Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. So I rise today to support this and ask anybody with good judgment, why would you vote against it? As I said, I don't like the pay-fors, but it is paid for. We will fix that. But let me tell you what is happening in Texas. Texas is taking money out of the mouths of children and putting it somewhere else. So I am supporting it because we have language that says to the Governor of the State of Texas, don't fool with money for children and education. And we have 40 school districts saying we support the legislative language that members of the Texas legislation have proposed.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico and I thank him for working together with me on this amendment and for his leadership. I offered a similar amendment and was very pleased to join this amendment as the Teague-Jackson Lee amendment. It is important to note that this is a fair amendment that does something. It really does do something for the small, independent companies. This amendment would allow the financial responsibility required to operate in the gulf to be pooled among companies working together. It means that we give them the opportunity because of the $300 million necessary COFR to be able to do business in the gulf and not go out of business. What it really means is preserving thousands of jobs. First of all, the U.S. independent operators in the gulf because of their operations, they have a major contribution to energy security and energy supply providing reasonably priced fuels for our families and economy. Eighty-one percent of oil producing in the gulf is in the independent leases and 46 percent of the gulf's producing deepwater leases as well. Independents have drilled 1,298 wells in the deepwater and safely. Independents operate an average of 70 percent of the farmed-out acreage that originally were in the hands of the majors over the past 10 years. Almost 3 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves that were originally found by the majors are now operated by independents; small companies that create a lot of jobs. This is an amendment that will allow them to work together, pool their resources, and do the right thing, not put the burden on the taxpayers. Let me also acknowledge that I am glad my requirement to have redundancies in actions and fuel resources plans was also included in the manager's amendment. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his leadership. It's my pleasure to be able to work with you for an amendment that is doing something, is helping the independents stay in business and create jobs, and it is helping them do the work that will allow for the American people to have quality oil for cheap prices. I rise to speak in support of the Teague/Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 3534, The Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR Act). The Jackson Lee Amendment would allow the financial responsibility required to operate in the Gulf of Mexico to be pooled among the companies working together. With the potential of unlimited liability looming large over the smaller independent companies, this amendment will prevent small, independent oil companies from being driven out of business and out of the Gulf of Mexico. The problem with the current requirements for the Certificate of Oil Field Responsibility (COFR) is that smaller operators will be unable to establish the $300 million necessary COFR to even begin exploration and development. By allowing smaller companies--who frequently work together in joint ventures--to pool their resources for COFR purposes, we will prevent the Gulf from becoming the exclusive province of companies big enough to self-insure, and allow the small businesses of the Gulf Coast Community to continue to provide jobs and drive our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and vote for small businesses, saving jobs, and the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on H.R. 3534, the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act. I would like to recount the facts of April 30th, 2010 for this House and the American people. First, let us remember the names of the eleven brave men who tragically lost their lives in the Deepwater Horizon explosion: 1. Jason Anderson, 35; 2. Aaron Dale Burkeen, 37; 3. Donald Clark, 34; 4. Stephen Curtis, 39; 5. Gordon Jones, 28; 6. Roy Wyatt Kemp, 27; 7. Karl Klepping, 38; 8. Blair Manuel, 56; 9. Dewey Revette, 48; 10. Shane Roshto, 22; and 11. Adam Weise, 24. What the eleven names do not reveal is that there are families with children, widows, and many other family members who are still mourning the loss of their loved ones. I believe we have a moral obligation to remember all of the lives affected by the loss of these eleven dedicated oil rig workers. They were tough workers, but also gentle fathers, brothers, husbands, as well as friends to many. Congress must always consider how to best protect American lives, and in doing so protect the safety of the American oil industry worker. In addition to the lives lost, every individual, business and community adversely affected by the oil spill must be taken into account as we consider legislative responses. Unfortunately, now with more than 92 million estimated gallons of oil spilled and the fishing, tourism, boating, shrimping industries, and the oil industry itself brought to a grinding halt, we can anticipate other losses. This tragedy begs the American people to act to promote safety, spur technology, and to protect people in the Gulf Region. We owe it to them to provide the kind of protection and legal framework that will ease their minds, and help them receive what they are entitled to through the claims process. Unfortunately, the original claims system was an abomination with numerous claims unresolved, unpaid and ignored. BP has received many claims and has issued many statements and reports, but the fact of the matter is they have not delivered on those early promises. We must make sure that they do what is right, and meet their financial obligations to the many claimants still waiting to reconstruct their lives and livelihoods. The urgency of the energy situation in our country calls for immediate action by Congress in developing a national energy policy. I would have fully supported targeting the culprits in the Gulf oil spill and getting the Gulf region back on track, as long as we also develop effective policies to ensure that we set a high bar of expectations for these companies in a system based on culpability. The people in the Gulf region need to be assured that we will preserve their way of life, while ensuring that their best interests are taken to heart. Their jobs must be restored and preserved for future generations who may want a livelihood in the oil and gas industry. I do not believe you can graft a broader national energy policy for the future onto a bill meant primarily to address the myriad of complex issues currently facing the energy industry. Regarding the Remedies Act, on July 1, 2010, I introduced a bill to address some of the larger issues raised by oil spill related developments in the Gulf of Mexico. Although a pronouncement of the issue, I believe it captures the most substantive matters. I have tried to adapt some of the provisions of that bill as amendments to the CLEAR Act, to try and make a weak bill better. I introduced an amendment under which applicants for permits to drill in the Gulf of Mexico will be required to have spill prevention, mitigation, and recovery plans that are vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber stamped by industry friendly regulators; the amendment would also require that there be legitimate, effective back- up plans in case the first response is ineffective. Another of my amendments would allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish, immediately, an independent claims process for those whose property and livelihoods have been damaged by oil spills much like the process only now being set up under Special Master Feinberg. Finally, I am proud to cosponsor Representative Teague's (NM-2D) amendment, introduced the same Amendment which will allow several small companies working together in joint venture and partnerships to pool their financial resources for the necessary Certificate of Oil Field Responsibility, the price of admission to work in the Gulf. Without the option of pooling their resources, or joint insurance, independent oil companies will be driven from the Gulf, leaving it the province of only three or four massive, multinational oil companies. If we can not preserve the independent oil companies, responsible for 80 percent of the drilling in the Gulf and 30 percent of the oil, then we are likely to doom an industry that is one of the most prolific job generators in the nation, particularly at a time when job creation in most American industries is stagnant or minimal at best. We must also take into consideration the importance of the environment as it relates to our national energy policy and the quality of life in the Gulf and the rest of the country, not to mention the rest of the globe. We have no idea what the long-term impact of the Gulf oil spill will be, as we are just beginning to understand the issues of connectivity related to the environment and ecological system. When birds nest in polluted wetlands and migrate to other parts of the U.S. and the globe, what impact might their exposure to oil have on the environmental quality of the environment in that part of the world? There are many complicated questions that we must answer before we proclaim that we have a solution to protecting the environment to massive oil spill in one bill. It is impossible to accomplish, and at best any environmental strategy is merely a band-aid approach rather than the comprehensive environmentally policy we need to consider. For example we really need a major direct clean-up fund, and we have to provide for environmental inspections. I urge a sense of immediacy as it relates to the environment and to protect the people of the Gulf from the long-term health consequences of the spill. As a person who has lived in, worked in, and knows the Gulf region well, I see the vibrant mixture of businesses there, from fishermen to oil workers, who represent the quintessential hardworking American. These Americans deserve applause for their contribution to our productivity. We owe it to them to demand of the oil companies the same high level of excellence that these hardworking men and women have demonstrated. We must provide for appropriate penalties for safety violations and breaches of compliance, while recognizing the importance of the industry to job creation and job growth. As we did in this tragic incident, we must come down hard on BP, but not eliminate them from the picture, lest the whole industry be penalized. There are some good things in this bill, although some of my ideas were not adopted as part of the manager's amendment. For example, one amendment would have required that businesses applying for permits to drill