Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to join the Honorable Nita M. Lowey and the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, in introducing a bill that will bring parity to Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees and ensures security. This legislation would provide the same rights to all TSA employees, including the Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) (i.e., screeners), as those already enjoyed by employees at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and numerous front-line security agencies throughout the country, including state law enforcement agencies. In the 110th Congress, The Committee on Homeland Security worked to give a broad range of rights to the Transportation Security Administration workforce in H.R. 1, Implementing the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. Basic workplace protections and collective bargaining rights were a key part of this effort. While the House passed these important measures and the Senate followed suit, to avoid a veto from the Bush Administration, these protections were stripped from the conference report. This bill renews and improves upon this effort by increasing the quality of the entire TSA workforce and not just a smaller part of it. This bill will increase security by improving workforce morale and employee retention, and will put workers in a position to expose security gaps and put TSA on par with other DHS components. In 2001, when TSA was created, Congress provided discretionary authority allowing TSA to create different classes of employees, each with different rights and protections. Specifically, the 107th Congress and President Bush gave the TSA Administrator the discretionary authority to set up two different TSAs. One group of TSA employees would be given one set of rights and the other group, the TSOs (i.e., screeners), could be treated differently, with respect to conditions and benefits of employment, discipline, compensation, leave, and other basic employment rights. Under then TSA Administrator, Admiral James Loy, the Bush Administration exercised discretionary authority to create two classes of TSA employees by denying the TSOs certain employment rights. While this discretionary authority helped quickly establish and stand-up TSA, as intended by the 107th Congress and the Bush Administration, it was, and continues to be the impetus for low employee morale and diminished transportation security. From survey results to testimony over the past several years, we have seen that the TSA workforce is frustrated by the lack of recognition and rewards for performance and promotion practices, confused by different policies and procedures on leave, training, and other administrative matters. On March 5, 2009, a House Homeland Security Subcommittee received testimony from employee representatives of the workforce. All of TSA operates under a separate personnel system than other DHS components. Further, the TSO workforce is not allowed to collectively bargain in contrast with the CBP workforce and others across the federal government, including state law enforcement. These discrepancies and differences lead to confusion, frustration and further erode morale. The time for personnel experiments is now over. The employees of TSA deserve to be treated like their fellow employees in the DHS and across the Federal government--fairly and equitably. Providing basic employment protections and rights is critical to instill confidence in the workforce. The time for two classes of TSA employees is over--this bill eliminates this dichotomy. This legislation brings parity to the TSA workforce. The bill affords the workforce the same rights and protections their colleagues across the federal government and the Department enjoy under Title 5 of the United States Code and other civil service laws such as provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act, Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Rehabilitation Act, among others. The legislation aims to transition the 60,000 plus TSA workforce in a responsible way from its current and varied personnel systems to that of Title 5. It provides the Secretary and Assistant Secretary the discretion on how and when to move to the new system, although not later than 60 days after the date of enactment. It also provides a window for the transition to allow for consultation with employee representatives and communication with the workforce. Further, it ensures that no employee will lose any pay, accrued leave or health benefit that is currently afforded to them. To truly provide comprehensive transportation security, it must start with those who provide the security--in this case all TSA employees, including the TSOs. We must set up a system where all TSA employees are protected, otherwise we will have a system that treats colleagues differently and remains inefficient to the extent of hindering transportation security. In the end, by creating one TSA as a part of a one DHS the American public truly receives national security. We look forward to working with our colleagues to put the TSA workforce in a system that has stood the test of time and shown itself to be fair and equitable.