Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentlelady from Connecticut's amendment and thank her for her vision. I thank my good friend from Georgia who is the chairman of this committee, and I thank the manager who has represented our good friends very well tonight. I thank them for their courtesies. And I thank our ranking member, Mr. Farr, for his passion about ensuring that every person in America has an opportunity for good and healthy food. The Agriculture Department and the work that the Agriculture Department does is both domestic and international. But today we rise because there is an inequity and an unfairness. It is complicated to discuss something called the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. What is that and how does that have an impact on making sure that Americans have a quality of life that they are deserving of, hardworking, everyday Americans that get up at the sign of dawn and carpool their children and go to work and return at the end and attempt to be able to provide for their families? The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is that arbiter. It's the entity that will implement the consumer protection and armor that was given during the Dodd-Frank legislation. And how in the world can you work on behalf of consumers and Americans if the legislation that is before us obliterates this commission, eliminates 600 positions that would allow these hardworking Americans to gain what they deserve? And what is that? A better quality of life. I am glad my good friend from New York cited the energy industry as recognizing themselves that the price of oil has gone beyond reason, that the gasoline prices have gone beyond reason. But who is gaining? Speculators whom you cannot see. You couldn't find a speculator if you tried. And that is the purpose of a commodity trading commission, which is to find the individuals that want to cripple the system and make sure that the American public suffers. Look at this document that I'm holding in my hand. It lists the States and the districts that have the highest degree of poverty, States and districts that, in essence, have individuals who do not eat, for example, who have to borrow from one payment or one bill to take care of another need. So maybe the electric bill goes or the home mortgage or the rent goes so they can actually feed their families. Or they put the car up and cannot get to work because they cannot afford the gasoline. This is what the underfunding of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will do. It will pile onto people who cannot afford any more pile-on; 600 workers taken away from implementing legislation and laws that protect the consumer from the daggers of high gasoline prices, the daggers from high food prices, and the daggers from a poor quality of life. There are people in the United States that go hungry. And in talking to seniors while I was home, you cannot understand their life until you talk to them one on one. When they get their benefits that they worked so hard for and they have to parcel out dollars for their needs and they go to the grocery store and the food prices are soaring, that is speculation. That's the speculators raising food prices. So seniors can't eat. Families that are on a single income, disabled persons, single parents, they can't have a nutritious meal; compounding them with the high costs of moving around, gasoline prices, the high cost of rent, and, of course, the difficulty sometimes in finding work. Let me say this. This administration and Democrats have been working hard to shove jobs out on this economy. And if you listen to the economists, they believe that as bad as it is and how sympathetic we are and how we know that we can't rest, that we've got to put a jobs bill out here, there is some suggestion that those businesses will be hiring because we've tried to make sure that we study the economy. Do you think they'll be hiring with 600 jobs thrown out of the commodity commission that is supposed to regulate to ensure that consumers can get the best deal; that if you do get a job, you can pay for the gasoline; that if you're in need of a healthy meal, you can go to a grocery store and actually pay for it because the speculators haven't raised the prices of food? This is what we are talking about when we are arguing against the underlying bill and the elimination of $136 million to devastate this commission so that consumers cannot be protected. Mr. Chairman, it's time to recognize who's boss. It is the American people. And I like them being a boss. I'm going to stand with my boss, the good boss, and fight for them to be protected. This bill does not do that. 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. Mr. Chairman, I know this is a very, very tough state of affairs and time frame that we are in. I also know this is a time when America calls upon all of us to stand not for our individual selfish interests but to look at the country as a united team that believes in lifting the boats of all people. I want to thank my friends who have struggled on this committee to deal with the bare necessities of life, of food. That is why I come today, unfortunately, to oppose this legislation, because it does not take into account that without sustenance and nutrition that people die. It is plain and simple. We are not talking about knicknacks or trains, buses, highways, bridges, all very important and job creators, and in fact efforts that the Democrats have made very clear that they are the job creating caucus for the press and push that we have made or are making in America. We have asked our colleagues to join us. But today we talk about feeding people. I rose earlier today to say that it is in the DNA of the 18th Congressional District, because one of my predecessors, Mickey Leland, actually died delivering food to starving people around the world. He thought so much of hunger in America that he organized the Select Committee on Hunger, joined by Tony Hall and Congressman Emerson; and his legacy was that we cannot do without substance. So it makes no sense to cut $3 billion from WIC; a WIC program that indicates that WIC moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeding than low-income non-WIC moms. Middle- to high-income moms are more likely to have initiated breast feeding than both WIC and low- income non-WIC. One in five children do not drink water easily. WIC children were more likely to drink juice daily than children not on WIC. Ninety-three percent of children drink milk daily. About one- quarter of all children had drunk seven or more sugar-sweetened beverages in the previous week. These are without the ability to have nutritious meals. This is in my own State of Texas, which indicates that food does not matter in terms of how wealthy a State may be. So I can't imagine why, as my colleagues have said, we can't find $3 billion from the $10 billion a month that is being spent in Afghanistan and the moneys that have been stolen in Iraq, where we don't even know where it is. It is all about priorities. So I rise today to express great consternation over the cut in WIC and to indicate that WIC is about growing, it is about providing nutrition so that children can think, so that they can be able to be strong leaders. It is to grow children healthy, it is to stop disease, it is to provide the kind of immune system that thwarts disease. In a State like Texas, the 18th Congressional District which I represent has a strong work ethic. I am so proud of them. But they also have a rate of poverty that is frightening. Food insecurity in my district ranks number 32 in the Nation. That means that there are only 31 districts ahead that have that degree of food insecurity. And yet I am going to have to go home and tell them that the priorities of this Congress were something other than feeding children and providing mothers, prenatal and prenatal condition and after birth, the kind of resources to provide for a healthy child. That means my pre-K little babies will be going to school hungry. That means they will come home to a non-dinner. And that means that we as a country have failed in our natural value that we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is shocking to be able to stand here today and know they are cutting Medicare and Medicaid, and now they add insult to injury that they are cutting food stamps and the WIC program. So I guess our soldiers, who themselves, young soldiers, young families on food stamps, will suffer as well. But the WIC program, that has gotten blamed for everything but what is right, and that is the Women, Infants and Children program provides nutrition for healthy children, and to stand here today to have to look Americans in the face and those in the 18th Congressional District who are 32nd in food insecurity and say that we do not have the money. Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to go back to the drawing board. Don't put this bill on the floor. Take it off, because you are now handing to the children of this Nation a ticket that says no food at the end, no food at this table, no food.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. First of all, let me thank the ranking member, Mr. Farr, as well as his staff for recognizing the importance of food deserts. And let me thank Mr. Kingston. If I might, I would offer, out of your thoughtfulness, I would even ask for the point of order to be waived in the face of 23.5 million individuals who live in food deserts. I will make the argument, in speaking to the point of order and, particularly, procedurally, of course, that, you know, it was a challenge to be able to frame language that would allow us to address this crisis. So I believe we made every effort to ensure that we were in compliance. It is my understanding that the language or funding for this initiative was not in this legislation or pulled. We wanted to give the discretion to the Office of the Secretary to not leave places like this, that I just lifted up, disasters, suffering from not having access to food. I would simply ask the gentleman in this moment when I'm asking for a waiver of the point of order to have the ability to work with this great subcommittee to think of this as a valuable issue and to work on this point that has to do with helping those who live in food deserts. I yield to the gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Do you have an interest in working together?

