Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H.R. 3738, the Small Business Early-Stage Investment Act of 2009, which establishes the Small Business Early-Stage Investment program to provide equity investment finance to small businesses. I support this resolution because I believe that encouraging small business investment is crucial as the United States emerges from the recent economic downturn. I would like to first thank my colleague, Congressman Glenn Nye, for introducing this valuable legislation. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the United States economy experienced the longest recession since World War II. As described by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), ``this recession features the largest decline in output, consumption, and investment . . . of any post-war recession.'' The tightened credit markets have caused nonresidential investment to decline by 1.7% in the third quarter of 2008, by 21.7% in the fourth quarter of 2008, and by an estimated 37.9% in the first quarter of 2009, as reported by CRS. The impacts of the tightened credit markets and decline in business investment include the possibility of lenders declining to make loans to small businesses that they otherwise would in a more robust economy and small businesses possibly becoming more risk averse, thereby delaying or aborting projects. The difficulty obtaining investment that small businesses face today could lead to delays in new business ventures. There are certain business sectors that we rely upon for innovation in order to transform our society. The United States is looking to innovation from the energy technology, environmental technology, and clean technology sectors to lead the way in developing technology that will reduce or eliminate climate change factors while maintaining our standard of living. We are looking to the information technology and digital media sectors to help level the educational playing field and open up the world to all students. If we allow these sectors to recover on their own, we could lose precious time for solving these problems. H.R. 3738 seeks to reverse the negative impacts of the recession and the subsequent decline in investment opportunities for small businesses in critical economic sectors. While there currently exists a Small Business Innovation Research program established to provide small businesses with venture capital for projects in late stages of development, there does not currently exist a program to provide grant funding for early state research. Particularly, the biotechnology and defense technology business sectors require early stage investment to develop innovative technology. H.R. 3738 will help those and other critical sectors gain access to capital in order to drive innovation. H.R. 3738 will establish a new program to provide equity financing to small businesses in targeted industries with early stage projects. The Small Business Administration (SBA) will be authorized to provide grants to qualified investment companies, determined by the SBA Administrator, under certain criteria. Any firm that applies for funds must have a 1-to-1 match of private funds. Equity firms that apply for these funds must return the funds in full plus 20 percent. While there is a $250 million initial appropriation, the program is predicted to be self-sustaining from the profits of the loan program. My district is the perfect example of why small businesses are so vital to the nation's economy. Houston's newer and growing economic sub-centers have relied more on small business as their cornerstone than the older Central Business District. According to a report issued by the SBA Office of Advocacy, findings suggest that while small firms support urban economic growth, as development proceeds they grow substantially. In turn, small firm growth plays an important role in urban economic development which is likely to lead to economic growth for the entire local economy. I believe that H.R. 3738 will support the small businesses that sustain Houston's economy.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Our community is in jeopardy, and this will be an important step for them. As a member of the Fire Caucus and Homeland Security, I rise to support the bill and thank you for working with me to help those in need in Houston, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today in support of H.R. 1839, ``to amend the small business act to improve SCORE, and for other purposes.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Vern Buchanan, for his leadership on this important legislation. The SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives) program provides entrepreneurs with the business advice of working and retired executive volunteers. This legislation will modernize the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business counseling program. This legislation requires the Administrator of the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that SCORE carries out a plan to increase the proportion of small business mentors from socially or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and reports annually to the Administrator on plan implementation, establishes benchmarks for evaluating its activities and volunteers and establishes a mentoring program of one-on-one advice to small businesses from qualified counselors. Over the years SCORE has been providing entrepreneurs with free, confidential, and valuable small business advice. With unprecedented unemployment rates, more people will be trying to start their own business. Their success is vital to our economic recovery. This bill will help ensure that qualified volunteers are available to provide one-on-one advice and counsel to small businesses. Research shows that small businesses are five times more likely to start if they get assistance from a government supported program such as SCORE. The ``Retired Executives Building Better Businesses Act of 2009'' would require SCORE administrators to actively recruit and maintain volunteer mentors and track their success. Counselors would be required to have at least ten years of similar experience. My district is the perfect example of why small businesses are so vital to the nation's economy. Houston's newer and growing economic sub-centers have relied more on small business as their cornerstone than the older Central Business District. According to a report issued by the Office of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration findings suggest that while small firms support urban economic growth, as development proceeds they grow substantially. In turn, small firm growth plays an important role in urban economic development which is likely to lead to economic growth for the entire local economy. Moreover, small businesses--including minority- and women-owned companies--are the leading employers in the Houston area and provide nearly half of all jobs in Texas. Many small businesses continue to struggle with layoffs, access to capital, cash flow and overall management issues. SCORE has a proven track record of both creating and saving jobs by improving business survival rates as well as accelerating small business formation which is why this legislation is so important. SCORE fulfills a vital role for America's small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs by providing much needed technical assistance. In 2007 SCORE volunteers assisted in the creation of almost 20,000 new small businesses and help create more than 25,000 new jobs each year. Currently, SCORE has 389 chapters in locations throughout the United States with 10,500 volunteers nationwide. I urge my colleagues to support small business by voting in favor of this vital legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am privileged to join my colleagues this morning to celebrate a man who I call a Good Samaritan--who battled for the impoverished, those without voices, those who cannot speak for themselves. Rev. Jesse Jackson, who is with us here today, is a man of all seasons. He rescues, he discovers, he challenges. And there is no doubt in my mind that as Martin Luther King rests in peace, he is proud of Rev. Jesse Jackson. Jesse is the reason that we now can celebrate the election of President Barack Obama. But I know that he is also a man that finds problems and solves problems. I thank him for coming to Houston, Texas, in the midst of the debacle of the Enron Company, and giving empowerment to the employee victims. As we stood outside that building and employees cried, Jackson was there with me to empower them and to give them, for the first time in history, a stakeholder position in receiving benefits that they would not have gotten. I thank him for coming to Galveston, Texas, and announcing and analyzing that insurance companies benefited from the work of slaves, and derived their wealth from unpaid labor--he demanded reparation for the people who were taken advantage of. This is a man who goes and seeks those who, again, cannot speak for themselves. We are gratified that he is a Good Samaritan on the battlefield, fighting for those who, again, are voiceless. We're gratified that he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000 and was the third largest Democratic vote-getter when he ran for President in 1984. Rev. Jackson, thank you, the Good Samaritan, our Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment critically threatens women throughout America, and is unquestionably a ban on abortion coverage. H.R. 3962 already provided for no federal dollars to be used for abortion--now this bill denies women the reimbursement for insurance to provide them good health care. This amendment acutely threatens the personal liberties of our country's most vulnerable women. It negatively affects these women's health, wellbeing, and financial security. This amendment will disproportionally affect women of color. According to the Center for Disease Control, ``the abortion ratio for black women (467 per 1,000 live births) was 2.9 times the ratio for white women (158 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the heterogeneous ``other'' race category (319 per 1,000) was 2.0 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (28 per 1,000 women) was 3.1 times the rate for white women (nine per 1,000), whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (18 per 1,000 women) was 2.0 times the rate for white women.'' We should not be so naive to believe that these statistics represent anything less than the reality that minority women have less financial and personal autonomy. Women who decide to abort a pregnancy are not acting on whim or caprice. Rather, the decision to abort is a painful decision process borne out of necessity. I do not support these higher statistics among minority women, however their lives should not be jeopardized because of botched abortions. As a woman of faith myself, the issue of abortion is very