Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning we pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States. What a privilege and an honor. I think it conveys upon this body to tell the truth. And so this morning I raise a question of my friend's comments about holding the troops hostage. We're not holding them hostage. We were able to provide them with their paychecks, but we wanted to be concerned about their grandmothers and wives and children that were being abandoned by the Republican budget. And, yes, can you imagine holding up the paying of the bills of the United States because you're against women's health care and family planning and you want to condemn and take away resources to family planning and to Planned Parenthood? Can you imagine reciting the pledge to the flag and yet not telling the truth? Telling the truth about the fact that we had a provision that would allow our troops to be paid. But in actuality what we're standing against is eliminating of early childhood education, nutrition programs, housing programs, teacher compensation. Yes, there has to be a moral standard for the budget. We're standing on high moral ground. You can pay our troops and you can have family planning. Let's do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 37 which disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices. As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet we have held hearings to examine the importance of so-called ``Net Neutrality''; the principal that everyone should have equal access to the Internet and its lawful content. It gives me great pause whenever I see legislation that frankly looks like an attempt to restrict access to information and limit the right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the Constitution. In practical terms, this bill affects the rights of the people to provide and receive information in the form of Internet content as regulated by the FCC. Make no mistake, access to information contained on the Internet and through broadband connectivity provides vital resources for individuals, families and businesses in the 18th congressional district of Texas, in remote and underserved locations, and all across this great nation every day. Through an open Internet, families, large businesses, small businesses, minority and women owned businesses can access the critical personal, health, medical, news, public safety, educational, financial and business information they need to lead more productive lives and contribute to the continued growth of our national economy. We cannot stifle the innovation that emanates from Internet based activity and drives greater equality in participating in our nation's economic growth! Census information indicates that small businesses and minority owned businesses are some of the most significant contributors to job growth in America. Minority-owned and small businesses heavily depend on access to information on the Internet as a cost effective means of allowing them to compete. These minority-owned businesses and small businesses would be particularly hard hit and devastated by prohibiting the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks. We cannot allow this to happen; we must oppose this bill. Open access to the Internet and its content has become an important part of our everyday lives. I must express reservations about efforts to enact legislation that seeks to limit open access to the informational content on the Internet. This legislation seeks to divest the FCC of its power to regulate the Internet and broadband to ensure equal access for all Americans. While there is so much talk in this Chamber about shutting down the federal government for reasons that have nothing to do with fiscally responsibility, what we should be doing is shutting down attempts like these to limit our access to information. So as for this bill is concerned, ``Shut it down!'' This bill would disapprove the rule adopted by the FCC on December 21, 2010, that is intended to preserve the Internet as an open network. Report and Order FCC 10-201 establishes rules that would bar broadband providers from blocking lawful content and discriminating in transmitting lawful traffic on the network. The rule also would require broadband providers to disclose to the public information about network management practices, performance, and terms of service. H.J. Res. 37 would invoke a legislative process established by the Congressional Review Act ``CRA'' (Public Law 104-121) to disapprove the open Internet rule. If H.J. Res. 37 is enacted, the published rule would have no force or effect. This is unacceptable in an open, democratic society with freedom of expression! The Obama administration strongly opposes House passage of H.J. Res. 37, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation's Internet and innovation strategy--an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Since the development of the Internet, Federal policy has ensured that this medium is kept open and facilitates innovation and investment, protects consumer choice, and enables free speech. The rule at issue resulted from a process that brought together parties on all sides of this issue--from consumer groups to technology companies to broadband providers--to enable their voices to be heard. Notably, the Federal Communications Commission's rule reflected a constructive effort to build a consensus around what safeguards and protections were reasonable and necessary to ensure that the Internet continues to attract investment and to spur innovation. Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact. If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the resolution. In short, H.J. Res. 37 is impermissibly harmful: This Bill uses A Rigid ``Congressional Review Act'' Disapproval Process to Address FCC Open Internet Rule. By Overturning FCC Open Internet Rule, Republicans Undermine Job Creation and Stifle Innovation. By Overturning FCC Open Internet Rule, Republicans Hurt Small Business (20,000 small businesses operate on the Internet and over 600,000 Americans have part- or full-time businesses on eBay alone. Small businesses were responsible for nearly 65 percent of new jobs over the last 15 years). Bringing Up a CRA Disapproval Resolution Imposes a Straitjacket on Congress, Preventing Amendments. This Straitjacket CRA Disapproval Resolution, Which Prevents Amendments, Overturns Even Consensus Provisions of the FCC Open Internet Rule. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me and the cross-section of the great many voices of forward thinking people and organizations all across America, and oppose H.J. Res. 37.