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I heard a very instructive quote. Even as important as this legislation is, in actuality it appears that my friends on the other side of the aisle simply want to zero out this whole appropriation for the important agricultural work that is done in this Nation, just zero it out. Mr. Chaffetz's amendment seeks to zero out a very important program, which includes zeroing out Food for Peace, and it apparently ignores the basic purpose and the crisis that we're facing dealing with food insecurity in the world. The United Nations World Food Program acknowledges severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of 5 worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all the deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately 1 million children each year, or an average of one every 30 seconds. This is not the direction we want for the world or the United States. There are priorities. And I ask my colleagues, what are their priorities? Now, I have a deal for them. Let's make a deal. Let's take the $10 billion that we're spending every month in Afghanistan and spread it out on deficit reduction. I will take up that challenge and accept that challenge. In fact, we will be able to put $1 billion or $2 billion every week for a 4-week timeframe in deficit reduction if we bring the troops home from Afghanistan. And while we do that, we'll have the opportunity to answer the question that I'm asking to my colleagues: Who will stand by while a child dies, one every 30 seconds around the world? Food for Peace is a program that our farmers have bought into from the perspective of the service and the Good Samaritan that they do by providing the goods of the world's bread basket. The United States is the world's bread basket. We have been blessed with the bounty of topography and weather, in spite of the disasters we've now faced, to be able to feed the world. And Food for Peace is that program. Just a few hours ago, I stood on the floor of the House and I mentioned my colleague, the Honorable Mickey Leland. Some of my new friends should read about this unselfish man. I know she didn't ask me to call out her husband's name, but those of us who knew Mickey knew that he loved Congressman Emerson and Congressman Hall. They had a passion for finding out how can we stop the devastation of hunger. So they circled around programs that dealt with it, programs like Food for Peace or the Select Committee on Hunger or a number of other programs around the Agriculture appropriations, not to waste money but to partner between the great agricultural agrarian society of the United States, and its ability to grow food, to also be able to provide for those who cannot. Do I have to say it again? We buy the food from our farmers. Let me make it very clear. In the very places where, as I showed earlier today, the devastation of tornadoes and floods, these people are trying to come back. Some areas did not suffer. They're trying to get their goods to market. It cuts here in the very jobs that we are saying that we want to keep. We're cutting jobs. We're throwing people out of work, the work that farmers love. You try to get a farmer off his land or her land. They don't want to go because they love the soil. They love producing food. They love helping people. Yet my friend wants to come and cut this program that creates jobs, buys the food, and sends it to starving, dying children. I don't understand. In the legacy of our friends, some of them you did not know, but if you read about them, you will understand their passion and their heart. Mickey Leland used to bring us to tears because he would leave the devastation of Fifth Ward, Houston, where there was poverty, and he'd get on an airplane to deliver food to the dying around the world. He lost his life in the course of delivering food. My final word, Madam Chairman, is to ask my colleagues not to support this amendment and to support Food for Peace and support the underlying message of providing the jobs and a helping hand.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, outlays have to do with the evenhandedness of spending at the same time, which section you take the monies out and which section you put them in. Again, the point that I want to make to this body is that my focus is on keeping our children in this country from being malnourished and pregnant mothers from not having the access to good healthy food that they need to give birth to a healthy child. And I've asked the question before, in the instance of speaking for our children and saving our children, a procedural waiver is in order. This is a procedural question. I have actually taken money from a legitimate account, and that is the Agriculture Research Service that my own friend and colleague had said is funded quite well. Now we've added another $2 million to the research program. $902 million. And I'm simply asking for a measure of that amount to help provide care and nourishment for our children. I believe it is appropriate to eliminate a procedural, if you will, flaw that only speaks to the timing of spending to be able to provide for the children of America. That's what agriculture is all about: our farmers, our families who need to eat good food, our undernourished and impoverished communities which are aplenty. As I spoke earlier today, those communities that are experiencing disasters and those mothers who are now pregnant and who need access to good food, we need to be able to not cut off in the State of Texas, in my district, 40,000 or so individuals that will not be able to be part of the WIC program because we're talking about a procedural flaw. And so, Madam Chairperson, I am suggesting that this amendment is in order, and I'd ask my colleagues to consider a waiver. But I'm also asking the Chairwoman to rule in my favor so that the people of America most vulnerable will have access to quality food and a healthy life.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman from Georgia, who I am hoping will be inclined to recognize the importance of this amendment and work with those of us who are interested in healthy food. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fund and seek to have the Secretary of Agriculture focus on the healthy food funding initiative. This initiative would increase the availability of affordable healthy foods in underserved urban and rural areas and, as well, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers. We call these ``food deserts.'' And the reason why I am standing next to this tragic picture of the disasters that have hit the American public is to emphasize what Americans go through. In this instance, we see a disaster of unbelievable proportion, from Missouri to Alabama to the flooding that occurred up and down the Mississippi. I can assure you that these individuals are suffering from the lack of access to healthy food. We've got to get them back on their feet. This idea of food deserts impacts rural and urban areas, but it also impacts the millions of Americans, thousands upon thousands of Americans who have recently been impacted by disaster. Everything is gone. And although they are now probably experiencing the distribution of food from food centers sponsored by FEMA and volunteers, they will come back to a food desert. Particularly in the African American and Hispanic communities, for example, food comes from fast foods and convenience stores. And as I indicated before, those fast foods come from, if you will, the places where the expiration dates are sometimes way over the time of expiration. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight. African American children from low-income families are at a much higher risk for obesity. Why? Because there is no access or limited access to good food. The CDC also estimates that African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12 to 19 are more likely to be overweight at 21 percent and 23 percent, respectively. This amount of money will allow us to focus on the importance of correcting food deserts. The U.S. Department of Agriculture identified 92 food desert census tracks in Harris County alone, and that is in the 18th Congressional District. These areas are subdivisions of a county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low-income residents, with 33 percent of the people living more than a mile from a grocery store. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering effect food deserts have. I am asking that we look at the idea of ensuring healthy food. Targeting Federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Finance Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected areas. We can create jobs, we can help farmers, and we can bolster the development in distressed areas. It is an easy fix, and the fix is to find a way to cooperate, collaborate--not do a handout, not dole out-- to make sure that we provide the incentives to come into our areas to ensure that we have a healthy child. This is a healthy child, we hope, getting access to health care. But I can assure you that their health is based upon not only health care but the food that this little one will eat. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I represent communities that have the inability to access good food. This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. We must be reducing the deficit, I agree, but cutting programs that provide healthy food--and create jobs, because it would certainly create jobs by adding access to healthy food and sites for healthy food, meaning grocery stores, farmer's markets. All of those will be part of this initiative. And it would assist the many, many census tracks in Houston, alone, that are now suffering from the lack of access to good food. Just a picture of green vegetables inspires us to support this amendment. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2122, which allocates an additional $25 million to the budget of the Office of the Secretary, in order to fund President Obama's Healthy Food Funding Initiative (HFFI). Funding HFFI will increase the availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban and rural communities, particularly through the development or equipping of grocery stores and other healthy food retailers. These ``food deserts'', communities in which residents do not have access to affordable and healthy food options, disproportionally affect African American and Hispanic communities. Fast food restaurants and convenience stores line the blocks of low income neighborhoods, offering few, if any, healthy options. Many of my colleagues across the aisle have made arguments about the economic climate, and the need for budgetary cuts, and I agree that we must work to reduce the deficit. We cannot, however, continue to make irresponsible cuts to programs for the underserved, lower income families, and minorities. Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children, and obesity is a grave health concern for all Americans. However, food deserts have taken a toll on low income and minority communities and exacerbated growing obesity rates and health problems. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 80 percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. African American children from low income families have a much higher risk for obesity than those in higher income families. The CDC also estimates African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children. Food deserts have greatly impacted my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, and citizens throughout the State of Texas. Texas has fewer grocery stores per capita than any other State. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified 92 food desert census tracts in Harris County alone. These areas are subdivisions of the county with between 1,000 to 8,000 low-income residents, with 33 percent of people living more than a mile from a grocery store. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 percent of all children in Texas are overweight or obese. These statistics underscore the staggering effect food deserts have on the health of low-income and minority communities. In Houston and other cities across the country, local programs have proved that well targeted funding and assistance can create viable business outcomes and increase access to healthy food. Targeting federal financial assistance to food desert areas through the Healthy Food Funding Initiative will provide more healthy food to affected neighborhoods, open new markets for farmers, create jobs, and bolster development in distressed communities. The Healthy Food Funding Initiative is not a handout or a crutch. Funding through this program is intended to provide financial and technical assistance in support of market planning, promotion efforts, infrastructure and operational improvements, and increase availability of locally and regionally produced foods. This initiative will increase the availability of healthy food alternatives to the 23.5 million people living in food deserts nationwide. Yes, we must work toward reducing the deficit, but cutting programs that provide healthy food to those who simply do not have access to nutritional options, is not the way. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would, Madam Chairman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As the gentleman rises, I ask myself the question and I ask this body, Who will speak for the children? And that's why my amendment attempts to fully fund the Women, Infants, and Children program that provides food for the Nation's children. It provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, nutrition, education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to 5 years old. We must remember that children have always been the largest category of WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC benefits, each month in fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were children, and 2.2 million were infants. This bill cuts $650 million out of WIC, and I am so glad my good friend from Georgia--and I appreciate his friendship--just got up and said the Agricultural Research Service is pretty darn well funded, $900 million. I am simply asking to address the question of the staggering devastation of malnutrition in our children. And I have indicated that when you look at worldwide numbers, malnutrition can kill. But here in the United States, there are children that go to bed hungry. There are women that do not eat properly. There are babies that do not get nourishment. In Texas alone, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped from the WIC program if the funding is not restored; and each and every State in the Union is going to receive that kind of devastating impact. Can you imagine 40,000 women, infants, and children not being able to eat because we won't restore full funding? Texas has three of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates; and in the 18th Congressional District, there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23 percent, and Texas stands 32 in the Nation out of 435 districts. We are 32 in food insecurity. So, let me just say, alongside of obesity, eating wrong, we have to face the actual question of hunger. Children who are served by the WIC program in Texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to children who are not in this program. Again, I want you to look at this picture. Healthy children need to eat healthy. And I ask my colleagues why, in fact, would we not want to fully fund the program of women and infant children? I will say that the impact of not eating healthy is obesity and poor health. This healthy baby, healthy-looking baby has a future that is undetermined when you have an issue of lack of healthy food and access to such. So $650 million, when we're, in essence, funding research for $900 million, I believe you can share a little, because the WIC program is beneficial in helping the most vulnerable in our country. I ask the question: Who will speak for the children? It is important that the WIC program, 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics, among this group, 4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women have the ability to be served around the Nation. It's a complementary program, having healthy mothers, healthy pregnant mothers to give birth to healthy babies, to raise healthy children, not obese, nourished and ready to be leaders in this Nation. Who are we if we are not going to speak for our children? And I ask my colleagues to consider waiving procedural issues to ensure that children are served. I believe that is an important issue. And in my district, in the 18th Congressional District, with 1,000 census tracts of people who are food insecure, I am arguing vigorously for the full funding of the WIC program to help our women, our infants, and their children. Who will speak for our children? What will their future be, and how will they lead this country if we do not invest with them today? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2112 ``Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2112,'' as it restores full funding to the Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) program. As the Founder of the Children's Caucus and a Member of the Women's Caucus, I have firmly stood in support of the nutritional needs of our Nation's families. As a country we must protect and safeguard the health and nutrition of our Nation's low-income families. Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) provides Federal grants to states for supplemental foods, nutrition education, and health care referrals to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5 who are found to be at nutritional risk. During the final quarter of Fiscal Year 2009, the number of women, infants, and children receiving WIC benefits each month reached approximately 9.3 million. We must remember that children have always been the largest category of WIC participants. Of the 8.7 million people who received WIC benefits each month in Fiscal year 2008, about 4.33 million were children and 2.22 million were infants. WIC is essential because it affords many women, especially women of color in lower income brackets, the opportunity to care for themselves and their newborns after birth. Without programs such as WIC, many mothers would not be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle during pregnancies and after childbirth. Because of WIC, mothers can afford the nutritional foods they need to sustain their pregnancies and avoid miscarriages, stillbirths and defects caused by malnourishment during pregnancy. Today, I am proud to support a full restoration of funding to WIC. This program, which is distinctly American, demonstrates that we place a high value on feeding our Nation's children and tending to the needs of our Nation's poor. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed ``with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .'' I believe that it is no coincidence that life is listed first--for without it, the Founders realized, no other rights can be realized. Over many years, the millions of Americans who could not access medical services were denied their right to life--a life with access to quality and affordable health care. Let me set the record straight, WIC is good for the American people and will go a long way in ensuring access to quality and affordable care to those millions of Americans who will need access to proper nutrition. WIC helps to ensure that our country will not succumb to one of the most staggering causes of death in children around the world: Malnutrition. Malnutrition remains a significant problem worldwide, particularly among children. It should not be a problem within the United States; that is why we have programs like WIC. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, severe acute malnutrition affects an estimated 20 million children under the age of five worldwide and is responsible in whole or in part for more than half of all deaths of children. Malnutrition kills approximately one million children each year, or an average of one every thirty seconds. This is not the direction we want to take the United States. Madam Chair, when I stand here today and reflect upon what we are about to embark upon, I cannot help but think of some of the last words that the Great Senator Ted Kennedy shared in his letter to President Obama. The Senator said, ``And so because of your (Obama's) vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will--yes we will--fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.'' Well, Senator, your life's work shall today be proven to not be in vain. I continue to stand by protecting the health needs of low income families. And, yes, this program ensures the health of infants and children will never again depend on the amount of their family's income. In the words of the great President John F. Kennedy, ``the voters selected us, in short, because they had confidence in our judgment and our ability to exercise that judgment from a position where we could determine what were their own best interests, as a part of the nation's interest.'' Madam Chair, while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to believe that without a cut to WIC this will harm Americans, nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is indeed in their best interests: There are 110 million school-aged children suffering from hunger every day, and they are counting on America's leadership and generosity to provide them with an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty. The WIC program provides that leadership and generosity and it is for this reason that I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for restoring full funding to WIC. In the words of the great civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ``We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now.'' We