Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the authors of this amendment which I rise to support, the Nadler and Stark and Lee amendment. I believe it is a starting point, for those of us who have consistently raised questions about where we are and making sure we follow and adhere to long-standing commitments to our troops and to their families that have served boldly and ably both in Iraq and now in Afghanistan, how we can orderly bring them home. Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago as we continued to feel frustration in Iraq, I raised the question and filed legislation called the Day of Honor in which we would bring our troops home from Iraq and then, subsequently, Afghanistan and honor them throughout the Nation. In fact, I remember arguing with the Bush administration and raising the issue as to why our fallen soldiers, when they came in to Dover Air Force Base, did not have the honor of public view if agreed to by their families. I believe our troops are owed a debt of gratitude, respect and honor. Those who are fighting now deserve that respect and honor. This legislation in no way diminishes or dismisses their service or the blood that they have shed. But what it says is that we are now in the midst of a major budget crisis. And as we have seen over the last 24 hours, we are willing to cut children and substance abuse and mental health and teachers and environmental protection, if you will, oversight, literally gut the running of the government. These soldiers want to come home to jobs. We have done nothing about creating jobs. I frankly believe this is a starting point of astute analysis as to what we are doing going forward. We already know that we are looking forward to bringing troops home and to downsizing, redeploying. We begin redeploying by redeploying money. And let me give you an example. On the floor just a few hours ago, there was an amendment discussed by the Transportation Committee to almost gut the Transportation Security Administration. Now, I chaired that subcommittee in the last Congress, and I serve as the ranking member in this Congress. If we had done that, it would have had a double detriment to the security of the homeland. Mr. Chairman, 900 positions would have been lost, impacting 450 airports, governing some 445,000 TSA officers. Maybe some of those officer positions could go to returning soldiers who are looking for work. In addition, it would impact the intelligence gathering and disseminating. It would also impact covert testing that goes on at passenger checkpoints, and also cargo where we have seen that we are still in the eye of the storm. There is no doubt that aviation travel is in the eye of the storm for homeland security and protecting the homeland. So while we have $100 billion set aside for a war of which we have already been given the direction as downsizing, redeploying, bringing troops home, and yet we have $100 billion. So I would simply say this is a time when we should come together and determine that we are moving to bring our troops home; that we are going to use smart money and work on diplomacy, getting Afghanistan to invest the moneys it has and building democracy and educating its children. We support that. I recall one of my early visits to Afghanistan, taking books to schoolchildren and the excitement of the schools way beyond Kabul where they were excited to receive these books, and the students were excited to receive and to be able to be educated. Of course, in leaving Afghanistan and going to Iraq, we have lost a certain momentum that had gathered. School girls can't even go to school. That comes through diplomacy and buying into a sovereign nation that believes in some dignity for all people. So I applaud the troops that are on the ground, and I applaud their leadership. But if we have amendments that would gut the Transportation Security Administration and keep us from protecting the homeland, then we know that we are going in the wrong direction. Support an amendment that reduces the amount of money to be spent for Afghanistan, to invest in the homeland and the security of that homeland, and promote agencies like the Transportation Security Administration agency that is fighting every day to secure the American people. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me do as my good friend from New York did, Mr. Serrano, and not mention any President's name. And I just ask my colleagues, how do you--again, I explain to all of us and hopefully those who are listening, this CR stops work in the middle of its tracks. This is a cutoff of functioning work as we speak, and there is functioning work. Just as we have a prototype of a special master who is attempting to refund to the damaged, the worn and the torn of the BP oil spill, czars, or names that you would call, them are working. And I am reminded of the fact that czars also are an exploratory term that Presidents use to get tasks done that ultimately may be valuable enough that are actually placed in a position that responds to a particular agency. Now, we still call the drug czar the ``drug czar.'' And I am reminded of a number of drug czars who were enormously effective. And the reason for the czar term for the President is to emphasize how important the issue was or is to the American people. Why would my friends desire to tie the hands globally, if you will, in a broad-based amendment that eliminates funding for individuals who are in the course of their work impacting for the American people, whether it's the TARP, whether it's the BP oil spill? They are in fact helping get through a difficult problem. The very nature of the term, a difficult problem. So I would say to my friends, as I will be saying later about an amendment that has been offered, but I'm disturbed about denying funding to the Transportation Security Administration. What I would say in cutting their office not recognizing the value of their work, I would likewise say that it is crucial that we allow the Presidents, plural, to establish difficult tasks and to be able to select individuals to complete those tasks. I rise to oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, let me thank the former chair of the Health and Human Services Subcommittee and now the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and the manager and the chairman of the subcommittee. I thought, Madam Chairwoman, that we lived in a country that was a land of the free and the brave. We had a sense of pride in the progress that America has