dear to me. I must begin by saying that I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. The early termination of a fetus is a terribly sad and unfortunate event, and the decision to abort is a long and difficult one. Situations arise in which a woman is forced to make the very tough decision about something very private and personal. In situations like this I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose. It is her body and any law prohibiting woman from having total control over their bodies is in violation of our constitutional rights. I have always supported a woman's right to choose. The decision to have a baby is something between a woman, her family, her faith and her doctor. This is an instance where the federal government does not need to be involved. It is my hope that society will continue to be progressive in their decisions, and if a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, there are places that she can go to have the procedure done safely. The Supreme Court in 1973, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman's right to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected right. Judge Blackmon wrote that ``a statute that criminalizes abortion is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.'' The Stupak-Pitts amendment effectively reverses a women's control over her body. According to a 2002 study by the Guttmacher Institute, 90 percent of private policies currently cover abortion services. If this amendment is adopted, it will instantly modify the insurance coverage for the millions of women whose current insurance plans include coverage for abortion care. These women entered into their insurance contracts with the guarantee that potential abortions would be covered. Yet, if this amendment is passed, every women covered under the new health care system would have to purchase supplemental insurance or pay out of pocket for abortions. It is estimated that one third of Americans will have an abortion in their lifetime. If this amendment is adopted, thousands of women will be unable to afford a procedure for unpredictable and unwanted pregnancies. This would essentially be a ban on abortions for these women. This is an unacceptable violation of a woman's personal sovereignty. I strongly oppose this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am holding up a concise, efficient, and effective health care plan for America, H.R. 3962, and I plan to stand with America and those who don't have health insurance today as we cast our vote for affordable health care for America. Eighteen thousand people die every year because they do not have health insurance. The State of Texas has 6 million people who don't have health insurance. Several Republican Members from Texas, have in their districts, some 29 percent, and 18 percent of individuals who don't have health insurance. So today I rise to say that the plan we have will immediately close the doughnut hole for Seniors. It will provide the uninsured with a bridge to the exchange program. It will extend the coverage for our young people until the age of 27, and, yes, I'm proud of the language on pages 22 and 23 that will begin to help save hospital beds in physician-owned hospitals in the State of Texas and around the Nation. This language is in the bill and we now can continue to work competent quality hospitals in rural and urban areas. We are ready to fight. We are ready to make sure that those who need health insurance will have us on their side. I am standing with America and voting for America for the first time in which a health care reform bill passes the House with a Public Option to give more access to Americans and lowers the costs of health care insurance. Vote for the health care bill now. I rise before you today in support of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. On July 5, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson said the following about the passage of Medicare, ``This bill is sweeping in its intent and impact. It will help pay for care in hospitals. If hospitalization is unnecessary, it will help pay for care in nursing homes or in the home. And wherever illness is treated--in home or hospital--it will also help all Americans.'' My friends we can all say that about this sweeping legislation. Madame Speaker, while some say that patients and physicians oppose this bill I know otherwise. Today, I met with dozens including physicians, medical students, patients, and advocates. This group included representatives from Doctors for America, National Physicians Alliance, American Medical Student Association, US PIRG, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal Church, NETWORK--A Catholic Social Justice Lobby, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church along with a nationally renowned cardiac surgeon Dr. Salim Aziz of the George Washington University Medical Center. The health providers with whom I met are on the front lines of the health care debate every day. As such, it is no surprise that they enthusiastically endorse this bill, while holding out hope for progressive changes to health reform legislation before it becomes law. These health professionals see the pain and frustration of hardworking Americans who face financial collapse, physical suffering, and sometimes the loss of their life simply because they do not have decent health care coverage. Allow me to share with you some of the stories that I've heard from these care givers. One story was that of Dr. ``Alex'', a Pediatrician and Health and Evidence Policy Fellow at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Dr. Alex told me of an illness he suffered himself while still a medical student at Howard University College of Medicine here in Washington, DC. One summer, during an internship at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Dr. Alex became very sick, and was examined at an emergency room. The examination revealed that Dr. Alex's ailment arose from acute kidney failure. Dr. Alex thankfully had health coverage through Howard University's student health insurance plan. Yet he was faced a conundrum since the university's plan only covered health services required by their students in Washington, DC. It didn't cover him in Atlanta, thus Dr. Alex qualified as under-insured. Aware that he could not afford out-of- pocket payment for a renal dialysis unit as was being recommended, by his physician, his father drove him through the night from Atlanta, waking him every few minutes to make sure he was responsive, until they finally reached Washington, DC, the next morning, where he could get the treatment needed. This story is proof of the fact that even those who chose to enter the profession of caring for others are not immune to the dysfunction of our health care system. Dr. Alex also related another interesting paradox that I'll share with you. He trained in pediatric medicine at a county hospital outside of Los Angeles. At this county hospital I cared for uninsured children, and those enrolled in SCHIP and Medicaid. What he most enjoyed about working within that system was that they provided high quality care to those who needed it the most. His patients on Medicaid and SCHIP were able to easily see sub specialists: Dermatologist, Ophthalmologist, and Gastro-intestinal physicians. His patients who had private insurance often faced health care barriers which his patients on SCHIP and Medicaid never had to navigate. When children who had private medical insurance visited his county hospital pediatric clinic, staff there had to seek preapproval from the private insurance company so that patients' parents were not billed and required to pay the cost of care out-of-pocket. In this county pediatric clinic he once cared for a 9-month-old boy who had a swollen face covered in a rash on his forehead and cheeks, and raw in his neck folds. He sat before him and scratched his arms, trunk, and face uncontrollably to the point of bleeding. Because of his constant scratching his skin had started to harden. He had uncontrolled eczema and his mother told him in tears how she had not been able to obtain a referral to a dermatologist. The county pediatric dermatologist's one afternoon a month clinic time was that same day. To prevent the patient's mother from receiving a large medical bill, Dr. Alex did what he normally did; he got on the phone to her private insurance company and asked the insurance bureaucrat to agree to pay for the visit. As his other patients had to wait for him, he wasted time on the phone trying to solicit preapproval from her insurance company. But he could not sway the insurance gatekeeper. He tried his hardest to make this bureaucrat understand the child's bloody scabs, the mother's tears. But to no avail. The dermatologist took pity on the child and did what we physicians often do, he saw the patient for free. Why have we allowed insurance bureaucrats to come between Dr. Alex and his patients? We can do better than allow profit driven bureaucrats decide what medicines my patients receive. He wants a health care system where when he writes a prescription his patient does not have to worry whether their insurance company will pay for it. An insurance bureaucrat sitting in their cubicle should play no part in the relationship between me and my patient. We need to reform our system. Today is a historic day not only for the 39 million uninsured Americans, but also for our great Nation. As Speaker Pelosi remarked earlier today, we, Members of Congress, are ``humbled to stand here at a time when we can associate ourselves with the work of those who passed Social Security, those who passed Medicare, and now we will pass health care reform.'' Many parallels exist between that history and today. Today, we listened to a parade of Republicans warn that this bill will bring the downfall of American society, of the American way of life. This is not the first time that the Republicans have been on the wrong side of history. In an interview in 1975, David L. Kopelman, who played a prominent role in the early administration of the Medicare Program, remarked that his colleagues were often criticized by Republicans. ``Communist,'' he recalled, ``was the designation all too liberally applied to anyone with a progressive idea. Well, after all, when we went around making contact with employers in those early years that was the designation not delicately applied by many, if not most of them, to the social security program. It must be some communist scheme foisted on the American people.'' Alf Landon, the Republican candidate for President in 1936, even campaigned on the fact that not a dollar in social security benefits would ever be paid. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, such ad hominem attacks are as prevalent as ever. The Republicans want you to believe that our country is descending into an abyss of socialism, but nothing could be further from the truth. Today, I am proud to support a bill that is distinctly American. We the people, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence are endowed ``with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .'' I believe that it is no coincidence that life is listed first--for without it, the Founders realized, no other rights can be realized. Over years, the millions of Americans who could not access medical services were denied their most basic right. The value of life is echoed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as in the Hippocratic Oath taken by every physician. True, health insurance is not a human right by itself, but consider the following: according to the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, there is a ``consistent and statistically significant relationship between health insurance coverage and health outcomes for adults. These factors, in turn, improve the likelihood of disease screening and early detection, the management of chronic illness, and the treatment of acute conditions . . .'' This year, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health by researchers at Harvard University Medical School concluded that nearly 45,000 excess deaths of Americans can be linked each year to lack of health insurance. Forty- five thousand is fifteen times the death toll at the World Trade Center; 45,000 people are approximately equal to the population of Texas A&M University; 45,000 is almost thirty times the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq since 2001. The lives lost at the World Trade Center and in Iraq will never be forgotten. Why then, do we pretend that a far greater loss of life every year does not exist? Make no mistake about it, health insurance can be a direct determinant of whether somebody lives or dies. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 27 million American live without health insurance, and an additional 1.1 million part-time workers lost their health insurance in 2008. Implementing this legislation will instantly improve the life expectancy of millions of Americans of all ages. It is impossible to put a price on that. When we talk about the right to healthcare, we are actually talking about the right to access healthcare. In our current system people do not choose to be uninsured but, instead, are priced out of insurance. These people cannot, as free market proponents often argue, ``Pull themselves up by their bootstraps.'' Instead, they and their families are too often cyclically and systemically trapped in their economic situation. Texas, in particular, with 6 million uninsured persons and 26 percent in the 18th Congressional--H.R. 3962 must pass. I am committed to working with the Speaker's office and Senatorial leadership now that we are taking the first step in stemming the rising tide of the many uninsured. The protection of physician-owned hospitals is an issue of national interest. We have a lot of work to do as we move toward the Senate and to the conference. I was gratified to meet with the Speaker today to discuss the continued protection of the very viable physician-owned hospitals. I will continue to work to save physician-owned hospitals that are currently treating patients or under significant development, to ensure that Americans can continue to receive healthcare at the local hospitals they have come to depend upon. Physician-owned hospitals take care of patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid, as well as patients who are uninsured or cannot pay for their care. They also provide emergency departments access for their communities. At a time when we are concerned about the shortage of hospital beds in the face of epidemics like the swine flu, my amendment to this landmark bill will make sure no hospital is forced to shut its doors or turn away Medicare or Medicaid patients. The benefits that will come from our efforts to protect physician owned hospitals are far reaching and will prevent any further losses to local economies. Not only do physician hospitals deliver high quality medical care to the patients they serve, they also provide much needed jobs, pay taxes, and generate significant economic activity for local businesses and communities. Existing physician-owned hospitals employ approximately 51,700 individuals, have over 27,000 physicians on staff, pay approximately $2,421,579,312 in payroll taxes and $512,889,516 in other federal taxes, and have approximately $1.9 billion in trade payables. Hospitals currently under development would employ approximately 21,700 more individuals. With approximately 50 physician-owned hospitals, Texas leads the nation in the number of physician-owned hospitals. The Texas economy could lose more than $2.3 billion and more than 22,000 jobs. In my district, the 18th Congressional District of Houston, Texas, St. Joseph Medical Center is a general acute care hospital that treats all patients. In fact, its 40 percent Medicaid patient population is double the average hospital's patient population in the entire State of Texas and is one of the highest in the country. St. Joseph's was operated by the Sisters of Charity for many years until it was scheduled to be closed because the order could no longer support it. The hospital was offered to for-profit and not-for-profit hospital systems but no one would accept responsibility for operating St. Joseph's. A plan was developed to convert the hospital into condominiums. I refused to allow that to happen. It was only at that point that the physicians who had practiced there for many years came together to buy the hospital to save it from closing. St. Joseph's takes care of patients covered by Medicare and Medicaid, as well as patients who are uninsured or cannot pay for their care. The emergency departments of many physician-owned ``specialty hospitals'' have been criticized for not having a true emergency department. St. Joseph's has a department which is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, providing an access point for patients in need of emergency services. In fact, St. Joseph's admissions through the emergency department are double the State average; St. Luke's hospital in Houston, which is church-owned, has three new facilities under development; the nonprofit religious mission has the controlling interest. One full-service hospital has one phase already operating, but would be under the growth restrictions; the hospital cannot be completed if the new restrictions apply. The hospital brought approximately 300 new jobs to the community; and Baylor Health Care System, based in Dallas, has found that their partnership with physicians has increased measurable quality, increased patient satisfaction, and decreased the cost in the delivery of their excellent care. This joint venture model has produced a heart hospital that has the lowest readmission rate in the entire United States. And yet this bill would deny Baylor Health Care System the right to add a single operating room or procedure room to meet its community's need. During the moratorium on physician-owned hospitals some years ago, Baylor wanted to add a badly needed OB/GYN service at its Frisco, Texas, hospital. This service is a money losing service, but there was no such service within many miles for those people--Baylor fulfilled the need. It was prohibited from adding this service simply because the hospital had physicians holding a minority of the ownership of the hospital. After the moratorium was lifted, the service was added and is currently working at its capacity. Mr. Speaker, can we imagine witnessing an impact, of no patient beds, 6- to 8-hour waiting times, to extend even to 10-hour waiting times, turning emergency patients away at the door? Can we imagine the dramatic case, when patients are not able to have access to quality care? This is true of the most serious trauma, of the most serious medical cases. Physician owned hospitals serve in many cases at least 40 percent of the city's population. I don't just mean the city's population. We are discussing a population that is between 500,000, which is the indigenous population, and the population of 1.5 million that's in the city every day. When a hospital downsizes in a particular city, it extends beyond the boundaries of that city, and in doing so, with this hospital being downsized, it's impacting all of the hospitals, not only in the city, but those hospitals in nearby jurisdictions. We're seeing the epicenter of a catastrophic event, and unless we realize the importance of this one medical facility, but look at it not from the perspective that it serves this city, but we have to realize that it serves the world. It serves the Nation. At the very least, it serves the Nation; at the very most, it most serves the world. So when you start looking at it from those perspectives, then it becomes more than just a problem of Houston, Texas, but a problem of this Nation. And it should be addressed in that manner. If we do not work closely together to look deeper at this issue, we will face a number of medical facility closures that is a disservice to the American people. So, we see that there seems to be a phasing-back or cutback in all of the major services, but the most important of those services, which directly affect the health and well-being of the citizens, or again, those 1.5 million people who visit and work in the city every day. So, we hear the same thing time and time again, even though individuals are saying that the patient caseload can be handled by the surrounding hospitals. You need but step into any emergency room on any day, at any time, and just see the impact of this one hospital being downsized. The impact will reach out throughout the city of Houston. Again, a true indication of the success of any city government, or any country, is its ability to care for its weak, its injured, its sick, its young, and its old. The ability to care--compassion. Let us be honest--we see the faces of those individuals who we cannot help, because the system has failed them, and they ask us for help. What do we tell them? You never want to lie to a patient. You want to be honest and up-front with this patient. But you reach a point where, in some cases, it's best that you say nothing. How can we tell a family member sitting across from me, in the back of my ambulance, with their loved one lying on the cot as we do CPR, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, on them, ``Ma'am, I'm sorry, we're going to have to go on the other side of the city because St. Joseph's Hospital is closed''? Then, when we get there, the doctors come to the family member and say, ``I'm sorry, your husband, your son, your daughter, your child, has died.'' How do we explain that to them: We passed the hospital that may have made the difference in this case. The ability to care, to show compassion: It's just apparent to me that that just doesn't exist now. To sign off on anything less