Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to support the amendment that Mr. Olson has offered, and I am delighted that we have the opportunity to work together collaboratively with the chairman and with Mr. Dicks on this very important issue. I would like to say publicly that Democrats and Republicans in the State of Texas have worked enthusiastically together on supporting NASA and human space exploration. I'm sorry that I will not have the opportunity to support Mr. Olson's amendment or vote for it. He is absolutely right, human space flight is conducted in exactly one agency, NASA, and the general Houston area and Texas are impacted enormously. We have already lost 4,000 jobs. There will be a decrease of $1 billion going to NASA Johnson. That will impact the transition, if you will, in human space exploration. One very well known member of our community, Captain Mark Kelly, the husband of our dear and beloved Member, Congresswoman Giffords, will have the opportunity to be on one of the final shuttles. But what most of us are not aware of, because our memory fades, is how much we gained from human space exploration. Research in HIV/AIDS and stroke and heart disease and weather research, all improving the quality of life for Americans. So I stand solemnly behind continuing to fund human space exploration and join Mr. Olson in the leadership that he has given. This is a tight budget, but the President talked about investing in competitiveness, creating jobs. NASA creates jobs. It creates jobs for small businesses. It creates jobs for large contractors. It creates thousands upon thousands of jobs. So I hope in this instance that we can speak in a bipartisan manner to speak to the administration on the value of continuing to support NASA. It is difficult when we have a CR that, in fact, is cutting millions from the NASA budget, and I would hope that there would be a recognition that it is important to put $517 million back into NASA, as was offered by this amendment. I can't imagine a Nation without the ability for young people to aspire to the heights of those who have gone on before, those who have been astronauts, those who have explored the skies, those who have done enormously important research on the various trips that have been taken that have provided the research and as well the space station which has been an enormous asset that has brought international partners together and helped develop science that could not be developed before. Having traveled to most of the centers that are under the NASA administration, each and every one that I have been to has had the quality of staff that have been doing their job in the name of progress for the American people. So I'm disappointed with this CR that has caused these enormous cuts, and I would hope that we have the opportunity to restore them. Where are we if we quash the genius of America? Where are we if we extinguish the dreams of young students and scientists around America? Where are we if we quash the jobs that can be created by science? NASA is an asset and a jewel. And I hope together in this Congress, and of course working together with the administration, we can realize it once and for all. Why we have to battle so hard for something that has done so much for the American people baffles me. I look forward to the reinvestment in science and competitiveness. I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I hope we'll be able to work in a bipartisan manner. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, sometimes this is a complex debate when we hear words like ``CR'' to a lot of our voters and others who are paying attention to the work that they have sent us here to do. And a lot of times they try to ensure that we use vernacular that, what does it mean? We're in the budget year of 2012 or budget year 2011 or we're doing a CR. I think the plain and simple of it is we're trying to ensure that what you are getting now if you're on a job, if you're a police officer, that we don't turn the lights out on you. And my concern is to let you know that we have been steadily improving. The private sector has been creating jobs under the Democratic policies under President Obama's guidance and, frankly, under this new budget that we'll debate--that is not what we're debating today--that speaks about competitiveness and speaks about infrastructure rebuild, putting Americans to work. So my gripe with the CR that my friends on the other side of the aisle have now put forward is that they originally came up with a $60- to $74 billion--maybe a thoughtful analysis of what we could cut. Remember, this is in the middle of you working and all of a sudden somebody comes and gives you a pink slip. But rather than stick with what might have been a thoughtful analysis--and, again, I had not studied it; it had not been introduced--all of a sudden they go by the ``We have to be dominated by voices of which force us, without thought, to now make it a hundred billion dollars.'' I'm as angry about the deficit and want a strong budget, which we're not doing right now, and want to work with my good ranking member, chairman of the Defense Subcommittee in the last Congress, Mr. Dicks, on a thoughtful passage going forward, but I want to make sure we stay on a pathway of creating jobs. There is something to cutting spending. You have my commitment. We came out with a compromise 2 months ago, in December. Some of us agreed; some of us did not. But there were sizable tax cuts. I voted for tax cuts before. But let me tell you why what we're doing today is enormously dangerous: 1,330 cops will be off the street; 2,400 fewer firefighters will be off the street; we will take teachers out of classrooms and lose 25,000 new construction jobs. There is a provision in the CR that wants to rescind stimulus dollars--sounds like a bad thing--but those dollars are in the pipeline for construction projects where men and women of America are working and feeding their families. Does that make sense, dollars that they pay taxes back to this country? I don't understand a plan that takes from the working man and woman in this country. I don't understand a plan, for example, that takes $2.5 billion away from high-speed rail, which all over America there has been a sense of inspiration about moving us to more efficient transportation. But the number of jobs to be created cannot be counted. That's an investment in this country. Or do you want to undermine the air traffic control system and begin to trouble America's airways? I sit on the Homeland Security Committee, chair the Transportation Security Committee. I am very hesitant to make a willy-nilly cut to the FAA. And so what disturbs me is: Why could we jump or why did we jump or how do we jump in 48 hours from $60 million to $74 million of which they said they were cutting? This is a continuing resolution, which means it allows the government, in essence, to keep going on what we are ongoing with. It means people are out there working, doing the bidding of the American people. And, before you know it, because there were complaints and people talking about what they campaigned on, and all of a sudden it's a $100 billion cut with no thought. Now, I respect people being elected by their constituents, but it is interesting when you read polling numbers from individuals who happen to come from that background of the tea party that want to cut everything, and you ask them about something in their jurisdiction. Say, for example, an Air Force base. The polling numbers show, Don't cut my Air Force base, but you can cut somebody else's. So here's my concern, Madam Chair. How do you cut Juvenile Justice and the COPS program? How do you cut the Justice Department for all of the voting rights enforcement? I want to stay on a path. This CR is not a pathway of creating jobs; it's no jobs, and it stops America in her tracks. Let's stay on track and keep investing in jobs in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As I was traveling, Mr. Speaker, to Washington, I had the opportunity to read the local newspaper. It's a good time for us to reconnect with our community, those that we have not been able to see, to hear their stories. And I was impacted by a story of two students at the University of Texas from different walks of life who had had a passion for football in one instance and a passion for basketball in another instance. Unfortunately, as they were aspiring to their dreams, both of them found that they had a congenital or a serious heart defect. Young men. One who had come out of the heart of Acres Home, a historically African American community, raised by his grandmother whom he loved; and he chose to stay close to home by going to UT Austin to play basketball. What a devastating blow to find out he could not play when he first got there. What about the young man, huge in size, that almost lost his life on the football field? But the story is, in this month when we commemorate African American History Month, one was a Caucasian, and one was an African American. It just shows in this Nation how we can work together and come together. These young men have, in a sense, overcome their challenges, and they represent America's heroes. I pay tribute to these two athletes at the University of Texas and thank them for their leadership.