Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this 1-minute is from the heart, and it disturbs me and baffles me for a country that I love. I don't believe there is anything more precious than for Members to stand up and pledge allegiance to this great Nation and to be taught as children about the American Dream. That's why Democrats have focused their life journey on creating jobs for Americans. That's why we don't want to engage in frivolous budgeting that causes us to lose jobs. But why are Governor Walker of Wisconsin, Governor Kasich of Ohio and Governor Daniels of Indiana demonizing the American Dream, demonizing workers, teachers, transit workers, police and firefighters? Does anyone know that Wisconsin public workers offered $100 million last year to be able to help the State and have already committed to helping them this year? But, no, union busting is not union busting. It is quashing the American Dream, making it a crime to organize workers. What is America? I beg of them to stand against this kind of dastardly act. Democrats are fighting for jobs. Where is the American Dream?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support for H.J. Res. 44, the Continuing Resolution (CR) to make further continuing appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 to keep our Federal Government open through March 18, 2011. Though I have serious reservations about this CR offered by my Republican colleagues, I absolutely refuse to let our Federal Government close on my watch. Allowing the Federal Government to close while this nation continues to recover from its economic downturn does no good for anyone. Closure of the Federal Government at this juncture would deal a crushing blow to the people all over the United States who are looking to Congress to do its part in bringing about much-needed economic relief and to get this country back on course. Moreover, states all around this nation are in the midst of recovering from their own economic crises. The closure of the federal government would deal them a crushing blow. Worse still, it would only serve to increase the hardship and suffering visited upon the citizens of those states. We must remember that these citizens are also our constituents and we must not let unfettered zeal to make spending cuts blind us to the point where we allow cuts to the funding necessary for economic recovery. This insufficient, fake CR contains many horrible cuts to important programs. It unjustly heaves a heavy weight upon the backs of the American people who should not be made to bear this burden. These cuts include but are not limited to: Critical Education Funding at All Levels from Head Start to Higher Education Health and Human Services Funding Energy Funding Critical Transportation Funding Military and Veteran's Affairs Funding Science and Technology and NASA Funding However, this is only a two-week CR and the critical funding it cuts can be recouped and restored. I look forward to fighting hard over the next two weeks to restore this crucial funding. The cuts contained in this CR squarely impact the people and programs we need to support the most in order to bring about job creation and sustained economic growth. I am committed to doing all that I can to restore these funds while making fiscally responsible, well deliberated appropriations for funding the Federal Government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. I urge my colleagues to join me in this commitment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and let me thank the chairperson. I sometimes have a slip of tongue, Mr. Dicks, and call you ``chairman,'' but I thank you very much for this opportunity. I want to just try to give a procedural class here today. The procedural class is that this document is a placeholder. I would hesitate to call it a fake document, but that is what it is. As I left my constituency, the last words I heard were, ``Don't you all shut down the government.'' And I am glad that Mr. Dicks worked hard to submit his amendment in the Rules Committee. It's unfortunate that the wise men and women didn't have a majority. The Republicans would not yield to a thoughtful amendment by Mr. Dicks. But this is a 2-week document. We know how old, and what--many of us have seen a 2-week-old baby. That's what this is: a 2-week document so we can do the right thing. It needs to be very clear that before we left in the 110th Congress, Democrats had already cut $41 billion. Now, many say we didn't have a budget. We had a budget, but we had no compromise, no reconciliation, no fairness, no concern about the American people. Now we have spent 3 months, March 1, doing nothing, and not one bill creates a job. Goldman Sachs, I know that there is a critique on Goldman Sachs, but you can't discount the independent, objective assessment of them saying that in the CR that was passed a week ago 700,000 to 800,000 jobs would be lost. Mark Zandi was the economist and adviser to John McCain. I am not sure what politics he has, but he is not in a political office today. And he provides us with an independent assessment that the CR that we voted on, which the Senate would not agree to, would cost us 800,000 jobs. This document will go nowhere. Unfortunately, the $4 billion that is cut out of here, and a litany of other unfortunate cuts, is only temporary. I want to live to fight another day. We all want to be able to respond to the needs of this country in deficit reduction and a fair budget. But we could have had a clean CR, and we would have reasonably sat down and made right decisions. Most economists have said that cutting the government in the middle of a budget year is ineffective. The bipartisan fiscal commission said: Project to 2012 and 2013; don't cut 2011. It's important for the American people to know this is in the midst of your budget year. So Pell Grants for students who are in college right now, who have already gotten an amount rendered to them, operating on maybe a $1,000 grant to finish out in May, what we're doing is cutting them in the midst.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. That's what was voted on a week ago. What we're doing now is to recognize that people who govern are responsible for making sure the doors of this government stay open. I care about homeland security as a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I care about the DEA task force fighting drug cartels. I care about children getting education, health care, the environment. So let me just say this. We're doing this because we believe in the American people, but don't you for a moment think that this document is worth anything. We've got to get to business and fight for the American people and preserve education. That's what Democrats stand for, and that's what we'll fight for.