made, and we have always said we would never want to go back, whether it has to do with actual equal rights for women, whether it is civil rights and the ability to be empowered to vote. But I stand on the floor today with a great deal of disappointment because it seems as if, with this continuing resolution, that will literally stop in its tracks the functioning of this government. We are really going back. I rise to support the Lowey amendment because I really can't believe that this CR is eliminating $327 million in family planning. It just baffles the mind that this critical aspect of health care is now in jeopardy. It is now being part of turning the clock back. It is amazing that we would not acknowledge the fact that lives of women have been saved, lives of young girls have been saved because they've had access to family planning. As much as we have fought to be able to ensure that around the world where indigent women who have lost their lives through the birthing process now have access to good medical care--and yes, family planning--so that they can have live births, now we come here to the soil of the United States, and to take $327 million out of the mouths and the hands of women and children--yes, children who can be born healthy. Children who are part of the health care process that these women are able to secure through the many clinics that are around this Nation and in this community. I am disappointed in the games that are played with Planned Parenthood and to be able to demonize them with false and fraudulent tapings and a lot of bogus arguments about the fact that they are not in the business of helping people. I am disappointed in using those tactics because this is a very serious issue. Mrs. Lowey's amendment addresses the seriousness of it because she realizes that if we were to go through with the elimination of $327 million, there would be many, many lives that are lost. We have a Planned Parenthood office in my community. It is mostly focusing its attention on educating the community about healthy births, about ensuring that teenagers are not alone when decisions have to be made, decisions that will allow for the healthy birth or determination that is made by their faith leader with their family. They will not be left alone. In fact, family planning and Planned Parenthood extinguishes, I hope for good, the back alley procedures and, as well, the rusty hangers that were used in years past. Just a day or two ago, we heard of a horrible abortion clinic that saw the lives lost of babies and their mothers because of the dastardly tactics that were being used. That is not what we speak of here today. We speak of the right of a woman to be able to choose but also to accept the good health care of family planning. We speak of the rights of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence that really ensure that we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Bill of Rights, which allows us due process, is what is being denied in this continuing resolution for, as we speak, if that money is eliminated, clinics around America will have their doors closed. Women will be standing outside, banging on the door and asking for good health care. So I ask my colleagues to support Congresswoman Lowey's amendment, and I truly ask you to not take this Nation back and eliminate $327 million in family planning, benign but healthy and good health care and good policy for America and for America's women and for America's children. Let us support the Lowey amendment and let us reject the elimination of $327 million in family planning and this continuing resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Very briefly, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for confirming the strategy that is being used by our friends on the other side of the aisle. If it's good, if it has been good, it's time for it to go. I'm going to join the gentleman in supporting the gentleman from Oregon's amendment and to cite Channel 8 in Houston, Texas, that compensates for bloody domestic fights on domestic or commercial TV during the day and doesn't expose our children to opportunities for learning. I might add, the National Public Radio, as well, has its challenges. So I just hope that as we begin to understand that our economy is churning, that we will invest in our children, which the National Public Radio represents. And as my friend from New York said, Big Bird is still alive, and other new characters have been utilized to teach children. Public broadcast equalizes opportunity for good education in preschool for children who are at home, or in home daycare, to give them an exposure to learning, reading, writing and colorful activities. So let me just say that I'm sorry the gentleman's amendment was ruled out of order. It looks as if we have just turned our head away from investing in education--cutting Pell Grants, cutting NIH fellowships and scholarships, cutting public broadcast. It looks like we've just said enough is enough with job creation and let's get rid of education as well. And I ask, of course, that this CR be defeated.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I tried to craft my discussion in the form of an emergency. The loss of thousands upon thousands of students' access to education, I consider that an emergency.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say that I rise to join with the Chu-Moore-Jackson Lee amendment and that I now rise to introduce the Jackson Lee amendment, which also addresses the question of the Pell Grant. I would hope that my colleagues would be allowed to debate it. I consider this an emergency, and I will make this point as the gentleman makes his point of order. Mr. Chair, let me just refer to where we are today because we are needing to be engaged in creating jobs. I am not sure what my colleagues heard in the last election, but what I heard was that we needed jobs. It is clear--and I hope that we can see this--we have been here for 5 weeks plus, and the number of jobs that have been created by the Republicans is zero. So here we are now with a 15 percent cut on Pell Grants. What does that mean? It means that schools all around the Nation will not be able to provide Pell Grants to the individual students who need them. In fact, in my own district, with this 15 percent cut, this 5,550 going down to 4,705 will drastically impact students in my constituency. For example, the cuts will jeopardize education and the future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell Grants in order to finance their education. 