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Congresswoman Christensen, you don't know now how difficult it is for many of us to accept the assignment or the lack of assignment that this present majority leadership gave to the territories, and I want to thank you for placing this squarely on the record, frankly. We worked harmoniously with the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands and Samoa and Guam and other places, Puerto Rico. We worked because it was important to have the insight and constructive input on these legislative initiatives but, more importantly, on the floor of the House. So let me just reemphasize in joining you to say that the territories should not suffer. In the CR, they do. I just want to hold up, this was a letter to my colleagues, a letter to America, a letter to Houstonians. This is the long list of cuts, and let me just cite for you very quickly so that you understand what we're talking about. We have to cut, but can we do it in a manner that is constructive? Everybody is running from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and we frankly understand that, and so they put the pressure on 16 percent, but you're cutting in the middle of the year, when people are dependent on this funding. Juvenile justice, $2.3 million. The COPS program, I already mentioned, many cops will be laid off. NASA, $379 million, literally stopping NASA, the National Aeronautics Space Administration, in its tracks, forgetting about human exploration, forgetting about science. The Legal Services Corporation. No one without counsel can speak for a person who is desperate and cannot access counsel. So, if you have counsel, which really was what I was saying, you cannot speak for someone who does not. Legal Services Corporation is the wedge between justice and being thrown out. EPA, $1.6 billion; women and infant children, $758 million; job training--I just mentioned you have to invest in job training--$2 billion; and community health centers, $1.3 billion; high-speed rail, $1 billion. And of course, all of that is about jobs. As so, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as a Member of the larger body of Members, Republicans and Democrats, this CR is going to be a bite that is so stiff and so tough, I am hoping that some will view it not as a political prize, not as ``I did it. They told me to go here and do it.'' When you come inside this august body, you drop your partisan politics and you ask the question: What is good for America? You're not a partisan Democrat, a partisan Republican, or a partisan tea party. What you are is ``Can we come together?'' Now, I know I am not going to agree with all these cuts, but I didn't mention all these cuts. I know some of these things have to be. I didn't mention GSA. I think we're cutting them too much, but I believe we have some common ground, but how can you cut Pell grants? Students are in, if you will, they're actually in school and you are cutting them. Let me just say to the gentlelady as I yield back, thank you. Let's come together as Americans. And I thank you for leading this hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus. President Clinton left President Bush with a ten year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001. Whereas, President Bush on January 20, 2009 left President Obama with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Keep in mind that this was the deficit on day one of the Obama Administration, weeks before the President enacted a single piece of legislation and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The failed economic policies of the Bush Administration led to this enormous deficit--the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts totaled $1.3 trillion over ten years, in which most of the tax relief went to the top 1% of income earners; a Medicare Prescription Drug benefit with a ten year cost of nearly $1 trillion that was not offset; two overseas wars that are nearing a cost of $1 trillion; a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street banks; and all these unpaid for policies were compounded by the worst economic recession in 70 years that began in 2007 which led to huge shortfalls in federal tax revenue and increased reliance on unemployment insurance and other federal social safety net programs. In order to get these large deficits under control, we have some tough choices to make. How much longer can we afford to extend the Bush-era tax cuts? The President and Congress extended all of them through 2012 at a two year cost of $800 billion. A ten year extension of all these tax cuts will cost $3.8 trillion-- $3 trillion of which are the popular middle-class tax cuts. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released its latest projections of the Social Security Trust Fund. It was previously projected to go into a cash deficit in 2017, but now CBO has projected that the trust fund is now running a deficit. The trust is expected to be exhausted in 2037. We can no longer operate under the assumption of the last decade, that we can increase spending and reduce taxes without having to pay for it. The last Congress took important steps to restore some important tools that were used to produce the first budget surplus in more than a generation in the late 1990s, such as Statutory Pay-As-You-Go--meaning if Congress wants to increase mandatory spending, we have to offset it by reducing spending elsewhere in the budget or increase taxes to cover the increase. Unfortunately, the new Republican majority has changed House rules gutting PAY-GO's effectiveness in the congressional budget process. The so-called CUT-GO rule prohibits offsetting any new mandatory spending with a revenue increase. This makes it nearly impossible to offset any new spending or tax cuts with revenue increases and will require only spending cuts. In another unprecedented change, the House voted to give the House Budget Committee Chairman the sole responsibility for setting discretionary spending levels for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011. The House of Representatives as a whole will be deprived of the right to vote up or down the Budget Chairman's levels. We have to remember that what we do with the Federal budget touches everyone. Our fiscal problems are very complex and they need to be addressed, but there is no simple, one-size-fits-all solution. 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, and the elderly. 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 in need of our support the most. The proposed CR will cut funding allocated to support Community Health Centers. These types of facilities are widely utilized in low income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of healthcare services in the areas in which they are located. Without them, quality health care for many poor and disadvantaged Americans will be out of reach. Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they can be competitive in a global economy. Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million. Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion. The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority Business Development Agency. The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers and sheriffs deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law enforcement officers. The public safety of our communities is important, and during these tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost jobs for hardworking American people. Another instance where the CR disproportionately effects our low- income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program, which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and children. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and thank her for leading. As I see my colleagues on the floor, let me just try to focus on one or two points. And maybe on this Valentine's evening--I think a lot of our colleagues who were fortunate enough to have their spouses here rushed off, and we're delighted. Let me wish everyone a happy Valentine's Day. And let me wish my husband in Texas, far away, a happy Valentine's Day. But he might not be having such a good Valentine's Day because he is in higher education. And, frankly, this CR is going to put more than a dent. It is going to put a real bite. This is an effort to show you what progress we've made. Private sector employment has increased for 12 straight months. Private employers added more than 1.3 million jobs in 2010. But they have to have an educated workforce. And, as you can see, we're going up. The cup is half full and not half empty. But when you have the numbers that I'm about to relate to you, where you're seeing Pell Grants cut 15 percent--Mr. Speaker, I met with my universities--the University of Houston, Houston Community College, Lone Star, Texas Southern University; and if there was one thing that they emphasized it is the equal opportunity that is provided to all students through a Pell Grant. If we are to go with the CR as it is, we're talking about a reduction in the middle of the school year of $5,550 to $4,705. Do you know what that does to a student? It doesn't tell them, Let me try to ramp up my extra job. It says, I am dropping out. You know what happens to the workforce? It disappears. And so I am concerned that we are in this predicament. So let me tell you something else. I have been a strong champion of the COPS On the Beat program. And we have seen evidence of the fact that we have gained in the downsizing, or the decreasing, of crime. The proposed CR will cut $600 million in funding to community-oriented policing. And, of course, what will happen is 3,000 fewer officers. You can be assured Houston, Texas, which got their first COPS grants just a few months ago, that I worked very hard on, will be one of the victims of that. Let me just conclude by suggesting that one of the points my good friend the assistant leader made, community health clinics is not a partisan issue. It is to give access to all communities, and particularly rural communities. I'm from Texas. One of the reasons I fought so hard for community health clinics, particularly under the Bush administration, I actually talked to former President Bush and one of our encounters was to challenge and to encourage how we could in fact secure, if you will, more funding for Texas for community health centers in the rural areas. I'm glad we worked together, and actually we've seen a ramp-up. And we've seen a ramp-up with the Affordable Care Act, which helps to provide the kind of, if you will, health care for those in faraway communities where there are not enough doctors. Finally, may I say to you that to cut the National Science Foundation is terrible. It doesn't make any sense. And I would offer to say that this is about work. Health care; cops to make it safe; Pell Grants to train the 21st-century workforce. I know there are colleagues on the other side of the aisle that will work with us to get this CR where it needs to be. I, too, am for a reasoned budget-cutting that we need to do. I did it in years past. We balanced the budget in 1997. We can do it again. I, frankly, believe we should not cut into the very quality of life that is so needed. Let me thank my good friend and the Congressional Black Caucus, working with my other colleagues to ensure that we stand for job creation, investing in job creation. Unfortunately, the CR, as it stands today--the continuing resolution, for those who are not sure of what that is--is not going to work. Let's invest in America. 