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came to the floor of the House, and I think I was genuinely pleading with my colleagues in responding to the tragedy of an incident that occurred last Thursday, when a person who was supposed to have been attending to seven babies under 3 years old now has been found allegedly to have left to have gone grocery shopping, to have come back to a grease fire in the kitchen, and to have found that four babies, 3 and under, were killed. Two are now in the burn unit. These are possibly babies supported by Federal funding for child care--by someone 22 years old and licensed by the State of Texas. In all we do to provide funding for desperate parents, can we at least expect the criteria to be reasonable? Now we have the District Attorney's Office indicating that they can't find the suspect, that he has fled because they waited 3 days to file any charges against someone who was responsible for four dead babies. We understand they have asked the U.S. Marshal. We don't even know whether they have asked the State Department to help. It is a crying shame, and I am getting to the bottom of it. Dead babies deserve justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the Congresswoman for 18th Congressional District of Texas, I rise with great pride to commemorate this recognition of Black History Month. African Americans from Texas like the pugilist Jack Johnson, the pioneer Bessie Coleman, Congresswoman Barbara C. Jordan, Congressman Mickey Leland, and African Americans from all across this nation have contributed greatly to the rich history of the United States; a country we love so dearly. I am especially grateful to be among my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus as we do our best to honor those who came before us and strive to make this country a better place for all Americans through our work here in Congress, back home in our districts and all across this great nation. As we do so, we must remember that we are part of the great diversity of citizens that make up the fabric of this nation and we must, as African Americans, remember to reach out to all Americans from every race, creed, and color for the common purpose of leaving our country better than we found it for our children and their children's children. This morning I had the privilege of speaking in Austin, Texas, before the Texas Legislative Black Caucus at its Legislative Summit. Being there in the Capitol built by slaves and speaking before that audience made me realize that we have a reason to celebrate our heritage and our contributions to this great nation. My speech was about African Americans remaining relevant in these changing times. Today as we bring Black History Month to a close, I would like to reflect on the many reasons to celebrate and I issue a call for all of my colleagues to be their best for our country as we continue our legislative work in this chamber. We have reason to celebrate our heritage: We are relevant. Barbara C. Jordan knew the importance of remaining relevant when she recited from the preamble to the Constitution and said: `` `We the people.' It is a very eloquent beginning. But when the document was completed . . . I was not included in `We the People.' I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in ``We, the people.' '' As redistricting hits full stride this year and the Texas legislature conducts the redrawing of congressional districts, we the people, Black and Brown Texans alike, must stand together and be represented! Our vote must count. Our candidates must be elected. For our cause is the same. A defeat for African Americans is a defeat for Hispanics and a defeat for Hispanics is a defeat for African Americans. This is a unique moment in time to make sure our voices are heard, that our votes count, and that we as African Americans and Hispanics remain relevant. As a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Immigration Policy and Enforcement Subcommittee, I see a barrage of immigration hearings that embody a shameless attempt to pit Hispanics against African Americans. This is an outrage! We must not take the bait. The vast majority of economists, and all of the most recent research in the area, confirm that immigrants actually improve the job prospects of U.S. workers. The truth is that, in general, African-Americans and other minorities actually benefit from Immigration. Comprehensive immigration reform that provides a fair path to citizenship combined with investments in our businesses, and investment in our education and job training programs are the only solution. Draconian spending cuts to these programs and dredging up racial scapegoats are not the solution. As a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I take pride in my work with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and serve as an enthusiastic liaison between the two caucuses. As I do so, I am reminded of how my predecessor Congressman Mickey Leland reached out to work with Cesar Chavez as he struggled for better working conditions and dignity for Hispanic workers. He saw the importance of our communities working together in his day and I see it now in mine. African Americans endured the injustice of slavery and servitude and we must remember that history repeats; sometimes it just visits another community in the process. We must cast our fate together. To remain relevant, we must commit right here and right now to embracing and working with our Hispanic brothers and sisters. Truth be told, our plight is the same and shared progress is our common cause. As Malcolm X said ``We are not fighting for integration, nor are we fighting for separation. We are fighting for recognition as human beings. We are fighting for human rights.'' In closing, I invoke the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., truly spoke of remaining relevant when he said ``I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.'' Today, we are closer to achieving that dream. We are relevant. We are ``pertinent to the matter at hand.'' And it is by working together with our Hispanic brothers and sisters that we will remain relevant.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment to H.R. 368, ``The Removal Clarification Act of 2011.'' ``The Removal Clarification Act of 2011'' clarifies when a case involving a federal official can be removed from a state court into a federal court. It states that a federal official can remove cases to federal court in accordance with the spirit and intent of the federal officer removal statute. It is also makes clear that the federal officer removal statute applies to all federal officials, including officials of the legislative and executive branch of the Federal government. The purpose of the law is to take from state courts the indefeasible power to hold a federal officer or agent criminally or civilly liable for an act allegedly performed in the execution of their federal duties. This does not mean federal officers can break the law; it just means that these cases are transferred to U.S. district court for consideration. Federal officers or agents, including congressmen, should not be forced to answer for conduct asserted within their federal duties in a state forum that invites local interests or prejudice to color outcomes. In the absence of this constitutional protection, federal officers, including congressmen and women, would be subject to political harassment and federal operations generally would be needlessly hampered. H.R. 368, introduced by my colleague Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia, is a non-controversial, bipartisan bill that was passed by the House and passed in the Senate with an amendment at the end if the 111th Congress. Just about a month ago, we considered this bill in the House Judiciary Committee, and it received support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Currently under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a), federal officials are able to remove a case out of state court and into federal court. However under state per-suit discovery laws, federal officials may be unable to remove the case because a ``civil action'' has not yet been filed. H.R 368 does not make any changes to the underlying removal law. It simply clarifies 28 U.S.C. 1442(a) by including any proceeding to the extent that in such a proceeding, a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. In my home state of Texas, there was a recent high profile case, Price v. Johnson, involving a Texas state legal action taken against Rep. Johnson, where the removal to federal court was denied by the U.S. District Court. The Fifth Circuit illustrated the importance of better clarity needed in 28 U.S.C. 1442(a). In the 111th Congress, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy found that case law interpreting the removal statue is not just split among the circuits, but within them as well. Therefore, H.R. 368 is a much needed measure to once and for all settle the confusion amongst rulings in the Federal District Courts. Currently, there are 47 states that have enacted pre-civil suit discovery statues; H.R. 368 would take into account the operation of these state pre-civil suit discovery statues and provide clarification to prevent more cases like Price v. Johnson from occurring. H.R. 368 is essential to the integrity and preeminence of the federal government within its realm of authority. This bill will also allow for appeal to the federal court if the district court remands the matter. back to the state court and that the federal defense is also still needed for removal. I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting H.R. 368, ``the Removal Clarification Act of 2011.