5,726 are currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at the University of Houston--16,570 in my district alone. Those from the State of Montana will lose their Pell Grants. Those from the State of Alabama, from the State of Connecticut, and from the State of Wisconsin will lose their Pell Grants. But the real insult is that this will stop the education of thousands upon thousands of students in the middle of their education. Again, how many jobs have the Republicans created?--zero. I always want to bring this chart, which is very hard to see, but we can see how many jobs we lost in the last administration. We are on the rise of creating jobs. In fact, the CBO said that our future is great. It will not be great with a misguided plan to eliminate $600 million from the Pell Grant program. It is absolutely absurd. For example, let me share with you thoughts from The New York Times: This CR is ideologically driven. We started with a $74 billion cut, but because the Republicans decided that it is preferable to abide by polls, they decided to move to a draconian and ludicrous $100 billion. That means that $600 million was cut from Pell Grants. In addition to an amendment that I did not offer, the NIH, we see that those grants that were competitive for fellowships and research have also been drastically cut at Texas Southern University and at the University of Houston, and many State institutions in Texas are impacted by the cuts of the NIH grants. But this is the greatest sin: In a meeting that I had with my community colleges and my school districts, they were in complete panic about losing Pell Grants that will then impact on the wonderful upsurge of jobs from what we had lost in the last administration. I would simply ask my colleagues: Why are we going down a pathway that would take away the growth that we have provided? So I would ask, as we look to the future, that this be restored. My amendment and Ms. Chu's amendment--the one that I joined and the one that I intended to speak on--was, in fact, to restore these dollars. A new Wall Street Journal survey of economists shows they expect the economy to expand at the fastest pace since 2003 but not with these draconian cuts. Why wouldn't they do as the President's budget has done, which is to get rid of the 2 percent tax cuts for the billionaires? We might be able to provide $600 million for students. But no. We want to, I guess, stand with ideological viewpoints and with individuals who say, I was sent here to budget cut. You were sent here to govern. You were sent here to protect the American people. Students who will create the workforce of the 21st century, you are now telling them they can't get an education. Let me say this: The Constitution reminds us of what a wonderful country we live in--a country that believes we all are created equal. We don't have the same economic opportunities, meaning the same wealth, but we do have the ability to access education through wonderful programs like the Pell Grant program. Now you're telling poor and low- income students the door is closed; the lights are out; you're not equal, and you don't deserve an education. I would say that this is an abomination. Support the amendments that will provide for $600 million restored to the Pell Grants. I ask my colleagues to vote for the amendment. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. H.R. 1, the Continuing Resolution making appropriations to fund the federal government through September 20, 2011 contains some very deep cuts that will be very hurtful to many Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable--disadvantaged women and families, children, minorities, the elderly, and our nation's university students. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate effect on the low- income and minority portions of our population. As we face a large deficit and growing debt, we know that cuts will have to be made. And yes, some of those cuts will be painful. However, we must be careful not to place added burdens and cause greater harms to those Americans who are the most vulnerable and in need of our support the most. The proposed CR calls for a 15 percent reduction in funding for Pell grants. Such a cut will reduce the maximum Pell grant award from its current level of $5,550 to $4,705. This would present a serious problem for institutions of higher learning, but more importantly, it creates a major hardship on students. Current students who receive Pell grants would have to figure out a way to come up with nearly an additional $1,000 in order to continue their education. Students who have been accepted to school and have received their financial aid packages are also put in a position that would force them to find and secure additional funds for their schooling. Pell Grants provide the basic foundation of federal student aid and help more than 8 million students afford to attend college. To some of us, $800-$1,000 may not seem significant. However, to a student who qualifies for Pell grant assistance, and relies on those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to take time off from their schooling. In my district in Houston, TX, these cuts will jeopardize the education and future of 16,570 students who are currently dependent on Pell grants in order to finance their education--5,726 currently studying at Texas Southern University and 10,847 at University of Houston. 16,570 students in one Congressional District alone will be unfairly affected by these cuts. In the entire state of Texas, 650,790 students currently enrolled in school will be forced to deal with unexpected financial hardships under this provision. In other words, in my state alone, the number of students negatively impacted by this drastic cut to Pell grant funding is more than the entire population of Washington, DC. Nationwide, more than 9 million students would potentially be impacted. Mr. Chair, these cuts are an unnecessary and unfair hardship that will be forced on college students. These young men and women represent the future labor force of our country, and in these trying economic times, I believe it is extremely appalling for Members of Congress to purposefully jeopardize the educational and economic future of our country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So, if Members are on their feet, you would be kind enough to recognize them before the gentleman from Montana pursues a point of order, which he has already reserved?