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, and the elderly. The proposed cuts in the CR will have a disproportionate affect 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 harm to those Americans who are the most vulnerable in need of our support the most. The proposed CR calls for a 15% 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 who relies on those funds, this would be a great hardship, potentially forcing students to take time off from their schooling. The proposed CR will cut $1.3 billion of funding previously allocated to support Community Health Centers. These types of facilities are widely utilized in low income areas and oftentimes, are the backbone of health care services in the areas in which they are located. Without them, quality health care for many poor and disadvantaged Americans will be out of reach. Although my Republican colleagues claim that the proposed CR will not cut precious education funding, there are, in fact, significant cuts that will have a detrimental impact on education--especially higher education. Many fellowships offered at institutions of higher education are funded by competitive and non-competitive grants issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Cutting funding to these organizations will impose a great hardship on students striving to educate themselves in order that they can be competitive in a global economy. Under the proposed CR, NSF funding would be cut by $139 million. Under the proposed CR, NIH funding would be cut by $1 billion. The proposed CR will cut nearly $2 million dollars from the Minority Business Development Agency. The proposed CR would cut $600 million dollars from the Community Oriented Policing Services programs (COPS). Such a cut would require a complete elimination of the hiring programs. Over the years, COPS has funded the hiring of more than 122,000 state and local police officers and sheriff's deputies in communities across America. This proposed cut will prevent the hiring and rehiring of over 3,000 fewer law enforcement officers. The public safety of our communities is important, and during these tough economic times as we recover from one of our country's worse recessions, every job counts. We can not afford cuts that will cost jobs for hardworking American people. Another instance where the CR disproportionately affects our low- income, minority population is the cut to WIC funding. The current CR calls for a huge cut, $758 million, to funding for the WIC program, which supplements nutrition for low-income and disadvantaged women and children. Under the proposed CR, the entire Title X provision, which funds family planning resources such as Planned Parenthood, would be eliminated, a cut of $327 million. Family planning funding has been an essential tool for many communities, especially in low income areas. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), we set aside funds to help invigorate the economy across various areas. These funds were intended to be used over a number to encourage the continued growth of the economy. However, under the proposed CR, any unobligated or uncommitted stimulus funding would be eliminated. The cut of $1.1 billion, or 14% below the FY2010 appropriation ($7.2 billion in FY2010) and more than $500 million below FY2008, would translate to a massive loss of comprehensive early childhood services, causing more than 200,000 children across the country to be kicked out of the Head Start program. This further reduction is catastrophic and will also put thousands of Head Start teachers out of work and into the unemployment lines. Additionally, this funding level would mean cuts to research grants, training and technical assistance grants and monitoring activities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I too would like to express my appreciation to the chairman, my colleague from Texas, for the time and to the ranking member as well. All of the issues have been laid out as to the three elements. So I just simply want to pose a question to my colleagues: We know that we have a problem with the three remaining intrusive and, I believe, unconstitutional provisions. We know that Ranking Member Conyers has explained that we were not absent; we did not have the lights out under his jurisdiction. We actually pursued this. We couldn't get an agreement. We couldn't move toward the floor. So the question now is, we realize that a roving wiretap is intrusive. We realize that the ``lone wolf'' provides a problem. So the question is, how do we fix it for the American public? How do we ensure the Constitution is intact? Let me be very clear: It is well documented that human intelligence is the best. Why? Because most of us were surprised when I say that in the intelligence community--at least they have not articulated about what is going on in the Mideast, both in Egypt and Yemen and otherwise--we were surprised. Did any of that help us? This is an intrusion on the American public. We are not in any way nonpatriots. We are patriots. We believe in the Founding Fathers. We understand that they came together to give you, Americans, the right to your freedom. We ask for the Fourth Amendment to be sacrosanct, to indicate that you are not subject to unreasonable search and seizure. That is my question to my colleagues: When will you engage in the hearings and the ability to mark something up to address these infringements? How quickly will you move? December of 2011 is too long. Let us work together to uphold the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, 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 afoul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. 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-U.S. 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 mentioned, 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 Act 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. Let me thank Mr. Conyers for yielding as I think it is important that we explain to our colleagues what we're doing here. Madam Speaker, this is part of a 7- or 9-hour marathon for committees of jurisdiction to come to the floor to respond to how important it is to, in essence, clog up the government. It sounds pretty, and it sounds attractive to be able to suggest that we have not been exercising due diligence as relates to the regulatory process of the executive branch. My colleague from Tennessee was right: when we cite the Constitution, what we are saying is that the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of three distinct branches: The legislative writes legislation. It has the right to oversight, and those who are part of this body are elected to represent certain perspectives. The executive is elected by all of the people, electing the President of the United States. The third branch, the judiciary, has oversight. So what we have taken to the floor to do is to spend 9 hours in redundancy, talking about what this body should be doing anyhow. We have the responsibility of oversight. We have the ability to question regulations in regular order; but what we will be doing is ignoring the people's business of creating jobs and, frankly, putting ourselves in the role of a clogged toilet, meaning that we are doing nothing, that we are stuffed up. I would make the argument that the REINS Act, maybe through good intentions, is a dilatory tactic that keeps us from doing our work. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, let me give you a few examples. One of the subcommittees I have the privilege of sitting on--and I thank Chairman Smith for designing this committee again--is a committee dealing with competitiveness. What could be more important than assessing whether or not this country is losing its competitiveness to countries around the world or that corporations are doing noncompetitive acts that cause us to lose jobs? I am not happy with the United-Continental merger. We've just lost jobs in Houston--500 of them. I would prefer our continuing to have oversight over whether these large-type mergers cause us to lose jobs. There are any number of merging industries that believe that's the best way to go, and therefore I would welcome that opportunity. Mr. Conyers, I understand that the mayor of New York is suggesting that Germany should take over Wall Street. I'm offended. I'm hurt. Not that I have anything against Germany, but I know that there is a type of intellectual property that is possessed: if nothing else, the pride of Wall Street as it relates to the body politic of finance in this country and around the world. I would like to have a hearing as to whether or not that is detrimental to the loss of jobs or whether, in fact, it diminishes the competitiveness of this Nation. That is what the Judiciary Committee has powers to do. If you put this bill in place--and I don't mind conceding that something is going to pass--I hope that there is a thought process that recognizes that staff has indicated to us that last year, under this rule, there were 94 major regulations that this body would have to attend to. So we would have had to eliminate our work on food safety; we would have had to eliminate our