cannot wait. We will not wait to protect the lives of our children. We can not delay in providing the most vulnerable citizens of this great Nation access to proper nutrition. facts on wic--the 18th congressional district In Texas, between 23,000 and 40,000 people are expected to be dropped from the WIC program if the funding levels are not restored. Texas has 3 of the top top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates. In the 18th Congressional district there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and ranks 32nd nationally. WIC Combats Obesity Let us remember that 1 in 3 American adults is overweight or obese and more than 9 million children are struggling with obesity. WIC aims to improve the eating habits of Americans, particularly our children through programs that provide children with healthy food. At its core, H.R. 2112 decreases funding for nutrition programs for children. Obesity is associated with 35 major diseases including chronic and life-threatening conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It is important to keep our nation healthy by providing access to high consumption of vegetables and fruits to the future of our great country, our children. By supporting WIC we assure a healthy consumption of nutritional foods for children whose only crime is that their families are poor. Children who are served by the WIC program in Texas are less likely to eat fast food in comparison to children who are not in the program. These children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals. When children reduce their consumption of less fast food then they drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes, and obesity which could again end up saving billions of dollars in the healthcare system. All the health issues that are currently contributing to health disparities among minorities in this country. Certain minorities have a higher rates of diabetes-related complications and death, in some instances by as much as 50 percent more than the total population. It is truly an epidemic. Combating obesity in from childhood utilizing programs like WIC is vital to decreasing health disparities. 24% of Texans were obese in 2001, the 3rd highest rate in the nation. Nearly 31% of African American girls in the 4th grade were overweight and 52% were overweight or ``at risk of overweight'' in Texas in 2001. 13% of Houston high school students are overweight and 17% are at risk. Over 71% of African American Texans are overweight or obese. Over 34% of African American women are obese, compared to 19% of white women. 44% of African American women are projected to be obese by 2020, and 47% by 2040. Obesity Although the obesity rates among all Americans are alarming, as Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned about the childhood obesity epidemic among African-Americans. More than 40 percent of African-American teenagers are overweight, and nearly 25 percent are obese. When ethnicity and income are considered, African-American youngsters from low-income families have a higher risk for obesity than those from higher-income families. Since the mid-1970s, the prevalence of overweight and obesity has increased sharply for both adults and children. Eighty percent of black women and 67 percent of black men are overweight or obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among African-American male adults aged 20-74 years the prevalence of obesity increased from 15.0% in 1980 survey to 32.9% in the 2004. There were also increases in overweight among children and teens. For children aged 2-5 years, the prevalence of overweight increased from 5.0% to 13.9%; for those aged 6-11 years, prevalence increased from 6.5% to 18.8%; and for those aged 12-19 years, prevalence increased from 5.0% to 17.4%. Government reports indicate that an estimated 17 percent of children and adolescents aged 2-19 are obese. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, African American and Mexican American adolescents ages 12-19 are more likely to be overweight, at 21 percent and 23 percent respectively, than non-Hispanic white adolescents who are 14 percent overweight. In children 6-11 years old, 22 percent of Mexican American children are overweight, compared to 20 percent of African American children and 14 percent of non-Hispanic white children. Impact of Obesity on Houston, Texas The obesity epidemic has also heavily impacted my district in the city of Houston. In 2005, Men's Fitness Magazine ranked Houston the Fattest City in the Nation. In 2006, Houston ranked as number five and in 2007, it was ranked the sixth fattest city in the Nation. These statistics underscore why we must continue to vigorously identify ways to address the childhood obesity crisis, by starting with programs such as WIC, that provides proper nutrition to low income families. As the debate over how to address the rising childhood obesity epidemic continues, it is important to continue to target and aid children who are nutritionally at risk. h.r. 2112 cuts more than $650 million from the wic program Since this bill seeks to cut more than $650 million from the WIC program, countless scores of women, children, and infants will also no longer have the same access to healthy food. According to the National WIC Association between 200,000-350,000 people will be cut from the program. That is hundreds of thousands of women, infants, and children who will not get the assistance they need. This is not simply about adding and subtracting numbers on a page this is a family tragedy. We cannot ignore the nutritional needs of our children; we should not starve low income families. As our economy awakens from this long, cold, slumber we must ensure that our nation's children are fed. This is a moral question. As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. This is the time to show our compassion. I urge the full funding of WIC, because it will impact hundreds of thousands of people nationally, but also because it will end up costing billions more in the long run if we will have a nation of unhealthy families. Consider the consequences of children who lack the necessary nutrition as they grow into adults who have high health costs. the wic program helps families The WIC program has been beneficial in helping some of the most vulnerable members of our country. Among the WIC's goals is to improve health care access for low and moderate income women and children at risk of developing health problems which include obesity and type 2 diabetes. WIC served 9.2 million through 10,000 clinics. Among this group were 4.9 million children, 2.1 million infants, and 1 million women. WIC works with pregnant mothers to help reduce costs of prenatal care. Preterm births cost the U.S. over $26 billion a year. As a result of pregnant women getting the services they need, the National WIC Association states that Medicaid costs are reduced on average between $12,000 and $15,000 for every low birth-weight incident prevented. It is also estimated that $3.6 billion would be saved if current U.S. exclusive breastfeeding rates increased to at least 50% at 6 months. facts on wic cuts If WIC funds are not fully restored the impact on low income families will be devastating. An estimated 200,000 to 350,000 will be cut from the WIC program. That's 200,000 to 350,000 low income Americans who will be denied access to nutrition. The cuts in the WIC program touches every state in this country. In my State of Texas between 23,000 and 40,000 people will be left out in the cold. We should be able to provide food to the young children of our country. Of the top 40 districts with the highest national food hardship rates, Texas has 3 of them. In the 18th Congressional district there are 159,000 food insecure people. The food insecurity rate is 23% and ranks 32d nationally. In 2005, in Harris County, there were 62 pregnant women who had prenatal care in the first trimester. In the State of Texas there were 64 women. Without the WIC program, many of these women might not have been able to get the services they needed. WIC children in Texas are less likely to eat fast food over non-WIC children. WIC children are also more likely to eat home cooked meals compared to non-WIC children. Children who eat less fast food drastically lower their chances of developing heart problems, diabetes, and obesity which could end up saving billions of dollars in the health care system. As financial hardships continue to impact millions of families, now is not the time for us to turn our backs on them. Now is the time to show them that we care. I urge opposition to this bill, not only because it will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people nationally, but also because it will end up costing billions more in the long run. The American people are wondering when their bailout will come years after we saved Wall Street from the brink of destruction. This bill sends them a message that that day is not a priority of the Federal Government. We must continue to fight for pregnant mothers and low-income families and so I urge for full funding to be restored to the WIC program. I yield back the balance of my time. point of order

