Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member. Mr. Chairman, this is a very challenging process that we are going through. It is challenging because we are addressing homeland security in the backdrop of the crisis in Libya, of the Arab Spring, of the demise and end of Osama bin Laden by the brilliance of the Navy SEALs, of the intelligence community, of President Obama, and of course in the backdrop of domestic disasters: from Texas fires to tornadoes from New England to Alabama to Missouri. But there is something that we can do. We can recognize that there was no appointment made for 9/11. No notice was given to us on 9/11. There were indicators of individuals learning to fly or to take off but not landing. So post-9/11 we came up with the enhanced concept of ensuring that we had Federal Air Marshals. I'm glad for that. Yet I think it is important now, in the neighborhood that we're living in, in the climate that we're living in and in the interests of terrorists--lone wolves, franchise terrorists--to attack our mobility or transit systems, which include aviation, for us to focus on ensuring that there is no undermining of the utilization strategically of air marshals to protect the American public. I can just cite, Mr. Chairman, the incidences that have occurred in the backdrop of Libya: individuals domestically charging the pilot door, passengers having to bring down disturbed individuals. The air skyways, if you will, are both exciting and potentially troubling and dangerous. My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation on that ability. They are one of our first lines of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. As the ranking member on a Transportation subcommittee, I have worked over the years and have sponsored legislation to see that we have enough air marshals and that they will receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft. Make no mistake, the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous just as it is on our rail system. On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite PETN and destroy a plane over Detroit. We need air marshals. As I indicated, the demise of Osama bin Laden has caused many to rise up and to begin to think: What is their next effort in attack, if you will, on the issue of aviation security? While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest risks. I also intend to move forward on my FAMs legislation, which will provide training and increased productivity but also personnel. Yet this clearly goes to the heart of the problem: Protect the American public. Protect them as they travel domestically. Protect them as they travel internationally. If you ever for a moment doubt the potential of havoc, then you just need to look to that Christmas Day--to that unexpected act of the so- called ``underwear bomber,'' or, if you will, of the shoe bomber, of some years past. Then, if you want to bring it closer to home, you go back 3 or 4 weeks ago and see the series of incidences that required passengers and flight attendants to be engaged. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. It is in the form of a limitation that no funds should be used to limit the enhanced utilization, which will require creative thinking and the ability to use resources effectively. The bill actually says that we should have two FAMs inbound: two undesignated, unnoted individuals who can provide a cover and a buffer from what has to be a very bad climate. Let me thank the Federal Air Marshals as well for their service. Let me thank those under Homeland Security for their service, including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. They are in a tough, tough neighborhood. I close by simply saying there will be an amendment on the floor dealing with collective bargaining for TSOs. In my capacity on that committee, let me say that collective bargaining has no impact on the great work of the TSOs. So I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' Mr. Chair, I am offering a limitation amendment that prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used to interfere with the deployment of federal air marshals. My amendment would ensure that the federal air marshals are effectively using their funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high-risk by the Department of Homeland Security's risk models. Mr. Chair, I believe that federal air marshals are the last line of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attack. As a Member of the Transportation Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft. On January 5, 2011, I introduced House Resolution 71, the Federal Air Marshals Augmentation Act of 2011. A measure that directs the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to increase the number of federal air marshals by at least an additional 1,750 above the number of such marshals as of January 31, 2010, to ensure increased transportation security for inbound international flights. This bill doubles the number of inbound international flights with air marshals onboard, without reducing domestic coverage. Makes criminal investigator training mandatory for all air marshals. Codifies the FAMS Office of the Ombudsman, and directs the Ombudsman to implement personnel policies as previously recommended by the DHS OIG and the GAO. This bill also requires semiannual reports to Congress on this augmentation implementation and on personnel incidents and issues. Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous. On Christmas Day 2009, we saw the underwear bomber try to ignite P-E- T-N and destroy a plane over Detroit. And following the demise of Osama bin Laden, there were numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt flights. Are we sufficiently prepared for addressing the terrorist threat to aviation? While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest-risk flights. It simply directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk model. This is an allocation of people issue, not a funding issue, and this amendment is budget neutral. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment 130 to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member. I think it's important; I listened to the gentleman, Mr. Aderholt, list a lot of numerical and factual points about personnel. Let me be very clear, as Senator Lieberman said, all of our systems need to be on high alert and all of our citizens need to be on high alert as we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, that something is awry with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is interested in transportation modes, and they're interested in our rail systems. They have already done Mumbai, they have done London, and they have done Madrid; and therefore, they are looking at the United States. No, we don't have specifics, but we do have the potential of our rail lines crossing America being ripe targets for al Qaeda. This is a very small amount that would allow us to have surface inspectors who are truly crucial to the protection of the Nation's mass transit, freight, and long-distance rail. Every State is impacted, from New Hampshire to Florida, from the Midwest to the West, Texas. Houston has as its city insignia a rail. Why? Because trains crisscross our community. Therefore, I think it behooves us to be bipartisan and to actually support an amendment that provides a cushion of protection and a cushion and an armor, if you will, against the thoughts and the mindsets of al Qaeda. Yes, they are franchised, they are splintered, but that makes it all the easier for them to find their way here to the United States. I remind my colleagues that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I ask my colleagues to consider the small investment it would take to be able to secure the Nation's railways. And as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the authorizing committee, I can assure you that we are seeing these kinds of threats in terms of the vastness of our system, and we need to be able to protect our system. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise before you and my colleagues to take the opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2017, ``Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.'' My amendment would increase the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) Surface Transportation Security's account by $5 million and restore funding for this account at the President's submitted request, offset by reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management, and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing (TTAC). Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al- Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit systems and their riders, our constituents. Now more than ever, we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against terrorist attack. This amendment would increase the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012. In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded. This account funds front line homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols. Surface inspectors also help disseminate best practices to transit and rail entities across the Nation. This is a smart investment at a critical time for surface transportation security. To fund this increase, my amendment reduces $2.5 million from the Transportation Threat and Credentialing program and $2.5 million from the Office of the Under Secretary for Management at the Department of Homeland Security. Both of these programs are well funded--TTAC at $183 million and the Under Secretary's office at $234 million. This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities address and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as for improving security for passenger and freight rail. All of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack. We must be vigilant in recognizing the threat, make wise investment in security, and collaborate with industry stakeholders to secure this transportation mode that is essential to our economy and way of life. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the LaTourette-Pascrell amendment, and I too recognize the challenges that Mr. Aderholt and Mr. Price faced in the confines of trying to address some difficult times. But as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe it is imperative that we look at the reality of the world in which we live. In an article dated April 24, 2011, out of the State of Texas, reads: hundreds of weary firefighters were racing against the clock on Sunday, pushing back massive brush fires that have destroyed near-record swatches of Texas countryside. Firefighters were hoping to make as much progress as possible before low humidity and strong winds set the stage for more potential flare-ups late Monday and Tuesday. Fires were still burning in Texas. Firefighters are still being called upon. Cities and States across America are laying off firefighters. And we are reminded of the needs, if you will, that were addressed on 9/11 when firefighters from the City of New York rushed in to save their fellow New Yorkers and others, and many of them, many of them perished. They are, in fact, first responders. And I believe it is important that we make the sacrifice, we find the adequate offset, and we support this amendment. I'm also reminded of a story that many of you may have heard, the sad story, it aired on local television, where firefighters from some locality watched while a man drowned and could not save him. The reasoning was that the particular team that would have had the skills and the equipment to save this drowning man in what has been called the most powerful Nation in the world, was fired, laid off, eliminated. And, therefore, from the shoreline many looked in horror as this particular man drowned. Is this what America has come to? I believe this amendment is extremely important, one, to be able to show appreciation to the firefighters across America who come to the aid of those in need from different States when a crisis or tragedy occurs. I heard someone mention, it might have been Mr. LaTourette, but who is it that plucks you out of a burning house or rescues, when they do have the resources or the team, out of a predicament where you are stranded in some crisis, whether it is drowning, whether it's a fire, whether it is an emergency health condition or whether or not they are confronting a terrorist act? Firefighters are truly our first responders. In the City of Houston they are considering closing out or shutting down 600-plus police officers. And firefighters have the same concerns. So I think it is very important that we own up to our duties. And as I mentioned in a metaphor before, let the American people be winners today. Let the firefighters be present and accounted for. And let us be reminded of their great heroic acts of 9/11. This 10th year anniversary, let us not say thank you in the way that we deny them funding, but let us say thank you in the way that we provide them with the funding that they need. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have served on the Homeland Security Committee, tragically, since the formation of the select committee and then ultimately the full committee. For many of us who were here in the United States Congress and watched the plane attack the Pentagon and ultimately visited Ground Zero in the early stages are well aware of the need to protect America. As the ranking member of the Transportation Security Committee, working with my colleague from Alabama, the chairman, we well recognize the importance of transportation facilities and modes. For some reason, terrorists are attracted to airlines and freeways and trains. So this amendment is a very simple amendment that I believe provides security to the American public. It was no doubt that after the killing of Osama bin Laden discovered papers suggested that al Qaeda operatives were considering attacking the U.S. rail system on the 10-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Yes, it was 2010, but if we recall, we were unaware that we were going to be attacked on 9/11. Los Angeles MTA planned security upgrades in response to bin Laden's killing and the discovery of rail attack plans. That is the American public's sensitivity, that we must protect our modes of transportation. My amendment is a simple amendment that restores $5 million to the Transportation Security account at the President's submitted request by reducing the Office of the Under Secretary for Management and Transportation Threat Assessment and Credentialing. Since the demise of Osama bin Laden, it has come to light that al Qaeda had ambitious plans to launch an attack against our Nation's mass transit system and their riders, our constituents. Now more than ever we must ensure that our mass transit and surface transportation is secure by developing risk-based policies and programs that devote appropriate resources to securing these systems against a terrorist attack. This amendment would increase the surface transportation security account at TSA by $5 million, bringing the account in line with the President's request for FY 2012. In Washington terms, $5 million may not sound like much, but it is a critical increase to the Surface Transportation Security account at TSA, which has historically been underfunded. This account funds frontline homeland security personnel in the form of surface transportation inspectors who, in addition to reviewing regulatory compliance, consult with transit agencies and rail companies in improving security infrastructure and operational protocols. The American public, whether it's Amtrak or long-distance rail, need our involvement. We cannot afford to diminish the protection of our rail lines that grandmothers and grandchildren, college students and commuters use. This is a smart investment at a critical time. Be reminded, we got no notice about 9/11, and we will get no notice about attacks on our rail system. To fund this increase, my amendment simply reduces $2.5 million from two different accounts. This is a wise decision at this time to help our communities and mitigate the terrorist threat to our local transit systems, as well as to improve security for passenger and freight rail. Just be the community that would be impacted by a horrific terrorist act. Whether it is through the neighborhoods of Houston, whether it's in Los Angeles or the Midwest, all of our communities and constituents are serviced by some form of surface transportation or mass transit, and as we have seen abroad, this mode of transportation is vulnerable to terrorist attack. From Spain to London, they know the truth, and we must stand vigilant. Providing this increased funding for our surface transportation inspectors is a wise investment on behalf of the American people, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager of this rule, and I certainly thank Members who are on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, we are in the baseball season and you can imagine a throng of teeming audience, and they are watching pitch one, pitch two, pitch three; and it is strike one, strike two and strike three. The winning side, the Republicans, of course, cheer; but the American people lose. They're out. They're struck out. Medicare is gone as we know it. Let's not fool around. Let's not try to have smoke and mirrors. This rule ends Medicare as we know it. We don't have to play games. The debt relief that was put on the floor ends Medicare as we know it. And this bill on homeland security is tone deaf to the words of the late Osama bin Laden who said that we're looking at your airports, we're looking at your airlines, and we're looking at your rail. This Homeland Security appropriations bill cuts all of the necessary security that is necessary to protect the American people. First we throw out the seniors on Medicare; then we don't allow for TSO inspectors. We cut FEMA dollars in the face of Joplin and Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. In my own State, there are fires that are burning right now, and we're telling FEMA that we don't have enough money to provide for you. Did you see the story on the news that indicated that firefighters were left watching a man drown--drown-- because they had to cut the rescue team of that community? People were crying. Firefighters, whose first job is to be a first responder, denied because they don't have the funding to be able to help the people that they serve. I tell you to vote ``no'' on this rule. Strike out those folks, and let the American people win.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it's important to be able to discuss with my colleagues just what we're doing in this House and what is considered important and urgent and what is the impact on what we're doing. As my friends, the Republicans on the other side of the aisle, are now spending time with the President, I hope they will have visions of President Ronald Reagan, because in 1983 Ronald Reagan begged and asked the Congress at that time to raise the debt limit. This is not a 2011, 21st century phenomenon never to be heard of in the history of this country. Raising the debt limit, my friends, is not evil or sin. It is an actuality that requires us to be responsible adults. I want you to eye this picture and to continue to keep your eyes on it continuously as I explain to you what we are doing when we ask for the debt limit to be raised. Does anyone care about our men and women on the front lines? Do we care about their families? Do we care about veterans? Oh, we wave the flag, and many of us emotionally were drawn to commemorate and honor those who had fallen this past Monday. We interrelated with families, some of whom came up to me and asked me why veterans are discriminated against and can't get work or disabled veterans are chastised by their employer. And I made a commitment to them that we will work to have jobs and end the discrimination, and that the soldiers who are coming back to 10 percent unemployment--do you realize that, that there is a 10 percent unemployment among Iraq and Afghanistan returning soldiers, soldiers who are in their twenties and thirties or maybe forties, soldiers who may be disabled, who may have come back from a catastrophic injury but they want to work and support their families? These very men and women, do you know what the debt limit not being lifted will do? And so, yes, this was put on the floor of the House to make a mockery and a joke, but I came here to be a serious legislator and I voted ``yes'' because it was a serious statement on behalf of my constituents and the American people, and I could not, within 24 hours of being around military families, abandon them with the frivolity and the foolishness of putting something up on the floor just to put it in the eye of the President. Let me tell you why it partly was done as trickery. Listen to the words of a bond dealer: ``I didn't even know they had a vote tonight, to be honest with you,'' a senior government bond strategist at CRT Capital Group in Stamford, Connecticut said. ``The only real event that the market is focused on is the point at which they run out of money and have to shut down the government.'' Well, let me tell you the reason why this was just a joke, since those of us who voted ``yes'' didn't take it as a joke. Because the Secretary of the Treasury has extended the time to August 2. But if we do not raise the debt limit, like Ronald Reagan asked and other Republican Presidents asked with no fanfare, let me tell you what will happen to our soldiers. It will be 20 percent unemployment. What will happen to Medicare? We won't be making it solvent. We'll just end it and implode it like the Ryan budget wants to do. We will eliminate Medicare for disabled persons and children and seniors in nursing homes. No, we won't have any veterans benefits, but our cities that now are grappling with disaster, that funding will dry up as well. And we are the rainy day umbrella for the American people. But you know what else? Summer jobs for our young people who are struggling to get themselves back in school in the fall. In the city of Houston, how--I don't know--unthinking can you be when you close down city pools, the meager opportunity for recreation that a child has in the inner city area or maybe a rural area. Summer pools totally closed down. And parks. So what are they supposed to do besides having one person that can monitor the pool? You just have them running the streets. What sense does that make? Or the school districts in the State of Texas now losing $4 billion. HISD, the Houston Independent School District, one of the largest in the Nation, $200 million, or AISD, $30 million. It's time to wake up and understand that we must recognize the responsibility we have, Mr. Speaker. We can end the war in Afghanistan, bring them home from Iraq, and we can do our job and raise the debt ceiling. This is ridiculous, but I'm not going to be part of it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on why I am standing next to the brave and the true of our United States military, let me give a message to Syria and express my outrage over the heinous killing of a 13-year-old boy. President Assad should be held accountable now. And the United Nations needs to voice its opposition. As the Secretary of State has indicated, we need to be standing alongside those seeking freedom in Syria. And to our allies in Bahrain, where our fleet of Navy personnel are, what a disgrace that they have imploded and blown up mosques because they disagree with their particular faith. This is the Arab Spring, but it will end in devastation if we don't stand for truth and human rights and compassion. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, as I stand next to the brave men and women, some who have fallen, and those who now still fight, to ask my Republican friends do you understand that there is a 10 percent unemployment among those who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, troops who are fighting for us and fighting on our behalf. Yet it has been 21 weeks and the Republicans have no jobs agenda. We need jobs. Create jobs! If you believe in these troops, build jobs for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. There is just a whole litany of things that I think have been mentioned today that are so very important. One, I want to again emphasize when you invest in America, you create jobs. Look at what is happening to the auto industry. And I am far away from the auto industry. I happen to be in Texas. But I can assure you that I can point to an auto dealership that is alive today because we said ``yes'' to manufacturing and owning businesses and keeping the doors open. Now this same auto dealership--which, by the way, is in American-made cars, GM--is expanding, is refurbishing, will be hiring new people, will be selling more cars because we were engaged. And I think the point that we have to create jobs to reinvest in this community points again to preserving Medicare, which is not being done by our friends--certainly the vote that we had today had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, had nothing to do preserving Medicare and Medicaid. And I truly believe there is a nexus, there is a connection-- invest in America, create jobs, have revenue returned back to the economy, bring down the debt, and watch America churn like an engine that is purring and doing better. We can make it in America. We can applaud our manufacturers. We can grow them. And I think the investment in America's auto industry is evident by all of the jobs being brought back home. Let me end by saying to all of those who can hear us: American manufacturers, American corporations, bring your jobs back home and participate with Democrats in their serious effort to enhance making it in America and creating more opportunity. You are better off here. You can watch your company grow, and you can support the continued growth of America and opportunities for small businesses and the young people who are now coming out of our many colleges and schools ready to work.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. It is my privilege to be able to join the gentleman from Rhode Island, a former mayor of one of our great cities, who understands when he looks at his constituents in city government that job creation and manufacturing churns the economy of local government as well. I am delighted to say to my friend from California, Texas is right with you. I don't think any State can reject the value of research. We have the Texas Medical Center. It has research in many different components, but they all come together to generate jobs and a better quality of life. And I am amazed at how astutely correct the gentlelady from Hawaii was on this whole idea of shipbuilding and the flags that ships fly under and the loss of income. But more importantly, most of us grew up, young as we are, with this country being the grand shipbuilder. We were proud of that. We loved those christenings; but, more importantly, to see those great ships. So I rise today to support you and to join also, if I might, with my colleague from Alabama, having had the opportunity to join her there in Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. Let me say to her and to those who have lost so much in Alabama and throughout the areas surrounding Alabama, and certainly to our dear friends in Missouri, and the tragedy of such a high cost of life, let me say to them that we will never give up on helping you. My point is this: it is interesting that today we had an example of the lack of seriousness that my Republican friends have regarding job creation. No matter how we voted--I voted ``aye'' on the debt relief, or the debt increase--we all know that our commitment is to save Medicare and Medicaid, and that it is also to generate revenue. How do we generate revenue? We put the punch back in manufacturing. We manufacture and we create jobs. How did FDR do it? He put people to work. Eventually, the government got out of putting people to work, and you saw this big manufacturing boom--shipbuilding, building homes. We all remember the massive homebuilding that President Eisenhower engaged in--manufacturing, making a whole bunch of things. Let me tell you why this is so important and how sad I was that the debt relief was, in fact, a mockery, because, if you commemorated soldiers yesterday, let me tell you what the unemployment rate is for veterans: 7.7 percent. The unemployment rate for those Afghanistan veterans--and I would include Iraq--is 10.9 percent. How do you put these folks to work? You put a boost and a punch in manufacturing. You let these guys come back and use the skills that they've gained in working--or soldiering, if you will--in Iraq, in fighting for our freedom in Afghanistan and other places. You say to these guys, I don't just mourn the loss of your comrades on Memorial Day; I listen to the voices of your families and yourselves. When you come back, I've got jobs for you. Let me tell you how you do it, because I am big on making things. Here we go. Here is one of our bills that we are very interested in, H.R. 613. We build airports. We refurbish airports. We make them better. We fix our highways. We build or we engage in high-speed rail-- trains, transit--and we make it in America. Let me say this: we make sure that trains are made here in America, are assembled here in America. We go back to making the same trains that we had to make when everyone said, Go west, young man. Go west, young woman. That's how Texas got here. That's how California got here. So it saddens me that instead of spending the time today in looking at H.R. 1730, which will be discussed, or H.R. 613 or the research tax or the ability to give incentives for research or to help the Texas Medical Center or Silicon Valley, we did something that we didn't take seriously--the need of America to pay her bills. Then, of course, what does it mean when we talk about ``making it in America''? Boy, this is exciting to me. We begin to appreciate chemistry and physics because we are in the business of inventing and therefore of making. This picture shows research and what happens when you get through with research. It is extremely important that we, in essence, show the importance of what happens to Americans. They get to work. My point is that there are a lot of Americans who can be helped if we engage in job creation by making it in America. As we have all committed to do, I am beginning to go around to my district and am excited about all the manufacturers I am finding. I'll tell you, you just go around to say ``thank you'' to these manufacturers, ``thank you'' to what's happening. If we were to invest in America and make it in America, it would be a better deal not only for America and those Americans here but for our young people graduating from college and for our soldiers coming back. So I want to thank the gentleman for, I think, the right approach, which comes right after the mockery of a debt relief that was not serious. For those of us who believed it was important to be serious and who may have voted ``aye,'' we really wanted to be discussing job creation, and we really wanted to be discussing having jobs, as well as providing for those who are ready to work. Let's see if we can get something done, so I join with the gentleman in working on these important issues. I close by simply saying: what an excitement to make ships again, to build the trains for high-speed rail, to make America's infrastructure in such a way of using our manufactured products. What a way to put America back to work. I hope we will continue to press this issue. I believe the Democrats are going to be able to get this done--to make it in America, which will create more jobs for America and will generate the revenue that will really bring down the deficit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1082, ``Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011,'' which temporarily extends from May 31, 2011 through July 31, 2011 certain authorities of the Small Business Administration and its programs under the Small Business Act and Small Business Investment Act of 1958. S. 1082 further amends the Small Business Act to reauthorize through Fiscal Year 2011 the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR) programs of the Small Business Administration (SBA), as well as the SBA's commercialization pilot program. American small businesses are the heart beat of our nation. I believe that small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Through a bipartisan effort, Congress created SBIR in 1982 and STTR in 1992. Comprehensive extensions for the programs were made in 2000 and 2001, respectively. The programs have received numerous temporary extensions since they expired in 2008. In particular, the SBIR and STTR programs technological innovation in small, high technology firms to meet federal research and development needs while increasing private sector commercialization and helping the government solve its problems. Today, 11 Federal agencies (DoD and NIH to USDA) allocate a portion of their research and development budgets to projects with small businesses. Studies show SBIR-backed firms have been responsible for roughly 25% of the nation's most crucial innovations over the past decade and account for 38% of America's patents. Among other things, SBIR/STTR technology is used in the military's Bradley tank, the B-2 Bomber, communication antennas for first responders in disaster zones, vehicles for fire fighters combating wildfires, sensors used to detect brain injuries sustained by high school athletes, and electric toothbrushes. The SBIR/STTR awards have produced returns on investments. For example, some of the firms have paid more in taxes than they received under the SBIR program, have employed thousands of employees, and saved state governments millions of dollars. Furthermore, small business in Texas would be at risk of losing millions in SBIR/STTR awards, ranking 7th in the nation to receive awards. In 2009 alone, small business in Texas received 278 awards totaling $89.5 million. Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America. I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. We must consider what impact changes in this appropriations bill will have on small businesses. There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1 trillion dollars in economic output. Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of all businesses in health care and social assistance. My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned businesses. According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) set goals for small business participation in federal contracts. It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small businesses.'' Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to them. FACTS, small business are important because they: (1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms, (2) Employ just over half of all private sector employees, (3) Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll, (4) Generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, (5) Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP), (6) Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers), are (7) Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises (8) Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007, (9) Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms and twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954, the Debt Limit Extension. For weeks, Congressional Democrats and Republicans and the Obama Administration have been engaged for weeks in bipartisan deficit reduction talks. Today's vote on the debt limit extension brought to the floor despite House Republicans promotion to vote against the bill is a dangerous stunt of political theatrics that could jeopardize those serious bipartisan negotiations. Our country cannot afford to take the debt limit negotiations lightly. It is reckless for Republicans to send confusing signals to international markets that could jeopardize our own fragile economic recovery. This bill is a gimmick, by Republican leadership and something as serious as our country's debt limit should not be part of political games. I stand with my fellow Congressional Democrats and remain committed to responsible deficit reduction. We must protect our citizens. Medicare guarantees a healthy and secure retirement for Americans who have paid into it for their entire working lives. Protecting Medicare represents the basic values of fairness and respect for our seniors that all Americans cherish. I am committed to addressing the budget deficit by putting America's working families first. We should not be cutting programs that protect the everyday lives of Americans. An attack on Medicare and Medicaid are examples of wrong priorities and are wrong choices for seniors and middle class families. Facts About Medicare and Medicaid: Medicare covers a population with diverse needs and circumstances. While many beneficiaries enjoy good health, a quarter or more have serious health problems and live with multiple chronic conditions, including cognitive and functional impairments. Most people with Medicare live on modest incomes. Today, 43% of all Medicare beneficiaries are between 65 and 74 years old and 12% are 85 or older. Those who are 85 or older are the fastest-growing age group among elderly Medicare beneficiaries. With the aging and growth of the population, the number of Medicare beneficiaries more than doubled between 1966 and 2000 and is projected to grow from 45 million today to 79 million in 2030. Medicaid is the nation's largest health coverage program measured by enrollees (53 million). Through its 40 year history, the program has transformed from a welfare-based health coverage program to a health insurance and long-term care program serving both low income individuals and families and providing long-term care services for individuals with disabilities and the low-income elderly. Because Medicaid has such a diverse set of obligations and is run jointly by federal and state governments there is much misunderstanding about facts related to the program. Managed care is an example of an innovation that became a standard option--about 60 percent of beneficiaries are in managed care. A current innovation that several states are experimenting with is moving long-term care services towards a home and community based setting. Additionally, Medicaid's structure has allowed it to expand and readily adapt to emerging issues in the American health system like the HIV/ AIDS crisis. Sixty percent of nursing home residents are not on Medicaid at the time of their admittance into a facility. With the average annual cost of nursing home care being $60,000, the longer an individual remains in a facility, the more likely they are to deplete their financial resources and qualify for Medicaid coverage. Even after individuals deplete their assets, they are still required to apply their income, including Social Security and pension checks, towards their care costs, except for an average monthly $30 personal needs allowance. Compared to private health programs, Medicaid has lower administrative costs per claims paid when compared to private sector plans. Medicaid per capita growth has been consistently about half the rate of growth in private insurance premiums. Both of these factors show that despite program growth, Medicaid is an efficient program. Mr. Speaker, not only will allowing America to default on its debt wreak havoc and chaos on financial markets around the world, but it will also be damaging to the most vulnerable members of our society. In essence it takes a hatchet to the programs Americans truly care about. In my district in Houston, Texas, there are 190,035 people living under the poverty line as well as 82,272 seniors and over 58,500 seniors. If House Republicans' self destructive economic policies are allowed to play out it will threaten the viability of the programs that our Nation's seniors, children, and poor depend on for health and well being. Despite countless warnings from economists, business leaders, and Wall Street executives about the economic consequences, House Republicans are still holding the economy hostage by threatening to default on our debt and are putting the economy at risk by suggesting America might not pay its bills. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said defaulting on our debt would ``at minimum'' lead to ``an increase in interest rates, which would actually worsen our deficit and would hurt all borrowers in the economy.'' Additionally, a coalition of 62 of the nation's largest business groups urged Congress to raise the debt limit: ``With economic growth slowly picking up we cannot afford to jeopardize that growth with the massive spike in borrowing costs that would result if we defaulted on our obligations.'' But in case that isn't convincing enough, Third Way, a well respected moderate think thak, released a report outlining the consequences of not paying America's bills: 642,500 jobs lost GDP would decrease by 1% Every mortgage would increase by $19,175 Stocks would fall, the S&P dropping 6.3% And every 401(k) holder would lose $8,816 The House Republican majority needs to stop threatening the American people and get to work to increase the debt ceiling so that our country can pay its bills. The real issue that we should be focusing on is that we must raise revenues while also reducing spending. They must complement each other. Congressional Republicans must accept the challenge that everything must be on the table, including ending the tax cuts to the top 2% of the wealthiest people in our country. We need a serious debt ceiling increase bill so that we can have deliberative discussion on how to cut spending without cutting Medicare and Medicaid. We do not need to hold the American economy hostage, and we need to begin these discussions in order to show the world that we are fiscally responsible. If not, the failure to extend our Nation's debt limit would have harmful effects on job creation and the programs necessary to ensure the health and safety of out constituents. I support a clean bill that is not layered down with Republican Christmas tree ornaments that are made for special interests. This will raise our debt. We must pay our bills otherwise this will be detrimental to our Nation and that I will not support.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a lot of times our constituents are confused about the processes of this House. The one thing that we are not confused about is when we all join together in unity, our patriotism, our respect, affection, and admiration for the United States military. Yesterday, many of us interfaced with families, Gold Star Mothers and Blue Star Mothers, families who had experienced a wounded soldier or one who had lost their life in battle. It was a serious time, and I, too, commemorated and celebrated with my fellow Houstonians and Texans, even those who came up to me and said veterans can't get jobs. And so for me to come today and to participate in a mockery of a placed-on-the-floor vote on the debt ceiling when everyone knew, and our good friends on the Republican side, that it was a joke, but it was not a joke for me. I voted ``yes'' because the responsible position is to ensure that America pays her bills, not to leave soldiers on the battlefield with no equipment, no shelter, no food, and certainly not to take away veterans benefits, Medicare, Medicaid. Let us be responsible, and let us stand for the American people. I did that today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank Dr. McDermott, first of all, for his consistent, years-long support of our children that are in foster care. And I thank the manager and the Representative of the majority for their hard work. This bill was introduced in the 111th Congress. It was passed by voice vote. It is an important amendment to the Social Security Act to renew through FY 2016, where it authorizes up to 10 States and tribes to conduct demonstration projects that serve as tests for methods to improve child welfare programs. As a cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we have worked on a number of issues through the years. We have been privileged to deal with the question of mentoring, the question of bullying, the question of dealing with the disabled child, and, yes, the question