is to simply say, we turn our back on the community; we turn our back on the Nation. To do that, is to give away what makes us human. I think now is the time that we make that decision: Whether we are unwilling to turn away from what makes us human, or give in to those individuals who seek to benefit from others' miseries. Those individuals know who they are. I think now is the calling time. Now the horn is being blown, and we've got to answer. But first, the failure of every part of civilization is first, the inability to care for its population. From there, it tends to go downhill. This is a national problem, but we should be setting the trend, we should set the example for the entire Nation that hospitals like St. Joseph's Hospital do more than just care for our sick and injured. They represent our capacity to care. There is a duty to act and a passion to care. H.R. 3962 is a bill that will change the health dynamics positively for all Americans--but it is a work in progress. In the manager's amendment after weeks of meeting with the leadership our efforts to seek some relief for physician-owned hospitals was achieved. It is not a winning formula, however on pages 22-23 of the manager's amendment we secured language that says that all physician-owned hospitals should not be treated alike. I have introduced two amendments to cover extending the grandfathering in of physician-owned hospitals and on criteria for other physician-owned hospitals. However, our work is not finished--we must work with the Senate and in conference to keep quality health care. For the Record, I have attached a chart on Texas uninsured, benefits for the 18th Congressional District, and physician-owned hospitals. This is a vital issue which must be corrected or the bill moves through Congress and for physician-owned hospitals to survive and grow. Martin Luther King, Jr. often told the story of the priest, the Levite and the good Samaritan. ``The first question that the priest and Levite asked was ``If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?'' But, the Good Samaritan reversed the question ``If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?'' Today, we can be the Good Samaritan--to help all Americans access good health care. Finally a special thanks to Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, and Miller and a very, very thank you to Congressman John Dingell and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. No insurance. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured with about 6 million uninsured. Texas Districts with the highest percentage of uninsured constituents. Rank shows district ranking out of 435 nationally. Rank, Representative, district No., and percent uninsured: 1. Ruben Hinojosa, District 15--46.4 percent. 5. Gene Green, District 29--36.4 percent. 6. Henry Cuellar, District 28--34.1 percent. 8. Silvestre Reyes, District 16--33.3 percent. 12. Eddie Bernice Johnson, District 30--32.3 percent. 19. Sheila Jackson Lee, District 18--29.7 percent. 22. Solomon Ortiz, District 27--28.6 percent. 23. Louie Gohmart, District 1--26.9 percent. 24. Jeb Hensarling, District 5--26.8 percent. 27. Ciro Rodriguez, District 23--26.4 percent. Other South Texas Districts: 37. Lloyd Dogget, District 25--25.0 percent. 40. Charlie Gonzalez, District 20--24.7 percent. 48. Ron Paul, District 14--23.7 percent. 124. Lamar Smith, District 21--18.3 percent. Benefits of the Affordable Health Care for America Act in the 18th Congressional district of Texas The Affordable Health Care for America Act will make health care affordable for the middle class, provide security for seniors, and guarantee access to health insurance coverage for the uninsured--while responsibly reducing the federal deficit over the next decade and beyond. This analysis examines the benefits of the legislation in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee represents the district. In Congresswoman Jackson-Lee's district, the Affordable Health Care for America Act will: Improve employer-based coverage for 279,000 residents. Provide credits to help pay for coverage for up to 186,000 households. Improve Medicare for 70,000 beneficiaries, including closing the prescription drug donut hole for 5,300 seniors. Allow 16,600 small businesses to obtain affordable health care coverage and provide tax credits to help reduce health insurance costs for up to 14,600 small businesses. Provide coverage for 187,000 uninsured residents. Protect up to 500 families from bankruptcy due to unaffordable health care costs. Reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and health care providers by $49 million. Affordable and Improved Health Care Coverage for the Middle Class Better health care coverage for the insured. Approximately 41% of the district's population, 279,000 residents, receive health care coverage from their employer. Under the legislation, individuals and families with employer-based coverage can keep the health insurance coverage they have now, and it will get better. As a result of the insurance reforms in the bill, there will be no co-pays or deductibles for preventive care; no more rate increases or coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, gender, or occupation; and guaranteed oral, vision, and hearing benefits for children. Affordable health care for the uninsured. Those who do not receive health care coverage through their employer will be able to purchase coverage at group rates through a health insurance exchange. Individuals and families with an income of up to four times the federal poverty level--an income of up to $88,000 for a family of four--will receive affordability credits to help cover the cost of coverage. There are 186,000 households in the district that could qualify for these affordability credits if they need to purchase their own coverage. Coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions. There are 27,600 individuals in the district who have pre- existing medical conditions that could prevent them from buying insurance. Under the bill's insurance reforms, they will now be able to purchase affordable coverage. Health care and financial security. There were 500 health care-related bankruptcies in the district in 2008, caused primarily by the health care costs not covered by insurance. The bill caps annual out-of- * * *.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this has been an engaging debate and discussion by my colleagues, and it is a momentous time in our history. Earlier this evening, I reminded my colleagues of the imagined debate for those of us who were not here when Medicare was introduced to the American people. Medicare can document the number of lives that were saved. And we are privileged to have in the House Chairman John Dingell, who was here during that debate and who has crafted this legislation based upon decades of attempting to achieve universal access to health care for all Americans. My friends are talking about how we rushed this legislation through. They obviously have not kept up with history's stories. For America has been working on providing access to health care for all Americans since the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and the 1990s. We must come to grips with the collapsed system that allows 18,000 people to die because of lack of insurance, that has a number of States with high uninsured rates, meaning that their population is uninsured. It seems like an oxymoron to suggest that a city that can be called the energy capital of the world, with all of the attributes and wonderful neighborhoods that Houston has, the spirit of the people, NASA, so many things to call America, and yet our numbers are very high for those who are uninsured, hardworking Houstonians who desire to have access to health care. This is not an indictment of the facilities in our community that work very hard to make this happen. The Harris County Hospital District, for example, the Texas Medical Center, the number of hospitals outside of that area, including St. Joseph's Hospital, the physicians and nurses and clinics that work in the area all work hard to provide access to health care. But, Mr. Speaker, it's not enough. And our friends on the other side will introduce legislation tomorrow that they call ``cost saving,'' that will merely insure 3 million people. Well, I wonder what decision would have been made about Medicare if we had thought about penny- pinching, not cost containment, not being efficient, penny-pinching. And that is what's going on on the other side. There is no vision about what will happen if we wait one more decade without debating health insurance. I have heard some of my friends say, ``Kill the bill.'' Well, we're killing Americans, and I believe most of us would rather not engage in those kinds of theatrics. I believe that small business owners, of whom we are very concerned, will have the ability to secure insurance for their employees. All the time when I listen to them, they are committed and dedicated to their employees. They are the backbone of America. This bill exempts 86 percent of small businesses from the requirement to offer or to contribute to coverage by increasing the thresholds for exemption from a $250,000 payroll to a $500,000. It decreases obligations for employers of payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000. It allows those employees to go into the exchange. Small employers and the exchange: It increases the size of small employers automatically allowed to purchase coverage through the exchange, which will include the public option, of up to at least 100 employees within the first 3 years. It permits an additional expansion to even larger employers in future years. A small business tax credit modifies the policy to limit the tax credit to a 2-year period per firm to help firms transition to providing health care benefits to their employees. Health insurance co-ops provide startup loans to establish not-for- profit, or cooperative, health plans that compete with private insurers and the public insurance option all in the vein of bringing down costs. It provides veterans and members of the Armed Forces the assurance that members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families have access to the exchange, to obtain health insurance if they choose and that they fulfill their responsibilities to have qualified health insurance if they are enrolled in a VA health care or TRICARE. Remember, this legislation will allow Americans to keep their insurance. I am proud of that. As well, there is a definitive decline in the percentage that Americans will have to pay of their income for health insurance coverage. That is not the case now, and that is why you find so many Americans without health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I would only say it is time now to move on health care reform.