and produce crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico submit detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans as part of the permitting process. Not only must they have recovery plans, but they will be required to have backup plans, in case their first response fails. Additionally, those plans must be vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber-stamped by insufficiently vigilant regulators. Most important Representative Teague's amendment, which I cosponsored, will prevent small, independent oil companies from being driven out of the Gulf of Mexico. The problem with the current requirements for the Certificate of Oil Field Responsibility (COFR) is that smaller operators will be unable to establish the $300 million necessary COFR to even begin exploration and development. By allowing smaller companies--who frequently work together in joint ventures--to pool their resources for COFR purposes, we will prevent the Gulf from becoming the exclusive province of companies big enough to self-insure, and allow the small businesses of the Gulf Coast communities to continue to provide jobs and drive our economy. Again, Mr. Chair, my central concern is that we promote job creation, ensure long term investment and fiscal discipline, guarantee safety, focus on the industry and accountability as we work to craft an effective energy policy, and utilize energy related to fossil fuels in a more responsible way, while we continue to make investments in research and development, rather than pitting industries against each other. We just witnessed the development of a prescriptive policy related to the coal industry, as a result of a tragedy with the mines in West Virginia. That legislative business model is a useful example of how we can develop energy policy related to oil. We must also continue to promote new forms of green energy, while we keep our promise to the American people to protect jobs in the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, our job is made very difficult when we see major global energy companies and domestic industry excluded from a sensible national energy policy. We must promote a strong process that will help us deliver on these promises, both to the stakeholders and to the American people. Everyone needs to buy-in to a national energy policy in order for it to be successful. Let me say that we must establish a seamless energy policy that all sectors of the energy industry can support, cementing the United States in the energy industry as the most independent producer globally, while making it the worlds' leader in green energy. Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with my Colleagues on this approach to America's energy future. In addition, I strongly support the Buy America Provision in the bill and the American Worker Provision. As the CLEAR Act moves to the Senate, we must remember the interests of the communities of the Gulf Coast, and of all those affected by the devastation of the oil spill. We must remain committed to protecting lives, protecting jobs and protecting the environment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 3534, ``The Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act.'' The manager's amendment provides a number of provisions that will ensure that there is greater chance of preventing an incident such as the April 30, 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The Manager's amendment includes my amendment which requires redundancy in accident and spill response plans as part of the permitting process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Specifically, my amendment will require that businesses applying for permits to drill and produce crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico submit detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans as part of the permitting process. Not only must they have recovery plans, but they will be required to have backup plans, in case their first response fails. Additionally, those plans must be vetted by impartial experts, rather than rubber-stamped by insufficiently vigilant regulators. With this additional layer of response planning, there is a better chance that we will be better prepared to respond to future incidents like the Gulf oil spill. The Manager's amendment also includes provisions that do the following: Clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior may enter into cooperative education and training agreements with safety training firms in establishing the National Oil and Gas Health and Safety Academy. Clarifies that the Secretary is permitted to consult with industry representatives regarding training program curricula, but is not authorized to utilize industry representatives as instructional personnel for the trainings. Imposes civil penalties on CEO's who certify to false information about a company's capability to prevent or contain an oil spill. Establishes a Citizen's Advisory Committee composed of non-energy industry individuals to assist the Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force in its work. Clarifies that the Regional Assessment and Regional Strategic Plan created by the Great Lakes Regional Coordination Council shall include only renewable and not non-renewable energy resources. Ensures that Gulf residents would have the right of first refusal for processing the claims filed due to the oil spill. Replaces the requirement for dispersant manufacturers to disclose their product's chemical formula with a requirement to disclose dispersant products' ingredients. Provides that discharges resulting from salvage activities consistent with the National Contingency Plan or as directed by the President are exempt from liability under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Authorizes a study of the economic, safety, and environmental impacts of requiring a relief well be drilled in tandem with the drilling of some or all wells. Requires the GAO to complete a study to determine whether the reforms to the Department of the Interior mandated in this legislation have increased oversight and decreased conflicts of interest within the department. Includes in the Environmental Study an analysis of the cumulative impact of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. Requires oil and gas companies to pay royalties on all oil that is discharged from a well, including spilled oil. Directs GAO to study the impact of assessing a fee on the processing of oil and gas leases and using the proceeds to fund the gathering of baseline environmental data necessary for the permitting process. Directs the Secretary of the Interior to arrange with the National Academy of Engineering to study and report to the Secretary regarding whether the accuracy of collection of royalties on production of oil, condensate, and natural gas under leases of federal lands would be improved by implementing certain prescribed measures; and Amends the liability provisions in the Oil Pollution Act to protect claimants from signing broad liability releases, and to clarify that the new cause of action under OPA for damages to human health does not supersede remedies under other federal law. Mr. Chair, I support this manager's amendment which includes my amendment that will require redundancy in accident and spill response plans as part of the permitting process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman and I thank you for your constant forward thinking on the workers of America. Coming from the gulf region, I don't know if any of you have ever seen an oil rig, particularly one as large as Deepwater Horizon. It is the home of the workers. It is their home away from home. They eat there, they sleep there, they work very hard there, and they recreate there. They're there 24 hours a day. Some may be a cook. Someone may be a sophisticated engineer. Some may be a seaman and that is their profession. But they're working there; and, therefore, they are looking to ensure that their home away from home is safe. As I've listened to administration officials who are now all about the gulf, I can tell you that the workers who love their industry and love their jobs are excited about the call for transparency and protection and increased safety for this industry. They're excited about what is going on as it relates to those who would engage in telling the truth. If you look at the facts in some of the hearings that we've been in, you will know that there have been a lot of conversations with subordinates trying to talk to supervisors. Something was awry, but no one listened. We may have even heard that some companies left the rig early on because they were disturbed. Or as my colleague mentioned, the young man by the name of Jason who even told his wife, ``Prepare my will.'' And so it is important today that we stand up for the workers. This is a concise, articulate, whistleblower language and legislation, prohibiting an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against anyone who talks to State or Federal officials or anyone else; telling the truth, saving lives. As well, it protects them if they prepare or testify in front of any governmental entity talking about unsafe conditions. Imagine how many lives that could save in any other industry as well. The bill establishes a process for an employee to appeal, giving them the justice of the Constitution that does not deny you benefits without due process. Is that a problem? They live there. This is their home. It makes an aggrieved employee eligible for reinstatement and back pay. Some of these jobs are the only jobs these men or women can secure to protect and provide for their family. We live in the gulf. We're shrimpers and fishermen and oystermen; and yes, we work in this industry. It requires employers to post a notice that explains employee rights and remedies under the act. I look forward to working with the chairman as we look at other ways of helping these employees who are under stress, providing mental health services and counseling after this terrible devastation. It may have to continue even after BP finishes their work. But this is the right direction to go. This speaks well of this Congress who will stand alongside of workers and make a difference in their lives and the lives of their families. I ask you to vote for this legislation. Today, I rise in support of H.R. 5851--the Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act. We are all well aware of the disaster that occurred when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, but it might have been prevented if we had listened to voices expressing concern. The men and woman who bravely come out and expose the injustices and violations that take place at their place of work are the eyes and ears for the American public. These people should be able to speak out freely with no fear of unfair repercussion. In the aftermath of the disaster, it became clear that workers on the Deepwater Horizon rig harbored safety concerns prior to the explosion, but chose not to vocalize them over fear of retribution. Take, for example, Jason