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands. And I will join the accolades of my fellow colleagues to express my appreciation for her leadership, and as well to thank her for leading this 1-hour on the celebration of African American History Month. I stand to acknowledge that all of us who have this wonderful heritage--and those who do not, who count African Americans as an integral part of the fabric of American culture and society--should really commemorate the history of all people--and certainly, in this instance, of African Americans--the entire year because we are a very relevant and elaborate, if you will, part of American history. I stand in the United States Capitol, which was built by slaves. Today, Congresswoman, I was in Austin, Texas, this morning, at the Texas Black Legislative Caucus where some 2,000 people gathered under the leadership of the Texas Black Legislature chaired by Representative Sylvester Turner and some members, total members of the Texas Black Legislative Caucus, combined of the House and the Senate. They were there to express their commitment to the values of this country and to lobby the State legislators to do the right thing as it relates to education. And I heard a Member stand up and say that the Texas Capitol was built by slaves. Representative Thompson said that. And so, clearly, our history goes everywhere. And as I spoke, I mentioned Texans like Jack Johnson, the first African American heavyweight champion; Dorie Miller, who won the Naval Cross in World War II, a Texan; Bessie Coleman, the first African American to receive a pilot's license; Heman Sweatt, who was the reason for the establishment of Texas Southern University when African Americans--Negroes--could not go to the University of Texas. So we have a place in this country, a place in this society. And what we do, as we work in the United States Congress, we have become part of the fabric of this Nation and we fight for all people. And so as we begin this budget fight, it is part of our history that causes us to be part of the challenge to make the right decisions on the continuing resolution and to ask our Republicans to read what Mark Zandi has said, the economic advisor to John McCain--not to President Obama, but to John McCain first--who said clearly that we would lose 700,000 jobs if we move in the direction that they want to move in. Why do you have to have your way or the highway? Why can't you read the data that says--the fiscal bipartisan commission said there is no value to cutting funding in 2011, that we must work together to cut the funding and work together on how it should be cut in 2012 and 2013; that you actually will lose jobs; and that you will stop the moving of the economy, the rebirth of the economy in its tracks. It doesn't make sense to simply be driven and shackled to campaign promises. It doesn't make sense to be able to speak campaign speeches and yet not understand the distinction of governing. When you come into this body--yes, we have districts, the Senators have States, but we must realize that we come to govern for all of the people. And so if you stop us in our tracks, you deny the richness of diversity of people who are in need in this country. You deny the descendants of slaves. You deny the families of soldiers who are on food stamps and are in Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity to be able to survive. You take some $758 million from WIC, women and infant children. You deny dollars going to economic development for minority businesses. You cut COPS by 600 or so million dollars. You take away some $2 billion from programs that would generate economic opportunity. You cut the legal services. And you are obviously not concerned about how we balance this. This is in the middle of the budget year of 2011. And so this is not befitting of the final day of African American history, a generation of people who came through the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the second reconstruction--which is the civil rights movement. And now they have traveled a journey, being Americans, fighting in wars, and not yet 150 years away from slavery, and here we are fighting to equalize opportunities for all Americans. Because if you cut education, if you cut women and infant children, if you cut small business opportunities, minority and women- owned businesses, you are cutting into the future of this country. We know this is a lopsided process; 16 to 18 percent of the budget and you're trying to get a way to bring down a $1 trillion-plus deficit, if you will--trillions-plus deficit. And so my plea in this process as we go forward is to remember some of our heroes. Barbara Jordan was a Member of this body. Her birthday was celebrated on February 25. Her 75th year we are celebrating in Houston. And she reminded us that the people drive the Constitution, but that those of us of African American heritage were not in fact citizens as this Constitution was written, nor did women have an opportunity to vote during that time, but now we come asking that we do work together and that we be reminded of her words, ``we the people.'' And ``we the people'' includes all people. It is not the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the tea party. It's all the people doing what is best for all of the people. That's the message of African American history, striving to make America better as we cite these great icons who went against the odds. I pay tribute, in closing, to Ruth Carroll, who passed just a few days ago, a friend of my dear friends, Dr. Natalie Carroll Dailey and Warren Dailey. As I read her obituary--she'll be funeralized tomorrow-- close to 93 years old; born in 1918; born to two parents who died 1 year and 2 years after her birth; raised by grandparents; blinded at a very early age by an ophthalmologist who I guess accidentally put acid in her eyes. And then she had to go to the deaf, dumb, and blind school. She graduated magna cum laude--it might have been summa if I'm recalling correctly--but she went on to become a premier educator. She went to the University of Denver in Colorado, worked at the University of Texas, places that were segregated, got her graduate degree and became involved in library science, cataloged large libraries; someone who overcame obstacles. Congresswoman, my tribute tonight is for African Americans who every day overcome obstacles. That is because they believe in the values of this country. And that is because they believe that, through any mountain or any valley, as Martin Luther King told us about the Promised Land, that we could overcome. I'm asking my colleagues, as we begin to debate this CR, don't look at us as outsiders, people who are always talking of something that you might not understand or comprehend. Look at us as Americans who have a stake in this country, whose history is embedded in this country. Let us work together. Don't lopside a cut that hurts one population versus the other. Remember, 150 years--minimally--out of slavery, African Americans, new immigrants who are working every day, who are in the United States military. So let me just thank the gentlelady for yielding, and thank you for allowing me to speak to the warriors who overcame adversity and contributed to this society. My commitment to them is that we will fight for fairness and justice in this House and a way to reduce the deficit, but fight for those who cannot speak for themselves. I salute African American History Month, and I yield back.