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the Members on this floor today. I believe that this is one of the most serious debates that we will have in the history of this Congress. It is whether or not America belongs to all people and not special interests. Coming from the State of Texas, I can tell you that statistics will say that we probably have the highest number of men and women serving in the United States military, a large number of bases, a large number of veterans; and we well know the values of those men and women who sacrifice and leave their families and go overseas. But I said yesterday on the floor of the House, we have values. As my colleagues have said, can we say it one more time? We will support a clean CR to pay our troops, to pay their families, to keep the doors of our hospitals open, to provide Medicare for our seniors and Medicaid and education for our children. But, no, friends on the other side are strangled by special interests, picket signs and loud shouts about ``shut it down.'' The President has already said he will veto this silly legislative initiative. Why are we in the midst of a serious budget debate? By the way, the Ryan budget that has been put out by the Republicans will deny 66 percent of citizens, of seniors, off of Medicare. They will be off. We will not balance the budget under the Ryan budget until 2040. It will cause $8 trillion more debt. It's hard for America to understand this complicated process. It seems so confusing, but, my friends, we're talking about last year where people have already committed, making commitments to pay their bills like you would make commitments. And then in the middle, you would be shortchanged or cut off. Where is the heart on the other side? Yes, yesterday I said shut the government down if you have no heart because we're not going to compromise our values.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. This is wrongheaded and misdirected. I ask you to vote it down and vote with the American people. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1363, the Department of Defense and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011. While I support our men and women in the armed forces and our need to ensure our national security, I cannot with clear conscience support another continuing resolution that does not allow vital programs to be fully funded. We must consider the consequence of passing another continuing resolution. Funding the government for a week at a time cripples agencies, rendering them unable to look to the future and focus on how to best serve the American people in the coming fiscal year. The funding cuts in this particular continuing resolution are harmful to countless Americans and many of my constituents in the 18th Congressional District. We cannot continue to cut services for children, senior citizens, and the underserved. We cannot allow budgets to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest among us, while ignoring the needs of less advantaged citizens. This bill will cut funding that keeps Americans safe and healthy. The Department of Health and Human Services will suffer deep funding cuts under this proposal. Programs such as hospital preparedness grants, which allocated 28 million dollars to hospitals in Texas last year, will see its budget cut by $185 million dollars, money that could be used to prepare communities and hospitals for public health emergencies. The Centers for Disease Control's Immunization and Respiratory Disease Center will lose $156 million dollars. Cuts to this vital program will surely impact the millions of dollars in grant money to purchase and administer vaccines that Houston has received from the Immunization and Respiratory Disease Center. These cuts will certainly harm infants and children of low income families who rely on money appropriated for vaccinations to prevent disease and death. The proposed cut of $390 million from the LIHEAP contingency fund will affect the 500,000 low-income households in Houston that were receiving heating and energy discounts last year. I urge my colleagues to consider the constituents in their home districts who would be hurt by these cuts. I urge my colleagues to consider the ramifications for the nation by cutting $495 million dollars in FEMA First Responders grants, and the impact that cutting $192 million from the Department of Energy's Environmental Clean Up Program will have on future generations. My Republican colleagues who support the passage of this continuing resolution seem more concerned with placing controversial issues like the right to choose in the text of the bill. Instead of placing irrelevant ideological issues into a continuing resolution, we must take this time to pass a responsible budget that reduces spending without cutting programs essential to the well being of the American people. This bill contains many large and dangerous cuts in its one week of CR government funding, including $2 billion in cuts to investments in infrastructure projects that are needed for our nation's continued economic growth. The bill makes reprehensible cuts to the most needy in our elementary and secondary education system by rescinding some $186,500,000 from funds already made available for the Department of Education's Education for the Disadvantaged program. The bill shamelessly resorts to the use of highly offensive, inflammatory and controversial policy riders highlighted by the Red Herring issue and attack on women embodied in prohibiting the District of Columbia from using Federal funding and the District of Columbia's own funds for abortions even when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or where the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. President Obama found the one week CR and its policy riders so objectionable that he declared his clear intention to veto the bill and issued a call for Congress to work together to produce a responsible appropriations measure to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avoid a devastating government shutdown. I join the President in his call for a responsible appropriations measure to fund the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and avoid a devastating government shutdown. By using this bill with its attached one week CR, the Republicans are engaging in a high stakes masquerade with dire stakes for the American people and business across the country that rely on having a functioning Federal government. The Republicans mask and hide their shame by putting reprehensible and destructive funding cuts in H.R. 1363 which is supposed to provide for a year of funding for our brave men and women serving in the armed services. Shame on them for doing so and shame on them for bringing this nation perilously close to a government shutdown. Instead of this meager attempt to pass another fake, short-term CR that does not address the issues facing the American people who are counting on Congress to get this right, we need a Clean CR that does not have outrageous Draconian cuts or hold our Veterans and the men and women serving our country honorably as hostages for the sake of Partisan point scoring. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill and calling for a proper CR which responsibly funds the Federal government through fiscal year 2011.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. If you could yield for a moment, I want to thank the gentleman for the clarification, for separating out. I want to add something. Medicare is a program that is going to be wholly privatized and income driven without any basis in substance; meaning, plainly, if you are more wealthy, this has nothing do with how you would do Medicare today, as someone suggested that you staggered the amounts on income. This has to do with, if you can even get Medicare, it will be because you have enough money to get Medicare because it will be in that system. Then, of course, there is some little secret backroom corner where they throw something out about a public system that is not even defined. But you make a very good point about nursing homes, which I have a lot in my district. In fact, we are always hearing from them regarding maintaining their status. And certainly we are very keen to make sure that these nursing homes meet their own standards. But they provide refuge and rest, if you will, for not only the seniors, but the frail and the disabled. And I just want to paint this picture for you, Mr. Garamendi. I just want to paint the picture for you of no room at the inn, lights out, doors wide open, and the drumbeat playing as people are being rolled out of nursing homes in wheelchairs, with crutches, some on beds. Maybe we can just imagine the tragic scenes of Hurricane Katrina, when nursing home residents were pouring out of nursing homes in the wake of the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Well, let me tell you, we've got Hurricane Ryan, and there is a disaster coming. And, frankly, with all good intentions of our good friends on the other side of the aisle, if we had sat down at the table of compromise and projected how we can best serve America by reducing the deficit, the debt, and recognizing that we have morality and we have values that will help this country. Might I just say that we are talking about seniors, but don't forget there are many, many families that take their children to pediatricians on Medicaid, and that's their primary care provider just like Medicare. So I would just simply add this word that I am not ready to bury Medicare now; and I believe there is a rejuvenation, there is a rebirth coming, and that is the American people saying, no, not on my watch. This is a non-starter, and I am glad to be standing with you today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I believe if we stand committed to educating the American public, it should not happen.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, since, like Peter, I spent 6 or 7 hours on the floor of the House some years ago, Peter, I guess the 1990s, when we were fighting against the inevitable doughnut hole, we held the vote open--I shouldn't say ``we.'' The Republicans held the vote open for at least 6 or 7 hours. I think we voted at 5 a.m. when the last arm was twisted. I think someone had a broken arm in order to ensure the doughnut hole was in. We, of course, have come back, Democrats, and created the Affordable Care Act. And I tell you, every senior center I have gone through since the famous passage of the Affordable Care Act, seniors have said, ``Thank you. Thank you.'' If anyone has an 84-year-old mother--I just lost my mother, but our conversations centered around the enormous cost of prescription drugs and how relieved she was to, at that time, to have had some relief from the doughnut hole. Now, as we watched our friends just a few, maybe about an hour or so ago, I hope there was some camera view of the glee that was shown when there was a suggestion that we would shut the government down and, in essence, implode, if I can use that on the floor of the House, any budgeting conversation that makes sense, such as the fact that what we are doing now with the CR is dated and old, it is passe, it is cutting into funding for a present year. What it's doing tomorrow, which is what the groundwork is being laid, is literally destroying the systems as we know it. Sixty-six percent of the seniors don't like this plan. But I want to throw something out. Let me let them understand what the plan is. The plan is block grants, block grants given to disparate State governments, of which we have no control over, to be able to manipulate and play with Medicare. What sense does that make? Block grants that will in fact be able to be used for whatever we want to use. The State of Texas, for example, received $3.2 billion in education funds through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. Where is it my good friend? It is in the rainy day fund, never used for schools. Can you imagine block grants for Medicare? Can you imagine the nursing homes that will be closed through Medicaid, and then, of course, seniors getting Medicare? And then they shout for joy not only for shutting down the government over the next 2 days, but they shout for joy for the kind of budget that they believe they will be able to--they whet their appetite that they will be able to do for 2012. They will implode this country as we know it. We want budget cuts. We don't want to see the government shut down. But there is a morality and a character and an integrity, and there is called a heart. And I like what you are saying there. The Republican budget would destroy Medicare. And I just want to say this. We have been around this block before. I heard one Republican leadership say some years ago, ``Over my cold dead body.'' The opposition to my President, who was a great hero of Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson, even when he tried Medicare, there were those who said how it would destroy America, how it was going to undermine America. And look where we are today. How many lives have we saved because seniors had Medicare? I see that there is this effort to bury this program that has kept the grandmothers and granddads of America's children alive for them to be able to see their grandchildren grow up because they have had good health care. Where is the morality?