of dealing with foster parenting. In fact, some years ago I served as a cochair with then-Congressman Mike Andrews to provide relief to foster parents by finding a process that would provide vacation time for them. I have gone to meetings dealing with grandparents who have become foster parents. So it is important to be able to find the best practices. The waivers that will come about are designed to afford more flexibility to States in determining how to use Federal funding for child welfare and foster care. The program gave more discretion to the State Departments that administer child welfare programs aimed to foster innovative and effective child welfare programs. One of the issues in the State of Texas is the age-old issue of aging out. What do you do with the 18- or 19-year-old who had lived in foster care, ages out, and has no place to go? I hope in the course of this legislation we will find that creative thinking. This bill, of course, addresses delays to guardianship for children in foster care, provides early crisis intervention programs that are so important to improve the outcomes of the foster care system, and addresses domestic violence that results in placement in foster care. To the late Congressman Mickey Leland, I am reminded that we had a facility called the Mickey Leland refuge or relief area in our district, the 18th Congressional District, that provided an emergency placement for children that had to be taken out of the home immediately. We cradled children from zero to toddler age. Our children need us, and those who are in fact taking care of foster children need us as well. There are 423,000 children living in foster care; 26,000 of these children are from my home State of Texas. I frankly believe those numbers are even higher. But this legislation will continue a unique opportunity for States granted waivers to address the diverse needs of the cities and regions of the particular States. I can't think of a more precious resource than our children. I am very glad to be part of the Congressional Children's Caucus; and I deeply believe this particular legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides a safety net for our children. I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1194, a bill to renew the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to approve demonstration projects designed to test innovative strategies in state child welfare programs. My colleague, Jim McDermott, introduced this bill in the 111th Congress, and it was passed by a voice vote. This legislation, which amends Title XI of the Social Security Act to renew through FY2016, authorizes up to ten states and tribes to conduct demonstration projects that serve as tests for methods to improve child welfare programs. Under the previous authority, which began in 1997 and ended in 2006, 23 states and tribal jurisdictions received waivers to certain provisions of the Social Security Act. These waivers are designed to afford more flexibility to states in determining how to use federal funding for child welfare and foster care. The program gave more discretion to the state departments that administer child welfare programs, and aimed to foster innovative and effective child welfare programs. The waiver authority in this legislation requires states to report on Federal, state and local funding sources that support all services under a demonstration project, increasing our knowledge of waiver policies and allow for successful implementation of similar programs in the future. Under the previous waiver authority, many innovative and effective demonstration projects were successfully tested in States, providing the Department of Health and Human Services with new ideas for implementation at the national level. This legislation does not seek to reduce funding or services for child welfare at any level, but rather seeks to improve these services by allowing states the flexibility to test programs. The bill introduced by my colleague from Washington addresses delays to guardianship for children in foster care, provides early and crisis intervention programs to improve the outcomes of the foster system, and addresses domestic violence that results in placement in foster care. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) reports that at the end of 2009, there were 423,000 children living in foster care. 26,600 of those children were from my home state of Texas. In fact, the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services estimates that as of February 2011, 3,726 children in Houston were living in foster care. As the Representative for Texas' 18th Congressional District in Houston, I am committed to increasing the efficiency and improving the outcomes of foster care and other child welfare systems. This legislation would continue a unique opportunity for states granted waivers to address the diverse needs of the cities and regions in that particular state. Of the 3,726 children in foster care throughout Houston, nearly 2,000 of those children are African American. While foster care disproportionately affects African Americans in Houston, these demographics change throughout the state. This program encourages innovation based on the needs of states, and will certainly contribute to national initiatives. Child welfare is a deeply important issue for this country. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates the 2010 Census will show the number of children in foster care is over half a million and will only continue to rise. It is our responsibility to take any possible measure to improve the outcomes of foster care, and renewing the authority granted to Health and Human Services under H.R. 1194 is essential to that goal.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to support the en bloc amendments and particularly my amendment dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. My amendment sends a clear and resounding message that we take all wounds endured by our veterans seriously. Although their wounds may be invisible, we recognize that they should be properly treated. One of the best ways to increase the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder is to access treatment and to increase treatment in a number of local and community medical facilities. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting this amendment and for recognizing the enormous burden that has come about through PTSD. According to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, the number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits in which PTSD was a primary diagnosis between 2000 and 2009 was 5,307 hospitalizations and 578,120 outpatient visits. I also rise today in honor of my friend and late colleague, Congressman John Murtha, who worked with me to establish an outsourcing clinic in the Houston area at the Riverside Hospital. What a difference it makes. If proper medical care is given, about 40 percent to 60 percent of people who develop PTSD can get better care. How many of us can even talk about this experience short of our Members who have experienced combat who are here in the United States Congress? The average American who has not does not know the trauma of experiencing danger every day in protecting themselves and their comrades. They come home. They deserve not only our celebration of their return but to be treated so that they can go on with their lives. Since October 2004, approximately 1.64 million U.S. troops have been deployed for the OEF and OIF in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's say to our soldiers: You are deserving of our care. Let us provide more access to care for post-traumatic stress disorder. I appreciate your support for this en bloc amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #112 to H.R. 1540, ``National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011,'' as it will send a clear message on the importance of increasing access to treatment for those suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As a Member of Congress from Texas, a state which has sustained more casualties in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than all but one other state, I am pleased to offer this amendment. My amendment is intended to address the urgent need for access to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment and counseling facilities servicing veterans. This includes veterans living in some of the more distressed areas of our country. We must encourage the establishment of innovative public-private partnerships for the treatment and research of PTSD in teaching hospitals across the country by placing a focus on the importance of caring for those who live with post traumatic stress disorder. We can never do enough to honor our wounded veterans. The Congressional Research Service puts the number of troops deployed since 2000 suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at nearly 67,000. Post traumatic stress disorder is one of the most prevalent and devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear. This country has the necessary resources to provide Veterans and members of the Armed Forces with world class care. I represent a district that is home to one of the largest populations of military service members and their families in the nation. There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan. For the brave men and women who have been wounded in combat, help is on the way. Mr. Chair, my amendment sends the clear and resounding message that we take all wounds endured by our veterans seriously. Although a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye; they are still wounds that should be properly treated. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in post traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to post traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post traumatic stress disorder. In Houston the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) is the primary point of care for most returning veterans. It serves over 6,000 veterans in the area. 90% of those served at the VAMC are men, and 21% have been diagnosed with some form of depression or PTSD. We need to include community based health care providers to reach veterans living in underserved urban areas. The treatment of PTSD should be community based. As a senior member of the Judiciary and the Homeland Security Committees, I agree with President Obama and the Administration in reaffirming our commitment to supporting our veterans and military warriors. The $1,000,000 Department of Defense (DOD) awarded grant recognized the importance of expanded efforts in diverse communities around the country, as the government seals its promise to ensure our Military Personnel and Veterans have the best medical care available. It has been a long fought battle, as I have worked tirelessly with the late John Murtha, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, of the House Appropriations Committee and Senior Leaders from DOD for more than four years to secure $1,000,000 in federal funding in the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill for Riverside General Hospital. These funds provided facilities and services to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) for National Guardsmen, Reservists and Veterans discharged and/or on leave. These funds represented a major step towards providing expanded resources in the heart of the city of Houston for those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorders. The DOD awarded grant recognized the importance of expanded efforts in diverse communities around the country, as the government seals its promise to ensure our veterans and warriors in uniform have the best medical care available. These funds provided trained experienced physicians, nurses, therapists and other healthcare professionals the necessary services to treat Post Traumatic Stress Disorders for Military Personnel and Veterans discharged and/or on leave of duty. In addition, Riverside General Hospital is now able to provide psychiatric, medical emergency medical inpatient, and outpatient services. There are currently close to 200,000 military and civilian personnel in the state of Texas, many living in the Houston area. Riverside General Hospital, located in the 18th Congressional District, is the only hospital in Texas privately owned by African-Americans. Riverside General Hospital was founded due to the heroic efforts of veterans in the First World War. Riverside General Hospital, formerly the Houston Negro Hospital, was erected in 1926 in memory of Lieutenant John Halm Cullinan, US. Army. Riverside General Hospital is the only private African-American-owned hospital in the state of Texas that is contracted to provide inpatient psychiatric and inpatient detoxification services to TRICARE beneficiaries. post traumatic stress disorder I have always been a supporter of the men and women in the military, visiting every combat zone, including Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, with numerous visits to Afghanistan and Iraq. After interacting with our deployed warriors, I began to understand the actual devastation caused by PTSD, which fueled my passion to help create a facility to help and provide care for those military members and veterans affected. There have been several reports of Military Personnel to include National Guardsman, Reservists and Veterans suffering from PTSD-like symptoms for well over 100 years. Some examples are veterans of the US Civil War, who suffered emotional problems and were said to be afflicted with ``soldier's heart'' or ``Da Costa's Syndrome''; veterans of World War I was diagnosed as ``shell Shocked''; and veterans of World War II were classified with ``battle fatigue'' or ``combat fatigue''. Other terms used to describe military-related mood disturbances include ``nostalgia'', ``not yet diagnosed nervousness'', ``irritable heart'', ``effort syndrome'', ``war neurosis'' and ``operational exhaustion''. War veterans are the most publicly-recognized victims of PTSD; long- term psychiatric illness was formally observed in World War I and the syndrome entered public consciousness after the Vietnam War. treating the ``invisible wounds of war'' According to the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database, the number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits in which PTSD was the primary diagnosis between 2000 and 2009 were: 5,307 Hospitalizations 578,120 outpatient visits Military Personnel and Veterans with PTSD have lived through traumatic events, causing many of them to fear for their lives, bear witness to horrible things, and feel helpless and hopeless. PTSD symptoms usually start soon after the traumatic event, but they may not appear until months or years later. If provided proper medical care, about half (40% to 60%) of people who develop PTSD get better at some time. Since October 2001, approximately 1.64 million U.S. troops have been deployed for Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) in Afghanistan and Iraq. Early evidence suggests that the psychological toll of these deployments--many involving prolonged exposure to combat- related stress over multiple rotations--may be disproportionately high compared with the physical injuries of combat. In the face of mounting public concern over post-deployment health care issues confronting OEF/OIF veterans, several task forces, independent review groups, and a President's Commission have been convened to examine the care of the war wounded and make recommendations. Many recent reports have referred to PTSD as the signature wound of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts. With the increasing incidence of suicide and suicide attempts among returning veterans, concern about depression is also on the rise. PTSD impacts not only the service member as the aftershock of this invisible wound victimizes the families as well feel. The Army says that for the first time the rate of suicide in the military exceeded that of the general population last year--20.2 per 100,000 people in the military, compared with the civilian rate of 19.5 per 100,000. (The Centers for Disease Control say the overall civilian suicide rate was 11 per 100,000 for 2005--the most recent year available--but the Army adjusts the figure to reflect the military's younger and much more heavily male demographics.) The Army's suicide rate was 12.7 per 100,000 in 2005, 15.3 in 2006 and 16.8 in 2007. Although veterans who served in combat are most frequently afflicted by PTSD, events such as the Fort Hood shooting highlight the physical and psychological dangers facing military personnel in all roles. Consequently, I believe it is extremely vital to extend to our civilian personnel the same benefits and support that we give to our active duty military. Civilians and military members on Fort Hood have equal responsibility to protect our nation and, as such, it is morally imperative that we work to honor these civilians by providing them with equal support in the aftermath of such traumatic incidents. As our nation continues to fight injustices at home and abroad, we must remain committed to caring for those who give life and limb, so that we can enjoy our daily freedoms. According to a National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study there are differences among Hispanic, African American, and White Vietnam Theater Veterans in terms of readjustment after military service. Both Hispanic and African American male Vietnam theater Veterans had higher rates of PTSD than Whites. Rates of current PTSD in the 1990 study were 28% among Hispanics, 21% among African Americans, and 14% among Whites. African Americans had greater exposure to war stresses and had more predisposing factors than Whites, which appeared to account for their higher rate of PTSD. After controlling for these factors, the differences in PTSD rates between Whites and African Americans largely disappeared. On the other hand, the difference in rates of PTSD between Hispanics and Whites remained even after controlling for the fact that Hispanics had greater exposure to war stresses. African Americans and Hispanics often live in communities that do not have adequate access to health care services. I again stress that veterans who live in underserved areas should have adequate access to services. For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an TIED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do . . . you do this for your country. Mr. Chair, according to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20% of Army soldiers have demonstrated signs of post traumatic stress. Symptoms of this serious disorder include nightmares, flashbacks, emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of appetite, memory loss, clinical depression, and anxiety. One year after returning from combat, approximately 35% of soldiers are seeking some kind of mental health treatment. Among soldiers still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, many incidents of abuse, including killings and rapes by U.S. soldiers, have been attributed to ethics lapses caused by the strain of combat. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again. The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous combat operations since Vietnam. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being killed or wounded themselves, are likely to have witnessed the suffering of others, and may have participated in killing or wounding others as part of combat operations. All of these activities have a demonstrated association with the development of PTSD. One study published in the American Journal of Medicine indicated that 94% of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small-arms fire. In addition, 86% of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed, 68% reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans, and 51% reported handling or uncovering human remains. The majority, 77%, of soldiers deployed to Iraq reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48% reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant, and 28% reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant. (Hoge et al., 2004). For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war have faced. At the height of the insurgency, the Congressional Research Service places the number of attacks against American and coalition forces at 1,400 per day. The Armed Forces reports over, 4,000 troops have died and tens of thousands have been wounded in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), 36,471 military personnel were medically evacuated from Iraq between 2003 and 2007 alone. My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human. They carry their experiences with them. In order to increase access we must first increase the number of medical facilities specializing in PTSD that are located in underserved urban areas, and conducting a concurrent study on increasing access to PTSD treatment at these facilities and that those soldiers will never feel forgotten or taken for granted. These soldiers can be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one. As the war in Iraq continues to drag on, and with our country continuing to send military personnel to Afghanistan, the military has been overwhelmed with returning soldiers suffering from mental health problems. I am committed to improving the lives of thousands of veterans who have risked their lives for our nation, and I believe my amendment plays a crucial role in ensuring that veterans suffering from post traumatic stress disorder receive the medical treatment they desperately need.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This amendment does not stop the reassessing of how al Qaeda is now functioning with its titular head, its inspirational head no longer, and whether or not the remaining members of al Qaeda will seep and spread into other places where we have to address this question, and, of course, the amendment does not limit existing authority on ongoing al Qaeda efforts by sharing intelligence or changing military strategy, tactics or operations on the ground in Afghanistan. This amendment helps to bring our troops home. Remember Pakistan, how we have to work with them and try to help the Pakistan people, we need to focus broadly to help secure the homeland. This is an important amendment. I support the en bloc amendment, and I support the McGovern amendment. Let us find a way to bring our troops home.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member. I rise to support the en bloc amendments and to add my understanding and support for the McGovern-Jones and a number of other Members' amendments. Let me first make it clear that this is a bipartisan amendment, and there was a great deal of collaboration and sensitivity to formulating a structure that would be respectful of the men and women who serve us today. But I rise to support this amendment because I can clearly see the human and financial costs which have been so high--$10 billion a month, which in this climate where we are addressing franchise terrorism, where individuals can rise up and do harm to the United States at any time, it is time now to plan a time frame for accelerated transition for our troops to come home from Afghanistan, to find a political solution with diplomacy, to be able to deal with al Qaeda in a manner that will allow----