Anderson, who told both his wife and father that working conditions were not safe on the Deepwater Horizon. According to his wife Shelley's testimony before the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, Jason was reluctant to talk about these concerns while on the rig and told her: ``I can't talk about it now. The walls are too thin.'' Another worker, Dewey Revette, reportedly had concerns with BPs plans to begin shutting down the well on the day it exploded. He continued to work despite his reluctance and lost his life hours later. Workers on oil rigs, like the Deepwater Horizon, risk losing their jobs if they report dangerous workplace conditions. The workers performing clean-up activities on the Outer Continental Shelf similarly have no protections against employer retaliation for raising health and safety concerns. It is essential that workers be protected when they raise concerns about unsafe working conditions, and they must have the right to stop working if they fear they could be injured or killed. All workers, especially those in dangerous jobs, are in the best position to discover safety hazards. You can't have inspectors at all facilities at all times--these workers are enforcement agencies' eyes and ears when it comes to safety compliance. Currently, there is no Federal law that protects offshore workers for blowing the whistle on workplace health and safety problems. This bill extends whistleblower protections to workers regarding Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration, drilling, production, or cleanup, whose employers are engaged in those activities. Federal whistleblowers have attempted to expose government actions that violate the law or harm the environment for decades. Their disclosures have helped the Federal Government improve environmental protection, nuclear safety, and national security, and their claims have helped safeguard the welfare of American citizens. Whistleblowers have gained credibility in recent years thanks in great part to organizations like the National Whistleblower Center (NWC), the Liberty Coalition, and the Government Accountability Project. The NWC is a non- profit, tax exempt educational and advocacy organization dedicated to helping whistleblowers make their case to lawmakers and other government leaders--a modern day safe haven for those who are willing to put their careers on the line to improve their government. The bill is modeled after other modern whistleblower statutes and would prohibit an employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee who reports to the employer, or a Federal or State Government official that he or she reasonably believes the employer is violating the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The legislation would also protect covered employees who prepare and/or testify about the alleged violation, report injuries or unsafe conditions related to the offshore work, refuse to work based on a good faith belief that the offshore work could cause injury or impairment or a spill, or refuse to perform in a manner that they believe violates the OCSLA. Mr. Speaker, it is essential to protect workers with the courage to speak out when they see life-threatening safety-hazards or shortcuts. If we do not, we risk dire consequences. Whistleblowers are often forced to choose between remaining silent about a dangerous or illegal situation and risking their careers by telling the truth. We must reverse this unacceptable and unsustainable choice by passing this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 5850, the ``Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011.'' This bill includes important funding and necessary investments in our transportation, housing and other critical aspects of this country's infrastructure. This bill also provides assistance to the most vulnerable Americans, including the homeless, disabled, low-income and elderly. Additionally, this bill provides support for our veterans who serve this nation so valiantly and who have earned a right to adequate housing. Mr. Chair, this bill includes funding for critical transportation projects that will improve mobility and stimulate economic activity in communities across the country. What I am particularly proud of is the funding for two light rail lines in Houston, Texas--the North and Southeast lines. These projects have successfully gone through the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts review process, and I am looking forward to passage of this bill and funding of these projects. As the fourth largest city in the country, we are anxiously awaiting construction of an integrated rail network that will create jobs, provide mobility and spur economic development. Funding for these projects will be a significant step towards achieving our goals. This bill also invests in National Infrastructure to Support Jobs. It includes funding for: Highway infrastructure There is $45.2 billion in the bill to improve and repair our nation's aging highway infrastructure. It is estimated that this increased investment will support more than 142,000 additional jobs across all sectors of the economy, according to the job model developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT). According to the DOT's 2008 Conditions and Performance Report, an average annual investment of $105.6 billion from all levels of government is needed just to sustain the current conditions of our highways and bridges, and $174.6 billion is needed to improve our current system. In addition, the report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission issued in December 2007 recommended investing $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to maintain, upgrade, and expand our transportation networks. Public Transportation Investments There is also $11.3 billion to support bus and rail projects, including capital expenditures. The increase from last year will support an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers around the country. The Federal Transit Administration estimates that our nation's public transportation system has a state-of-good-repair backlog of nearly $78 billion. Public Housing Capital Fund Additionally, the bill includes $2.5 billion to help Public Housing Authorities make critical repairs and improvements to public housing units and improve living conditions for residents, including green and sustainable rehabilitation. Every dollar invested in the Capital Fund produces $2.12 in economic return for local economies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I was listening to the gentleman from Florida, and I want to thank him for framing the discussion as he has done, and really speaking to our colleagues and the American people. I was trying to discern what my colleague was saying, good friend from the other side of the aisle. And I would only say that the only people that are shaking their heads are those who are trying to pay their mortgages, who are trying to make sure that their incoming freshman or upper classman has the tuition that they need to finish school. Americans are asking us to stop the chatter about procedures and begin to do the work that they need to rebuild this Nation. That's the business of this Democratic leadership, of which I am proud to associate with. My friends talk about the story of the Recovery Act, and they are absolutely right. We've been so busy with our elbow to the grindstone that we haven't been able to tell the story of the many, many jobs created by the Recovery Act. But watch us in the month of August, when we go home and shine the light on the many, many jobs. In the 18th Congressional District, over $800 million, 97 projects, job-creating, bridge-making programs to help those in that district. So today we take another leap of faith. And I hope that we can get an understanding about what this bill does. The bill closes the loopholes, something Americans are very clear about, that are given to corporations to take jobs overseas. If they can do their business here, they need to do it. But in the meantime, what do we give you? First of all, we all know that the government cannot use all the dollars that are issued. When you give money to State and local governments, what do they do? They contract with small businesses in that community who then either keep the employees they have or they expand and need to hire. And let me give you an example. Build America Bonds is part of this legislation, an exciting way to invest in America. More than $106 billion of infrastructure investments nationwide will come about because of this. It will not be government workers that will be nailing and cementing and designing, it will be local businesses that will be part of this exciting opportunity. Recovery Zone Bonds that will provide $10 billion in Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds and $15 billion in Recovery Zone Facility Bonds, all having to bring in small businesses. In my own community of Houston, we are looking at ways to improve our water and sewer. Most communities have aging water systems and sewer systems. There has usually been a cap on how much money a State can spend on water and sewage. We are lifting those caps so that bonds can be issued so that the burden does not fall right away on the taxpayer. These are what we are trying to do to infuse capital not in the pockets of the government, but in the pockets of our businesses that will in turn reinvest in the community and in the government by way of the general churning of the economy. Building, expanding, improving the quality of life that is necessary. Those who are in need of TANF would be helped. Those who are in need of the expansion of business will be helped. And then what I think is enormously important, we will be investing in real American jobs because we will extend the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance. These programs provide for short-term, one-time aid for needy families, and subsidized employment programs help these families put money back into the economy. So I would argue that we can chatter about procedure, and that's a good talk for inside this august body.