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. My friend from Illinois, have I got an amendment for you. I'm answering your concern. My amendment says it requires, before finalizing emission regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the EPA must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. The provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between EPA and energy providers during the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. It also gives another 60-day extension. This is about national security because air pollutants and then no energy, bad on one side and bad on the other. Let's get together. Because we can't dismiss any of these energy sources, but they need to be better. And how can we, since this is supposed to be the Supreme Court Constitution side, how can you dismiss the constitutional right that EPA has to regulate? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an amendment for them. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment No. 37 to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would protect our national security by considering industry specific energy providers that are uniquely connected to our national security. This measure would expand the opportunity to garner industry input during the rulemaking process, and would provide the Environmental Protection Agency with a timeframe to engage with the industry during the process. Madam Chair, this amendment requires that before finalizing emissions regulations on greenhouse gas producers, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must provide the producer with adequate notice of at least 30 days. This provision would also allow for industry input, encouraging collaboration between the EPA and energy providers during the regulation process. Currently, the EPA does not have a minimum time requirement. By mandating industry engagement during the rule making process We will ensure that the proposed regulations do not negatively impact industry jobs and domestic energy. This amendment would force a discussion between the government and the industry during We rule making process so that jobs can be maintained, U.S. dependence on foreign oil can be decrease, and the Supreme Court's confirmed responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency will not be extinguished by short sighted legislation. As the Representative for Houston, the nation's energy capital, I am committed to finding a balance that will support continued growth in the energy industry while protecting the environment. My amendment to H.R. 910 provides emissions producers in the energy industry the ability to engage in discussions and studies with the EPA. The provisions in this amendment will encourage communication between the EPA and energy providers throughout the regulation process. Americans should not have to risk living with highly polluted air. We must not shy away from the importance of the Clean Air Act and the role of the Environmental Protection Agency. This country needs energy. We utilize on and off shore drilling exploration. We must ensure that the industries impacted are engaged in the process while simultaneously regulating the affects of green house gas. This is crucial to the daily lives of Americans. The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to regulate emissions reduction. This authority was upheld by the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. Any attempt to strip the EPA of this responsibility would undermine the Clean Air Act and exacerbate global warming. The EPA must be allowed to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. The climate change caused by these emissions affects temperature, causes extreme weather and dramatically reduces air quality, resulting in asthma, respiratory disease and lung cancer. The EPA projects that continued improvements in air quality under the Clean Air Act will save more than a trillion dollars by 2020, and prevent 230,000 deaths per year. By allowing the EPA to protect our environment now, we provide security for future generations. Prohibiting the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions to ensure clean air and slow the rate of climate change will have lasting consequences. We must, however, also consider the consequence to the energy industry. H.R. 910 simply takes the wrong approach. Instead of focusing on developing standards upon which both the Environmental Protection Agency and the affected industries agree, it attempts to remove the Environmental Protection Agency from the process. Thereby baring the industry from developing standards upon which they can all agree. It is a matter of fairness. The EPA would ensure that industries would have a minimum standard to follow. This measure would ensure the industry would be involved when determining the best practices to ensure that reasonableness of those regulations. Madam Chair, my amendment is essential to provide greater consideration to this sensitive issue by affording an opportunity for energy providers to state the impact that the proposed rule would have on their industry. This amendment will forge important compromises between the EPA and the energy industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 15 seconds to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am going to take a slightly different perspective and ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, I am hoping, I know there are a lot of letters that my good friend from Michigan says that he has, and any time you put forward legislation that trade groups send word out to membership and say, this is going to save you a bucket full of money, and you better jump on the bandwagon, and there is no alternative or there is no basis of understanding the underpinnings of what we are doing, then you get that kind of praise. I hope that many people who are with the industry, having practiced the law, and I have seen some of the mountains that all industries have to climb, I think we can find a reasonable way of functioning. I just want to put in the Record that the industry, which is part of the drive of my friends on the other side, the oil and gas industry does generate 9.237 million jobs, $1 trillion contributed to the economy, $178 billion paid to the U.S. Treasury or to the government in royalties and bonus payments, and $95.6 billion in taxes, income taxes, $194 billion invested to improve the environmental performance of its products, and $58.4 billion invested in low- and zero-carbon emission technologies from 2000 to 2008. I encourage them to keep going. But the way that you keep going is not to eliminate the