work on Wall Street reform; we would have had to eliminate our work on ensuring that Americans get good health care, all in order to stop the work of this body to address a regulation that we would have every right in an oversight process to handle. Then, as a member of the Crime Subcommittee, I want you to be aware of the fact that I've been told by representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prison that our Federal prisons now house more convicted international and domestic terrorists than Guantanamo Bay. Yet we are at a hiring freeze. We don't have enough Federal Bureau of Prisons corrections officers. As the rising inmate population--nothing that I'm proud of--continues to grow, the ratio of Federal prisons correction officers diminishes. You can see it in a tragedy in Washington State: Not enough officers in a State prison, and a prison officer is killed. We need to have hearings on how we can address the crisis in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I might say, they would add jobs. We need more individuals there to protect those who are serving their country as being part of the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, creating jobs. Why are we not attending to that? When you have to address major regulation and stop the business of this House to either hold a hearing in committee or in 15 days discharge to the floor, we have to debate it on the floor, that's what we will be doing, rather than engaging in the legislative process. We write the laws, and I might say that I have a great deal of respect for the CBO, but I also know that they are not without vulnerabilities, and they are not without imperfection. If there's 800,000 jobs being lost, are they being lost throughout industry because of certain requirements and then, on the other hand, some 3 million-plus jobs may be created because of the access to health care and the increase in resources for more doctors and nurses, health technicians, providing scholarship dollars, more community health clinics that will employ people--it doesn't make sense. It's an oxymoron to suggest that you're going to have a finite loss of 800,000 but you're not going to be able to increase. Let me add, I'm on Judiciary, and this is what we're here for. I've already cited to that I'd like the Competition Subcommittee to be addressing the questions of whether mergers are still good for America and the working people; whether or not our intellectual property that is being hacked and stolen is diminishing the ability for American workers to work; whether or not even entertaining selling Wall Street is a rational approach to take. And then let me get on a more controversial subject. Someone would make the argument now this couldn't be a job creator, but we have been frustrated by the immigration system for now the lifetime of my tenure in Congress. We have had the pros and cons, or we have been mad at the 1996 reform and the 1980s reform. Some of us have continued to press one refrain: That we must do security, border security, and also a comprehensive approach to immigration. Some would argue that that absolutely cannot create jobs, but I will tell you, why are we not fully addressing the broken immigration system in this Nation? If we pull at the heartstrings of many Members of Congress, who will proudly speak of their German heritage, their Irish heritage, their Hispanic, Latino heritage, African American heritage, Asian heritage, heritage from all around the world, they will point to the fact that they came from somewhere. We understand that if we can regularize this broken immigration system, not only do we have individuals legitimately investing in America through Social Security and taxes, but immigrants, new immigrants also create jobs for others, and it builds an economy. The agricultural economy, for example, that is playing hide and seek with workers who they have to hire--hide and seek, because they don't have a regularized system. Our agricultural industry, one of the greatest in the world, in fact the greatest--we can feed the world. I applaud our family farmers and the industry that has grown. I've always admired being able to do something with the land. We could be addressing an immigration reform system that puts people to work, that allows the agricultural industry to grow and thrive and build jobs. In fact, I was listening to a colleague from the other side of the aisle who indicated he had come out of the agricultural industry, has a farm or land that is doing agricultural work, and he said that we have not been hampered by the economy; we are thriving, we could grow. So if we put an immigration system in place, the work of the Judiciary Committee, we create jobs. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? So I ask my colleagues, as my ranking member has said, to thoughtfully think of this particular resolution, the REINS Act. It is truly that. I would add that it will strangle with the reins the work of this body and the work of the Judiciary Committee, and it will not create any jobs. We will be stifled, dead in our tracks, working with one regulation after another. What I'd like to say: If you have got a bad regulation, send it to the Judiciary Committee. We can handle it, but I don't want to see corporations getting away with criminal activity, which we could address in the Subcommittee on Crime. I don't want to see us getting away with food safety problems because we're not addressing it. Madam Speaker, let me just say, this is a lot of great intentions, and I have a great respect for my colleagues. This institution is one that I love, but I frankly believe we can do better in this House, and the President of the United States and the administration don't deserve this. What we do deserve is a hard fight to reduce the deficit and to build on jobs and to serve the people back home who are struggling with their own problems and need this government to respond to the needs of education, health care and science, and many other issues.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member, and I thank the chairman as well. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and I have worked together on the immigration issue. And I would beg to differ. It is well documented that regularized individuals in certain industries would, in fact, create jobs and create investment into this country as well. But as you have one person working, that person generates the opportunity for another. In construction jobs, for example, when you are involved in construction and have the right trained person, it creates expanded jobs. But I also want to make mention that as it may have been cited, the 600 jobs lost because, allegedly, of a CBO report, I know that 500 jobs have been lost because of a merger between two major giants in the aviation industry. And, frankly, I am hopeful that we could focus on whether that is one of the diminishing aspects of mergers, that individuals do lose jobs. But I will also say to you that we have documentation here that 1.1 million private sector jobs have been created since the enactment of health care reform. I mentioned 3 million jobs in my statement; 1.1 million private sector jobs have already been created; 207,000 jobs in the health care industry have been created since the enactment of the health care reform. Under the past administration, President Bush, 673,000 private sector jobs were lost, and this was the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The claim that the health care reform law would cost 800,000 jobs, or has, is misconstrued because last year's debate showed that the health care bill will save taxpayers billions of dollars and give consumers more better access to health care. In fact, private sector job growth has been strong since the enactment of health care. Again, 1.1 million jobs have been created. So we will have a constant debate about numbers, but I think there is a vigorous debate on how these jobs could be lost. The real issue is, this is the Judiciary Committee, to protect the rights of the American people. And I have cited, and the ranking member has cited, and Mr. Cohen has cited ways that we can be constructive to create jobs in America, to protect the consumer, and to ensure that competition is fair and healthy. And I would, Madam Speaker, simply ask my colleagues to engage in that kind of work as opposed to work that will take up the time of this body and delay us from doing the people's work and providing justice for all.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman from Florida and as well my good friend from Texas on managing of this time. Mr. Speaker, I know that there's a great opportunity to be redundant sometimes. And I would imagine that any American would consider 9 hours of debating the authority of oversight, which is vested in all of our committees, to be redundant. But let me share just a few points of opportunity. First of all, in the Homeland Security Committee, having served as the chairwoman of the Transportation Security Committee, we introduced H.R. 2200, which would heighten the security for the Nation's mass transit. Jobs being created, of course, but also securing the homeland. The idea of increasing the professionalism of TSA or TSO officers, again, providing enhanced training for jobs, but also in essence protecting the homeland. These are quick and ready issues that could be addressed in the time allotted for debating redundancy. Let me also congratulate my good friend on the infrastructure bank, because infrastructure creates jobs, the high-speed rail that our President is announcing, hearings to be able to assess how we can move quickly on investing in high-speed rail to create jobs. Or, for example, as one of my colleagues and I mentioned in a hearing as well, a number of our airlines are using overseas airline repair stations. Bringing those back to the United States would create and provide more jobs. Again, an action item that could be done through this Congress, creating jobs. So my question is, When will we get to the discussion of how we rebuild America? When will we get to answering the question, why, in some of our cities, huge sink holes exist where trucks, buses, and cars fall into sink holes because of the lack of resources in infrastructure. When will we fix the flooding that goes on in this country to avoid natural disasters? So let me thank you for this time, but I'm ready to go to work in creating jobs for America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. It doesn't matter if these cases have been challenged by the court, Mr. Speaker. It matters whether the people of this place, the people's House, have a time to respond.