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. But I can tell you that if anybody is scratching their head at the kitchen table as to how I am going to make next month's payment or tomorrow's payment, if anyone is confused, they're not confused about a procedure that is going to allow this bill to move forward to give them help and not a hand out. They are going to be ready to take advantage of these constructive, financial, and fiscally sound, paid-for vehicles which they can utilize to rebuild their local communities, both rural and urban. That's what America is all about. That's what this debate will be about today. And in conclusion, I would say adding to a grand and great Transportation-HUD bill, one of the greatest ones that will provide for massive mobility and housing in this Nation, that's what Americans are looking for, for us to stand up and be counted and move this Nation forward. I thank the gentleman for the time. I ask that you vote for the rule and this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you to the manager of this legislation, Congresswoman Chu, for her very kind and astute words and to Mr. Cao for his words in recognizing that gospel music is part of Americana. And that's why I stand today to be able to reflect the history of America and to be able to say that it is important that we preserve our history, cherish uniqueness of American history and American history in music. Today I rise in support of H.J. Res. 90, expressing support for the designation of September 2010 as Gospel Music Heritage Month and honoring gospel music for its valuable and long-standing contributions to the culture of the United States. It was in my own hometown of Houston, listening to the wide range of gospel artists from many different disciplines, that the idea came to seek an opportunity for all of America, no matter from where they may have come, from what walk of life, what religion, what ethnicity, what background to really celebrate this very special part of American history. As you may know, gospel music is an American art form that has spanned hundreds of years and across several generations. It has touched millions of lives around the world while demonstrating its profound ability to transcend secular music and many other forms of music. As you can note, you can see that when we play or sing gospel music in a very diverse form, people are happy. They are joyful. They are having a wonderful time. By surpassing culturally constructed boundaries, gospel music has emerged as a musical thread uniting the fabric of America. Gospel music is when we are sad. Gospel music is when we are joyous. Gospel music is when we need comforting. Whether you are rich or poor, young or old, and even Democrats and Republicans alike have been uniquely interlinked by gospel's undeniable influence to American culture. For this reason it is important that we recognize and celebrate the vital role that gospel music has played in shaping music history. If you talk to many of our military personnel on battlefields, you will note that many will hum a gospel song or a hymn that began with the origin of gospel music. While gospel music has become a multibillion-dollar industry, gospel music's historic roots have originated in the humble and soulful melodies of African American spirituals, as well as in the far ranges of Appalachia and other places around the Nation. Its sound contains diverse elements from African music, melodic influences from Irish folk songs, hymns and ultimately borrows from other uniquely American musical styles, including ragtime, jazz and blues. The legacy of gospel music can be heard in the voices of pioneers in American history like Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin and many, many more. The influence of gospel music can be found infused in all forms of secular music, including rock and roll, country, soul, R&B and countless other styles. Gospel music laid down the foundation for legendary recording artists such as Elvis Presley. I heard many say that Elvis's best words and music were the gospel songs that he sang, and I believe that someone reminded me that Elvis Presley won a Grammy because of a gospel song that he sang. Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis. While there are many elements, situations and issues that divide our Nation, gospel music has found a unique way to highlight our similarities and influence the cultural makeup of our society. Instead of emphasizing our differences, gospel music has found a way to cater to the fundamental elements that unite people around the world, focusing on the soul of an individual rather than the mind. If you look at these pictures, you can see how people are inspired and seemingly caught up in the emotion and the feeling of the song. With that, it is important that we do not take this art form for granted. In fact, this evening I was speaking to Kurt Carr, and it may be important that as we celebrate Gospel Music Heritage Month we find a way to translate this musical art to our children. We must make sure that the heritage of gospel music is recognized, honored, and celebrated. As I said, it is part of Americana. It is part of American history. It is a song which pioneers took west with them and others found comfort in their times of stress. Over the years, songs like ``Amazing Grace,'' which was written by John Newton, a young boy who left school at the age of 11 and began a life as a pirate seaman. Eventually he engaged in slavery capturing people from west Africa and selling them to slave markets around the world. But some would say by the grace of God fear was put into his heart when he was caught in a violent and fierce storm upon the sea, and lo and behold, he designed, wrote, felt and offered to the world the song, ``Amazing Grace,'' which offered to us that one could be saved when you felt lost and blind. And so it is important that as we reflect on how wonderful it is to live in this great country, how many attributes we have, we have brought to this Congress the opportunity to commemorate and designate September as Gospel Music Heritage Month. There are some icons that I want to mention in this statement tonight. Dr. Bobby Jones, who founded and is the director and anchor and presenter of ``Dr. Bobby Jones Gospel,'' a program that has been on cable TV for 30 years, I did not say 10, I did not say 20, this is the longest-running cable TV program in the Nation, not longest gospel TV program, the longest gospel program of 30 years. And so I thank you, Dr. Jones, for providing for aspiring artists and the many gospel singers that have had their opportunity to be on your program. Singers like Kurt Carr, V. Michael McKay and Don Jackson, who was the founder of the Stellar Awards, which is the great honorable program that honors all gospel singers. Certainly V. Michael McKay, as I indicated, just wrote a book of hymns that has a gospel touch; to Jazzy Jordan, who manages a number of artists and to many of those whose names have been listed in this legislation, names like the Mighty Clouds of Joy, Kirk Franklin, Theola Booker, Yolanda Adams, Edwin and Walter Hawkins--and certainly we mourn the passing of brother Walter Hawkins--Sandi Patty, the Winans, Kathy Taylor, Brenda Waters, Carl Preacher--the late Carl Preacher--Shirley Joiner of B, C & S. All of these may not still be with us today, but we recognize their value. What about those who started with a grounding in gospel music like Sam Cooke, Al Green, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, Alan Jackson and many, many others. So I hope that as we celebrate, we will find the opportunity to be able to have a gospel music heritage event in every location around America. Again, no matter what your background, you can celebrate gospel music. This bill has generated bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in honoring and celebrating this historic musical art form and pass H.J. Res. 90 today so that we can establish September as Gospel Music Heritage Month in the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my bill H.J. Res. 90, ``Expressing Support for the Designation of September 2010 as `Gospel Music Heritage Month' and Honoring Gospel Music for its Valuable and Longstanding Contributions to the Culture of the United States.'' As you may know, gospel music is an American art form that has spanned hundreds of years and across several generations. It has touched millions of lives around the world while demonstrating its profound ability to transcend secular musical genres. By surpassing culturally constructed boundaries, gospel music has emerged as the musical thread uniting the fabric of America. Rich, poor, young, old, and even Democrats and Republicans alike have been uniquely interlinked by gospel music's undeniable influence and contribution to American culture. For this reason, it is important that we recognize and celebrate the vital role that gospel music has played in shaping music history. While gospel music has become a multibillion-dollar industry, gospel music's historic roots have originated in the humble and soulful melodies of African American spirituals. Its sound contains diverse elements from African music, melodic influences from Irish folk songs and hymns, and ultimately borrowed from other uniquely American musical styles including ragtime, jazz, and blues. The legacy of gospel music can be heard in the voices of pioneers in American history, such as Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, and many more. The influence of gospel music can be found infused in all forms of secular music including rock & roll, country, soul, R&B, and countless other styles. Gospel music laid down the musical foundation for legendary recording artists such as Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis. While there are many elements, situations, and issues that divide our Nation, gospel music has found a unique way to highlight our similarities and influence the cultural make of our society. Instead of emphasizing our differences, gospel music has found a way to cater to the fundamental elements that unite people around the world, focusing on the soul of an individual rather than the mind. With that, it is important that we do not take this art form for granted. We must make sure that the heritage of gospel music is recognized, honored and celebrated. Over the years, songs like ``Amazing Grace,'' which was written by John Newton, a young boy who left school at the age of eleven and began a life as a pirate seaman. Eventually he engaged in slavery, capturing people from West Africa and selling them to slave markets around the world. But by the grace of God, fear was put into his heart when he was caught in a violent and fierce storm upon the sea. Newton was so afraid of a shipwreck that he began to read ``The Imitation of Christ'' by Thomas a' Kepis. Calling himself a wretch who was lost and blind, John Newton recognized that God had used this book to lead him to a dramatic change in his way of life and this episode led him to write one of the most amazing songs throughout history. My bill will designate the month of September as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month,'' honoring gospel music for its valuable long-standing contributions to American culture. This bill has generated bipartisan support with 65 cosponsors. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating this historic musical art form, and to pass H.J. Res. 90 today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. And so there was a special role, and I thank the gentleman for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and they have a very special place in history. I'm very grateful that this great leader and hero who is amongst us today, John Lewis of Georgia, was able to come to the floor, with the help of his great staff, to give us the opportunity to commemorate those who many may not know, but to realize that they truly were part of a movement. They had a cause, a belief, a passion, a determination and a commitment to the freedom of all people. Thank you to the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and thank you, John Lewis.