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H.R. 394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.'' As a Senior Member of the Judiciary Committee, I am pleased to say that H.R. 394 enjoys strong bipartisan support and completes important work that was commenced during the 111th Congress when we considered and passed this bill in its previous form under H.R. 4113. This legislation has been a priority for Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member John Conyers and the many members of this chamber who passed this H.R. 4113 in the 111th Congress. Though, we were able to pass H.R. 4113 in the 111th Congress, the Senate was unable to pass it before the end of the 111th Congress. So today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to consider and pass H.R. 394 at an early stage in the 112th Congress and provide our Senate colleagues with ample time to pass it as well. As an Attorney and former Judge, I cannot overemphasize the importance of providing our federal judges and members of the legal profession with clear guidelines regarding issues of jurisdiction and venue. Providing our federal courts with clear guidelines on what cases they can hear under their jurisdiction and the proper venue for hearing such cases is central to the fair and efficient administration of justice in our democratic nation which is squarely based upon the rule of law. To that end, H.R. 394, the ``Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2010'', is intended to clarify a number of uncertainties and technical flaws in statutory provisions governing federal court jurisdiction and venue that have come to light in recent years. The legislation addresses inefficient rules which judges themselves have identified. These rules have required judges to spend considerable time deliberating jurisdictional issues instead of focusing on analyzing the important facts and laws applicable to the cases before them. H.R. 394 provides guidance and a solution to this problem. The legislation is based on studies undertaken within the judiciary, and with consultation from academicians and legal organizations, including the American Bar Association, Lawyers for Civil Justice, the Federal Bar Association, the American Association for Justice, and the Chamber of Commerce. Additionally, the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed this legislation. In the 1990s, the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction began to identify recurring problems encountered by litigants and judges in applying certain jurisdictional and venue statutes. Following years of study, and consideration of the American Law Institute's Federal Judicial Code Revision Project (2004), the Committee carefully crafted solutions to these particular areas of confusion, in consultation with law professors. The Conference endorsed those solutions, which this legislation embodies. This Act is necessary to clarify important issues of jurisdiction and venue. The bill is intended to facilitate the administration of justice by bringing more clarity to the operation of jurisdictional and venue statutes, thereby helping to reduce wasteful litigation over certain issues. Under its Jurisdictional provisions, this bill: Eliminates the ``resident alien proviso'' and clarifies that district courts do not have diversity jurisdiction over a claim between a citizen of a state and a permanent resident alien domiciled in the same state; More clearly defines ``citizenship'' for foreign corporations and domestic corporations doing business abroad, as well as for direct actions against insurance companies; Ensures that when a federal question claim is removed along with state law claims that are not within the supplemental jurisdiction of the district court or are otherwise non-removable by statute, the federal question claim will proceed in federal court and such state law claims will be remanded to state court; Separates the removal provisions governing civil cases and those governing criminal cases into two separate statutes, as well as grouped together removal provisions relating solely to actions based on diversity jurisdiction for ease of reference by litigants; Codifies current practice that all defendants must join in or consent to removal in order for the action to be removed to federal court; Clarifies the provisions governing timeliness of removal by giving each defendant 30 days after service to file a notice of removal, while allowing any earlier-served defendants to consent to the removal by the later-served defendant; Permits removal of a case after one year if a plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action; and Allows information learned through discovery indicating that a claim is worth more than the minimum amount in controversy for diversity to trigger a new 30-day period in which to remove. Under its Venue & Transfer provisions, this bill: Sets forth a definition of venue and codifies the scope of venue provisions; Creates a unified approach to venue in both diversity and federal question cases, while maintaining current venue standards; Eliminates the outdated ``local action'' rule, which restricts where certain actions involving real property can be brought; Clarifies that a person is deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled; Provides that unincorporated associations will be treated the same as incorporated associations for determining venue, so that they will also be regarded as residents of any district in which they are subject to personal jurisdiction; Eliminates a venue defense for persons residing outside the United States and grants a venue defense to permanent resident aliens with a domicile in the United States; Allows cases to be transferred, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice, to any district or division to which all parties have consented; and Clarifies that transfers of cases from United States district courts (Article III courts) to territorial district courts (Article IV courts) are not permissible. This bill will finally address and resolve jurisdiction and venue issues that have wasted the time of our federal judiciary for years and will help bring about more efficient administration of justice. So, I ask my colleagues to stand with me today and vote in favor of the H.R. 394, ``Federal Courts and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just last week in Houston, Texas, in a private home called Jackie's Day Care, seven babies under 3 years old were subjected to an horrific inferno; a fire. As the caretaker or the owner of this child care facility and as the facts unfold that we believe Federal funding was involved, first there was a representation that she was in the home and had fainted. But over the last 72 hours it was determined that she had gone to the grocery store. Four babies are dead. Two are in a burn unit. And one is fighting for his life in another facility. I am