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. A further parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect the gentleman, but there were individuals who wanted to debate on the amendment of Ms. Chu, and I think we are allowed to do that except that the gentleman rose on his point of order and started speaking to it before we could strike the last word. Will others be allowed to debate before the gentleman pursues his point of order?

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will. I consider this an emergency, and I would ask that this point of order be waived in order to provide for the thousands of students, Mr. Chairman, that are now going to stop school because of the $1,000, $800 they will lose. I'm asking the gentleman for a waiver so that this is based on an emergency and the fact there was no offset available that would not impact negatively other vital programs to make America equal. I'd ask for a waiver and I'd ask for this amendment to be accepted and the point of order to be waived.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect the chairman and I know that he has, as the gentleman from New York said, has his own commitment. I consider this an emergency and would only make the point that whether or not a point of order could be waived, in light of the fact that cases that are now in litigation would be in essence left without representation either for the client or for the case. I consider it a legal emergency, an emergency dealing with justice questions, and I would ask that the point of order be waived.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify that I was not speaking on this amendment. In this amendment I've simply asked for a waiver. Frankly, this is too important an issue to be addressed by the gentleman's point of order. I ask for a waiver. This is denying, if you will, huge amounts of money to many municipalities all across this Nation. And $600 million is absolutely ludicrous. It causes a loss of jobs and a loss of safety for the United States. I ask for a waiver on the point of order.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated before, first of all, the gentleman was mishearing what I said. I indicated that I had an earlier amendment that I decided not to offer because I intend to work with the other body on it. But it would have diminished the ability to enforce the Voting Rights Act. That is not what we're speaking of today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the ranking member and, of course, the manager for the majority. Mr. Chairman, I rise for a very important discussion as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and someone who truly believes that the COPS Program that has been initiated over a long tenure of time has truly brought down the crime statistics across America. Whether you are a rural hamlet or whether or not you happen to be a major city, the COPS Program has been an anchor for security for neighborhoods who cannot afford to pay for their own private police services. This amendment restores the $600 million that is offered to be taken from the present funding, and it restores or would prevent the taking of 1,330 cops off the street, and as well it will provide the safety net that is necessary. If I had had command of the floor earlier, I would have also added to this discussion the elimination of salaries that are eliminating the use of resources for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the resources necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the new redistricting plans that will be coming forward. But it is certainly a shame to take in the middle of municipal budget years a sizable amount of dollars which they had been operating with and depended on. There are local communities in which the COPS Program provides one police officer, two police officers, 20 police officers, 30 police officers, and that is the very existence of that community. In cities around America, cops have been laid off, and that should be a decision of last resort. When you talk about going forward, my question to my friends on the other side of the aisle is, is the purpose of this legislative initiative job creation, or job elimination? How can you do such damage to members of the municipal workforce that are on the front lines serving local communities? The COPS Program has been an enormous success. It has survived several administrations, Republican and Democrat. And to suggest that the COPS Program would be obliterated or at least devastated in such an amount would, from my perspective, be the wrong direction to go. COPS academy classes have been put on hold. Mayors have eliminated classes. I have seen that in cities around America, and as members of the House Judiciary Committee, we have had several encounters of eliminating COPS funding. This amendment simply strikes the elimination or the intent to eliminate a certain amount of funding for the COPS Program. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I would ask my colleagues to ask themselves the question, do the American people deserve safety and security in a time where we continue to face international and homeland security threats here in the United States? Domestic law enforcement is a key element in providing that kind of safety net. Training, the opportunity for security, and the opportunity for ensuring that hamlets, towns, cities, and rural communities, counties, do not have to suffer through the crisis of the lack of security. So I would ask my colleagues to consider a waiver so that we can address this question of the funding of a very important program. And I might add that I look forward to working with the Senate to restore those salaries to the Department of Justice so that we do not have to undermine the enforcement of an enormously important legislative initiative, one that Martin Luther King and our colleague, John Lewis, fought hard for and one that has withstood the test of time--and that is enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. How