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Fort Hood is the largest active duty armored post in the United States, and is the only post in the United States that is capable of supporting two full armored divisions and covers 339 square miles. Home to about 52,000 troops as of earlier this year, the sprawling base is located halfway between Austin and Waco, Texas. I am deeply saddened by the tragic shooting that took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded 31 others. This is one of the worst soldier-on- soldier violence in U.S. history. It is a great misfortune that our nation has lost 13 brave soldiers who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. The gunfire broke out around 1:30 p.m. at the Soldier Readiness Center, where soldiers who are about to be deployed or who are returning undergo medical screening. Nearby, some soldiers were readying to head into a graduation ceremony for troops and families who had recently earned degrees. The suspected shooter, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, was shot four times and authorities believed they had killed him, only to discover later that he had survived. Military officials are starting to piece together what may have pushed this Army psychiatrist trained to help soldiers in distress, turn on his comrades in a shooting rampage. I want to commend the soldiers at Fort Hood for their valiant and selfless acts of bravery. Soldiers rushed to treat their injured colleagues by ripping their uniforms into makeshift bandages. The top commander at Fort Hood is crediting a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, for stopping the shooting. Fort Hood police Sgt. Kimberly Munley and her partner responded within 3 minutes of reported gunfire Thursday afternoon. Munley shot the gunman four times despite being shot herself. Another story of heroism is that of 19-year-old Amber Bahr. The nutritionist put a tourniquet on a wounded soldier and carried him out to medical care. And only after she had taken care of others did she realize she had been shot. Both women heroically intervened despite being shot. I would like to express my deepest sympathies for the loss of these 13 soldiers. My thoughts and prayers go out to their families during their time of bereavement. It is unacceptable that soldiers should fear attacks on American soil. I want the military and their families to always be protected as they are the backbone of American society. It is not only our soldiers who make sacrifices to protect our great Nation, but their families as well. I am deeply saddened and troubled by the shootings at Fort Hood, especially because soldiers and their families from my own district are there.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank Chairman Thompson for years of commitment to this process, listening to our friends from the other side of the aisle. Frankly, I remember sitting in Cannon room 311 when we were in the minority and the cooperation we worked through when we were dealing with our farmers. Each step of the way, we made efforts to be responsive to the security of the Nation and the elements to which my good friends speak of. Let me also mention our other collaborators, Energy and Commerce, Chairman Markey, and my subcommittee of Transportation and Infrastructure which had any number of hearings to answer the question: Why? So I stand here today in the backdrop of recognizing the importance of securing the Nation. And I am proud to have co-authored H.R. 2868 and to pass it through the subcommittee I chair, before full committee. Might I just indicate for a moment that I come from Texas, and I would be remiss not to acknowledge the devastation of yesterday. Of course, we have heard of another tragedy today in Florida. But my sympathy to the families of the 13 dead and 31 wounded. Never again. That is why we stand here today as Homeland Security members. The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868. Section 550 of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations, a provision that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend, was just a page- and-a-half long and had many deficiencies. He is eliminating the inherently secure technology for chemical facilities, the very facilities that are in the eye of the storm. He apparently does not believe it is important to protect workers, to improve the program so that the deficiencies in the current chemical facilities security program by including provisions that strengthen enforcement to provide workers subject to background checks with access to adequate redress and strengthen whistleblower protections. Our challenge is to be fair. This legislation is fair. We must pass H.R. 2868. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants. Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just 14 lines long and had many deficiencies. It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year. H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as environmental and labor organizations. We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about how this program should be executed. The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down the road another three years. H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical facility security program by including provisions that strengthen enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections. It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation of safer technologies. If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in several key areas. The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that, and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives share this view. It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address chemical facility security in this country. I reserve my time at this time, as this debate proceeds.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise again to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we have worked for 4 years on this legislation. Can you imagine 2009 to 2012, 7 years to put the American people in jeopardy. The Department of Homeland Security is for this legislation, and the approach that our friends are using is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year. H.R. 2868 is a product of years of work by multiple committees and extensive input from the chemical industry. Let me cite for you the letter from the American Chemistry Council which represents the largest chemical companies. They said, in a letter to Energy and Commerce, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives share the same view. So what are my colleagues suggesting? They want us to shortchange the American people. I stood here with all of the solemnness that I could, when the House recognized those lost at Fort Hood. Others at Fort Hood were wounded in my home State. We mourn them, we honor them, but we have the responsibility to stand on their side. Just as we have to get to the bottom of the tragedy at Fort Hood, Texas, we have to get to the bottom of realizing that it is on our table to ensure that whistleblowers are protected, as provided for in H.R. 2868 to make sure that inherently safer technologies are used in chemical facilities, and, yes, that jobs are not lost. But jobs will not be lost when you improve technology. You will become more efficient, and you will protect not only the water and wastewater systems in our communities but you will have workers working in safe, productive chemical facilities that will be part of the economic engine. Jobs are important. But so is the security of this Nation. That is what this particular committee has done over a 4-year period. We have worked in consultation with those in business as well as those in law enforcement. I don't know how we can stand here and oppose the Department of Homeland Security's Department that supports us moving forward on this legislation, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act 2009. I ask my colleagues, consider the fact of what their responsibility is. Their responsibility again is to stand with those who we have to secure. I think that the Dent-Olson amendment, my good friends on the committee have good intentions, but those intentions are quashed by the responsibility that we have and the long work that we have done to ensure inherently safer technologies for chemical facilities. I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, again, in response to securing America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his ongoing leadership. Let me just cite the language out of the letter that my dear friend just read: ``The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, H.R. 2868, is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS program.'' We've answered that question. And, secondarily, it's not a notion because Clorox announced its plans to begin transitioning U.S. operations to high-strength bleach and to be able to use inherently safer technologies. What we are speaking about today, this is a way of creating jobs, in a secure environment but also it is a way of securing America. Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. The gentleman's amendment would extend the current chemical security program for another 3 years without any of the security enhancements we included in H.R. 2868. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. The Department of Homeland Security set up the Chemical Facility AntiTerrorism Standards in 2007 when DHS was granted narrow authority in an appropriations bill to regulate security at most chemical plants. Section 550 of the Fiscal Year 2007 Appropriations Act--the provision that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is seeking to extend--was just a page and a half long and had many deficiencies. It is no substitute for the comprehensive authorization legislation that moved through regular order in the relevant committees this year. H.R. 2868 is the product of years of work by multiple committees and extensive input from the chemical industry, water sector, Department of Homeland Security, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as environmental and labor organizations. We have the responsibility to the public, the private sector, and the Department to provide comprehensive, clear congressional guidance about how this program should be executed. The gentleman's amendment ignores our responsibility to respond to what we have learned and to make improvements to the program that the Bush and Obama administrations requested. It just kicks the can down the road another three years. H.R. 2868 addresses acknowledged deficiencies in the current chemical facility security program by including provisions that strengthen enforcement, provide workers subject to background checks with access to adequate redress, and strengthen whistleblower protections. It also requires the assessment, and, in some cases, implementation of safer technologies. If we merely extend the current program, we will sacrifice all of these improvements and ignore the countless hours of discussion and testimony that highlighted the need to strengthen this program in several key areas. The American Chemistry Council, which represents the largest chemical companies, said in a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee that, and I quote, ``H.R. 2868 is the appropriate vehicle for ensuring a permanent CFATS program.'' CropLife America and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives share this view. It is time for us to pass comprehensive legislation to address chemical facility security in this country. Clorox Announces Plans To Begin Transitioning U.S. Operations to High- Strength Bleach Oakland, Calif., Nov. 2, 2009.