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I tried to buy tuna as a test case, and I had to put it back on the shelf of a little 2 by 4 in neighborhoods where people walk. Be reminded that Calvin Coolidge, a Republican President, followed in the 1920s the same pattern, which is: give to the rich and let the poor die on the vine. He didn't run again because he knew there was a collapse coming. His fellow Republican elected said, Give to the rich. And we had the 1928 collapse. We're talking about where consumers and businesses are not buying or having business, we the government must invest. And I believe, in the name of Mickey Leland, we've got to do a better job of feeding the hungry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern, for your leadership on this very important issue. To my colleague, the distinguished Congresswoman who is managing for my friends on the other side of the aisle, there are probably many of us who have lived the American story and began life on the rocky side of the mountain. I rise because I happen to come from a district where my predecessor died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain. It's a far, far place away from Houston. My predecessor was Congressman Mickey Leland. He was so driven by the vastness of hunger, he was so much a soldier of Robert Kennedy's message that he didn't allow danger to thwart him from trying to help people who were literally dying. And so he was carrying grain. And he had colleagues who were not on that flight, Tony Hall and Congressman Emerson. And I would say to you that it really gets me in my heart, what we're doing today, because my predecessor, a Member of Congress, and we're described by many terms, but he felt that hunger was so severe that he helped found the Select Committee on Hunger. We have the Mickey Leland Hunger Center because hunger was prevailing in America and around the world. So you can understand why I stand here today and tell you that it's not good enough to feed 85 percent of the hungry children so that 15 percent of them don't get breakfasts and don't get lunches. That's not something to give you a halo for or to give you an accolade. Because so many of us understand how stretching that peanut butter or stretching that soup or stretching minimal food, so many of us have either heard those stories or experienced it. And in this bill, $2 billion is cut from food stamps. Do you realize that our soldiers and their families, young recruits, are on food stamps? Does anyone know the population that is on food stamps? Now, we've tried to make it better for them, but many of them are on food stamps. To cut the WIC program, you're impacting children who are innocent. And then, of course, Food for Peace is not a throwaway. It is to simply stop the folks who are simply dying in deserts around the world. And $35 million has been cut from trying to increase the number of grocery stores in urban centers and rural areas, to a certain extent, where there are no grocery stores where people can actually get fresh food. Try coming to my district and shopping for groceries in the local, down-the-street 2 by 4 store, where food dates, which I have actually seen for myself, are years old and sitting on the counter where people who only have foot transportation have to go and buy beans that are dated a year before or tuna that is dated a year before.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I mentioned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, there would be a lot of glazed-over eyes. But if I mentioned high gasoline prices and food prices that are going through the roof, the American public would understand that. So let me tell you that our Republican friends, who want a sea of deregulation so that consumers won't be protected, are attacking the body that regulates speculation on gasoline prices and food. What does that mean? It means that every time you go to the grocery store as a working, middle class family, all you can see is the price of food going up, up, up. Yes, we have had storms, and we have had droughts. But the reason is, the speculators are gambling on food prices. They are gambling on gasoline prices. So the hardworking Americans that are working are getting the short end of the stick. Can you imagine, here we go with Republicans again, defeating the consumer. Democrats are ready to fight for jobs. We're ready to get rid of those speculators and fund the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that deals with protecting consumers. Is there no shame? Is there no shame? Protect the consumers and fund the CFTC.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. When we finish what sometimes may seem a complicated debate, where both sides can seemingly make sense when we have the time to reflect upon the week's work or the work and philosophies of the different political perspectives in this House, I believe it is very important to communicate with your colleagues, so let me be as clear as I can be. As I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle, one after one, claim that the Libyan war was the President's war, well, today, on June 3, 2011, the President of the United States happens to be President Obama. Yet if you look at the Constitution of the United States, which provides provisions for the separation of powers, there is a section that articulates that the Congress, irrespective of any Presidential person in place, declares war. So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: Would they have been as quick to rise to the floor on the Iraq war, which could be called the ``Bush war''? or the continued 10-year plus war in Afghanistan the ``Bush war''? When we discuss these issues for the American people, we have to be true to ourselves and the Constitution. There was a reason the Founding Fathers separated out the right to declare war. That reason, of course, was to protect you, the American people. When we send men and women into battle, it should be a deliberative process, but we should also have the right to defend ourselves. The initial attack in Afghanistan--that was the first act--was in response to the heinous and horrific attack of al Qaeda on the soil of the United States. From my perspective, the immediate response of President Bush was legitimate. The question becomes: What came afterwards? The Congress was never given the chance to declare war. Subsequently, there was a statutory discussion and vote that gave unending opportunities and authority for the war to go on and on and on. Buried in the Afghanistan decision was the authority to go on and on and on. The sad part about it was that we did not go on in Afghanistan. We distracted our troops and went into a war that saw the large numbers of our soldiers lose their lives in a war that had actually never been declared by the United States of America and the United States Congress. We have something today in 2011 called the Arab Spring. But I don't think Americans understand that, and they, frankly, believe that we cannot promote democracy everywhere in the world. Policymakers understand the crucialness of what is going on in the Arab area as it relates to the geopolitics, the political structure of the world. But I know what Americans of goodwill do understand: the slaughter of a people. The slaughter and the misuse of power in Bahrain; the misuse of power in Egypt; the gruesome misuse of power to the extent that a mutilated body of a 13-year-old boy can be dumped in their parents' home in Syria; and, yes, the violence in Libya. Americans understand that and I understand it. So I applaud the President of the United States for going in in Libya to stop the horrific violence. He went in in coalition with our NATO troops. That same action occurred under President Clinton, going in with NATO, taking the lead in this instance, in the slaughter of Muslims in Kosova and the horrible wars in Bosnia. I happened to have been able to go on an initial inaugural mission into Bosnia--the former Yugoslavia--and Croatia, and I walked the streets of Sarajevo and I saw mothers who had not seen their sons for 10 or 12 years and asked us where they were. It was a violent time. So the Libyan action by the President was an appropriate one. He happens to be a Democratic President. I applaud his action. But the Constitution is not labeled by Democratic or Republican. It has no provisions to exempt if you happen to be a Democrat with a Democratic President. So my values argue for consistency, and that is adhering to the Constitution. I believe Resolution 292, Mr. Boehner's resolution that was crafted in the last 24 hours, was a nice statement about a report. But I don't vote on actions on the floor out of contempt and dislike for anyone. Let me be very clear. I applaud President Barack Obama for the courage that he has taken in moving forward to establish America's mark as a believer in democracy and justice and encouraging the people in the Arab States to stand up for their rights and to object and reject the oppressiveness of their regimes, and I hope that NATO becomes strategic in what they're doing so that we can be successful. But if we are going to be true to the Constitution of the United States that is, in fact, part of the document that we hold true, then we must hold any Commander in Chief to the same standard. The War Powers Resolution asks that the President of the United States come to the Congress within 60 days. The constitutional provision in article II requires that the Congress declare war. One could argue that we have not declared war on Arab States and we've not declared war on Libya. We're at war. We're at war because al Qaeda declares that they are at war with us. So it is a dicey circumstance. I, instead, voted for the action to occur under the War Powers Resolution that was just occurring today, a vote that we lost, a vote that I would have voted for under President Bush, under President Reagan, under President Carter, and with the opportunity, under President Clinton, as the wars proceeded to a long extent of time. However, we are dealing now in the backdrop of a failed resolution. But I voted because it is necessary to be consistent as to whether you believe the Constitution and the authority of the Congress and the separation of three branches is a valid one to protect the rights of the American people. And I believe that. But my message to General Qadhafi is this: If you have any sense of human dignity left, you will stop the murderous attacks on your people. I am sensitive enough to offer my sympathy to you for the loss of your family members because I believe in the value of human life. War is ugly. But every effort of peace that we have made has been one that you've ignored. Every effort that we have made, every step that we have taken toward peace you have ignored. You have arrogantly insisted on the world stage that you're in charge, while your country is in a state of confusion and disaster. You have opened the doors to the confusion and the violence of terrorist cells, al Qaeda and other ne'er-do-wells who desire no good to you or your people. You've allowed groups to, in essence, begin to spark so that the continued frustration of world leaders in trying to bring resolution continues; but, more importantly, the violence of all falls on the backs of innocent women and children, young boys and families in Libya. I feel a kinship to the Libyan people, as a human being and as someone whose heritage started on the continent of Africa. But the one good thing about America is that we care about all people no matter what background they come from, no matter what country. I know that because I've had the privilege of representing the United States in South and Central America, in Asia, on the continent of Africa, in the Mideast and Europe and other places maybe not mentioned--because we care. Mr. Qadhafi, I beg of you, as an African who has met with the President of South Africa, who knows that the African Union would like for you to cease and desist this violent attack on your own people, stand down. And I would ask, as I have asked before, leave the country. Let us find the kind of government that might, in fact, move Libya forward. And if your people decide that you should stay, then you should have a reformation and a change not only of mind but of heart. The violence does not get you anywhere and it