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman for a few seconds.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if hearings were not held by December 31, 2010, the gentleman knows that he cannot question whether or not we would have had the appropriate hearings before February 25 because we are not in charge. And why we're asking you to let the voice of the people speak, and 2 days ago the voice of this House spoke, Republicans and Democrats voted this down because they believed the voice of the people should ensure that the Fourth Amendment of unreasonable search and seizure has not been violated. And by the passage of this bill today we thwart that and we fly in the face of those constitutional supporters that we can still have freedom.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As the gentleman well knows, February 25 is coming up. So the very fact that hearings had not been held----

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are not the judiciary. We are the people's voice. We are the United States Congress. The issue of whether a court has ruled any of this unconstitutional is the prerogative of that court, but we have the prerogative to address the issues dealing with the people's voice. And so I am disturbed that this comes to the floor, first, as a suspension, which was defeated by the people's voice, and then now through some unique trickery to come with a closed rule so that the people's voice is shut down. This Constitution deserve more. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to establish three branches of government. This House is called the people's House and, therefore, we have the right to have a voice. That voice was already expressed by Members on both sides of the aisles, Republicans and Democrats, who voted this down because of the lack of opportunity to engage on behalf of the people. What more needs to be said? Now, let me say this about the Constitution and about this process. First of all, we have been in some very difficult times, and we understand the crisis of terrorism and the aftermath of 9/11; but let us be reminded that in those early stages when we developed this Constitution, those men who were on this floor had to be concerned about the oppressiveness of the state that owned and dominated this country before it was. Yet they did not yield to not putting in the Constitution the Fourth Amendment, which says that we should not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure. I want to remind my friends that when the Democrats attempted to have open hearings in 2005, the Republicans shut us down. They would not allow us to have people of a different perspective. They turned off the lights. They sent us home. They wouldn't let the people be heard. Is that what we're going to get now? And so I raise the question about the roving wiretap. My friend on the other side of the aisle is incorrect. This is more restrictive than general criminal law, and all we ask is allow us to amend it so it conforms to general criminal laws. That is the point. I offered an amendment with Mr. Conyers that talks about requiring a different standard other than the knowledge requirement when someone breaks into your house. When they come into your house and come into your office, we need to have a standard that is articulated so that innocent persons are protected. We realize that we live under a cover of terrorism. We are patriots as well. We join with the Patriot Act. And I must say to my good friend from Wisconsin, the most shining moment of the Judiciary Committee was after 9/11 when we constructed together, Republicans and Democrats, I believe, the best Patriot Act going forward. But, unfortunately, his majority at that time took that bill that we had developed in the Judiciary Committee in a responsible bipartisan manner with the emotion and the backdrop of 9/11 behind us and skewed it in a way that, frankly, narrowed the rights of Americans. It doesn't matter whether these cases have been selected.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Hearings had not been held as of December 2010. He knows that if we were in charge we would have had the appropriate hearings necessary to go forward before February 25.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that on many occasions, we come to speak of the needs of our constituents, and sometimes we come to celebrate. And I'm delighted to rise to celebrate the groundbreaking for our very favorite Houston soccer team, Houston Dynamo, that has broken ground for a 22,000-seat stadium in the 18th Congressional District, serving all of Texas. I am congratulating them for many reasons. First of all, for the outstanding team wins that they have had but also because of the community outreach and the inspiration that they have provided. I am delighted to have been with the mayor of the City of Houston, the county judge, and elected officials celebrating the fact that we are creating $100 million in economic opportunity, creating jobs, and also joining in partnership with the historically black college Texas Southern University, where they will be playing their football games. They are the 2010 SWAC winners. So congratulations to the Houston Dynamo. And we are excited to have one of our champs in our community, Mr. De La Hoya, who will also be bringing boxing programs into the stadium. It's a family event. We love soccer. It's a growing, growing sport in this country. And maybe Texas--even though it may not be at that stadium--will get the World Cup. But I am congratulating our local community. I was very glad to be a part of it in early support of this stadium and working with Mr. Oliver Luck. I congratulate all of the present leadership. We in the Federal Government will work with them to continue to build jobs and to provide an economic engine for our community. Again, congratulations to the Houston Dynamo.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of this committee. I want to remind my colleagues of a singly important moment when those of us who were Republican and Democrat came together after 9/11, and out of this Judiciary Committee came a singular initiative that dealt with the crisis which we are facing. I have in my hand the Constitution; and I am reminded that when the Founding Fathers came together and declared that we all were created equal, they, too, were concerned about treason, spying, the undermining of government, and maybe even the threat of violence. As we well know how this country came into being, we had to fight a war; yet they had in this Constitution the rights of the Fourth Amendment that we would be protected against unreasonable search and seizure; a Fifth Amendment of due process; and they believed that Americans should be protected. This bill, however, comes to the floor again without amendments. And I'm very proud to say that over the series of my tenure on the Judiciary Committee I have submitted very vital and important amendments to protect the civil liberties of Americans, as well as to recognize the responsibility of all of us to secure this Nation. I'm a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I am not unmindful of the everyday threats that we receive, but this bill would extend provisions that were created in 2005, that also were included in the intelligence reform bill. It extends a provision that allows for a roving electronic surveillance authority and a provision revising the definition of an ``agent of foreign power'' to include any non-U.S. person who engages in international terrorism or preparatory activities, also known as the ``lone wolf,'' without protections. As a member of Homeland Security, I recognize that that is vital, but there needs to be a variety of protections. The other provisions, of course, are ones that invade privacy and create a lack of recognition that we have a Constitution to abide by. So I would ask my colleagues as we move on this legislation to remember it has not been amended; remember we have lived under a Constitution that protects civil liberties; and also remember it took a lawsuit to allow someone to say they had gotten a national security letter. We must do things in a constitutional manner, Mr. Speaker; and I would argue we're not doing it in this legislative initiative. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation; go back to the Judiciary Committee and abide by the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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. 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. Furthermore, this 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, 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. We have been faced with this type of legislation before. On August 3, 2007, I stood before you on the House floor discussing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, another piece of law 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. 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. One provision authorizes the government to obtain ``any tangible thing'' relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the ``thing'' pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision, which was addressed in the Judiciary Committee during the 111th Congress, runs afoul of the traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show ``reasonable suspicion'' or ``probable cause'' before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person's privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity. If we do not take steps to improve this provision, then it should be allowed to expire. Another 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-U.S. 