--The Clorox Company (NYSE: CLX) today announced that it plans to begin modifying manufacturing processes in its U.S. bleach operations. The initiative calls for Clorox to begin transitioning from chlorine to high-strength bleach as a raw material for making its namesake bleach. ``This decision was driven by our commitment to strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,'' said Chairman and CEO Don Knauss. Clorox will start with its Fairfield, Calif., plant. The company expects to complete the transition there within six months, followed by a phased, multiyear transition for six additional plants. ``This process requires significant expertise, training, and changes in infrastructure and equipment,'' Knauss said. ``Our plant-by-plant approach will also enable us to apply what we learn along the way, ensure supply availability, minimize business disruptions and help make sure the transition is undertaken in the most effective manner possible.'' ``Clorox leads our industry in safety and security,'' Knauss said. ``Our bleach plant employees are experts at handling chlorine, and we're proud of the fact that we've used it responsibly for our entire 96-year history. Even so, we're pleased to begin implementing this process change to make our products using high-strength bleach.'' The Clorox Company The Clorox Company is a leading manufacturer and marketer of consumer products with fiscal year 2009 revenues of $5.5 billion. Clorox markets some of consumers' most trusted and recognized brand names, including its namesake bleach and cleaning products, Green Works natural cleaners, Armor All and SIP auto-care products, Fresh Step and Scoop Away cat litter, Kingsford charcoal, Hidden Valley, and K C Masterpiece dressings and sauces, Brita, water-filtration systems, Glad bags, wraps and containers, and Burt's Bees' natural personal care products. With approximately 8,300 employees worldwide, the company manufactures products in more than two dozen countries and markets them in more than 100 countries. Clorox is committed to making a positive difference in the communities where its employees work and live. Founded in 1980, The Clorox Company Foundation has awarded cash grants totaling more than $77 million to nonprofit organizations, schools and colleges. In fiscal 2009 alone, the foundation awarded $3.6 million in cash grants, and Clorox made product donations valued at $7.8 million. For more information about Clorox, visit www.TheCloroxCompany.com.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman, and I thank the distinguished ranking member for coming together around the legislation of my friend Mr. Wu from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to recapture the moment of why we're here on this floor today. We will have an expanded opportunity tomorrow, Saturday, for there to be a vigorous debate on this health care reform, which, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association has indicated their recognition of the importance of this legislation. But I think it's important for us to recapture the horrific scenes, those of us who are parents, those of us who engaged with children during the tragedy of the earthquake in China on May 12, 2008. We looked in horror as rescue workers worked feverishly to draw out children, limp bodies covered with dirt and dust, crying parents, some losing more than one child, children being where they were supposed to be, in school, just as any of us who during our lifetime have dropped our precious souls off at a school building. You can imagine the outcry and the pain. Just go back to that time and see the video of parents on their knees screaming, maybe in prayer to ask for mercy, maybe to hope that their child either would be found or the limp body was not their child. Can you imagine two wonderful, heroic individuals Huang Qi and Tan Zuoren who came to speak for those voiceless parents, many of them oppressed by, unfortunately, the structure of China, even though it is a country that is represented to have democratic and constitutional rights. These men, these individuals were working to get the truth. What happened? Why did most of the school buildings fall as they did? What kind of cheap construction? Why was life so cheap that they did not focus? This resolution recounts that these individuals who are human rights activists were literally picked up by plain-clothes police on June 10, 2008, and formally arrested on July 18, 2008, on charges of illegally possessing state secrets. All they were trying to do was to give a voice to the voiceless and to recognize that truth had to be found. When Huang's closed trial was held on August 5, 2009--and according to the international nongovernmental organization of human rights in China, four police officers kidnapped a volunteer for the human rights center to prevent him from testifying on Huang's behalf. So there are a lot of violations. In fact, China has violated their own constitutional rights.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. So when they reached out to try to get others to join their cause, to tell the truth or have the truth be told to these parents, these mourning parents, these parents without children--and we all know about China's birth control policies. Some may have had only one child. Each child is precious. So I rise today to support providing these human rights activists with the rights that all Chinese citizens have under article 35 and 41 of China's constitution, namely, freedom of speech and association, a right to make suggestions to officials free of suppression and retaliation. I ask for a human rights plan for China. It is time to tell the truth, but it is also time that China rises to recognize the rights of all of its citizens and the right to promote human rights.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the manager of this legislation, my dear friend from the Foreign Affairs Committee, for yielding. It is interesting to have this day to commemorate the sacrifice of Americans some 30 years ago who were held as hostages. A few minutes ago I tried to depict and have people be reminded of the tragedy of lost children during the earthquake in China, just visually picture what happened to those children. It is important as well to revisit visually what Americans had to go through who were held hostage in Iran for more than a year. I saw some old video where I saw soldiers doing pushups and trying to keep themselves busy, Foreign Service personnel and others who were in that embassy that fateful day. This is an important acknowledgment of a transition that has frozen time for the Iranian people, frozen their rights, their opportunity for freedom and freedom of speech, the understanding of the concept of democracy. As we commemorate, not celebrate, those 30 years, we thank those Americans, those brave Americans who withstood all of that pain of being a hostage, being away from their family members when at the same time we owe them a debt, more than a debt of gratitude. We owe them the recognition that there are dissidents, Iranians, who are now on the ground fighting against, I believe, an illegally situated government that cannot document that that was a fair process and the brutality that occurred after that election when the Iranians stood up to be able to demand justice and a fair election. We must push for human rights in Iran. We must push for nonproliferation. We must demand transparency. Of course, their chief executive will suggest that we are demons, that we have no right to interfere into their business. Well, I would say the name of those brave Americans that lost a lot of their life for a period of time in our history, we owe them our persistence in ensuring that there is an opportunity for freedom and democracy in Iran. There were those, of course, who lost their lives in the attempt to rescue those individuals. I pay honor and tribute to them. In their name as well we must continue to fight for freedom. An enormous tragedy occurred yesterday in Texas at Fort Hood, and we respect and acknowledge the loss of those brave men and women. We also say that freedom demands our attention, both in terms of national security but as well for those who sacrifice for us every day. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 30th anniversary and thank the author of this legislation, of the Iranian hostage crisis, during which 52 United States citizens were held hostage for 444 days. I acknowledge their sacrifice, the days they stayed away from their family and, as well, the sacrifice of those who attempted to save their lives. I express support for all of those Iranian citizens who now stand in the battle in the fight for human rights. I would argue that this legislation must be shown in action, and I ask my colleagues to support this initiative.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of the House cares about all Americans. She cares about all Americans because we have worked together as a team. It's not the Pelosi bill; it's the bill that responds to America's needs. And I'm proud of our Speaker and this Congress and those who will make the right decision tomorrow. I imagine if you were here in 1965 when President Johnson had the vision and the wisdom to formulate the strategy for Medicare in collaboration with that Congress, you could hear the sound, echoing sound of the naysayers, ``no, no, no.'' But in none of our town hall meetings did one person stand up and say, ``I'll give away our Medicare.'' So tomorrow we will give seniors what they know and understand: saving a buck, closing the doughnut hole, providing no pay for preventative coverage, helping low-cost seniors. And one of the things that we will do is those States, like the State of Texas, who don't do their job as it relates to providing for the uninsured, because Texas stands at the number one State of uninsured and Houston is the number one city, we have got to fix it for those people who are in need. Vote the right way tomorrow.