is both insane and absurd. So I would hope that as this vote was taken, that it is not in any way, as was evidenced by the discussion in the debate by the Republicans, it is not Mr. Obama's war. He is the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief, and it was a determination to go in to stop the murderous acts of those who were killing innocent people. Read your early history. The early Founders of this Nation in the Revolutionary War against Great Britain had other countries come to the aid of this little, tiny, baby series of States that called themselves the United States of America. It has been the world order for centuries that big countries or those who are able will go to the aid of those who are not able. And this vote today should not in any way deny the respect that is owed to the President of the United States. This is a vote premised on the Constitution and reflecting the desires of the American people, that we do not live in a dictatorship and that if you're a Member of the United States Congress, come here and do your job. And our job is defined by the Constitution. I believe that our duty was partly handled today, and I would encourage our President, as he has done over the stages of the Afghan war and now the continued redeploying in Iraq of our soldiers, and I would add that we are in an engagement of discussion that gives us the roadmap for redeploying or moving toward a resolution in Libya. I would also join in the debate that I've just made on the question of Libya with the need for the immediate review and designation of time for redeployment of our troops out of Afghanistan, and the President has indicated that he expects that that redeployment will begin in July 2011. My plea to the President is, as we look at these economic times, when America is crying out for jobs, when the middle class feels splashed and unattended to, when others believe our jobs are not creeping offshore and overseas, but fleeting and flying and literally by way of speed that is faster than sound, it is time now to find the mutual courage to say to the people of Afghanistan that we have provided a duly elected government, a parliament. We have laid down our lives. We have built up the Afghan national security forces, which I was introduced to in the many times that I've been into Afghanistan, all parts, including Kabul and Kandahar and places beyond. I know there are good people there. So I'd ask the President of the United States to ramp up the redeployment, bring home 50,000, 100,000 troops and begin to let those troops rebuild their lives. Invest in military readiness and preparedness and find a closure to the presence of United States boots on the ground in Afghanistan. To President Karzai, I ask you to stand up and be counted, to initiate policies that would end the poppy growing and heroin production, to allow girls and boys to go to school, to produce your teachers and lawyers, doctors and scientists, generals, captains and leaders of government. I would ask President Karzai to provide the funding and resources for your Afghan national security forces. I would ask him to weed out the Taliban that is destroying his own people in the mountains of Afghanistan. And, yes, I would ask whether or not it is even possible that all of us could claim the value of peace, and by doing that, it would not be non-courageous to stand up and accept the fact that we have won in Afghanistan and we've won in Iraq, and we thank our soldiers. And so I'm on the floor today thanking my colleagues because last week we voted 419 votes to declare a National Day of Honor for our returning troops from combat areas, more than we've ever done in any other war, and to celebrate them all over America. So I am not asking for America to leave any battle place with her head held down. Our Vietnam vets, during a very tumultuous time and a war that we disagreed with, should have been welcomed home for their service, for their duty, for the reason that they took up arms--not of their own accord, but because a President called them. I believe America learned her lesson as she focuses on trying to help our returning combat veterans with jobs and education and health care. We know that we should honor them. So with the amendment that I passed on the floor, 419 votes, I hope the American people will call their Congressperson and thank them, but also ask that that proclamation be declared and that we have a National Day of Honor to welcome our soldiers home from all around the world in combat places. As we welcome them home, I think it is extremely important to recognize that America has a number of concerns. Those concerns are the tragedies that we face, the horrific loss of life in Joplin, Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, all the flooding that has gone on. People in the United States are suffering. So what does it mean to raise the debt ceiling? What it means to raise the debt ceiling is not what Americans believe--there they go again, spending, spending, spending. What it actually means is that we're saying to working Americans and middle class Americans, we feel deeply about your inability to pay your mortgage, to pay tuition costs. If you have one or two credit cards with those old interest rates of 19, 20, 21 percent that we've been able to bring down somewhat because of legislation we've passed, we understand that. If you don't have a job, if someone in your life doesn't have a job, we understand that. We understand folks that don't have a job, but they don't have a job, a home, a car, a place to live. The debt ceiling actually is the ability to pay our bills. It is not the ability to spend and find ways to spend money unnecessarily; it is the ability to create the jobs that America is crying out for. The 9 percent is not a reflection so much of the President of the United States not desiring and working hard to create jobs. Let me remind my colleagues that it was Democrats and the President that helped to, in essence, provide a safety net for the automobile industry. A lot of people complained about that. But we were in the middle of the fight not to pay special interests off; we were in the fight to save the auto industry of the United States of America. It was the right thing to do. Two big reasons: one, the infrastructure of automobile building was car dealerships across America that had thousands, millions of workers selling American cars. You let that industry collapse, and you would let, in essence, some small town in America literally have no economy. It might have been that the car dealership was the largest business in that small area. I'll add three. The second is we obligated the industry to pay us back, and we have been paid back. We, the United States taxpayers, have been paid back. And you know what else? They have actually brought jobs back to the United States of America. If I wasn't in this very august place, I would say hallelujah, celebrate, applaud: jobs have been brought back to the United States. Ford, of course, did not take those resources. We applaud them. Some of you are buying some new smart cars by GM. Some of you are buying new smart cars by Chrysler--better gas mileage, got a new attitude. We gave the American innovative genius the opportunity to survive. We allowed inventiveness to thrive. We built on Henry Ford's genius, and we let it spread around. And as well, as we developed jobs for monies that the taxpayers invested, and we put the right kind of restraint for you to be reinvested. The debt ceiling means that it allows us, the government, to create jobs for you. You turn the economy and invest back. We then provide the protection for you through jobs or maybe unemployment insurance or maybe Social Security or maybe Medicare, or maybe when you're at your lowest end. When you have lost loved ones in a natural disaster that you cannot comprehend, it is the cause of the Federal Government to be able to pay the bills, to be able to come to a place where there is no fire station, no houses of worship, no hospital, no schools, no homes, for us to come and to be of help. I don't know how we can abdicate our responsibilities. I don't know how we can frivolously play with raising the debt ceiling. I don't know how Republicans can put on the floor of the House a bill under suspension, which requires a two-thirds vote, to make a joke of helping the people in Joplin, in Alabama, up and down the Mississippi and whatever other disaster may come. How do you make a joke with that? How in essence do you in the face of the frustration of those who have suffered? I have not experienced a tornado, but I have experienced and walked the streets during hurricanes. I have seen in my own town the pain. I have come up to doors and knocked on persons' doors where someone has laid dying because they have just gone through a process where all the lights are out and they're on oxygen. I've seen seniors in homes that cannot be repaired. I've seen people lose items that can never be replaced. And so that is what your Federal Government does. And do you mean to tell me we would make a mockery of raising the debt ceiling so that America can simply pay her bills? There is a value to reducing the deficit. And might I just say something with all good intention. It is always the person who has got money in their pocket, who's got a wallet full of credit cards that they can pay for, that can smile when you're talking about Social Security and Medicare and has an uncaring spirit. Because it doesn't matter to them. It is the philosophy that has not made this country great, the philosophy of ``I've got mine, you get yours.'' Young people, I have gotten my college education. I don't care whether you can go to college or not. I don't even care if you get a job. ``I've got mine.'' That's not what this Nation is all about. I will not tell the people of Missouri, Alabama and places around, ``I'm okay in Houston. My house is still functioning, the hurricane season hasn't hit me yet, so I'm not going to worry about your tragedy.'' Is that America? Is that how we built the greatness of this country? Did we ignore our returning troops coming home from World War II? Or did we say to them, ``We're giving you the GI Bill''? The Democrats gave the second GI Bill. President Truman gave the first. We gave with President Obama the greatest GI Bill in the history of America except the one that was passed by President Truman. We said that we care. We built on the values of a country that always rises to the occasion. And because of that, those people who desire goodness and greatness, they look to the United States of America. I am glad, regardless of whatever faith we believe in, whatever our background is or whoever's our neighbor, that we're a country that cares. And I will tell you just if you follow