could we? And I look forward to working with the Senate for allowing that to go forward as well as to be able to enforce the values or the laws, the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, as relates to the 2011 redistricting that will take place in the coming months. I yield back the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Virginia has opposed this; but I just wonder whether or not there's any shame when it comes to literally gutting the Legal Services Corporation some $324 million and practically eliminating any opportunity for justice. I just want to repeat some of the words that were offered: slush fund for special interests, lobbying, and political activities. We spent some time in the 1990s on the Judiciary Committee looking closely at the Legal Services Corporation and, frankly, gave generous oversight on some of the issues that might have suggested that there were other activities going on. When the Legal Services Corporation non-profits come from around the Nation, you are seeing members of the bar who are from major law firms, major leaders in the community who are on the boards of these particular services, local offices, and they have the highest standard of legal excellence that they try to portray and therefore try to encourage as relates to the representation of poor people. My brother-in-law, to his death, was a legal services lawyer in New York. Not one time did I see him or hear of him doing anything other than attempting to do justice for people who could not achieve such. I, frankly, believe when you talk about a continuing resolution, make it very clear: it is stopping programs in the middle of operation. It is closing 136 offices in midstream. It is laying off 300 lawyers in the middle of litigation that they are pursuing to keep Mrs. Jones in her home and to keep an elderly person who's been defrauded by an unscrupulous contractor simply trying to fix an old home. She has no other options sometimes than a legal services lawyer. So I hope that we will see less of this. Might I just say it's interesting that we have a difference of opinion. Frankly, I don't think the President has walked away from any Financial Commission report. The majority in this House has every opportunity to present their cuts to entitlement and to begin the discussion. The President has not indicated he is not interested. But while we recognize that this House is a revenue-generating House and, therefore, with the responsibility now in the hands of Republicans, it is appropriate for the chairman of the Budget Committee and others to present their proposal for such. The President's budget cuts the debt. The President's budget has strength in going forward; but it has a purpose: competitiveness; morality; and, of course, to rebuild America. I'm waiting on the Republicans to present their proposal, and I'm sure that we will look closely and be able to work in a bipartisan manner. But I would vigorously oppose any cuts of this measure at all to the Legal Services Corporation, which is a mark for justice in this country. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I had intended to offer an amendment similar to the gentleman from Tennessee's that strikes the elimination of $75 million. Rather than do that, I am going to join in support of the gentleman from Tennessee's amendment. Mine was striking the full $75 million that was being taken from the Legal Services Corporation. Earlier today I was on the floor explaining what a continuing resolution is, because I know more than my colleagues are listening. What would actually happen if this cut was to go through is, frankly, that the services to the poor, meaning cases who are now in court, cases that are proceeding, would be suspended in air. Frankly, you would deny justice to those who have begun to get some relief. This cut will impact 136 nonprofit Legal Services offices. It will frankly cut 300 Legal Aid attorneys; 136 offices across America. This $75 million will stop Mr. and Mrs. Jones in the middle of representation to save their home. This cut will stop Mrs. Smith from being able to get relief from a domestic violence situation, because her lawyer, or that family's lawyer, will be fired. This cut will stop someone who has been defrauded. Some senior citizen who paid a contractor to fix their leaking roof in midstream will lose their lawyer. This is a denial of justice. Having had the privilege today of visiting the construction site of the Martin Luther King Memorial, it was interesting that I read these words: ``Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.'' And for us to cut the very framework of the Constitution that calls for justice, I believe, is something that should halt us on the very floor of this House and we should immediately accept the amendment without the point of order and allow these individuals to have the ability to be served. Frankly, this is beyond the imagination of any of us. The board chairman, John G. Levi, of the Legal Services board said, ``Justice is a hollow promise without the Legal Services Corporation.'' He is absolutely right. And as I indicated, I, too, wanted to strike the elimination of $75 million from the Legal Services Corporation, but the greater insult is the fact that work that is proceeding as we speak would be eliminated: 300 lawyers, 136 nonprofit offices and how many hundreds upon hundreds and maybe thousands of clients who would not have the opportunity to be served. So I would ask my colleagues to consider what we do here in this place and to consider what a continuing resolution will do midstream similar to the point I made earlier about resources that could be taken from the section of the Department of Justice that would enforce the Voting Rights Act. It means that you would stop cases dealing with the enforcement of the right to vote. Let us not deny justice tonight. I would ask my colleagues to support the adding back of the $70 million to the Legal Services Corporation. Point of Order