oversight body, but you work with it. And my amendment is very clear. I create a pathway for the industry to be engaged on any rulemaking. It shall provide a notice period of no less than 30 days specifically to the affected greenhouse gas producers--and this is a sort of pipeline for the industry--proposed to be regulated and allow industry-specific comments to be submitted to the administrator separate and apart from the public comment period and to discuss the economic impact of the proposed regulation; provide for an opportunity for the regulated industry to request and receive a 60-day extension. And we should take into consideration the effect of the proposed regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. These companies have employees living in our community. And it is noted that Houston, the Houston area to Huntsville has some of the largest pollutants in the air. We should also consider the effect of the proposed regulation has on energy production, the feasibility of the implementation of the regulation on the entities being regulated, the effect of the proposed regulation on the availability of energy to consumers, and the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of the proposed regulation. It allows a discussion that may not be at the level that we would like it today. I can't imagine, and I guess my friend on the other side of the aisle will come up and show me all the letters that he's saying that are supporting legislation that completely obliterates the opportunity for any governmental oversight. I disagree. I want to know the question of whether or not we have had the kinds of discussions that warrant a deliberative process and to bring about a concept of listening to industry and industry listening on the question of air pollutants. I hold up the mayor's task force on the health effectiveness. It talks about Houston. But I'm not going to narrow this to Houston. Wherever there are companies that are refineries, as they so discussed, we are not trying to undermine that work. But does anyone want to live in China with the air pollutants that they have? Let me just say that what we are addressing is a question of balance. My amendment provides input by the industry and by the EPA collaborating on how this will impact going forward. I would like you to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield 30 seconds to my good friend from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for reading a very important letter into the Record that the EPA has no intention to manipulate or to utilize cap-and-trade as part of their responsibilities. This is not a cap-and-trade initiative or legislation. It has nothing to do with cap-and-trade. In fact, I think the whole concept of this Energy Tax Prevention Act is muddled and befuddled. I don't understand it. I practiced oil and gas law for almost 15 or 20 years. I come from Houston, and I recognize the difficulties that we have in the industry and understanding the industry. But I also am cognizant that this majority, my good friend on the other side that represents that, they are interested in adhering to the Constitution. And I don't know why they have not studied the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts versus EPA that clearly indicates, even though this was motor vehicle emissions that they were talking about, but it held that greenhouse gases, widely viewed as contributing to climate change, constitute air pollutants, and therefore that phrase as utilized under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has jurisdiction to regulate under the Clean Air Act. I assume what we are doing is trying to bash a long-standing process rather than coming up with better ideas. I think my amendment brings about a better idea, because energy is a national security issue. And what my amendment poses to do is to ask serious questions about the impact of eliminating the EPA authority, finding a way to work through this question: What would be the long-term impact? Because the legislation that is now written by my friends on the other side of the aisle is telling the United States of America, in conflict with the United States Supreme Court decision--and let me just hold up a visual, the Constitution, which is what this majority says that they are basing their whole legislative agenda on. Well, we have constitutional authority. And they are now telling us that we should not regulate water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and any other substance. I don't hear a scream and cry of the industry. I do hear the idea that there are burdens that will come upon the industry that we should address. So the amendment that I have that I am asking for real consideration on the basis of a national security question, How will we provide for resources that will provide for the engine economy of this Nation, the long-term impact of the Environmental Protection Agency having no authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases? Also, if there are alternatives to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, if you have a better alternative. And best practices with respect to greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court decision clearly dictates that it has the authority to regulate it. But we need to collaborate and cooperate and understand how we balance the needs of an energy policy. Might I also say that energy recognizes all forms of energy. And energy companies that are in oil and gas are looking at alternatives. They have whole sections that are addressing the question of alternative fuels. Why are we raising a bill that has no sense of direction in what it is trying to do and to eliminate an oversight that is protecting the American public in their quality of life and also doesn't speak to how we work with the industry to actually make sure that we check these emissions but as well provide the opportunity for domestic growth and domestic energy growth? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I ask the remaining time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for all of his work. I come as a peacemaker, Madam Chair. Houston, by the American Lung Association, is the seventh most ozone-polluted city in the Nation. The Supreme Court clearly said under the Clean Air Act that it authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as it makes a judgment that it impacts on climate change. At the same time there are industries that happen to be oil and gas that can sit down and benefit from a real study that will talk about best practices and also have the engagement that we need to have. It is reckless to talk about what scientists have said. The Members are not scientists, and I believe you cannot rid the EPA of its jurisdiction. I would ask my colleagues to be thoughtful, along with the industry, and let's have a reasonable study. This impacts national security. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 910, ``Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011.'' H.R. 910 prematurely eliminates the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. My amendment would require an assessment of the industry by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure accurate consideration of how proposed regulations would affect energy production levels, feasibility of implementation on the industry, as well as the adverse environmental effects of delaying implementation of proposed regulations. My amendment would also ensure the Environmental Protection Agency retains its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the authority provided by the Clean House Act. I cannot envision any American living in a polluted area wanting to support a permanent ban on the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. The potential negative impact of greenhouse gases is supported by the scientific community. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2010: ``Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for-- and in many cases already affecting--a broad range of human and natural systems.'' It is clear that quality of our air impacts the quality of our health. The Clean Air Scientific Advisor Committee, EPA's independent science advisors, reviewed evidence from roughly 1,700 studies in the scientific research of the health impact of ozone. They unanimously concluded that the EPA needs ozone standards. This would ensure an adequate margin of safety for the public as required by law. This is about protecting our nation's health, industry, and our environment. As a Houstonian the affects of H.R. 910 are of particular concern to me. A study conducted by the American Lung Association ranked Houston as the 7th most ozone-polluted city in the country. Children, teens, senior citizens, and people with lung diseases like asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and others are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality and are at risk for developing irreversible lung damage. A rise in poor air quality has the potential to increase emergency room visits and hospital admissions for respitory problems which increases the cost of healthcare to tax payers. In Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX, over a million children under the age of 18 will be negatively impacted if air quality continues to decline. Children exposed to air pollution suffer stunted long growth, as well as development of asthma, and increased respitory infections. According to the American Lung Association, researchers have also concluded that prenatal exposure to air pollution harms children, and increase the risk of babies being born with low birth weight. We owe it to our children to provide clean, healthy air. We have an agency that is charged with regulating our air quality. My amendment would ensure the EPA can continue to protect our nation's health by regulating green house emissions. This amendment will ensure that the EPA reports to Congress its findings on the long term negative impacts of greenhouse gases. Findings from a recent EPA study titled ``Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.W. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone'' suggest that climate change may lead to higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, a harmful pollutant. Additional impacts of climate change include, but are not limited to: increase drought; more heavy downpours and flooding, and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildfire and ecosystems.'' Not only would the deregulation of greenhouse gases impact the health of our citizens, it will also, have a negative impact on our ability to maintain and create new jobs. Poor health and low air quality only discourages industries from coming to an area. New industries will not be willing to move into areas that are polluted which negatively impacts job growth in those communities. Currently there are programs in Houston such as the Energy Efficiency Incentive Program which aims to significantly reduce Houston's emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria air pollutants. The oil and gas industry is also investing alternative energy sources and improving air quality standards; such initiatives look towards the future, ensures job creation, and protects our nation's health. I believe the Environmental Protection Agency plays an essential role in providing appropriate and balanced guidance to the industry, which in turn encourages them to have a workable timeframe to determine the appropriate measures to improve our nation's air quality. The EPA ensures that energy industries have a reasonable standard to base their operations. My amendment requires the EPA to carefully study this issue and to determine the long term impact on health, the industry and the environment. I strongly urge my colleagues to support a reasonable, fair and measured response to addressing regulation of greenhouse gases. Under current law, The Clean Air Act provides the EPA with the authority to take steps that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gas, constitute ``air pollutants'' as the phrased is used in the Clean Air Act. Such pollutants may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. As a result, the government has the legal authority to issue standards for greenhouse gas emissions. As the Clean Air Act falls under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, it is therefore legitimate for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. My amendment ensures compliance with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. As written, H.R. 910 would overturn Massachusetts v. EPA. As written H.R. 910 would overturns a ruling by the Supreme Court. Such an action is too extreme when there are other more tenable solutions available. We cannot allow a total eradication/elimination of the responsibilities of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This would impact the health of our nation, negatively impact industries, and overturns a Supreme Court ruling. The present version of H.R. 910, without amendment fails to provide a studied and measured approach when trying to find a balance between the need for our nation to maintain quality air levels and the need for our nation to continue job growth. This bill takes a sledge hammer approach that is too extreme. The purpose behind my