what your grandmother says, being a good Samaritan will always come back to you. Being kind to someone will always come back to you. Therefore, I believe that it is imperative that we lift the debt ceiling for America to pay her bills. I am tired of smashing the middle class. I am tired of leaving them on their own. I am tired of them watching jobs go overseas when we have such a brilliant population of innovative, creative, loving people. We overcame some of the hills and valleys in America. We went through the civil rights movement and the era where those who were of a different color suffered under the devastating indignity of segregation. America rose to the occasion. It is not perfect, but we recognize the value of equality of all. You're not relegated to the back of the bus. You're not dismissed from hotels and restaurants. You are open and allowed to travel on America's transportation modes. You even can be accepted into colleges on your own merit and not on quotas. And yes, if you apply for a job, the laws at least protect you, that no matter what your background, that you're given an equal opportunity. America has traversed some of those difficult valleys. We respect women and a woman's equality. We are able to say that women can be pilots and Presidents and Senators and doctors and heads of organizations and engineers and train conductors and anything a little girl can admire and aspire to be. That's the kind of America that is understanding of the crisis that these people face. And I'm sorry that the debate on the debt ceiling has been characterized as Democratic and Republican and these are the deficit- cutters and these are the wild-eyed spending-spreers going into the shopping malls of America and grabbing things off shelves. It is important to note that one of the greatest Presidents that we have admired--my little girl used to call him Grandpa--Ronald Reagan asked Congress to lift the debt ceiling in 1983, not because he was a spendthrift but because he understood the responsibility of paying America's bills. And, my friends, I remind you, can we not pay America's bills? I want to discuss how we do that, how we lift the condition of Americans. We do it like we've done it before. We make it in America. Now I like one part of it that says, We make it in America. Everybody needs to have a chance to make it in America. The young people that are graduating in 2011 should have the right to make it in America. By the way, might I just say, congratulations to all of the graduates across America. From the preschooler that's going to kindergarten, to the elementary child that puts on the robe and is inspired, to the middle school and to the high school graduates of whom I will go home to this weekend and greet any number of high school graduates in my constituency who are making that first leap of faith, to the college graduates who are feeling so empowered to graduate in such a great Nation, to those who are getting graduate degrees, our new lawyers and doctors and business persons, our physicists and chemists and biologists, the geniuses that will go into the laboratories of America. Congratulations to all of you. That is why I believe it is important to make it in America. The Democrats have launched a major initiative. I wish we could get our friends to join us in a real jobs bill, of which the President of the United States has committed to introducing a real jobs bill, to make it in America. Many of us in our hearings will ask the witnesses that represent the United States Government, we want you to buy America and make it in America. And I'm not an isolationist. I believe America has been enormously generous in buying goods from other countries, proud of them. We're glad to help developing nations. We're glad to support microcredits and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation that allows investments overseas, but we don't want our jobs to be taken overseas. I don't want to see teenagers with double-digit unemployment, particularly in the African American community. I don't want rural communities to suffer because of the lack of employment. I dread this coming summer when there's no money for summer jobs for young people who are trying to save for going into school in the fall. Sometimes the only resources a family has may be the summer job of a teenager. But we have always encouraged teenagers to learn how to work in the decorum of the workplace. Just look what we're doing now. For that very reason, can I give a challenge to this Nation, can I give a challenge to the businesses, can I give a challenge to corporate America: Bring some young people, maybe unpaid, to be able to be interns. City governments, maybe unpaid, bring some young people into your offices. Teach them something else but hanging out on the streets. Let them see an adult role model working. But we might not have to have that kind of plea if we could make it in America again. In the 18th Congressional District in Texas and all around America, we're going to be honoring the individuals who have manufacturing businesses. I would ask you, colleagues, to go and shake the hand of a manufacturer who's making something, who's struggling to keep the doors open, who's making a widget or a gadget. That's what we're talking about. Solar panels. Wouldn't it be a shock if we went across America and began to make our own solar panels, our windmills of course, that create wind energy. Unfortunately, I hate to tell you that that equipment, that kind of technology we get from overseas. If I wasn't on the floor of the House, I would hold my head down. When has America needed to depend on someone else, something that was their idea or that they could make better? Again, as I said, I don't mind being part of the world family, where we share and we buy items and we help develop economies, but not to the point where all our jobs, like I said, are taking wings and flying away. What kind of America is that for our young people that are graduating in 2011? So I want us to focus on building buses, building submarines, and major aircraft carriers, building bridges, freeways, improving dams, building the rails, or the trains for high-speed rail, of which I am an avid supporter, and requires an investment in this country to be able to be fiscally conservative as well as to ensure that we use our energy resources right. To have an energy policy as well that speaks about all of the energy resources, to do them effectively, as the President has articulated; and to make sure that if we are using fossil fuels, whether it's oil or gas, that we are doing it here in the United States and that we are in fact doing it safely and securely. That we appreciate wind and we make the equipment or the kind of technology right here in the United States. Solar, that we make all of our panels. Natural gas, that we do it safely and securely, and that we create jobs that way. That we bring down the cost of energy. That we stop calling upon the American people to take $5 out of their pocket and put a few ounces, if you will, of gas in their car. That we begin to recognize the pain of America, and the way that we recognize the pain of America is that we begin to go aggressively toward the American people with solutions. And the demagoguery of raising the debt ceiling, and I'm not going to vote on it unless you burden it down with draconian cuts that will end Medicare as we know it on all seniors, eliminate Social Security, destroy Medicaid and throw it to the winds so that disabled children suffering from autism or those who have other diseases cannot be taken care of, that's not the America that has made us so great. It is one that pulls up our pants and puts on our shoes, pulls up our skirts and gets empowered by the joy of work and helping others. And when we did that, we were able to invest in this Nation. I will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys Medicare as we know it. And I will not vote on a debt ceiling increase that destroys Social Security, or Medicaid, or violates the premise that this country owes a debt of gratitude to veterans and returning soldiers. That's what my friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to sell the American people, a bill of goods. A bill of goods that the philosophy that is anti to President Reagan, who asked for the increase in the debt ceiling himself, that we cannot count and speak at the same time. I believe America is greater than that. We can bring down the debt with a very meticulous plan over a period of time, the same way you save for college or plan to bring down your debt, or stop using credit cards. We can do that. But at the same time, we can pay America's bills. And we cannot leave one American alongside of the road, languishing and reaching out for help, and we say there is no room at the inn. Where is the America that is a Good Samaritan? Where is America that sent young men to war, World War II, and if you talk to any of that generation they say, I didn't know all the facts, but I was glad to be part of what America was standing for, helping those who were languishing alongside the road. We have had any number of conflicts, and some that I have agreed or disagreed with; but the premise was, whether we had the agreement of the American people on the premise of that conflict, it was to help someone along the road. I am now calling in a clarion cry for Americans to help America. I am calling on this Congress for this Congress to help America. I am calling on the President, as a friend of the American people, to help America. And to do that, whatever is heard that will now come behind me, and disjangled chords will sound attractive, and it will be about who is going to burden our grandchildren and the long-term debt, but it will not be infused with values by many of our faiths. Those of us of a Christian faith and many other faiths have an element of the document under which they worship that talks about the Good Samaritan and charity and love. And albeit that you are asking why on the floor of the House, it is because the infusion of those tenets were part of the design of this Nation when we organized around the concept of forming a more perfect Union. And when the Declaration of Independence said that we seek to pursue happiness, we hold these truths self-evident that all of us are created equal, we don't abandon that just because it happens to be June 3, 2011. We are able to keep those values, and those values have kept this country on a straight and productive path. All the noise that comes sometimes in a confused sound to the ears of the American people, if as Members of Congress we can declare our commitment to helping the American people and keeping the values of the American people in place, and that of our faith, that is to help, to love, and to present charity to those who are in need, there is no limit to the greatness of America. And there is no limit to the restoration of making it in America, both in terms of our success and survival, and then in terms of making things that we need and putting America back to work. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for being yielded this time by the Speaker of the House, and I am grateful for the opportunity to live in a Nation where disagreement does not result, in this century and even in the past century, of taking up arms against each other. I am grateful that maybe in the debate that we have on the floor of the House at some point my colleagues can hear not disjangled sounds of discord and disrespect and dislike, but they can actually hear the chords of reason, my friends, that to pay for our bills as you pay for yours, we must do the right thing: raise the debt ceiling, and to be able to preserve Medicare as we know it, and not to destroy it as it is being destroyed by the budget proposals of the Republican Party. It is necessary, if you will, to be able to come together and to listen in one voice, finally, that we act to help America. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This could be no more a somber debate than what we are doing here today, and I thank the manager, Mr. McGovern, and the gentleman from South Carolina for recognizing, through the leadership of our House, that the American people must be engaged in the constitutional duties that have been set out for the three branches of government. Under the Constitution, the war powers are divided between Congress and the President, and among other relevant grants, Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support armed forces while the President is the Commander in Chief. The congressional duties fall under article 1, section 8, and the Commander in Chief can relate his or her duties to article 2, section 2. It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the President power to utilize the armed services to repel attacks against the United States. But there has long been a challenge or controversy over whether he or she is constitutionally authorized to send forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or congressional authorization. And so here we are today indicating that it is important for the Commander in Chief, no matter how much respect there is, to be able to respond to the call of the Congress. There are now two resolutions that swirl around the violence and horrific acts in Libya. Compounding the problem is a continued violence, an assault on the people of Libya. So for a moment let me focus on General Qadhafi to ask him the question, is he reasoned, and does he recognize that the slaughter of his people must stop? The President of South Africa engaged in peace talks with General Qadhafi, and many of us thought that the white flag would be raised and that there would be an opportunity for resolution. We see that not coming. So my message to General Qadhafi is to stop this senseless and violent war, to allow your people to accumulate the privileges of human dignity, that is to be able to live in peace and hopefully to secure democratic rights for themselves. But at the same time we in the United States cannot stand by and watch as violence proceeds. We must have procedure. We must have process. I believe the Boehner amendment gives at least some tracking as to what you are asking the President for, but I still quarrel with the debate and the question as to whether or not that is enough. I am supporting this rule so that we can move forward to begin to debate this question of the War Powers Resolution, and it is important that the branches of government understand you cannot roll over the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow us to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions on war. It does not allow us, in essence, to ignore the responsibilities of Congress. So I rise today to support this debate and to support the premise that Congress must exercise its authority to declare war.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. Con. Res. 51, ``Directing the President, Pursuant to Section (c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed forces from Libya,'' I support the War Powers Resolution however I cannot support a resolution which requires the President to withdraw all United States Armed forces within 15 days of its adoption. 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. This Concurrent Resolution 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. Presidents, Members of Congress, scholars and lawyers had 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 (Public Law 93-148) 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 the War Powers 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 believe in the Constitution and the importance of maintaining the power of Congress in asserting when international conflicts warrant U.S. military involvement. I call upon the President to issue a report detailing the current status of the United States military forces in Libya within the next 30 days. We must not forget the bloodshed that continues to take place in Libya. The people of Libya have given their lives in their fight for democracy. This conflict began in Libya four months ago when Colonel Gaddafi 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. 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 help. 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 today. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has continued to refuse to acknowledge the will of the Libyan people and the reality of the dilemmas that Libya faced. Rather than act as a true leader and acknowledge the interests of Libyan citizens, Gaddafi 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. The reality of the situation is this: it was Gaddafi's refusal to contemplate the circumstances in Libya that led to the unnecessary loss of innocent lives. Let us not make the same error as we deliberate the role of the U.S. and the decision of our President to act on behalf of innocent people. We should not forget that the people of Libya are continuing to fight for democracy and there has been a significant loss of life. Gaddafi has a long record of bloodshed and blood continues to run in the streets of Libya. We cannot stand by and do nothing, and America cannot do this alone. 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 Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. I stand with the people of Libya fighting for peace and freedom. It is clear that NATO has taken the Lead in protecting the Libyan People.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Rokita amendment (#2) to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' This amendment only hinders future progress in decreasing TSA's current attrition rates. As you may already know, this February, John Pistole, TSA's Administrator, who has performed 20 years of distinguished service with the FBI, came to the conclusion that allowing the transportation security workforce to collectively bargain would not result in lessening in the quality of security operations. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, I am keenly aware that over the years, the Committee on Homeland Security has conducted thorough and extensive oversight into the cause for attrition within the TSA workforce. The attrition rate at TSA was high enough that it caught the attention of our committee. Consistently, TSA personnel who decided to leave the agency criticized the availability of security training and responsiveness of line supervisors to workplace concerns. We must protect the tens of millions of dollars that American taxpayers have invested in hiring, training, and deploying TSA staff. I strongly believe that Administrator Pistole's decision was the right one and his decision must be supported. TSA can be strengthened by providing their workers with a personnel system that is fair, credible and transparent, and with a voice in the development of workplace quality standards that will make the traveling public even safer. There are currently a number of examples, throughout the federal government, where the conferring of collective bargaining rights have helped to secure the Nation. From the Customs and Border Protection to the Federal Protective Service, we see that collective bargaining rights can be made available in furtherance of security. TSA employees have already begun to assert their right to collective bargaining. This amendment comes at the worst time, when TSOs are currently voting on selecting union representation. With our Nation and our transportation, in particular, facing serious and credible terrorist threats, this is not the time to punish our frontline homeland security personnel. We must give them the tools and resources to effectively perform their duties. The Pistole decision cleared the way for an election and, in April, the Federal Labor Relations Authority tallied the votes. While neither of the competing unions won the vote outright, the message that the 40,000 Transportation Security Officers sent was unequivocal--they want to be unionized. There is a run-off underway. This amendment would recklessly bring all the progress to a halt and unnecessarily damage morale within the TSA when the nation is at a state of ``heightened alert.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleagues of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to ask the President to appoint a Presidential appointee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is law. It is to protect the American people. That nominee so far has been Professor Elizabeth Warren who has acted as an adviser. The CFPB has earned praise from the banking community for working to simplify and improve mortgage foreclosure forms. This consumer protection board will protect the American people from predatory lending, from foreclosures, and from excessive rates on your credit card. But, yet, Republicans in the Senate, in the other body, want to make ridiculous accusations to hold the hostage position and take this individual into a hostage position and to suggest that she could not counsel with a State attorney general to help that State attorney general fight against mortgage foreclosures. When have you forbidden a Federal representative, a Federal representative of the United States Government, from talking to the States to be helpful? What is the purpose of the Federal Government other than to be helpful? It is time to stop the charade and stand with the American people. Get someone working on that consumer board to protect the American people from reckless and unfair mortgage practices.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''