afghanistan war under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. I think it is important to stop the politics this morning and recognize that mistakes were made by Presidents of all political parties. The War Powers Resolution that is now being debated as being unconstitutional by my Republican friends has a very strong purpose. It is the purpose of this joint resolution to fulfill the intent of the Framers of the Constitution of the United States and ensure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly going to occur. Now we have Republicans suggesting that the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. What do they want? This is a political game. I voted for Mr. Kucinich's resolution, and the Republicans had the opportunity to also vote for Mr. Kucinich's resolution. This is to embarrass the President. I agree with the underlying sentiment that this was handled badly and that there should have been consultation. Now there is an opportunity for authorization. We need to debate this not whether it is President Obama but whether or not there is a collaborative effort between NATO and the Arab League to address this hostile situation in Libya. And, frankly, I don't like the politics of this. The politics says, it's okay if it's a Republican President but not okay if it's Mr. Obama. I am interested in preserving the integrity of this Constitution and have consistently voted that Congress has a right to declare war. But we are now engaged in a consultation process, and I hope Members will engage in the debate on the basis of the right decision to make. I am against war. Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. End the war in Iraq. But right now, this should not be Republicans against Democrats on the question of whether or not we are in a collaborative effort with NATO on this issue of Libya. We are attempting to save lives; take the politics out of it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are many issues that we must address in this august body, but it is tragic to note that we have been here for 24 weeks since the GOP took responsibility and control of this House and we have done nothing to create jobs. In fact, the majority leader has indicated the Republicans have no plans to do anything on jobs through this summer. Why does this pose a crisis? Because in the midst of all of this, a number of mergers are coming into fruition, in particular the United- Continental merger. We have already had an announcement that Houston will lose 1,500 jobs, and no response from United or Continental. In addition, United had a recent collapse of its database, or its system, which caused massive shutdowns and clogging of the system, where passengers were stuck in airports because they couldn't get their planes off the ground. When we have mergers with no restraint and no oversight, we have a problem. So jobs are necessary to be created, and there needs to be oversight over mergers like Continental and United so that communities like Houston and elsewhere won't be losing jobs with no response.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It is a continuous, unending obligation to be in Libya. I would much rather have a definitive act which is to say that we have no more than a year. And I would offer to the White House that we would like reports sooner than that, and some of us may wish to go forward with another resolution to move us out. But I will not be supporting politics today. I have to support those who are fighting for justice in Libya. Mr. Speaker, I rise to today to express my disappointment with the Administration's decision not to consult with the Congress over the important and critical actions taken in Libya. Our government operates based upon a constitutionally protected system of checks and balances. It does not matter whether or not the Administration is Democrat or Republican. What is important is ensuring the role of Congress when determinations are made to engage in military actions in foreign countries. The War Powers Resolution was intended to ensure that any action taken by an Administration which utilizes military forces would require the involvement of this body. As the Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I believe in supporting the Constitution of the United States. The issue before us raises the debate on how to apply the War Powers Resolution. As this resolution has not been declared unconstitutional it is important to follow our laws as written. This is a reminder to the American people that we must firmly hold true to our constitutional duties. We have the power to ensure the Executive does not overstep its bounds. As Members of Congress, we can exercise our power through appropriation, the appointment process, exercising oversight over the Executive, enactment legislation, or even establishing a select Committee to probe any abuse of power by the Administration. The War Power resolution is an integral part of our process. The actions that have taken place in Libya raise the debate on how the War Power Resolution should be applied. Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers have long argued about which branch of government has the power to decide whether the nation goes to war, and meaningful discussions between the branches has not always taken place. In 1973, The War Powers resolution was passed over the veto of President Nixon, in order to provide procedures for Congress and the President to participate in decisions to send U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities. Such force is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause which specifically provided that ``Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. . . .'' The policy behind this power, entrusted to the President as Commander in Chief, to deploy U.S. armed forces to defend itself is ``exercised only pursuant to: (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.'' Pursuant to this authority, the President ``in every possible instance'' shall consult with Congress before deploying U.S. Armed Forces, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain in hostile situations. As we consider this Joint Resolution, we must also consider facts surrounding the state of violence and unrest in Libya, and the consequences of both action and inaction on behalf of the Libyan people. I value the importance of a fair, just, and balanced approach. We must always act in compliance with our nation's constitution. Prior to this conflict, since assuming power, Colonel Qaddafi has ignored the needs of the Libyan people; choosing instead to train other oppressive leaders in intelligence and weaponry. Qaddafi had given money to dictators such as Robert Mugabe and Charles Taylor, and intervened in foreign wars instead of investing in education and infrastructure for the betterment of his own people. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have consistently reported the lack of free press and free speech in Libya. The State controls the media and speaking out against Qaddafi or his government is not only illegal, it is also deadly. Qaddafi and his army executed activists who opposed the government and broadcasted their deaths on television. Qaddafi was particularly intolerant of women and other minorities. He established ``social rehabilitation'' centers, where women who were designated financially or morally vulnerable were detained indefinitely. Homosexuality was deemed criminal, and punished with up to five years in jail. Now, the people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for democracy. This current conflict in Libya began four months ago, when Colonel Qadahfi failed to do what was right for his country and its people. Violence erupted as many Libyan citizens felt the painful consequences of a government resistant to change. Civil liberties were infringed upon, human rights were violated, and worst of all, many Libyan lives were lost. These atrocities were not committed under the command of some far away leader or as a consequence of a conflict with a foreign nation. No, these unforgivable acts were authorized by the hand of the Libyan leader himself. I applaud efforts to come to the aid of the Libyan people. I condemn Colonel Qadahfi's despicable and inhuman actions, and support the President in our national policy--and the World's policy--of removing this tyrant from power. The widespread suffering in Libya was initiated and continues to be encouraged by the very man charged with protecting the Libyan people. The Libyan people are in desperate need of outside assistance; the question is no longer whether or not Libya is in a critical condition. I call on my fellow Members of Congress to continue to condemn the violence taking place in Libya. We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life. Colonel Muammar Qadahfi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. When faced with the shadow of oppression, the suppression of liberties, and the constant threat of brutality, history has shown that humanity will always rise up in protest, and if necessary, in armed resistance. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of Libyan citizens, Qadahfi chose to remain steadfast to the status quo-- to disregard the context of an intolerable situation in favor of blindly following what has always been done just for tradition's sake and lust for power. The reality of the situation is this: it was Qadahfi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that has led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we continue to deliberate the role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people. Colonel Qadahfi has proved himself to be, by the standards of any free nation, an illegitimate leader of the Libyan people. He has utilized snipers, helicopters gunships, mercenaries and gangs of hired thugs to harm his own people throughout the course of the protests. Rebels taking to the streets demanding free elections were injured and killed. No leader should remain in power after committing the indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of their own citizens; no leader should remain in power after ordering soldiers to fire upon crowds of defenseless, peaceful protesters; no leader should remain in power after executing hundreds of soldiers who bravely refused to carry out orders to shoot their fellow citizens in cold blood. My message to Qadahfi is clear: stop the slaughter, stop the killing, and stop murdering your own people. I demand you step down from power! I implore you to consider and value the lives of your people. Stop the violence. I call for a unified voice from NATO, the United Nations, the African Union, and other world groups to stop the slaughter and violence against the people of Libya. As a Member of this body, I am calling on my colleagues to join me in calling attention to the plight of the people of Libya and their fight for freedom, justice, and deliverance from Colonel Qaddafi. For over four months, NATO-led air strikes in Libya have inflicted serious damage upon the Qaddafi regime's war machine, yet loyalist forces continue to demonstrate cohesiveness and operational superiority over besieged rebel forces. Still, some analysts suggest the stalemate is now yielding to a war of attrition favoring the rebels. Rebel combat skills have improved, as has their arsenal, which now reportedly includes vehicle-mounted antiaircraft guns, recoilless rifles, and mortars. As rebels consolidate recent gains, NATO has proven to be the equalizing force. The African Union continues to press for a peace deal that was accepted by Qaddafi but rejected by the opposition because it would leave Qaddafi in power. With the support of the United States, United Nations, and NATO we must continue to push for the support of the African Union resolution. Turkey also has proposed a roadmap to establish an immediate and verifiable ceasefire, secure humanitarian aid corridors, and advance a political process for a transition. However, Turkey has not yet provided an implementation strategy other than making it clear that Qaddafi must go. After the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, engaged in peace talks with Qadahfi most of the world believed the bloodshed would end. Today, it is clear that Qadahfi is going to continue to fight to stay in power. We cannot stand by and watch as the people of Libya suffer. We need and must provide humanitarian aid. Americans have always come to aid of their neighbors in times of crisis. We must continue to remember the context upon which we are currently operating in the world today. The Middle East is finally awaking to democracy and freedom. Advancing these objectives also advances our nation's security. The evidence is clear of an Arab Spring. The evidence is compelling all we need to do is look at Egypt, Byrahn, Yemen, Syria, and Libya to watch the effects of voices that are calling for democracy. The Founders distributed the decision to go to war between the two political branches to assure that the decision would be made carefully. The founding generation experienced the hardship of several wars and they knew war's human and financial costs. They understood that a strong executive who is already given the title ``Commander in Chief,'' might flex the country's military strength injudiciously. Giving Congress the essential power to declare war allows heads to cool, alternatives to be considered, and makes certain there is consensus if the country is called to fight. I continue to support the premise that Congress has the right to declare war, and our current debate must reflect this imperative. Congress has a right to assert its authority; however, the situation in Libya gives me great pause. H.J. RES 68, ``Authorizing the limited use of the United States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya,'' Authorizes the President to continue the limited use of U.S. Armed Forces in Libya in support of U.S. security policy interests as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, as requested by the Transitional National Council, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Arab League. This bill will terminate such authorization one year after the date of enactment of this joint resolution. Further, H.J. Res. 68 states that consistent with the policy and statements of the President, Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya unless the purpose of the presence is limited to the immediate personal defense of U.S. government officials (including diplomatic