amendment is to reach a compromise. To ensure that fair and reasonable regulations can be implemented without adverse effects to our nation's air and our nations industry. Madam Chair, I believe it is very important to provide the EPA with the opportunity to carefully study this matter and report back to Congress within 60 days and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Houston Mayor's Task Force on the Health Effects of Air Pollution Thousands of tons of potentially harmful chemicals are discharged each day into Houston's atmosphere as a result of human activities, substances, and technologies. Consequently, people living in Houston are exposed routinely to a myriad of pollutants in the air they breathe. Estimated and/or measured concentrations of some of these airborne chemicals in ambient air are high enough to cause illness or injury in exposed individuals, especially those in our society who are most vulnerable, such as children and seniors. Although the available data are incomplete and uneven, the Task Force surveyed information on 179 air pollutants and identified 12 substances in Houston's air that are definite risks to human health, 9 that are probable risks, and 24 that are possible risks. Sixteen substances were found to be unlikely risks to Houstonians at current ambient levels, and 118 substances were labeled uncertain risks because there was inadequate or insufficient information to determine whether they presently pose a health threat to Houston residents.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, our soldiers on the front lines all over this world understand what a fight is about. If you have ever visited them in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have values. They know about their grandmothers and grandfathers, and they know about their families back home with their children. They know what they are fighting for. They will understand that we are here fighting for values. This government shutdown is not the blame or the fault of the President of the United States or the Democrats in the House or in the Senate. There has been an offer of $73 billion. It is a question of whether or not you want to solve this problem on the backs of grandmothers and granddads, on the backs of the families of the military persons who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you want to throw college students right out on their rear that are right in the middle of their school term by canceling their Pell Grants? Do you want to tell mothers taking their children to the clinic that there is no more Medicaid for them? Do you want to turn the lights out and close the door and say: America, we don't have any more values. I do not want to shut this government down. You are not going to shut it down on my watch, if we can work together. I am going to stand and fight for values, and we're going to pull together. We will stand and we will survive. However, let them shut the government down, if the Republicans refuse to compromise. Shut it down. Shut it down. But the Democrats are going to stand for the values of protecting the most vulnerable in America, and we will win.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the nation takes pause to observe the 43rd anniversary of the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As a Member of the Select Committee on Assassinations that reinvestigated the murder of Dr. King, this day reminds me of that horrible day in 1968. Forty-three years ago today, the man who dreamed of a ``more perfect union'' was gunned down by American terrorist in Memphis, Tennessee, but his dream continues to become reality today. One cannot observe this day without reflecting on the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. This anniversary reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. The story of Dr. King is pressed upon me. I am reminded of my work with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and hearing Dr. King's inspiring words fill a great void in our Nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it wasn't enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we remember this man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?' '' And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.'' Mr. Speaker, these words were spoken by Dr. King two months to the day before his death. Thus it is 43 years after his death, Dr. King continues to teach us all. Mr. Speaker, during these difficult days as we observe violence throughout the world, all should take pause to the message of non- violence and speak as Dr. King spoke truth to power. Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality. There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America. We continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for being here and remembering Dr. King's dream and for all that has been done to keep his dream alive.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was detained in my congressional district, therefore I could not be present for the vote today on Monday, April 4, 2011. If I were present I would have voted ``yea'' for the following bill: H.R. 1246--To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and reproduction.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I quarrel with the understanding of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle about the Constitution. There are three branches--the judiciary, the legislature, and the President. Thank God there are because that means that we have the ability to be reasonable and practical, recognizing we have a responsibility to reduce the debt but not killing off seniors and those in classrooms. I just came from speaking to Spelman College, a group of women in a Historically Black College. Women who are ready to go out and serve America, and they realize that their education is a gift. But they want to give back to America. This ridiculous $61 billion in cuts wants to make sure that we don't have the American Dream. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I sit and listen to those voting the war of drug cartels on the border, but $400 million is going to be cut out of the Homeland Security funding so that it impacts ICE agents, it impacts Border Patrol agents, it impacts intelligence gathering. These kinds of nonpractical ways are undermining America and America's dream; 700,000 jobs is just the beginning. It's the floor, not the limit. For those of you who seek a single tunnel view of how we run this country, have mercy on those who are in need. This is the wrong direction. Sit down at the bargaining table. Let's reassess what we need to do and stop putting your ideas on the back of Americans who need to be able to have the American Dream.