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much to the manager of this bill, and thank you for allowing me to rise to salute our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, and the list of honorees that he listed just a few minutes ago, part of the founding foundation of SNCC. So many of us associated ourselves as we looked to this group of young people who were willing to leave the comfort of classrooms around America, college classrooms, and begin to stand alongside of those who might have been considered elders in the movement. You know, there are many discussions about whether an entity or a group is a movement. We've heard that of late over the last couple of few years. But those of us who know the civil rights movement and know about SNCC, know about the SCLC, we really understand what a movement was and what it is. Fifty years is appropriate to commemorate a group that sacrificed themselves in the name of peace and nonviolence. Remember now, they were young people, energized, active, dedicated young people, full of energy, and certainly tempted by the violence that was around them. But because of leaders like John Lewis, their president, they were able to truly create a movement. They provided the legs and the genius of the sit-in movement as they went around the places of the South. You know, when you're young, you can sit for a long time. You have the tenacity to be able to withstand the back-bending sitting that it requires. You are able to draw upon your strength to not eat while you're sitting at the counter because they were denying you that right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. The statistics are very clear that the burden fell on a population that suffered more by not getting into rehabilitation than others. It is very clear that those numbers are strong. So I would simply say that as we begin our work on establishing fairness, this is a first step. And I would say to the distinguished Members that we can do better on rehabilitation, drug court, intervention--which allows people to get into rehabilitation and have an obligation to finish. And the main thing that I want to leave us with, doing this will help us detour any number of individuals to be able to support their family and maybe be real role models for children who we likewise want to detour away from crime by having an innovative juvenile justice system by passing this bill and going on to have criminal justice reform as we pass the Promise Act as well. I rise in support of S. 1789, a bill that seeks to amend the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeates the Sentencing Guidelines. I also want to thank Senator Richard Durbin (IL), for introducing this important legislation and being a leader on this issue. This act requires Congress to change existing legislation in order to increase the amount of a controlled substance or mixture containing a cocaine base (i.e., crack cocaine) required for the imposition of mandatory minimum prison terms for trafficking. This bill also calls for an increase of monetary penalties for drug trafficking and for the importation and exportation of controlled substances. Last year I introduced a bill called the Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2009, H.R. 265, in which I proposed many of the reforms proposed in S. 1789. In H.R. 265, I proposed 1 to 1 for crack and cocaine and added a long list of drug treatment measures. It is widely known that it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. While it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5- year mandatory minimum sentence, it takes just 5 grams of crack cocaine to trigger that sentence. Similarly, while it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, 50 grams of crack cocaine will trigger the same sentence. This disparity made no sense when it was initially enacted, and makes absolutely no sense today, because cocaine base commonly known as `crack cocaine,' is made by dissolving cocaine hydrochloride, which is commonly known as `powder cocaine,' in a solution of sodium bicarbonate (or a similar agent) and water. Therefore, crack and powder cocaine are simply different forms of the same substance and all crack cocaine originates as powder cocaine. Both forms of cocaine cause identical physical effects, although crack is smoked, while powder cocaine is typically snorted or injected. Epidemiological data show that smoking a drug delivers it to the brain more rapidly, which increases the likelihood of addiction. Therefore, differences in the typical method of administration of the two forms of the drug, and not differences in the inherent properties of the two forms of the drug, make crack cocaine potentially more addictive to typical users than powder cocaine. Both forms of the drug are addictive, however, and the treatment protocol for the drug is the same regardless of the form of the drug the patient has used. Although Congress in the mid-1980s was understandably concerned that the low-cost and potency of crack cocaine would fuel an epidemic of use by minors, the epidemic of crack cocaine use by young people never materialized to the extent feared. In fact, in 2005, the rate of powder cocaine use among young adults was almost 7 times as high as the rate of crack cocaine use. Furthermore, sentencing data suggest that young people do not play a major role in crack cocaine trafficking at the Federal level. The current 100 to 1 penalty structure undermines various congressional objectives set forth in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Data collected by the U.S. Sentencing Commission show that Federal resources have been targeted at offenders who are subject to the mandatory minimum sentences, which sweep in low-level crack cocaine users and dealers. It is time for us to realize that the only real difference between these two substances is that a disproportionate number of the races flock to one or the other. It follows that more whites use cocaine, and more African Americans use crack cocaine. The unwarranted sentencing disparity not only overstates the relative harmfulness of the two forms of the drug and diverts federal resources from high-level drug traffickers, but it also disproportionately affects the African- American community. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission's May 2007 Report, 82 percent of Federal crack cocaine offenders sentenced in 2006 were African-American, while 8 percent were Hispanic and 8 percent were white. Like H.R. 265, my bill, S. 1789 will eliminate the five-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine. It also encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend its sentencing guidelines to (1) increase sentences for defendants convicted of using violence during a drug trafficking offense; (2) incorporate aggravating and mitigating factors in its guidelines for drug trafficking offenses; (3) promulgate guidelines, policy statements, or amendments required by this Act as soon as practicable, but not later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act; and (4) study and report to Congress on the impact of changes in sentencing law under this Act. For the foregoing reasons, I stand with Mr. Durbin in support of amending the Controlled Substances Act and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act in order to lessen the disparity between penalties for crack cocaine and powder cocaine that permeate the Sentencing Guidelines. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for being a champion of this issue of eliminating the disparities that have so long plagued so many communities. I thank the chairman, John Conyers, for being persistent over the years on the criminal justice issues--even coming to Houston, Texas, and listening to a teeming room of individuals who came to tell him how they had been discriminated against by this overwhelming inequitable law dealing with crack cocaine. Thank you. Today we're doing something that is not going to be soft on crime. But let me see if you understand this. It takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trigger the 5-year mandatory minimum. It just takes 5 grams of crack cocaine. Similarly it takes 5 kilograms of powder cocaine to trigger the 10-year mandatory minimum but 50 grams of crack cocaine. And so it is important that this 1-to-18 be put in place in response to the 1980s when we thought this devastating act of using drugs was the underpinnings of crime. But what we have seen and what the U.S. Sentencing Commission has seen is that we're creating crime by throwing these individuals in jail instead of rehabilitation and by keeping this oppressive sentencing structure. So for the first time, we're eliminating the 5-year mandatory minimum prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine and it encourages the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines. In addition, however, there's more to go. Passing the Promise Bill to detour young people away from crime. H.R. 265, the bill I introduced, which was the underpinnings of the S. 1789, had a number of other provisions that would be dealing with rehabilitation and drug courts. So there's more work to be done, Mr. Speaker. But I believe this is a first step and all good-thinking Americans who understand justice will appreciate the fact that we are eliminating these disparities. And in particular, I will say to you that this fell heavily on the poor African American and Hispanic communities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Edwards, for introducing this important bill honoring our continued commitment to support the brave men and women who have been willing to sacrifice their very lives in the service of our nation and the freedom we so cherish. Our armed forces and their family members are among the most valued members of our society, custodians of our freedom and protectors of our democracy. We must continually re- commit ourselves to serving them with the same honor, dignity and respect with which they serve their country. This bill generously provides substantial funding, over 77 billion dollars, in the service of our men and women in uniform, veterans, and their families for fiscal year 2011. It is a continuation of three and a half years of hard work and tireless efforts on behalf of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. This bill is a testament to their commitment to our soldiers, veterans and their loved ones. Moreover, the bill contains specific guidelines and provisions to ensure that all funds are spent responsibly, accountably and in a way that serves our troops and American taxpayers. Of the 77 billion dollars, 18.7 billion are for Military Construction. The funds will provide adequate housing for our young military trainees bravely serving their country; it will fund environmental cleanup of closed or moved bases as we strategically re- align resources; it will provide for a