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. All three of these provisions have been examined and amended in the past 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. Finally, H.R. 514 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. 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. [From the American Civil Liberties Union, Aug. 10, 2010] National Security Letter Recipient Can Speak Out for First Time Since FBI Demanded Customer Records From Him New York.--The FBI has partially lifted a gag it imposed on American Civil Liberties Union client Nicholas Merrill in 2004 that prevented him from disclosing to anyone that he received a national security letter (NSL) demanding private customer records. Merrill, who received the NSL as the president of an Internet service provider (ISP), can now reveal his identity and speak about his experience for the first time since receiving the NSL. The ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the NSL statute and the gag order on behalf of Merrill (then called John Doe) in April 2004, which resulted in numerous court rulings finding the NSL statute unconstitutional. Merrill was the first person ever to challenge an NSL in court. ``After six long years of not being able to tell anyone at all what happened to me--not even my family--I'm grateful to finally be able to talk about my experience of being served with a national security letter,'' said Merrill. ``Internet users do not give up their privacy rights when they log on, and the FBI should not have the power to secretly demand that ISPs turn over constitutionally protected information about their users without a court order. I hope my successful challenge to the FBI's NSL gag power will empower others who may have received NSLs to speak out.'' NSLs are secret record demands the FBI issues to obtain access to personal customer records from ISPs, libraries, financial institutions and credit reporting agencies without court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing. Because the FBI can gag NSL recipients to prohibit them from disclosing anything about the record demands they receive, the FBI's use and potential abuse of the NSL power has been shrouded in excessive secrecy. While the NSL served on Merrill stated that he was prohibited from telling anyone about it, he decided to challenge the demand in court because he believed that the FBI was ordering him to turn over constitutionally protected information about one of his clients. Because of the FBI- imposed gag, Merrill was prohibited from talking about the NSL or revealing his identity and role in the lawsuit until today, even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from Merrill more than three years ago. In December 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling in Merrill's case, found that some of the NSL statute's gag provisions were unconstitutional because they wrongly placed the burden on NSL recipients to challenge gag orders, narrowly limited judicial review of gag orders and required courts to defer entirely to the executive branch. The appeals court sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and ordered the government to justify the constitutionality of the gag on Merrill. On July 30, the parties reached a settlement in the case. As part of that settlement, the FBI agreed that Merrill could now identify himself as the John Doe NSL recipient. ``We are thrilled that Nick will finally be able to speak out about why he took the courageous step of challenging the FBI's NSL power. Thanks to Nick's actions, courts have now recognized the need for judicial oversight of the government's dangerous NSL gag power,'' said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. ``But even though this case has resulted in significant improvements to NSL procedures, innocent Americans' private records remain too vulnerable to secret and warrantless data collection by the FBI. At a minimum, the FBI should have to show individual suspicion before it issues an NSL for an individual's personal information and invades Americans' right to privacy and free speech on the Internet.'' While misuse and abuse of the NSL power has been widely documented, the Obama administration is now seeking to expand the statute to allow the FBI to demand even more records without court approval. In July, the Obama administration proposed to expand the statute to allow the FBI to get Americans' Internet activity records without court approval or even suspicion of wrongdoing. In 2009, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) reintroduced the National Security Letters Reform Act, aimed at reigning in abuse of the power. The ACLU has called on Congress to reform the remaining constitutional defects of the NSL gag power and reject Obama proposals to expand the NSL statute. In addition to Goodman, attorneys on the case are Jameel Jaffer of the national ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg of the

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a sense of humor and I believe in the First Amendment; and I truly believe that many Americans had a great time either participating at the Super Bowl or maybe fellowshipping with family members. It's a great opportunity to share information and to inspire. That is why I'm so disappointed with the Pepsi advertisement that showed a demeaning role for African American women, in an ad that showed a can being thrown and being utilized to wound someone else or hit someone else, and that individual fell to the ground. In this month of African American history where we're trying to celebrate what is good and great, it certainly seems ridiculous that Pepsi would utilize this kind of humor. It was not humorous. It was demeaning--an African American woman throwing something at an African American male and winding up hitting a Caucasian woman. I think that we can come together in a much better way, sell Pepsi, and as well talk about good nutrition. But, frankly, I consider this insulting, and so did many other women of all colors. It would be great to have a lot more women in ads at the Super Bowl and great to have more women involved, but it also would be great to have a sense of balance that will respect individuals for who they are and how they contribute--great women like the Honorable Barbara Jordan and the Honorable Shirley Chisholm. I think even though they probably had a great sense of humor, they would find this very offensive.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 359, terminating voluntary taxpayer financing of presidential elections. This legislation seeks to end a 35-year-old program that uses money taxpayers choose to help pay for presidential campaigns and political conventions. The impetus for creating this public-financing system was the 1970s Watergate scandal and the desire to make fundraising for presidential elections more transparent. This bill would terminate the taxpayer option to designate a mere $3 of income taxes to the financing of presidential campaigns, thereby also eliminating the Presidential Election Campaign Fund and the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account. Currently, taxpayers can designate a $3 contribution to the public- financing system by checking a box on their federal income tax form. The money comes from taxes paid to the U.S. Treasury and does not affect a person's tax refund or payment. Passing this legislation would do irreparable harm to our presidential election system by preventing everyday Americans from having their voices heard while opening the door for special interests and large corporations to dominate presidential elections even more. This legislation would prevent patriotic, tax-paying grandmothers who may not be technologically savvy enough to go to the Web site of a presidential campaign but who have for years and decades checked this box from expressing their civic right to support a presidential campaign. I think we should all stand up for grandmothers throughout this great Nation and oppose this legislation. Furthermore, this attempt to fast-track a bill that will destroy the presidential public finance system and privatize election fundraising is highly irresponsible. This violates recent pledges by the GOP's leadership of increased transparency, accountability and debate in Congress. Not one hearing has been held on the legislation, nor has a single committee debated its merits at a markup. If it passes, this legislation will roll back more than 30 years of law born out of the Watergate scandal, eviscerating one of the few remaining protections stopping corporations from heavily influencing American elections even more. The Supreme Court already opened the floodgates to unrestricted special interest spending in our elections and over our public policy debate in the Citizens United case; this legislation would pave the way for special interest groups, large corporations, and other large donors to dominate the political landscape even more at the expense of everyday, hard-working, tax-paying Americans. House Republicans' much-touted ``Pledge to America'' criticized Democrats for ``limiting openness and debate'' during the legislative process and vowed to ``ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square.'' The pledge says the GOP ``will fight to ensure transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout government.'' And in Speaker John Boehner's first remarks after taking control of the House, he spoke of a greater emphasis on ``real transparency'' and ``greater accountability.'' He went on, ``Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it--openly, honestly, and respectfully.'' Bringing forth such sweeping legislation without committee