standing here today--my voice can be heard--to first of all say how many people need day care and have to subject themselves to these kinds of homes. She was 22. Maybe she cared for the children. But right now she has fled the country. I am asking Ms. Tata to return. I am asking her family members to return so that she can receive justice and so these families can heal. This is not the way to address your responsibility. Four families are burying babies who would have had wonderful futures, who simply attempted to work and have a place safe and secure for them to be. Now they are dead. Ms. Tata, you're 22 years old. Come back to this country and get in line for the justice you deserve. We are coming after you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady. Eight hundred seniors gathered just a year or two ago, expressing their horrific opposition to the idea of being overwhelmed by this doughnut hole. My colleagues today are telling seniors all over America we now will close the door on you again. We will ensure that you will not have the money to pay for your rent or food because you will be paying these ridiculously high costs for your prescription drugs. That's what this amendment will do. It will close down potentially the Affordable Care Act that is providing a lifeline for our seniors. And then if you are laying on the sick bed in your hospital room and you need more care and more care to restore yourself, you have a doctor or an administrator come in and say, your insurance company called and they're pulling the plug. Not the plug that the doctors are pulling, but they are pulling the plug. You have no more money, get out and try to do the best you can. Two hundred and thirty billion dollars this amendment will cost us. But more importantly, this bill is not, the Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional. Only two courts have rendered that. And frankly, the Supreme Court will speak. Don't do this to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I do.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It's unfortunate that Republicans want to issue a point of order. We asked unanimous consent for amendments that have been placed timely into the Record against jobs. And that is what my amendment is about. It clearly is about restoring the $5 billion that the Republicans want to take out and block American jobs. You can clearly see how long we've been here, and there have been actually no jobs being created by Republicans. This amendment does simply one thing: It restores the $5 billion in stimulus dollars that have created thousands upon thousands of jobs. It has created this housing for low-income housing. It has created this kind of map that shows that stimulus jobs have been all over America and created 585,653 jobs, 253,000 projects. It is interesting that our friends can support President Obama on agricultural subsidies, but they can create no jobs, and they want to oppose restoring the $5 billion in stimulus dollars--and I might call them reinvestment dollars. In addition, our friends want to ignore the fact that by taking away $5 billion they close what we call community health clinics. Yes, this is where Americans are now getting their good health care, in community clinics. So I would argue that it is a shame that we have a situation where you cannot present this amendment. Jobs, the idea of infrastructure investment, the idea of low-income housing that is being created, and as well, projects like housing for the elderly in Minnesota, Kawana Village Apartments that are in the Washington area, Father Murphy Phase III, 10 new rental duplexes in Shawnee, Oklahoma. Blackfeet housing, 223 homes, again, in Montana. Mount View Village Lodge, again in Alaska. And of course Pueblo Housing in El Paso, Texas. Can you tell me why you want to eliminate the idea and the ability for individuals to work by taking away the moneys that have been invested in America? That is what this has done. In Houston alone, Center Point has been able to improve their grids to provide more energy for our community. We have gotten $849 million that has put people to work and has provided health care, has improved the environment. I would ask my colleagues to take away the point of order, to not say I'm out of order. You're putting a point of order on American jobs. And I think it is insane to not be able to allow a Member to stand and say that the moneys that you're taking away have proven themselves to be moneys that have been legitimate and have called upon the American people to rise up and to be employed. There are people who are now at their 99th level of not being able to get employed and get unemployment insurance. They need these jobs. The $5 billion that will be taken away will be impacting projects yet to come that will help rebuild America's infrastructure. I thank the gentleman from Washington for allowing this explanation, but I hopefully will be heard at least by the colleagues and the people of the United States on this amendment, restoring simply $5 billion. There was a second amendment that was going to make the point that we don't want Americans to know how much great work the Recovery Act has done by taking money away for signs that have been put up. I'm willing to withdraw that amendment because $5 billion is $5 billion to put Americans to work. I am simply appalled at the fact that we don't have the opportunity to share with the American people their tax dollars to make sure that they have the opportunity to work, to have good health care, to have housing, and to have good energy relief to make sure that our environment is safe and that we expand our independence by having the kind of energy efficiency that seniors are in need of. So to the gentleman from Washington, I do want to acknowledge that the Recovery Act moneys have been an effective tool for building jobs. And frankly, 1,000 jobs were created in Houston.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much to my dear friend. This is a siege on the lives of innocent Americans. It is a siege by undocumented claims of unconstitutionality. When Justice Scalia said the relevant inquiry is simply whether the means are chosen or reasonably adapted to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce clause. It is. This bill is constitutional. What this gentleman wants to do is to literally shut down community health clinics that are now under the Affordable Care Act. He wants to make sure that children are not getting immunized. He wants to make sure that HIV patients are not getting their medicine. He wants to make sure that seniors who can come to these clinics are not able to access them. He wants to make sure that families are getting no coverage. This is the end result of this very, very dangerous amendment. In addition, we have to respond to someone who got up and actually said this is the worst bill that has ever been passed. What about the slave laws? What about the fugitive slave laws? How dare anyone suggest this is the worst bill when we give opportunity to all Americans. This amendment should be denied. They should listen to Senator Frist, who said this bill is a good bill. There are Republicans who believe we should provide health care for America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Amendment (Amendment No. 263) to H.R. 1 ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011'', offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia providing that none of the funds made available by this Act be used to pay any dues to the United Nations. I strongly oppose this amendment, because it is imperative that the United States pay its dues to the United Nations. The United States not only serves as the host country of the United