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the committee for his leadership. I'm pleased, as the Chair of the Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, to rise to support this legislation and particularly highlight for my colleagues the importance of legislation and language that I put in the bill in our subcommittee. One dealing with whistleblower protections that requires the DHS Secretary to establish and process and to accept information from whistleblowers. We cannot be a secure Nation if people don't feel that they have the ability to tell the truth. I'm very pleased that language is in the bill that reduces the consequence of a terrorist attack by requiring the use of inherently safer technologies, which is crucial as we begin to look at chemical facilities and wastewater facilities. In addition, the aspect of the citizen enforcement that allows a citizen to file suit against the DHS, not against a private company, that speaks to the issue of making sure that the Department of Homeland Security is in compliance. Then, of course, I think it is important to note, as we look at background checks, that we also are reminded of people's right to work. Title I requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to issue regulations to require tiered facilities to undertake background checks for the safety of the American people. This is a legislative initiative that is overdue. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the colleagues that have gathered here in this august institution that this is the Homeland Security Committee, and, as the American people have asked us to do, we are doing our duty. I look forward to a vigorous debate on the health care bill, for the American people deserve that vigorous debate and transparency. But today the Homeland Security Committee is doing its job. The idea that we have lived in safety and security since 9/11 to a certain degree has been because of the diligent and vigilant work of the men and women of the Homeland Security Department; members, of course, of the United States military; and Congresspersons who have the absolute duty to address the question of security of this Nation. I would also remind my good friend that Indian tribes in sovereign areas have a sovereign legal distinction. We know that their structure is somewhat different than what we have. I rise to support this rule because it is a fair rule. It has allowed a number of amendments by our friends on the other side of the aisle, but this chemical security bill is not a bill that started last week. It started a number of years ago. It has had the jurisdictional oversight of several committees, including the Energy and Commerce Committee. As I have listened to a number of experts as the subcommittee Chair, we have held hearings, we have authored letters, we have requested briefings, and we have visited sites. I have visited a waste and water system site. I see the vulnerability. I see the utilization of chemicals that could be used or tampered with to contaminate the water of innocent people and innocent families and innocent children. At the end of each step of the way, in establishing the record for this legislation, we worked in a transparent and a bipartisan manner to ensure that the legislation was thoughtful and well balanced. We dealt with the farmers. Chairman Thompson worked with the farmers over a period of time. You have already heard that we have in this legislation crafted a response to our small businesses, the backbone of America. We have several Republican amendments that were adopted at markup, and I know that the minority staff was able to make important changes with our staff. Our door remained open. Regardless of the rhetoric that we hear today, this has been a process that is the obligation of Homeland Security to protect the American people. It is no doubt that terrorism has been franchised and there are numerous creative ways that terrorists will be looking to contaminate.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee and thank him for managing this bill. I am grateful to the Committee on Rules for specifically ruling 10 amendments in order, five of which come from our friends on the other side. But this again, I want to emphasize, is a responsibility that is not a nonserious responsibility, because water and wastewater sites proliferate our Nation all over, in rural hamlets and urban centers, and it is necessary to look at that as a potential target of any terrorist, just as our rail system, just as our aviation system. What is our job than to provide the framework than to ensure that our water is secure. Working with the administration, this legislation gives regulatory authority over chemical facilities for DHS while giving EPA a lead role. I look forward to the passage of this legislation. Why? Because the American people send us here to do our job, and our job is to provide for the security of the American people. I am grateful that over a period of time we have protected small businesses, we are concerned about water and wastewater facilities, chemical facilities, and we will be securing this Nation by pairing this rule and this bill on chemical security. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule for H.R. 2868 and the underlying bill. The underlying legislation reaffirms our solemn oath to keep the American people safe. The legislation improves and extends a critical DHS program. I have been a champion of previous iterations of this legislation and I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2868. By holding hearings in my Subcommittee on chemical security, authoring letters, and requesting briefings, I have been intimately involved in the implementation of this program and assessing its needs. At each step of the way in establishing the record for this legislation, we worked in a transparent, bipartisan manner to ensure that the legislation was thoughtful and well balanced. Several Republican amendments were adopted at mark-up and I know that Minority staff was able to make important changes at the staff level. Regardless of the rhetoric we hear today, this legislation will be considered following a process of which we can all be proud. I am grateful to the Committee on Rules for ruling 10 amendments in order, 5 of which come from our friends on the other side of the aisle. Today's discussion will further demonstrate this process' commitment to fairness and transparency. Working with the support of the Administration, this legislation gives regulatory authority over chemical facilities to DHS while giving EPA a lead role, in consultation with DHS, over water and wastewater facilities. I look forward to the passage of H.R. 2868, which will represent the culmination of comprehensive and collaborative efforts to protect the American people while doing so in a manner that understands the sector being regulated. I support the rule for H.R. 2868 and I look forward to passage of the critical chemical security legislation in the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today in support of H. Res. 868, ``Honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and former female members of the Armed Forces.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Davis, for introducing this resolution. As a member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues I think that it is important to recognize our sisters in uniform. Today over 350,000 women serving in the Armed Forces make up approximately 15 percent of active duty personnel, 15 percent of Reserves, and 17 percent of the National Guard. Women are often overlooked and underappreciated in the military even though women are and have historically been an important part of all United States war efforts, voluntarily serving in every military conflict in United States history since the Revolutionary War. The first American woman soldier was Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts. She enlisted as a Continental Army soldier under the name of ``Robert Shurtliff.'' She served for 3 years in the Revolutionary War and was wounded twice; she cut a musket ball out of her own thigh so no doctor would find out she was a woman. Finally, at the end of the hostilities her secret was discovered--even so, George Washington gave her an honorable discharge. She later lectured on her experiences and became a champion of women's rights. The Woman's Army Auxiliary Corps was established in the United States in 1941. However, political pressures stalled the attempts to create more roles for women in the American Armed Forces. Women saw combat during World War II, first as nurses in the Pearl Harbor attacks on December 7, 1941. The Woman's Naval Reserve and Marine Corps Women's Reserve were also created during this conflict. In July 1943 a bill was signed removing ``auxiliary'' from the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps, making it an official part of the regular army. In 1944 the Women's Army Corps, WAC, arrived in the Pacific and landed in Normandy on D- day. During the war, 67 Army nurses and 16 Navy nurses were captured and spent 3 years as Japanese prisoners of war. There were more than 350,000 American women who served during World War II and 16 were killed in action; in total, they gained over 1,500 medals, citations, and commendations. Women are now playing an increasingly important role in America's military forces; more than 185,000 women have been deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other missions since 2001. Today, women can serve on American combat ships, including in command roles. Female enlisted members and officers can hold staff positions in every branch of the Army except infantry and armor, although they can in fact serve on the staffs of infantry and armor units at division level and above, and be members of Special Operations Forces. Women can fly military aircraft and make up 2 percent of all pilots in the U.S. military. However, women are still limited solely due to gender. Women are not permitted to serve on submarines or to participate in Special Forces programs such as Navy SEALs. Women enlisted soldiers are barred from serving in Infantry, Special Forces, Artillery, Armor, and Air Defense Artillery. So far the positions closest to combat open to women in the U.S. Army are in the Military Police, where women operate machine-guns on armoured Humvees, guarding truck convoys. Although Army regulations bar women from infantry assignments, some female MPs are detailed to accompany male infantry units to handle search and interrogation of Iraqi suspects. I urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor and recognize the service and achievements of current and former female members of the Armed Forces. Over 350 servicewomen have given their lives for the Nation in combat zones since World War I, and more than 85 have been held as prisoners of war; 34,000 women served in World War I, 350,000 served in World War II, 120,000 served in the Korean war, over 7,000 served in the Vietnam war, and more than 41,000 served in the first gulf war. Madam Speaker, the women of America's military, past and present, have served their Nation in times of peace and war, at great personal sacrifice for both themselves and their families. I hope that this Congress will recognize the service and achievements of women in the military.