hearings and markups completely contradicts these promises. Public financing of presidential campaigns provides matching tax dollars to the small donations received by candidates who agree to publicly finance their campaigns, instead of relying on private donations. The intent is to encourage small donations and the burden on taxpayers is not much: Americans can voluntarily contribute $3 to the fund on their federal tax filings. The public finance system was created in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the mid-1970s. After President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign was found to have illegally accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from big corporations, Congress created a public financing system so that candidates would not have to rely on corporations and deep pocketed donors to finance their campaigns. Legislation to make presidential public financing more competitive has won support from both parties in the past. In 2003, Senators Russ Feingold and John McCain introduced a bill that would reform the public financing system; Reps. Christopher Shays and Marty Meehan filed a companion bill in the House. ``The public financing system for presidential elections, which aims to allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without becoming overly dependent on private donors, is a system worth improving and preserving,'' the lawmakers said in a joint statement. More recently, Rep. David Price introduced the Presidential Fund Act, which would notably increase the funds available to candidates who opt in to public financing. In 2007, when Price introduced his bill, cosponsors included three Republicans--Reps. Mike Castle of Delaware, Todd Platts of Pennsylvania, and Shays. Rep. Price has offered the bill again in the 112th Congress with Rep. Van Hollen. Since 1976, every Democratic and Republican presidential candidate has used the public financing system except Barack Obama's 2008 campaign. The way reformers see it, the presidential public financing system needs repair, not repeal. This legislation has drawn sharp criticism from campaign- finance watchdog groups who argue that the program should be expanded, not eliminated, to reduce special-interest money in elections. Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, says the amount of public funds currently available to candidates is too small to be competitive in modern presidential races. She says lawmakers need to update the system to better emphasize small donations to candidates and raise the total amount of public funding available. ``Imagine if you didn't make any changes to the tax code since 1976. Of course public financing is outdated. The issue, then, is not to get rid of, but how to fix.'' Craig Holman from the public interest group Public Citizen says his organization and others like it will urge lawmakers to oppose the GOP's bill because it violates the GOP's transparency promises, both on the 2010 campaign trail and now as the House majority. ``This just came out of the blue, has had no deliberation and no discussion within the Republican and Democratic conferences,'' Holman says. ``They have just been seated and they're already breaking the ground rules on how they'll do business.'' This legislation is strongly opposed by Americans for Campaign Reform, the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, People for the American Way, and U.S. PIRG, to name a few. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, which would be damaging to our democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, this House voted to eliminate one of the anchors of democracy: allowing Americans to check off on their IRS filing form $3--just $3--to promote and support the democratic process of electing the President of the United States, all in the name of deficit reduction. But deficit reduction doesn't work without a plan. It doesn't work without thinking about the many State Departments of Transportation that can no longer fix the highways and freeways in your community; or that can promote rail mobility in order to take cars off the road; or that can, in fact, keep the doors of community colleges open; or that can support primary education while State legislatures are struggling to find resources to provide for teachers and students. So let me say this: I want to work with you on deficit reduction. In fact, I've done it before but not without a plan. I believe that investing in the infrastructure of America is a plan that will allow jobs to be created. That's the serious way of dealing with moving America forward and allowing for the genius of America--having a plan that responds to building America and not making false projections about saving money.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I consider the gentleman from California a colleague that I've known for a good while, and I know that there are certainly good intentions; but I always believe that when you're elected to this powerful body that represents over 300 million Americans, as the census has given us new numbers of how many Americans we have the privilege of representing, you do have to speak about the future. When you begin to talk about generic numbers going back to 2008 levels, you are speaking generally without substance because it is our commitment to be able to move America forward. And I hope the President will stay in the blue column because you can see the red column in the past administration: there was no job creation. So when you talk about reducing the deficit, it must be with a plan; it must be with substance. Because you can repeal with no substance. And I would just raise the question: Do we want a Nation that does not invest in education? Do we want a Nation that does not help our businesses invest to create jobs? And do we want a Nation that says that security, the FBI, the DEA--someone called in today and talked about how important it was to ensure that we had the right kind of law enforcement. Or do we want to tell those who are on Social Security who have worked, literally worked, or are disabled, that there are no more dollars for them because we have just without any guidance gone back to 2008 levels? I would just ask that we move this country forward, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that we invest in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I was walking through the hallway, I encountered an individual who was enormously excited about the President's State of the Union. They happened to be a new employee of this House. This would be the very first time that they would have this privilege and this honor. I think it is important for us to recognize that it is a privilege and an honor. In essence it is a responsibility of this administration, of this President, to follow in the tradition in the law of the land that the President presents to the Congress, to the people of this great country, the State of the Union. Frankly, I'm an optimist. I am so grateful that we live in a country that has a Constitution that has prevailed for so many years, that we have language in our Constitution that says that we have organized to create a more perfect Union, that the words of the Declaration of Independence are pressed upon our hearts: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we all are created equal with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's what I expect to hear from our President tonight, a man of passion and commitment and dedication, a man who feels the pain of this Nation, a man who has sacrificed his own personal prestige and popularity in order to make very difficult decisions. The American Recovery Act, for example, went into the nooks and crannies of this Nation and built up small communities, provided extra police officers, provided more patient rooms, gave more resources to local hospitals and research institutions to make this country great and created jobs. And if you look at a grid that shows the job creation of the last administration, you will see that it is predominantly all red, jobs lost. But as we have struggled to build and climb, we aren't going in the right direction. And so I would ask the President to stand his ground on investment in America and infrastructure in America. And I would say to this body that we must stand committed and dedicated to the protection of the vulnerable. Does that mean increasing the deficit? No. I happen to have had the privilege of working on a balanced budget. It's exciting. We passed a balanced budget, and out of that we created the Children's Health Insurance Program and 22 million jobs in the last Democratic administration. We can do that now. We can create jobs, and I would encourage the President to focus on the infrastructure. Why? Let me give you an example. The city of Houston, now the third largest city in the United States based upon the census data that will be finalized in the month of February, we are in line after 30 years to create a world-class mobility system. We have been granted a billion dollars over a number of years, not wasting money because Texas happens to send more to the United States' tax coffers than we get back, but we will be creating 50,000 jobs by investing in a light rail system to move people forward, to eliminate the emissions crisis that we have, and to put people to work. The crisis that we are now in with not having passed the appropriations of the 111th Congress, which I secured some $150 million for us to start, stymies all of these need-to-build projects on bridges and freeways, on dams that need to be repaired. All of that creates the genius of America or boosts the genius of America and let's us work. So, Mr. President, stand your ground on making sure that we move forward on infrastructure so that we can make it in America, meaning that Americans can make it, they can survive, they can improve their quality of life, and we can make it in America. I want us to build the light railcars. Bring it on home. Let us build turbines that are