Nations, it is also a Permanent Member of the United Nations and a Member of the U.N. Security Council. The United Nations serves the critical function of providing a forum where countries from the global community can meet and form a consensus for resolving the most important international issues of our time. We must remain steadfast in our support for the United Nations especially during these times of rapid political, environmental and economic change throughout the world. We have recently witnessed large scale global events that require a multinational response. The crisis in the Sudan, the Earthquake in Haiti, and the protests for political change in Egypt and countries of the Middle East are just a few recent examples. The magnitude of these events requires a unified international response. The United Nations is the appropriate vehicle for that coordinated response. Our presence as one of the few Permanent Members and our position and voice on the U.N. Security Council provide the United States with a powerful platform to exercise the kind of leadership necessary to promote peace, security of nations, international trade stability, international monetary stability, international aid to struggling countries and peoples worldwide, responsible monitoring of nuclear weapons proliferation, international human rights observance and adherence to the fair administration of justice. So, in closing Mr. Chair, during this time when we are debating the funding of our Federal Government, an act of paying dues, it is hypocrisy to even suggest that the United States not pay its dues to the United Nations.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to oppose the amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for her outstanding stewardship of American dollars as it relates to our standing in the world. I understand the gentleman's concern, but the United Nations is where you draw consensus. It is where we are able to sit at the table and ask individual countries to join with us for what democracy means. As you watch the rising crisis in the Mideast, it is the United Nations that we can draw upon to be able to emphasize democracy. As you watched the conflict in Egypt, where we celebrated what happened, many of you are aware of the tragedy that happened to one of our American reporters, Ms. Logan. The United Nations is where we can call upon the Egyptian Government to explain themselves and to apologize and call upon the U.N. Ambassador from Egypt to apologize to Ms. Logan and apologize to the American people for the tragedy that happened to this woman who was doing her job, the vicious sexual assault that occurred to her. It is the United Nations that we can come and ask others to accept that kind of responsibility. We need to be part of the world family. The world family is a place where we can get solutions. I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Amendment, Amendment No. 199, to H.R. 1 ``Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011'', offered by Mr. Poe of Texas and provides that none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Justice, or any other Agency to litigate the continuation of the case United States of America v. The State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer regarding Arizona law S.B. 1070. As a Senior Member of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, I have vast experience in dealing with the issues of immigration and border security. And as a member of these committees, I can unequivocally say that this amendment and talk of supporting state immigration laws is absolutely inappropriate. It is a clear violation of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the long established tenets of federalism, which grant the United States government the exclusive, preemptive power to establish laws on Immigration and Naturalization. It is necessary to oppose this amendment offered on the floor today. The Department of Justice has a federal mandate to pursue litigation in matters that constitute violations of federal law. This authority includes actions against states such as Arizona. The Arizona immigration statute appears to violate federal law and we must not strip the Department of Justice of the funding it needs to carry out its mission. The laws of the United States do not allow state-by-state legislation of immigration policy. If we allow states to enact immigration statutes and regulate and enforce immigration policy, we would be granting permission for the separate states of our country to set up a severely disconnected patchwork of immigration laws and policies that will be extremely difficult to enforce, invite discrimination and make our country dangerously unstable and unsafe. Our forefathers had the wisdom and insight to realize the importance of handling certain issues exclusively on a national level and saw fit to enshrine them in the Constitution. In this instance, we must not depart from the long established doctrine of exclusive federal control of immigration and naturalization. If we tread on the dangerous path of deconstruction of appropriate federal exclusivity in the area of immigration law, we will certainly force the federal courts to take corrective action and restore the exclusive role of the federal government in this area. Moreover, it would take a constitutional amendment and not the mere passage of federal or state statutes to overturn this long established legal principle. The Department of Justice must be provided with the necessary funds to continue litigation of its case against the state of Arizona. To do otherwise would erode the constitutional protections of our Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Therefore I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment. Thank you Madam Chair; I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. To my colleagues, what would you do if $3 billion for education were denied the schoolchildren of Texas or of South Carolina or of California? You'd come to their aid. Nine Democratic Members, lonely Members--all by ourselves--decided to fight for the school districts of Texas. They called us and asked us for help. What we did was just ask the Governor to certify that the dollars that we would send them--that had no votes from the Republicans--would be for the schoolchildren of Texas. I will do it tomorrow, yesterday and forever. Today, our school districts are being cut--six in my district. Houston, Texas, HISD is being cut by $300 million. Our Governor is going against the funding process of this country. You cannot take and hoard money for children and expect us to sit idly by. I am proud to be one of nine Democrats who stood up for the children. I ask my colleagues to stand up for us. Let the moneys go to the children and not in the pocket of the Governor of the State of Texas. This amendment prevents the Department of Education from enforcing language that would ensure Texas school districts receive $830 million from the Education Jobs Fund that was passed last year. The Texas Delegation fought hard for these funds so that they are distributed to our neediest school districts and provides assurance that Texas will not single out education for disproportionate budget cuts in the next budget cycle. Mr. Chair, I recently met with several superintendents of school districts in my congressional district about this issue and this is not unique to schools in Houston. In fact over 40 Texas superintendents including: several Houston school districts, Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association, Texas AFT, Texas Association of School Boards, Texas State Teachers Association, Association for Texas Professional Educators, Texas Association of School