representatives) or to rescuing members of NATO forces from imminent danger. It requires the President to consult frequently with Congress regarding U.S. efforts in Libya, including by providing regular briefings and reports. Includes as elements in such briefings and reports: (1) an updated description of U.S. national security interests and policy objectives in Libya; (2) an updated list of U.S. Armed Forces activities in Libya; (3) an updated assessment of the opposition groups in Libya, including potential successor governments; and (4) an updated explanation of the President's legal and constitutional rationale for conducting military operations in Libya consistent with the War Powers Resolution. H.R. 2278, ``To limit the use of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya unless otherwise specifically authorized by law,'' this bill prevents the use of funds to pay for United States participation in any aspect of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) effort except intelligence, surveillance, search-and-rescue and other ``non-hostile'' support activities. I am for peace and not war, however I am not for politics of the Republicans that vote against Democratic Presidents but for Republican Presidents. This war is an effort for humanitarian assistance in Libya. The Libyan people were being attacked and were dying by their own leader. Although, I am again disappointed by the continuing actions of the Administration that are taking place without the consultation of Congress. This should not cause us to ignore the plight of the Libyan people. We must continue to insist on providing the technical assistance and weapons necessary to defeat this regime. I will vote against H.R. 2278 because it is a political game and does not have a time certain to leave Libya. The resolution cuts off funds just to embarrass President Obama. I want peace to come to Libya in the right way. Efforts to support action by the African Union, European Union, NATO and other U.S. allies only advance our call for democracy that is now being heard and is spreading throughout the Middle East. This can be done while complying with the War Powers Resolution, that is why I will support H.J. Res. 68 for now which sets a time of before one (1) year this war should end. I want the conflict to end sooner, I therefore reserve the right to offer a resolution on the floor to end this war.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for his leadership and for characterizing where we are today as a conflicted and, if you will, highly uncertain posture. I'm looking at the vote count, and it looks as if 225 Republicans voted against a time certain to get out of Libya. If you read the bill H.R. 2278--and I am looking at it over and over again--there really is no print as to a time certain. There is a nebulous statement about limiting funds for such things as search and rescue, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, aerial funding, and operational planning. That can go on ad infinitum. We can take the American people's money forever and ever and continue in this effort. I don't like where we are today. Constitutionally, it is true, it is Congress' right to declare war. And the War Powers resolution--which my good friends on the other side of the aisle are now debating on its constitutionality, and of course they've used it in the past--does indicate that it was done in order to track the Constitution and allow congressional consultation. There was a letter sent by the President. There has been a report sent. But there's no doubt that this was not handled right. But in the Iraq war, an unnecessary war, no Arab League States asked us to join with them. There was no defined threat to the United States in the Iraq war, as we've said. We left the Afghanistan war to dillydally in Iraq and lose 4,000 soldiers. So where is the hypocrisy here? Right now, the Arab League has asked us to join them. Right now, our NATO allies are engaged in trying to get rid of an oppressive abuser and a person who has killed his own people. Where is the dignity on this place? It's nothing but politics. And I respect my colleagues who want to make choices about which direction they want to go. But I will tell you, I would much rather vote for something that is time certain, ending in 1 year or before. And if there is not a definitive end, then I will offer a privileged resolution to get out of Libya. But I don't want to abandon my friends in the Arab States who are now struggling for democracy. Why is Syria different? Why is Yemen different? Why is Bahrain different? You are absolutely right. Because other forces are engaged in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain. And the Arab States are attempting to negotiate. So I am not interested in willy-nilly going into all kinds of wars. I'm not interested in going to Syria or Yemen or Bahrain. But I am interested in being consistent. We now have an operation, and we can tell that there is movement by those who are rebels. And I would like my friends to document for me, if they have got a documented presence of al Qaeda, then they can tell us that. But right now, we have an obligation, and we can't play politics. And this bill is nothing but politics because it does not end when we're supposed to get out. It does it ad infinitum.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished Speaker, and to the distinguished Members that are on this floor, what a heck of a position to be in. Let me make it very clear this is a set of circumstances that frames itself around the Constitution, the War Powers resolution, that indicates that Congress must be consulted. But I am in the middle of my actions that took place months ago or many weeks ago as the crisis and the murderous acts of Colonel Qadhafi began to seize his people. And we went to the Libyan Embassy to ask for Colonel Qadhafi to step down, and we joined with the then-Ambassador in his courageous act. Colonel Qadhafi is known to oppress his people; to deny rights of freedom of press and speech, as well as association; to train dictators in oppression and intelligence; and the murderous acts still go on. But it is a crisis when we have an administration, unfortunately, that has not seen fit to undertake the consultation that is necessary. Yet I believe that we should finish the task, and it is different from Iraq and it is different from Afghanistan. We have a time certain and, as well, we have the Arab League that has asked us to stand with them against the oppression of one of its members. This is a door opener to say to the people that we have asked to be with us to go against terrorist acts to stand for democracy. So this is a devastating position to put the Members of Congress in, but we must do our duty today, and I believe that it is good to say that the Hastings amendment is the framework, though I would prefer 6 months, and I hope there is an opportunity to address this for a limited time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, because of the graciousness of the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, and the chairman, Mr. Smith, of agreeing to my amendment, Jackson Lee No. 5 that was just debated, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a record vote.