part of wind energy. Let us build the solar panels. And, yes, let us build our buses and trains. Stand your ground, Mr. President. And then for the most vulnerable of America, let's put it on the line that we are not going to touch Social Security. I know the panic that goes through senior citizens, the disabled, veterans who are dependent not only on the veterans' compensation but they are dependent on Social Security. Let's draw the line. And, too, the young people of America. Let's be very clear, you are not carrying the senior citizens. We are not taking out of your future. Remember the words of President Kennedy who said: Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Social Security is an investment of those who have worked and those who are disabled. And so, Mr. President, stand your ground tonight in this most privileged opportunity to speak to the American people. Bring us together as we will all be sitting with each other. So let us stand our ground for the future of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H. Res. 43, ``A rule providing for consideration of the Republican Budget-less Resolution.'' Through the American Recovery Act of 2009 (stimulus bill), Congress threw out a massive lifeline to save Americans who were on the verge of losing their jobs and to create jobs for those who were unemployed. We have received numerous reports from our constituents and the Administration of the positive impact the stimulus funding is having on our economy. Yet, we know there is still more work to do. This bill will undermine and erode the many scarifies Americans have made to adjust to the downturn in the economy. This bill is turning America backwards in the wrong direction. The new proposal of the House Republican Study Committee (RSC) to cut and then freeze non-defense discretionary spending at 2008 levels from 2012 through 2021 would mean cuts of more than 40 percent in education, environmental protection, law enforcement, medical research, food safety, and many other key services. For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) funding at the FY2008 enacted level instead of the FY2010 enacted level would result in a decrease $2.83 billion--$7.46 billion enacted for FY2008 vs. $10.29 billion enacted for FY2010. The majority of this decrease below the FY2010 appropriations would be the result of a $2.04 billion decrease within the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account, and a $665.8 million decrease within the Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account. The decrease within the STAG account would be attributed primarily to funding for capitalization grants for the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), although numerous other grants also are funded within this account. The SRF funding specifically supports local wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects, such as construction of and modifications to municipal sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, to facilitate compliance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, respectively. Furthermore, the EPM account funds a broad range of activities involved in EPA's development of pollution control regulations and standards, and enforcement of these requirements across multiple environmental media, such as air quality and water quality. This proposal would represent the deepest annual cut in funding for these programs in recent U.S. history. It would remove substantial purchasing power from a weak economy, thereby costing hundreds of thousands of jobs and raising risks of a double-dip recession. If imposed across the board, such a cut would mean 42 percent less for healthcare for veterans; 42 percent less for K-12 education; 42 percent less for protecting the environment; 42 percent less for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration, and border security; 42 percent less for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 42 percent less for food safety and inspection; and so on. Specifically, in my Congressional District, the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, two active Light Rail construction projects are underway. These projects exemplify urban mobility, jobs, economic prosperity, energy independence and sustainable growth for the city of Houston. The projects are commonly referred to as the North Corridor Line and the Southeast Corridor Line. It is critical that these projects continue so that the construction can proceed and the benefits of the new service can be available to the traveling public as soon as possible. In the FY2011 appropriations legislation that passed the House of Representatives, we were able to secure $150 million for Houston METRO. However, we were unable to preserve this funding in the legislation that passed the Senate, which resulted in the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress at the end of last year not including this funding or any other funding for specific New Starts projects for Houston METRO. I want to ensure that my constituents are in a position to feed their families, to secure employment and further his or her education by preserving this important funding. I represent an international energy hub and global business city. Twenty-six companies on the 2010 Fortune 500 list maintain their headquarters in Houston and many more have administrative operations located in Houston. More than 3,000 firms conduct international business in over 200 countries, making Houston a truly global city. Houston is also a burgeoning leader in the information technology, nanotechnology, aerospace, and health care industries. To adopt this resolution would be crippling my District and eliminating the guarantee through these projects of thousands of jobs for Houstonians. It is factual that Houston's expertise in global business and energy will provide the southwest region with an economic boost that will ensure the United States remains an international economic leader. Consequently, the House majority, of course, could decide to meet its overall target for non-defense discretionary spending while protecting one or more of the programs and services listed above. But, a cut of less than 42 percent in, say, education or environmental protection would necessitate even more draconian cuts in, say, food safety and border security. Our Border States are frustrated and in need of targeted assistance. Over the last year, I attended a number of different hearings, meetings with local and state officials, and press conferences on immigration, combating the drug trade, and improving the border, and in almost all instances, I have heard the same comment: Border States are frustrated. The deeply misguided Arizona Law, (SB 1070) for example, is an expression of that frustration. Unless we want to see more of a backlash, we in the federal government must do more to help our Border States, which are vital to securing our nation and upholding our immigration laws, and helping local and state officials secure our Border States. The United States continues to fight the battle against the powerful drug trafficking organizations that have plagued our sister cities just across the border with violence. We have been fortunate thus far that for the most part the violence has not spilled over into the United States, but we cannot depend on being insulated forever. Instability abroad, especially on the border, is a danger to stability at home, and we have a vested interest in helping our neighbors to the southwest combat the criminal organizations that have threatened the safety of their citizens and brought drugs into our country. First of all, we need to provide more ``boots on the ground'' to help secure our borders. While deterrence through additional personnel is essential to improving security, several members of the law enforcement community have also stressed the importance of providing more resources for investigators and detectives, who can help to ferret out and dismantle the criminal activities taking place on our borders. Moreover, while federal agencies have improved their coordination with the Border States, communication within local and state authorities continues to be problematic. Communication in disperse rural areas presents a particular challenge. At a hearing on the Merida Initiative, I heard the moving testimony of a rancher from rural Arizona, Mr. Bill McDonald. He pointed out how a lack of resources and a rapid turnover rate make communication extremely important, but extremely lacking. These rural areas, and the people who live there, are in many cases the most vulnerable to human traffickers and drug traffickers. There is a desperate need for Border States to receive the necessary support to effectively secure our borders from threats and ensure a safe and stable environment for our border residents. More robust, well funded, and well resourced law enforcement systems are exactly what our Border States and residents demand. It is quite disappointing that we cannot accurately evaluate this resolution because it does not really provide a clear breakdown of the $100 billion in cuts it claims for the 2012 budget. The first $80 billion in savings would be to ``Replace the spending levels in the continuing resolution (CR) with non-defense, non-homeland security, non-veterans spending at FY 2008 levels.'' That, obviously, is incredibly vague. This legislation would end federal subsidies for Amtrak, which basically means the end of train travel in the United States. This resolution would end federal involvement in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would, as Ezra Klein says, likely plunge the mortgage securitization market into chaos and send housing prices skidding again. It would repeal the federal support for state Medicaid budgets that has plugged the gap for many states with budgets hit hard by the recession, meaning many poor people would likely lose their access to medical care. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposition to H. Res 43.