Administrators, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, requested that the Federal funds sent to the State for education should be released immediately to those districts. Our children deserve the best quality education so they can grow up to obtain good jobs. The Governor simply needs to certify that the 830 million Federal funds will only be used for education. What does this mean in terms of jobs in Texas? This amendment would essentially cut 14,500 teaching jobs in Texas. Republicans continue to say we need to create jobs, and this amendment does the complete opposite while placing our children at a disadvantage. We cannot turn our backs on our children who need a quality education and certainly not turn our backs on our teachers in a time when our economy is fragile and when they need us the most. Let us support our Texas children. Texas is estimated to have a projected deficit of up to $27 billion and there are plans to cut millions for key programs. It is unacceptable to continue with politics as usual. The Federal dollars will be released upon certification that its only use is for the education of Texas school children. I urge my colleagues to join me and the thousands of teachers in Texas who are against this anti-Texas amendment and vote against the Burgess amendment and look out for the best interest of our children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the Senate for recognizing that we do have a problem, and they recognized it by extending the time frame only for 60 days and not for 1 year. With that in mind, however, it's important to note that we are still with the same initiative that has not been subjected to the opportunity for Members of this Congress to, in fact, review closely the idea of the infringement of some of these aspects or some of these provisions as it relates to the infringement that they may have on the constitutional rights of our citizens. Yesterday in a markup, I offered an amendment to affirm that the legislation that we were marking up dealing with tort reform has at least a confirmation that we wanted to respect the Constitution and adhere to the due process rights. And I am glad that the Democratic Members who were there and present voted ``yes,'' and all the Republicans voted ``no.'' I think adhering to the Constitution and ensuring that constitutional provisions are respected is an important concept. In this instance, we have not had the chance for a full hearing. And I am very glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the 111th Congress, we did; but unfortunately, even the amendments that were passed in that Congress, bipartisan amendments, were not in this initiative that was passed by the House. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance under section 215, where library records could be in question, if you read certain books. And librarians across America were appalled at that intrusion. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our Constitution. As we voted on bipartisan amendments last year in the 111th Congress, as I indicated, they were not included in this rendition of the bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the Patriot Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I, as well, am very, very convinced that we do need to secure our homeland; but human intelligence is a very large part of that. Intruding into the rights of Americans should be done with the care that it deserves. In the markup I also personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the Patriot Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of those amendments as introduced by any of my colleagues at that time have been included in this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I'm deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people without so much as a hearing. Therefore, I would argue that this is an improvement in terms of how fast we'll have to move, but it still has the same faults. And I simply say that the Fourth Amendment does say that it is the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this and begin our work as quickly as we can. But even with this provision passing, as I expect it will, we need to move quickly to protect the American people, both in terms of homeland security and their constitutional right of privacy. I rise today to express my opposition to the H.R. 514, ``To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.'' This bill would extend provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 through December 8, 2011. It extends a provision that allows a roving electronic surveillance authority, and a provision revising the definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf provision.'' It also grants government access to business records relating to a terrorist investigation. While the PATRIOT Act is intended to improve our ability to protect our nation, it needs to be revised and amended to reflect the democratic principles that make this country the crown jewel of democracy. The bill before us today, however, does not do that. In fact, even the manner by which are even considering this bill, only days after introduction without any oversight hearings of mark-ups, circumvents the process we have in place to allow for improvements and amendments to be made. The three expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that H.R. 514 would extend overstep the bounds of the government investigative power set forth in the Constitution. The first 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 a foul 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. If we do not take steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire. The second provision, known commonly as the ``roving John Doe wiretap,'' allows the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. Like the first provision, this, too, was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the last Congress, and is also contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state ``with particularity'' what it seeks to search or seize. If this provision were given the opportunity to be amended and improved, it should be done so to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. The third provision that H.R. 514 would extend is the ``lone wolf'' provision, which 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. Moreover, according to government testimony, this provision has never been used. Because of the potential for abuse created by this provision, and the lack of need for its existence, it, too, should be allowed to expire. Another problem with H.R. 514 is that it fails to amend other portions of the Patriot Act in dire need of reform, specifically, those issues relating to the issuance and use of national security letters (NSLs). 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. The three provisions I have just mentions, as well as the issues surrounding NSLs, have all been examined and amended in the past Congresses, because they were in dire need of improvements to protect the rights of Americans. I was against these provisions, as written, in the past, and without amendments, I am still against them today. 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. In 2005, the Patriot was examined in the Judiciary Committee. 