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee and my dear friend from New York, Congresswoman Maloney. It is interesting, listening to my good friend on the other side, but what I would offer to say is we are now debating a bill that most Americans are crying out for. As we go into the season of giving, and many, many holidays, where Americans all over the Nation and all over the world, frankly, will be looking to share their generosity, if you will, but they are facing a steep mountain to climb. So the Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act allows us to push back on many credit card companies that have availed themselves of the opportunity to raise interest rates by hearing about the potential implementation of this bill in 2010, August 2010, and decrease the credit limits on their consumers before the effective date. Mr. Chairman, we didn't do this. Credit card companies who saw the writing on the wall, rather than working with consumers in a way that would encourage purchasing in a responsible manner, they did the complete opposite. So I am very glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation that expedites good things, providing increased written notice to consumers of any increases in interest rates or otherwise makes a significant change in the terms of the credit card account. That is simple fairness. I am glad to be on the side of informing consumers of their right to cancel the card before the rate hike goes into effect. I am glad to be on the side of the consumer that prohibits arbitrary interest rate increases and universal default on existing balances. I am glad that college students will not be, if you will, caught in the crosshairs of paying for their college tuition while paying high interest rates on credit cards that they use. Finally, let me say we are being fair to the credit card companies. We require penalty fees to be reasonable and proportional to these same credit companies. Let me just say, this is a good bill for America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 878, which ``expresses support for the goals and ideals of National Family Literacy Day.'' A great American, Fredrick Douglass, once said ``Once you learn to read, you will be forever free.'' For America, literacy is the key that unlocks the door to our success, to our defense, and to our freedom. Illiteracy should be considered the root of many problems in our lives today; it leads to alienation of students in school and their community. For example, in my home district, the 18th District of Texas approximately 68 percent of those arrested, 75 percent of welfare dependants, 85 percent of dropouts, and 72 percent of the unemployed are identified as functionally illiterate (Youth Plus). One in three adults in the greater Houston metropolitan area functions at the lowest level of literacy, they are unable to read and comprehend a menu or a street map, fill out a job application, or read the directions on a medicine bottle (Literacy Advance of Houston). And in Texas, 85 percent of teenagers appearing in juvenile court are functionally illiterate (Youth Plus). No skill can be rendered more crucial to our future, nor to a democratic and prosperous society, than literacy. Literacy and knowledge is the premise of reaching one's full potential as an upstanding citizen. President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, ``A book is the most effective weapon against intolerance and ignorance,'' in order for us to utilize this priceless weapon, we must educate one another. Our children are made readers on the laps of their parents. Therefore the literacy of parents has a direct impact on the educational success of their children. Parental involvement is an intricate part of a child's success and as the level of parental involvement increases the education level of the child increases. Unfortunately, according to the National Adult Literacy Survey, 42 million adult Americans can't read. Another 50 million can recognize so few printed words they are limited to a 4th or 5th grade reading level; one out of every four teenagers drops out of high school, and of those who graduate, one out of every four has the equivalent or less of an eighth grade education. Parents in family literacy programs have proven to become more involved in their children's education and gain the tools necessary to obtain a job or find better employment. A parent's education and income are two of the biggest factors in determining a child's success in school. Advocating literacy across America will result in children's lives becoming more stable, lead to higher achievement in the classroom and success in all future endeavors becomes inevitable. Studies have shown that two important factors that influence student achievement are the mother's education level and poverty in the home. It is clear that if adults are not part of the learning equation, then there is no long-term solution to our Nation's education challenges. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy reports that 90,000,000 adults lack the literacy, numeracy, or English language skills to succeed at home, in the workplace, and in society. National Family Literacy Day would highlight the need for our government to support efforts to ensure each and every citizen has the necessary literacy skills to succeed at home, at work, and in society. I support the designation of National Family Literacy Day on November 1, which encourages parents to become involved in their children's education and schoolwork, as well as people across the United States to support programs to assist those in need of adult education and family literacy programs. Children who participate in family literacy programs demonstrate significant gains in oral language skills and score higher on standardized tests. I call upon the Federal Government, States, localities, schools, libraries, nonprofit organizations, community- based organizations, consumer advocates, institutions of higher education, labor unions, and businesses to support increased access to adult education and family literacy programs to ensure a literate society.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent of the children of America, at some point in their lifetime, certain populations of the children will be on food stamps. I am very proud of Speaker Pelosi. This is not Pelosi health care; this is America's health care. This is the input of Americans from all around the Nation. Ninety-six percent of Americans will be covered by this health care, and no woman will be denied insurance because of a preexisting condition such as pregnancy. What an outrage. I have been working on the physician-owned hospitals issue now for almost 4 years. We are engaged in providing opportunities for physician-owned hospitals to expand, to be able to provide services for general acute care services in this bill. I know we are going to be victorious. I know that the hospitals need to be covered. I know that we are not going to lose jobs. This is a bill that serves all of America. I am glad that my colleague had the opportunity to be in European-style health care. That is not what it is, but it is going to allow people in America to live, and not the 18,000 that die every year because they do not have health insurance. Pass health reform now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of H. Res. 641, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the founding of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I support this resolution because of the incredible role that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty played in helping to end the cold war. In 1949, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, RFE/RL, was established by the United States to promote democracy in communist-controlled parts of Europe. RFE/RL broadcasted unbiased and factual information and ideas, providing valuable reporting and demonstrating the value of the freedom of the press. The information provided in the broadcasts was more comprehensive than the information provided on state-controlled media sources, leading some Communist authorities to use secret transcripts to stay informed. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty played an important role in bringing about the demise of communism in Europe. Leaders from Russia and other former Soviet Union countries have extolled the virtues of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Former Polish President Lech Walesa famously said that RFE/RL's influence ``could not be described.'' Former President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic and former President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin, have also described the significant role that RFE/RL played in bringing the end of communism in Europe. Its virtue was encapsulated by the former President of Estonia, Lennart Meri, who nominated RFE/RL for the Nobel Peace Price in 1991. During the cold war, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was subject to attacks by Communist governments of the Soviet Union. The Soviet intelligence agency and secret police, the KGB, as well as other Communist intelligence agencies infiltrated radio stations with spies and attempted to disrupt reporting by jailing and intimidating sources. Georgi Markov, an RFE/RL correspondent in Bulgaria, was murdered in London in 1978 by Bulgarian Communist intelligence service agents. In 1981, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty was attacked when Romanian security agents exploded a bomb outside of the RFE/RL headquarters in Munich, West Germany. Such acts of violence by the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc countries demonstrate the fear that the Communist leaders had for the democratizing influence of the free press. Today, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty continues to operate in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Asia. RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages to over 30 million listeners in 20 countries, including Ukraine, Russia, Moldova, Georgia, the Balkans, Belarus, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, and Afghanistan. To this day, RFE/RL correspondents and employees are subject to violence and intimidation by regimes that consider the free press threatening. In 1823, Thomas Jefferson said, ``The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.'' From the cold war to today, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has demonstrated Jefferson's words throughout the world. By bringing the free press to countries with repressive governments, RFE/RL has proven for over 60 years that governments that use censorship to protect their authority cannot stand forever.