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee. Although this is not an amendment that pertains only to my district, I want you to know that I represent a district that is home to one of the largest populations of military servicemembers and their families in the Nation. There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They should return home to banners and to communities that recognize their service after years of combat. I might say that the State of Texas, along with all of the States, claim to have their wonderful share of our men and women of the United States military. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment so the children of America can likewise be with us as they wave their flags and welcome our men and women home. As President John F. Kennedy said: As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them. Let us live and act on our gratitude, and celebrate on this national day of honor the men and women who have served us so gallantly and bravely. I ask my colleagues to join me and Mr. Johnson in support of this amendment, to honor our returning troops by a national expression of thank you, again, for a job well done. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, earlier this morning, in fact just a few minutes ago, I spoke on the tribute that Americans will give to their fallen this coming Monday, sadly so, but with joy and appreciation for the bravery of those who sacrificed their lives and their families. Today I rise with an amendment supported by my colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Johnson, to ask support for an amendment that can bring all us together, the designation of a national day of honor to celebrate the members of the Armed Services who will be returning from deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan and other combat areas. This national day of honor would recognize the enormous sacrifice and invaluable service that those phenomenal men and women have undertaken to protect our freedom and share the gift of democracy in other parts of the world. How many of us have stopped to say ``thank you'' to a soldier walking alone in an airport, maybe having made a travel of millions of miles, thousands upon thousands of miles, to find himself or herself in their rural hamlet or urban center coming home. They have come home over the years, and they have come home not seeking glory or appreciation. That's our men and women. The men and women of the United States military and intelligence community who helped bring Osama bin Laden didn't ask for applause and appreciation. My amendment will give all Americans, no matter what your political views, religion, ethnicity, gender or background, the chance to be able to say ``thank you.'' It is reminiscent of times that some of us did not live through. I am reminded of the pictures that I saw of those celebrating in the streets during World War II. My uncle served in World War II. My grandmother sent her sons to war. She watched them one by one, and proudly so. As an immigrant American, she was glad to be able to send them to fight our battles. Now, as we make our decisions to bring our troops home, to be able to provide them the opportunity of economic enhancement such as jobs and education, let's have a day where all of us will be able to be in the streets, if you will, to simply say ``thank you;'' and job well done! So I ask my colleagues to join me to say ``thank you'' to one of the most diverse exhibitions of American bravery and courage, and that is the United States military. As you can see, here they are, without fanfare, fighting for us in the midst of battle. And all I want to do is say ``thank you.'' Mr. Chair, I rise today offering my amendment No. 111 to H.R. 1540, ``National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011,'' which Hank Johnson the gentleman from Georgia has joined me in offering as a Cosponsor. I thank Representative Johnson for his support. My amendment will designate a National Day of Honor to celebrate members of the Armed Services who are returning from deployment in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat areas. This National Day of Honor would recognize the enormous sacrifice and invaluable service that these phenomenal men and women have undertaken to protect our freedoms and share the gift of democracy to other parts of the world. My amendment provides an opportunity for all Americans, regardless of political views, religion, ethnicity, gender, or background to come together, and to recognize and honor our nation's heroes. I believe the paramount and overwhelming conclusion is that our freedom is intertwined with the sacrifices of our Veterans, whose devotion to our way of life is unparalleled. I am privileged to honor their sacrifices and the role they play in our nation. We are in the midst of ongoing conflict and warfare. We must show continued support of our troops and increase their moral. What better way to demonstrate our support than by celebrating their return from deployment with a National Day of Honor. Though we may be divided by our positions on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat areas, we stand together to support our veterans. Currently, there are close to 100,000 troops serving in Afghanistan. And even in the aftermath of the death of Osama bin Laden, troops remain in Afghanistan to protect against retaliatory attacks and to help rebuild the country. As of April 2011, close to 46,000 American troops are serving in Iraq. At the height of the Iraqi dispute, close to 170,000 U.S. troops were stationed in Iraq. These courageous men and women are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, yet they have risked their lives and left their families to fight for what they believe in which is freedom, equality, and all the like principles that America stands on. The courage and sacrifice of the men and women are certainly well deserving of celebration. Their service is an extraordinary act of patriotism for which we should all be thankful. Our nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of this country. We must be united in seeing that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care and compassion this grateful nation can bestow. The military represents America's diversity. A National Day of Honor will celebrate men and women of all races and backgrounds. There are 2.4 million African American, 1.1 million Hispanic, 320,000 Asian American and Pacific Islanders and 169,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives who are honored veterans of our nation's military. Nearly 266,00 African Americans, 157,000 Hispanic Americans, 44,000 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and more than 18,5000 American Indians and Alaska Natives have served are nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. A National Day of Honor will welcome home the diverse group of soldiers upon their return from deployments. Currently there are more than 44,500 African Americans, 31,000 Hispanic Americans, 10,000 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, nearly 4,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. When they return home they will find waiting for them a universal welcome and celebration of their service. A designated National Day of Honor will bring Americans together to celebrate those who have returned from serving our country around the world in the name of freedom and democracy. The debt that we owe to them is immeasurable. Their sacrifices and those of their families are freedom's foundation. Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guardsmen and their families, our country would not live so freely. As we continue to be engaged in hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, our young men and women will pay the ultimate price while wearing the uniform of our nation. Let us honor the memory of the 4,400 Americans who have died in Iraq and more than 1,300 who have died in Afghanistan. We also honor the sacrifices of our wounded: nearly 32,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 9,000 in Afghanistan. And we must not forget all the lives lost on battle fields as our troops stood to support our democracy. Remember the average age of the 58,148 men and women who gave their lives in Vietnam was 23 years old. As we remember their patriotic sacrifices, we must renew our commitment to keep our promises to the nation's 3 million troops. A National Day of Honor is the perfect medium to welcome home troops. I represent a district that is home to one of the largest populations of military servicemembers and their families in the nation. There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. They should return home to banners and to a community that recognizes their service after years of combat. In the words of President John F. Kennedy, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' It is not simply enough to sing the praises of our nation's great veterans; I firmly believe that we must demonstrate by our actions how proud we are of our American heroes. There are 23 million veterans in the United States. Currently, more than 1,626,000 veterans are living in Texas and more than 32,000 veterans live and work in my Congressional district alone. It is my hope that by having a National Day of Honor we will take the time to show appreciation to those who have answered the call to duty upon their return home. As the great British leader Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' I firmly believe that we should celebrate our veterans after every conflict, and I remain committed to both meeting the needs of veterans of previous wars, and to provide a fitting welcome home to those who are now serving. Veterans have kept their promise to serve our nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. We must now ensure that we keep our promises to our veterans. We promise to leave no soldier or veteran behind. Politics and partisanship should never be a factor in our support for American veterans or troops. On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. Celebrate their return home with a National Day of Honor. This day and every day, let us honor their service with actions that fulfill our commitment to our troops, their families, and our veterans--and that are worthy of our grateful nation. Our nation is founded on the principles, laid out in the Declaration of Independence, that ``all men are created equal,'' ``that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,'' and ``that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'' At various points in our history as a nation, we have found need to send our sons and daughters, our most precious resources, overseas to fight in defense of these great principles. At times when the need is greatest, America's soldiers have always stepped up to protect our nation. And so, today, I hope we will all take time from our daily lives to reflect upon the sacrifices made by those who serve in our armed forces, and to resolve together that we will provide returning veterans with the welcome, services, care, and compassion that they deserve. We should celebrate throughout the country to the sacrifices made by our men and women returning from their deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other combat areas. Let us all remember that one of the things that makes our nation truly great are the young men and women willing to fight to defend it, to defend us, and to defend our way of life. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much for his kind words. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. I rise today to support a 7-day extension, which means I believe that we can fix these problems. And I am disappointed that we again, having been given the responsibility of oversight, now rush for a two-page document, a two-page document that is now the essence of the Patriot Act, which in fact will provide some challenge to the civil liberties of all Americans. I highlight just one or two. The business records applies to citizens and noncitizens alike, where law enforcement or government authorities can come and take items, no matter what their relevance, if they think that they might have some relevance to terrorism. Any tangible thing. Restaurants, where you are going to a restaurant. They can ask for what you ate. A hotel, your records. Libraries, your records. Why couldn't we do this with a 7-day review time? Extend it for 7 days today and allow us from New Hampshire to Texas to California to be able to say that we stand with our soldiers in securing the Nation, but we also believe in civil liberties. Let me remind my colleagues, 9/11 and the terrorists that we were shocked that could find their way to lift off and not take off, that was a question of not connecting the dots. Not that we didn't have the information; we didn't connect the dots of information that were sitting on the desks of an agent in the Midwest and information that was somewhere else. Intelligence, getting information, analyzing it is part of securing the homeland, not violating the rights of Americans. So here we go again. Business records with no restraint, not adding the civil liberties and oversight provisions that were found in John Conyers' legislation, the ranking member on Judiciary, and as well the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, Senator Leahy. What is the rush to protect those who are in fact citizens of the United States--what is the rush not to protect them? Support a 7-day extension. Don't vote for legislation that violates the civil liberties of Americans. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. I appreciate the need to ensure that the law enforcement and intelligence communities are equipped with the tools necessary to carry out investigations. And with certain improvements to protect individuals' privacy rights and civil liberties, I believe the PATRIOT Act can continue to achieve that goal. However, as members of Congress, we have the role of oversight, and I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of being infringed upon, even if it is in the name of national security. This bill would extend three provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the business records, lone wolf, and John Doe roving wiretap provisions, for four years to June 1, 2015, with no changes, alterations, or considerations of the constant concerns about privacy rights and civil liberties. This bill is reflective of a deal between Senate Leadership and Republican House Leadership, however, it does not contain any of the considerations and meaningful improvements which were included Senator Leahy's version of the PATRIOT Act Sunset extension bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support and the backing of the intelligence community. It makes no improvements to the PATRIOT Act. It includes no new protections for privacy. It requires no reporting to Congress. Nor does this bill take into account any of the meaningful improvements or additions which were included in H.R. 1805, Representative Conyers' House counterpart to Senator Leahy's Senate Bill. The proposals introduced by Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers make meaningful improvements to the PATRIOT Act and related authorities, and have the support of the Obama Administration and the intelligence community. They reauthorize the Business Records, Lone Wolf, and Roving Wiretaps provisions for two and a half years--until December 2013--allowing for greater Congressional oversight, which was the original intent of Congress when it originally included sunsets in these provisions. For the first time, a sunset was included on the use of National Security Letters. Finally, it moves the sunset on the FISA Amendments Act from the end of 2012 to 2013 so that all these inter-related surveillance authorities can be considered together in a non-election year to avoid reconsideration in the midst of a politicized environment. This proposal modifies the standard for obtaining a FISA court order to obtain business records by eliminating the overbroad presumption of relevance in these cases, and requires the Government to provide a written statement of the facts and circumstances that justify the applicant's belief that the tangible things sought are relevant. Furthermore, these bills contain additional protections for bookseller or library records. Additionally, these proposals would have made a number of changes to NSL practices and procedures, in response to the numerous abuses of this tool, including clarifying the standards for including a gag order, significantly improving the process for challenging gag orders, and adding a factual basis requirement. Furthermore, the Leahy and Conyers bill would have eased the concerns of many Americans by enhancing public reporting and requiring audits. The bill before us now, which was rushed through at the final hour despite multiple extensions, includes none of the thoughtful enhancements and improvements which have been carefully considered and crafted over the past several months. It ignores the results of countless oversight hearings, legislative hearings, and committee markups. It completely ignores the concerns that many Americans have voiced and continue to raise. These three provisions of the PATRIOT Act extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution. The ``roving wiretap'' provision allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, allowing the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders with not particularity, that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. The ``business records'' provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs afoul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. The ``lone wolf'' provision permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. This type of authorization, which is only granted in secret courts, is subject to abuse, and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government's investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This bill fails to address National Security Letters (NSLs) all together. NSLs permit the government to obtain the communication, financial and credit records of anyone deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if that person is not suspected of unlawful behavior. I repeat, even if that person is NOT suspected of unlawful behavior. Issues surrounding these particular provisions are not a stranger to us, for we have been dealing with them since 2001 when the PATRIOT Act was introduced. It has been examined in the Judiciary Committee numerous times. I, along with other Members of the Judiciary Committee like Mr. Conyers and Mr. Nadler, offered multiple amendments that not only addressed the three provisions, but also National Security Letters and the lax standards of intent. We must ensure that our intelligence professionals have the tools that they need to protect our Nation, while also safeguarding the rights of law-abiding Americans. To win the war on terror, the United States must remain true to the founding architects of this democracy who created a Constitution which enshrined an inalienable set of rights. These Bills Of Rights guarantee certain fundamental freedoms that cannot be limited by the government. One of these freedoms, the Fourth Amendment, is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We do not circumvent the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision in the United States Constitution, merely because it is inconvenient. There is nothing more important than providing the United States of America, especially our military and national security personnel, the right tools to protect our citizens and prevail in the global war on terror. Holding true to our fundamental constitutional principles is the only way to prove to the world that it is indeed possible to secure America while preserving our way of life.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind Americans that on Monday we will commemorate those men and women that have fallen in battle. This morning we are laying a wreath in the Arlington Cemetery in reflection and remembrance of women who have fallen on behalf of their country. We want to say to all those families, those mothers, fathers, and extended family members, we offer our deepest gratitude and sympathy, and as well to the Blue Star and Gold Star mothers who remain active in serving this country. As a member of the Military Families Caucus, I'm delighted to be able to say that we will stand for our families. And our promise is to those who still live and still fight that we will fight for more resources for you, and we will fight for more opportunities that you will have when you return home: a good paying job, educational opportunities, and the ability to heal and mend and to provide for your families. We mourn those who have been lost. We pay tribute to them. But we say that the Nation will never stop being grateful for those who have fallen in battle and who, in fact, have sacrificed their life for us for freedom, democracy, and justice. We pay tribute on this Memorial Day.