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 in H.R. 514, but also National Security Letters and the lax standards of intent. Again, these same issues came before us in 2007. On August 3, 2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), another piece of law used in conjunction with the PATRIOT Act and essential to combating the war on terror, but one that was in need of improvements to protect Americans' Constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. On that day, I said that, ``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,'' and I stand firmly behind that notion today. When we were considering FISA, there were Fourth Amendment concerns around secret surveillance and secret searches, which were kept permanently secret from the Americans whose homes and conversations were targeted. There were also concerns such secret searches intended for non-U.S. citizens, could be used to target Americans. I offered amendments to ensure that any surveillance of an American is done through established legal procedures pursuant to FISA and the FISA court authority, and to ensure that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is indispensable and would play a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with our constitution. I stand here today urging my colleagues to consider allowing similar amendments to the PATRIOT Act that better protect Americans' right to privacy before moving this legislation out of the House of Representatives and onto the other legislative body. Furthermore, this very bill was considered last year in the 111th Congress, and went through oversight hearings and two days of mark-up in the Judiciary Committee. Yet, none of those voted-on, bipartisan amendments that resulted from those hearings are included in this bill. In those hearings, multiple concerns were raised about the breadth of the PATRIOT Act and the leeway it gives to infringe upon an individual's privacy and civil liberties. In the mark-up, I personally introduced amendments that would allow for greater transparency in the PATRIOT Act and enhanced protection against violation of individuals' civil liberties. None of my amendments, or those introduced by any of my colleagues who were on the Judiciary Committee at that time, are included in this legislation. None of the privacy concerns or civil liberty infringement issues that were raised in those hearings have even been addressed. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are considering overlooking the very valid concerns of the American people, without so much as a hearing. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand and appreciate the importance of national security, and the challenges we face as we strive to protect our nation from foreign threats. However, as an American citizen, I am deeply concerned when our Constitutional rights run the risk of being infringed upon in the name of national security. 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. As an American citizen, the security and safety of my constituency is pinnacle, but I will never stand for legislation that infringes on the basic rights afforded in our Constitution. When our founding fathers drafted the constitution, after living under an oppressive regime in Britain, they ensured that the American people would never experience such subjugation. Where are the protective measures for our citizens in the PATRIOT Act? Why are the measures addressed in the last Congress not included in the bill? Instead of reauthorizing these provisions, Congress should conduct robust, public oversight of all surveillance tools and craft reforms that will better protect private communications from overbroad government surveillance. 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. Because of the negative privacy implications of extending all of these provisions, I ask my colleagues to please join me in opposing H.R. 514, a bill to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to access to business records, and individual terrorists as agents.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I don't doubt that the gentleman from Indiana is sincere. We all know him, and we know the longstanding commitment that he has had to this issue. But having served on the Judiciary Committee with the late Chairman Henry Hyde, I know how sincere he was in the work that he did to ensure that no Federal funds could be used for abortion. That is the law of the land. I also know how committed our colleague from Massachusetts is to his values of pro-life; but he eloquently stood on the floor of the House and gave us a moral compass. This is not about abortion. This is about saving lives. And the Planned Parenthood effort, albeit with ills that any large organization may have--corrected ills, has a valuable and worthy purpose in saving lives. My fear is with the Pence amendment having the potential of passing, that we set the stage for going back 10, 20, 30, 40 years when women had no place to seek counseling. They know well that the adherence to the law that the Planned Parenthood organization must have is that they cannot use Federal funds for abortion. But this is not about abortion. This is about family planning and counseling services that have long been part of the Planned Parenthood family. And all we'll do by cutting these resources will be, in fact, going back to the dark ages when young women had no place to go. So Planned Parenthood does not equate to abortion. Family planning does not equate to abortion. Title X funds do not equate to abortion because the law of the land is clear. But what we will have are young women who will have no place to go to be able to ask questions. Yes, the Planned Parenthood facility is in the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas, a heavily diverse but heavily minority district; and I would argue that its efforts are positive in health education, the work it does, in Pap tests for cervical cancer, in STD testing, in menopause and hormone treatment, in urinary tract treatment, in breast exams, and in outreach to the Latino community, all services that would not be there if it was not for these committed workers and the committed Office of Planned Parenthood. Community health clinics, to be gutted. And as was indicated, all the work that we're doing on the floor of the House, the question has to be, one, are we going forward in helping the American people create jobs? Or even in this amendment, causing thousands of Americans to lose their jobs in a worthy cause of helping those who many times cannot help themselves? What about those who have suffered a violent act of sexual assault? Where do they go? What do we say about a Planned Parenthood who, throughout its existence over the last couple of decades, has received violent threats, bomb threats? I am reminded of the police support that this local chapter had to have because of the constant threats upon their staff. So this is not all peaches and roses. We are simply standing here and saying, allow them to do their work, which is assisting a young woman by the name of Karen, 28 years old, who was between jobs, newly married, and did not have any health care. She saw the results of a pregnancy test that she got from the drugstore and couldn't believe what it said. She didn't know where else to go. She was frightened, 28 years old. But she went to Planned Parenthood. And what she said, without any pressure, she had the test and discovered that she was pregnant. And the nurse didn't ask her any indicting question; simply said, what do you want to do? And she thought about it, and she decided to say she wanted to have the baby. Don't let those stories go untold where women are counseled and they go forth with their plans with the idea that they have someone to help them along, even provide them with services to be able to carry that baby to term. So I simply want to say, they have suffered enough violence for Planned Parenthood. Let's not have more violence on the floor of the House, and let's vote down this particular amendment to continue them serving the women that need to be served. I yield back the balance of my time.

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