National Guard and Reserve initiative for the men and women serving their nation at home; and it grants funding for critical construction for overseas contingencies operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also dedicates over 56 billion dollars to Veterans Affairs honoring those who, after serving their country overseas, returned home to re-integrate into the society they fought valiantly to protect. The majority of the funding, over 37 billion, will go to providing much needed and well deserved medical services for all veterans, including mental health services and assistance to homeless veterans. The remaining funding will be used for major and minor construction projects, medical and prosthetic research, and medical facilities in the service of our honored veterans. Finally, in Related Agencies, the bill is providing for a number of other critical needs, such as the National Cemetery, funding for an Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the Monuments Commission which manages and cares for the monuments and cemeteries around the world that honor the service of our armed forces. Additionally, in respect for the fact that the American public has rightly demanded greater efficiency in government and efforts to reduce our deficit spending, there are a number of important provisions to ensure that all funds are spent in the most effective, efficient and expedient way possible. The provisions include several controls for Veterans Affairs spending and contract oversight, as well as oversight provisions for all construction projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. Although I am disappointed that my amendment, establishing portability between states for individualized education, disability and therapeutic benefits of a dependent of a member of the armed forces upon transfer of the member, was not included in the final version, I still gladly and proudly support this bill. However, I would like to reiterate that an important part of anyone's quality of life is their family and dependents. One of the ways in which we can serve the members of the armed forces who sacrifice so much for our safety and our liberty is to ensure that their families are taken care of, and eliminate the bureaucratic red tape involved in moving from one place to another. Members of the armed forces often find themselves moving, and uprooting their families and their lives. Hopefully such a provision, aimed at facilitating that process by making the educational, disability and therapeutic benefits of a child or dependent of a member of the armed forces transferable from one state to another, will be included in future legislation. In closing, I reiterate my strong support for this bill, and express my most sincere and heartfelt appreciation to everyone fighting to defend our country for their service and sacrifice for the good of the nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4692, the ``National Manufacturing Strategy Act of 2010''. This legislation provides a pragmatic and forward-looking means to enhance, develop, and secure our nation's manufacturing industry for the future. Its contributions to our economy and the sheer size of this industry make it imperative that we take the necessary steps to ensure its continued growth and success. I commend my colleague, Representative Daniel Lipinski, for introducing this legislation to do just that. Mr. Speaker, as you may know, the manufacturing industry generates \2/3\ of U.S. exports, employs over 11 million American workers, and serves as an industrial base to assure that our national defense remains strong and to sustain infrastructure. This bill addresses the growing importance of the manufacturing sector to our nation's health and economy. It directs the President, every four years, to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the nation's manufacturing sector and to submit to Congress a National Manufacturing Strategy. It also requires the President, in developing each strategy, to convene a Manufacturing Strategy Task Force to make recommendations regarding specified matters for incorporation into the Strategy, including short- and long-term goals for the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, the bill directs the National Academy of Sciences to conduct quadrennial studies concerning U.S. manufacturing and to report each study's results to Congress and the President. Finally, the bill requires the President, in preparing each annual budget, to include information regarding that budget's consistency with the goals and recommendations included in the latest Strategy. The enactment of this bill would express that it is the view of Congress that policies should be promoted to support and secure the growing manufacturing industry. We should support efforts that seek to create sustainable economic growth, increase employment, productivity, exports, and global competitiveness, and that improve our national and homeland security. As other countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, India, and China, have already engaged in similar strategic development plans for manufacturing, it is only fitting that the world's largest manufacturing nation do the same. I have supported for a long time America moving back to making products and creating jobs. It is long overdue. Furthermore, as this bill does not call for mandatory action, its benefit is purely inherent in the positive effects of information and preemptive planning. Therefore, the door remains open for governmental action that may need to be taken in order to promote growth and provide efficient outcomes in the manufacturing industry. I strongly believe that more information and strategic planning in the immense manufacturing sector can only put the nation's economy in a better position for the future. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4692.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5156, the ``Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010''. This legislation, which provides for the establishment of a Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Fund, will go a long way to ensure that American clean energy technology firms possess the information and assistance required to become and remain competitive in the world markets. The bill will also focus our priorities in the energy sector to reduce production costs, encourage innovation, and promote investment and productivity. Mr. Speaker it is imperative that the U.S. remain a leader in global exports of innovative technology, particularly clean energy. It is no secret that our dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuel energy sources is too great. The Clean Energy Technology Manufacturing and Export Assistance Act of 2010 will assist us in our efforts to move away from this problematic energy paradigm. It will provide our domestic clean energy firms the means to keep the U.S. ahead of the curve. This bill directs the Secretary to provide information, tools, and other assistance to U.S. businesses to promote clean energy technology manufacturing and facilitate the export of clean energy technology products and services. It also promotes the implementation of a national clean energy technology export strategy. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a practical means to assist our direction in clean energy technology. For these reasons I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5156.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4899, the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2010.'' I oppose the Senate amendments because they will deny job programs to Americans, while continuing to fund a war that has gone for far too long. I want to thank Chairman Obey for his timely leadership on this legislation. Clearly, opposing a bill that you are charged with bringing to the floor is not easy. However, this is an important moment to decide the direction that our military involvement and national economy are headed. Without some of the programs cut by the Senate, and with the knowledge revealed by the leaked documents, the sum of this bill is no longer palatable. As originally conceived, H.R. 4899 would have provided funding for the needs of the American people, from national security, housing, employment, health, to education. I fully support these efforts and want to stress that we must continue to provide policies and funding that ensure that the United States remains a global leader in science and technology, including space exploration, which not only results in knowledge-building, but also in hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout the Nation. The legislation would provide resources to support over 350,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21 through summer employment programs. This age group has some of the highest unemployment levels, 25 percent for those aged 16 to 24. This funding will allow local Workforce Investment Boards to expand successful summer jobs programs that were funded in the Recovery Act. The legislation would also fully fund the settlement of both the Cobell and Pigford class action lawsuits. The Cobell settlement concerns the government's management and accounting for over 300,000 American Indians, trust accounts, and the Pigford settlement ends a decades-old discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against USDA. Before it was amended, this supplemental appropriation would have provided over $24 billion to keep teachers, firefighters and law enforcement personnel on the job while states continue to recover from the recession; over $13 billion for Vietnam veterans and survivors exposed to Agent Orange; $5.7 billion for PELL; $2.8 billion for Haiti; $677 million for border security; $275 million for the Gulf Coast oil spill including unemployment benefits program and unemployment assistance related to the oil spill and an oil spill relief employment program that are underway for the self-employed businessmen and women who were greatly impacted by the Gulf Coast oil spill. This bill would also provide $10 billion for an Education Jobs Fund to provide additional emergency support to local school districts to prevent impending layoffs. It is estimated that this fund will help keep 140,000 school employees on the job next year. Yet, despite these programs, the main purpose of this bill is to extend funding for our military--funds to pay for the war in Afghanistan. It is this that I object to. Although the situation in Afghanistan is far from perfect, the return on our investment has diminished to a point where it no longer makes sense to maintain a large-scale deployment. Additionally, as the human and financial costs continue to rise, the war in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unpalatable to the citizens of the United States. More than 1,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, and half of all deaths have occurred since the beginning of 2009. Roadside bombings are on the rise, causing double the number of fatalities in 2009 that they did in 2008. And 2010 is on track