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1255, the ``Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.'' As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I reject H.R. 1255 on its face. H.R. 1255 seeks to commit a multitude of constitutional law violations and set aside the U.S. Constitution on a wholesale level. The Constitution is the veritable law of the land that we all took an oath to uphold. H.R. 1255 is an unfounded attempt to use the non- statutory ``deeming resolution'' or ``deem and pass'' procedure to unconstitutionally achieve the $61 billion in budget cuts that the Majority of this chamber failed to get passed in the Senate in the form of H.R. 1. This legislation unconstitutionally states that if the House has not received any message from the Senate providing for the Appropriations of Government for fiscal year 2011 before April 6, 2011, then H.R. 1 would be deemed as passed by the Senate, signed by the President and enacted into law. H.R. 1255 also prohibits the CAO of the House and the Secretary of the Senate from disbursing salary payments for Members of Congress, and also prohibits the President from receiving his salary. It states that the President and Members cannot be disbursed a salary for every day that there is a lapse in appropriations, or if the debt ceiling prevents Federal expenditures. However, because H.R. 1255 already would deem H.R. 1 passed, no funding gap could exist, while hitting the debt ceiling would by definition prevent Federal expenditures like Member salaries. This legislation would have absolutely no practical effect. Since the Senate would have to pass it and President would have to sign it, this bill is nothing but a talking point for the Tea Party wing of the Republicans. This bill would not have any effect on current, serious negotiations to keep the government operating. The Member Salary portion of the bill would also have no effect since H.R. 1255 already would deem H.R. 1 passed. This legislation is unconstitutional. The Majority would make history by deeming that the Senate passed a bill which was considered on the Senate floor and failed. The Majority would also make history by deeming that the President would have signed a bill which he promised to veto, should it reach his desk. After opening Congress with a reading of the Constitution, the Republicans are breaking their pledge again. This legislation exposes extraordinary hypocrisy from the House Republican Leadership. In the 111th Congress, while Republicans promised never to use the ``deem and pass'' process, it only took a few weeks for them to break another pledge to the American people. During the 111th Congress, then-Minority Leader and now-Speaker John Boehner called deem and pass a ``scheme and plot'' that set a precedent that was ``one of the most outrageous things [he] had seen since [he] had been in Congress''--and, erroneously claimed it had ``never happened in American history.'' Now-Majority Leader Eric Cantor has previously offered a privileged resolution on `deem and pass' putting Republicans on record as considering this process a ``malfeasant manner'' and those who might support it as having ``discharged the duties of their offices.'' This legislation is a waste of the American people's time and a distraction from Democrats' serious efforts to keep the government from shutting down. Instead of passing this hypocritical, unconstitutional, meaningless bill, the GOP Leadership ought to spend more time at the negotiating table trying to reach a compromise agreement to keep the Government running. I am an ardent supporter of working in a bipartisan manner to pass fiscally responsible legislation which properly funds the Federal Government through fiscal year 2011 and maintains important programs that are vital to our economic recovery. So, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and supporting true bipartisan appropriations legislation to keep the Federal Government operational through fiscal year 2011, so that we may address and solve the important issues facing the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's time to cease fire and sit down and negotiate. One would believe that I'm speaking about the conflict in the Mid East and about Libya. What I'm really speaking about is the Governor of the State of Texas and the challenge that we have of ensuring that $830 million comes back to the State of Texas for our school children. Earlier today, I had the privilege of speaking to a group of students from Spelman College, an Historically Black College, and I told them their greatest contribution can be to go into the elementary schools and the secondary schools and talk to them about the value of education. We can't see America lose its excellence in education, see children in 60-person classes, teachers thrown out in the street. We need the $830 million in the State of Texas. Let's resolve our differences. Let's give a commitment to the Secretary of Education that you will use these dollars for education only. Parents and teachers and students and those who are committed to educating our children, the best and the brightest, deserve that kind of commitment. What is America great for? It's great because we've given the opportunity of education to all people. Texas, it's time to cease fire. Sit down, negotiate, and receive $830 million Federal dollars on behalf of the children of Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to ask my colleagues to help American families and children. I join my good friend Congressman Luis Gutierrez on acknowledging the many children, the talented children that are in our schools that deserve the best education, along with all of our children who happen to have been in this country most of their lives but they're undocumented. They are called the DREAM Act children, the children who are our future engineers and doctors, teachers and train workers, bus workers--people who help build America. It is time now to support comprehensive immigration reform. It's time now to distinguish between the bad guys, whom all of us want to be see deported, versus these young children who are valedictorians and salutatorians, who are athletes, who are men and women in the United States military, who are seeking to be part of the pillars of this community. I want to join in standing alongside these American families and children, not to break up families who are raising wonderful Americans but yet are not statused because of the way their families came to seek an opportunity. Comprehensive immigration reform is the answer, but we must protect the DREAM Act children.