to be even worse by that measure. Today we learned that one of two American servicemen who disappeared last week in a dangerous area south of the Afghan capital has been confirmed dead. The war in Afghanistan should end as safely and quickly as possible, and our troops should be brought home with honor and a national day of celebration. I strongly believe that this can and must be done by the end of the year. This stance is borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Afghanistan. As lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Afghanistan, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Afghanistan did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to destroy the roots of terror and protect our homeland; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. With the change in military leadership to General Petraeus, one year before the target drawdown date of July 2011, America faces a critical juncture in our involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recently, I returned from a 5-day trip to Afghanistan where I met with our outstanding men and women serving in the region. Although I found our troops and civilians to be of the highest caliber, I left Afghanistan with the impression the reasons for keeping them in a dangerous theatre have diminished. Today, we are at risk of forgetting the impetus for going to war. This is a dangerous mistake. Extending our involvement beyond the initial mandate is an unnecessary risk that makes the United States vulnerable. Throughout the discussion of the Administration's proposed surge, I expressed my concern for the cost of sending additional troops, as well as the effect that a larger presence in Afghanistan will have on troop morale. The White House estimates that it will cost $1 million per year for each additional soldier deployed, and I believe that $30 billion would be better spent on developing new jobs and fixing our broken healthcare system. Many leaders in our armed forces, including Secretary Gates, have said that it is optimal for troops to have two years between overseas deployments; yet, today, our troops have only a year at home between deployments. Expanding the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 30,000 will negatively impact troop morale and will bring us further away from the conditions necessary to maintain a strong, all-volunteer military. I very strongly believe that our Nation has a moral obligation to ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. One reason that we are the greatest Nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful Nation cares about them. Whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Afghanistan, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations. It is because I respect our troops that I am voting to bring them home from a war that has strayed far beyond its original mandate. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Afghan government and military. To date, almost $27 billion--more than half of all reconstruction dollars--has been apportioned to build the Afghan National Security Forces. U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan will come to an end and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to the people and government of Afghanistan. Governance is more than winning elections, it is about upholding human rights, especially the rights of women; it requires fighting corruption. Governance requires fighting corruption. Governance requires providing for the freedom to worship. Governance requires establishing schools that provide education from early childhood through higher education. Yet, Afghanistan has largely failed to institute the internal reforms necessary to justify America's continued involvement. The recent elections did not reflect the will of the people, and the government has consistently failed to gain the trust of the people of Afghanistan. The troubling reports about the elections that were held on August 20, 2009 were the first in a series of very worrisome developments. The electoral process is at the heart of democracy and the disdain for that process that was displayed in the Afghanistan elections gives me great pause. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction recently released his quarterly report which detailed our Nation's efforts to work with contractors and the Afghanistan government to prevent fraud and enhance transparency. This is the 8th report by the Special Inspector General but, as a recent series in the Washington Post showed, we are unable to stem the flow of corruption and waste within Afghanistan, despite our efforts at reforming our own contracting procedures. This money likely comes from the opium trade and U.S. assistance and, the Washington Post estimates, totals over one billion dollars each year. The task of establishing legitimate governing practices remains formidable. A November 17, 2009 report from Transparency International listed Afghanistan as the second most corrupt country in the world, continuing its second straight year of declining in the corruption index. Such news is disparaging and provides an important dynamic to how we consider our strategy with regards to Afghanistan going forward. In January, a UN survey found that an overwhelming 59 percent of Afghans view public dishonesty as a bigger concern than insecurity, 54 percent and unemployment, 52 percent. This is telling for a country with widespread violence and an unemployment rate of 40 percent. As Co-Chair of the Congressional U.S.-Afghanistan Caucus, I have called for policies that allow the United States to provide benefits to the people of Afghanistan. Our effort must enhance our efforts at building both hard and soft infrastructure in Afghanistan. Change in Afghanistan is going to come through schools and roads, through health care and economic opportunity, and through increased trade and exchange. The Afghan people need our help to achieve these objectives, but I am not convinced that our military is the solution. If the Government of Afghanistan can demonstrate a responsible and non-corrupt commitment to its people, I believe that America should respond with appropriate and targeted foreign assistance. I am also concerned that the United States is shouldering too much of the burden in Afghanistan. Although the terror attacks on American soil prompted NATO to respond with collective military action, no nation is immune from the threat of terrorism. Although the troops and resources provided by our allies have been invaluable to date, especially in regarding development for the people of Afghanistan, questions must be raised about how long other nations will remain involved in Afghanistan. France and Germany, for example have already questioned whether or not to send additional troops. NATO resources must continue to focus on improving the livelihoods of the Afghan people, but if the support of these governments waiver, American troops and Afghan citizens will suffer the consequences. I agree with our President that a stable Afghanistan is in the best interest of the international community and I was pleased to see President Obama's outreach to our allies for additional troops. Currently, 41 NATO and other allied countries contribute nearly 36,000 troops. That number is expected to increase by nearly 6,000 with at least 5,000 additional troops coming from NATO member countries. Multilateralism is vital to ensuring that our operations in Afghanistan succeed. Madam Speaker, today, we face difficult realities on the ground. The Taliban attacks our forces whenever and wherever they can. Agents of the Taliban seek to turn the people of Afghanistan against us as we attempt to provide them with help in every way we can. This situation is unsustainable. Afghanistan's history has earned it the nickname, ``The Graveyard of Empires,'' and I believe that we should not take this grim history lightly. By including a timetable for our operations in Afghanistan, we focus our mission and place it in a long-term context. But there is no need to ignore the successes and heroic work of the Armed forces and the civilian humanitarian workers. We can declare victory having achieved a stable government in Afghanistan and bring our troops home with honor. Although development to improve the lives of the Afghan people is important, defeating al-Qaeda, and the threat they pose to America and our allies is the most important objective of our operations. To that end, I believe that Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is now the key to success and stability in the region. Over the past 8 years, Coalition Forces have successfully pushed most of al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. This has not only put them outside the mandate of our forces, but has also forced Pakistan to address an enlarged terrorist threat. During his State of the Union Address, President Obama spoke of the importance of Pakistan when he noted ``America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.'' As the Co-Chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I know, first hand, of the great potential of the Pakistani people, and I strongly believe that the recently approved assistance package to Pakistan will work to this end. U.S. foreign assistance to Pakistan will improve Pakistan's capacity to address terrorist networks within its own borders, but I worry that a troop increase will cause even more refugees and insurgents to cross into Pakistan. Ultimately, we in Congress must decide what is in the best interest of the American people. Fighting al-Qaeda was in the best interest of the American people in 2001, as it continues to be today. Yet, we are now fighting an insurgency--not al-Qaeda--in Afghanistan. This should not be their mission, and we must bring our troops home.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished manager and I really applaud Congressman Kucinich for allowing us to come to the floor today and discuss a crucial aspect of America's foreign policy. Frankly, I believe it is time for us to come home from Afghanistan, having just returned just over 2 weeks ago, in the early part of July, when I was able to see the enormity of corruption and the lack of standing up by the Afghan Government. But I saw the resilience of the United States military and the willingness of the people in Afghanistan to be able to desire a better quality of life. I think that we are now poised to build the Afghan national security forces and to remove our forces from the dangers of the Taliban neighbors who live in Afghanistan, who are not leaving, who have a difference of opinion. In the instance of Pakistan, I think it is key that we recognize that there are some troubling circumstances. And yes, we do have some questions as relates to the people of Pakistan understanding the great humanitarian work that the American people have done; the work they've done with USAID, the work they've done in helping to build schools, and it is the responsibility of the Pakistan Government to be able to emphasize what the presence of the United States is all about. I do not want boots on the ground dealing with hostility. We have boots on the ground all around the world, but they're not engaged in hostility. They're providing, if you will, a level of peacekeeping and friendship and cooperation. Now we need to rid ourselves of the involvement of the ISI in undermining American soldiers in Afghanistan. They cannot be playing around with the Taliban while we are investing treasure. But at the same time Pakistani army or military forces is investing their treasure and we are trying to provide them with the training that is necessary. I believe that what Congressman Kucinich has done here is important, and he is absolutely right to be able to have this discussion and to recognize that something is awry. We've got to work together on the humanitarian side to be able to inform the Pakistani people and the Pakistan Parliament and government officials to not run away from the humanitarian work that the United States is doing. We have just passed a multi-billion-dollar bill that is going to work on building and helping to rebuild Pakistan from the education and social and health care-wise. So the training that is being done by our military should be done in a peaceful mode. That should be annunciated by the officials of the Pakistan Government, and they should not run away from the good things that we are doing there. My concern to be able to acknowledge or affirm that we have troops there under the War Powers Act would suggest that we are there in a hostile manner.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. We have a contentious relationship there, but I have great hope as the cochair of the Pakistan Caucus that, working with Pakistani Americans, building on the core of humanitarianism that we are working with with the Pakistan American Foundation that has been developed, that we can overcome the image and the perception the Pakistan people have that we're not there to work with them to fight the Taliban, to fight against al Qaeda, to fight against Osama bin Laden, and to put them forward trained and equipped to be able to work on behalf of the Pakistan people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. We are perceived with hostility because there has not been a standing up by our friends in Pakistan that we are working collaboratively in a diplomatic manner to enhance the quality of life and to provide for the security, if you will, of the Pakistan people, working with or with their military in the forefront. So I would argue that we have much work to do in Afghanistan, our troops need to come home, and the technical assistance that is being given to the neighbor Pakistan must be defined as that and not defined as a hostile manner. I'm looking forward to us clarifying the relationship and ensuring that the Pakistan intelligence is not undermining this diplomatic, civilian-focused effort of our military using training techniques and to be able to cooperate by allowing the Pakistani military to interact with our military for procedures and process. It is clear that we have a very contentious situation in the region; Pakistan, India, Bangladesh.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on H. Con. Res. 301, rollcall 473, I was unavoidably detained in a hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. Having recently returned from Afghanistan, I can say to you that our soldiers are resilient, and the people of Afghanistan are looking for their government to provide them with the leadership and the resources to improve their quality of life. But our plan is not working. And now that we have two of our trusted and wonderful naval personnel missing, and we realize that this is a place that needs a plan, we cannot continue to support this war when the Government of Afghanistan will not stand up. They will have the necessary security forces. They need to be in front of the line. And we need to provide moneys for Pell grants, for teachers, and firefighters, and police officers, for the settlement for black farmers, 100,000 of them, and for youth jobs and summer jobs for people in America who are unemployed, and those families who need support as a bridge to carry them over. I believe in this Nation, and I believe in our soldiers. I salute them. And I believe it is time to bring them home with honors. They are our heroes. They have done what they needed to do in Afghanistan. They provided for a democratic government. It's time now to bring them home with honor. Vote ``no'' on this supplemental.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was designed in 1990 in an overwhelmingly bipartisan approach to implement laws that would provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Why did we wait so long? How grand it is to be able to respond to those disabled, who are challenged, who are intellectually challenged, physically challenged, and who are experiencing difficulties that they should not as a full American citizen. So this law provides them with the armor to prevent discrimination. Today, in Houston, Texas, I was very proud to be with the City of Houston and their 20th celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act at the West Gray Multi-Service Center. I can assure you that this evidence of serving people was a grand celebration. So many were there, celebrating at the West Gray Multi-Service Center in Houston, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1504, ``Recognizing and honoring the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990'', introduced by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, and Majority Leader, Representative Hoyer. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation in the last few decades, and has had overwhelmingly bipartisan support. It was implemented to ``provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.'' It places an affirmative obligation on employers, government entities, and places of public accommodation to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal chance to participate in mainstream American life, and that reasonable accommodations be made to remove barriers that might prevent full participation in society by people with disabilities. In the twenty years since ADA's enactment, it has had an undeniable, positive impact on the lives of disabled Americans. People in wheelchairs now have access to places they could never go twenty years ago, or only with great difficulty--movie theaters, restaurants, clothing stores, and government buildings. Now, people who use service animals to participate in regular daily life are allowed to bring them where they previously couldn't. The disabled are no longer excluded from places of business, mass transit, or schools. Just as disabled Americans benefit directly from the improvements that the ADA has made in our society, so have we all benefited. Before the passage of the ADA, those Americans with disabilities were unable to meet their full potential, due to the physical barriers to education and employment. As they were denied the opportunity to participate in society, we were all deprived of their contribution to our economy, scholarship, research, and civic life. Today, we are better able to benefit from the contribution of all Americans; there is no better illustration than the fact that, today, Congressman Langevin presides from his wheelchair--raised to the Speaker's rostrum by a mechanical lift. Last week, the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a hearing on the ADA. We heard from our witnesses about the impact the ADA has had on their lives, some who grew up with the ADA and its benefits, and others who had previously been unaware of the ADA and found how important it was after a life- changing event. The ADA has had a profound impact on American life, but there is still more to do. I join with Representatives Hoyer, Sensenbrenner, Langevin, and the other cosponsors of this resolution in honor of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in their pledge to continue to improve the ADA and its impact on the lives of disabled Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in that support.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1543, ``Honoring the educational significance of Dr. Jane Goodall's work on this the 50th anniversary of the beginning of her work in Tanzania, Africa.'' Dr. Goodall once said: ``Young people, when informed and empowered, when they realize that what they do truly makes a difference, can indeed change the world. They are changing it already.'' This is the creed in which Dr. Goodall has based her entire life's work. In May 1956, a friend of Dr. Goodall invited her to visit her farm in Kenya. She was so excited, she quit her job in London and moved back to Bournemouth so she could waitress and earn the fare she needed to get to Africa and back. Dr. Goodall or ``Jane,'' as she was known back then, was 23 years old at the time. Jane had a wonderful time seeing Africa but the single most important event of her time in Africa was meeting Dr. Louis Leakey, a famous anthropologist and paleontologist. Leakey hired Jane as his assistant and secretary at the Coryndon Museum and soon Jane and another young student were in the Olduvai Gorge digging up fossils with Dr. Leakey and his wife: anthropologist Mary Leakey. Looking for someone to go to Tanzania and study the chimpanzees, Dr. Leakey found a willing assistant in Jane. Not much was known about wild chimpanzees at that time, Dr. Goodall figured that studying them would be a fascinating adventure. With persistence, Dr. Jane developed a relationship with the chimpanzees and observed them doing things that only humans were thought to have done, such as creating tools to hunt for food and taking in orphan chimps to raise as their own. She also discovered that chimps were not primarily vegetarians, as first believed. After these discoveries, National Geographic decided to sponsor Jane's work and sent a photographer and filmmaker. Eventually, Dr. Goodall wrote a number of journals and books to document her experiences. One of her books in particularly, ``In the Shadow of Man and Through a Window'' gave a new outlook to chimpanzees of Tanzania to people all over the world. In conclusion, I support H. Res. 1543 and commemorate the 50th year of the beginning of her groundbreaking research. Dr. Goodall has been a role model for youth of all ages, inspiring boys and girls alike to take action for people, animals, and the environment; and through her Jane Goodall Institute, Dr. Goodall established the Roots and Shoots global youth program which now has members in more than 110 countries. This resolution acknowledges the groundbreaking environmental education advancements by the Jane Goodall Institute's Roots and Shoots initiative on the 50th anniversary of the beginning of Dr. Jane Goodall's research, as well as the role that her research played in understanding both the natural and human world. It also recognizes the adventurous spirit of Dr. Goodall and the way she inspired children around the world explore this world and all its wonder.