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, as the House of Representatives begins to consider the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget, I would like to highlight a number of priorities. First, I would like to begin by saying President Obama has inherited an extensive deficit from the previous administration--the result of mistaken policies, misplaced priorities and an era of profound irresponsibility. This was no April Fools joke. Our budget deficit is a real problem with real consequences for the American people. For too long, we have ignored the tough choices we needed to make and failed to address the big challenges our economy faces. This lack of responsibility has left our nation with an economy in recession and an untenable fiscal situation--$1 trillion a year deficits on average over the coming decade. The FY2010 budget submitted by the President is up front and honest about the challenges we face. Unlike the previous administration which assumed revenue from the Alternative Minimum Tax overwhelming the middle class and not accounting for the Medicare doctor's fee fix and the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no budget gimmicks in President Obama's budget to cover up the mess we're in. I urge the President to include funding for summer jobs for youth. Our youth, and individuals that have opted not to go to college or institutions of higher learning, need to be engaged and employed. Employment will provide them with skills and aptitudes that are necessary to be productive in society. I urge funding for our youth. I support the President's call for healthcare reform. I urge the Budget Committee to account for the cost of healthcare reform to ensure that the 45 million uninsured Americans (four million of which are children) have access to quality and affordable healthcare. In addition, I urge the Committee to account for the following: Funding the Minority AIDS Initiative at $610 million this year (an increase of nearly $200 million) to build capacity among minority run non-governmental organizations and to conduct outreach services among minority communities. Funding the Ryan White CARE Act at $2.8 billion this year (an increase of $578 million) to support care and treatment programs at the local level to address the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. Funding the CDC Prevention activities for HIV, STD, TB and Viral Hepatitis at $2.28 billion (an increase of nearly $1.2 billion) to fund testing initiatives and support innovative prevention efforts at the local level. Funding for Housing for people living with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) at $360 million (an increase of $50 million) to provide supportive housing for people with AIDS. Zeroing out funding for ineffective abstinence only until marriage programs to recover $99 million in funding. These programs have been proven to be ineffective. Funding for comprehensive sex education programs that will be authorized by the REAL Act with at least $50 million this year to reduce spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases and reduce unintended pregnancies. A $200 million increase in funding for the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities at NIH. Reserve funding ($3.5 billion) for the Health Equity and Accountability Act (not yet enacted). I commend the President for requesting an increase of $15 billion for the Department of State and other international programs in FY2010, which is a 40% increase over the FY2009 level. I urge the Budget Committee to include this increase in the budget resolution. I am hopeful that these additional funds will go towards the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; USAID; migration and refugee assistance; peacekeeping efforts in Darfur; education, healthcare and cultural exchange programs; child survival and health programs; and development assistance. As the President begins to withdraw troops from Iraq, I also urge the Budget Committee to account for the need to increase Iraqi humanitarian assistance by $1.17 billion in FY2010. I support the robust funding for our troops and America's national defense. I support reducing funding for the failed Ballistic Missile Defense program and reallocating those funds within the Defense Department to fund increases in shipbuilding, troop readiness, military and civilian pay, cancer research, and mental health services. I have consistently fought for funding to weed out waste, fraud and abuse within the Department of Defense. The Defense Department has already saved an estimated $89 billion between FY01 and FY07 by implementing 1,682 of the Government Accountability Office's recommendations. President Obama's FY2010 Budget Overview reflects a similar commitment, as has the House Budget Committee under Chairman Spratt's leadership. As the economy continues to worsen, I urge the Budget Committee to account for the increased need for income security programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, and the Recovery Act's COBRA subsidy. I urge the President to consider including the necessary budget authority to account for the cost of increasing the federal minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. In addition, the Committee should consider the cost of reforming current asset tests for economic assistance. As more and more Americans lose their jobs, it makes little sense to force families to drain their savings to the extent necessary to qualify for certain temporary economic assistance programs. Finally, the President should also consider the cost of redefining the Federal Poverty Level, which is currently $22,050 for a family of four (100%). I urge the creation of a Decent Living Standard Threshold to determine the amount of annual income that would allow an individual to live beyond deprivation at a safe and decent, but modest, standard of living. The housing crisis lies at the center of the economic problems we face today. After the series of TARP bills, the Congress has just found out that bank executives have used over $100 million in TARP funds to pay for executive bonuses and other forms of compensation. I urge the President to reverse eight years of underfunding of the nation's affordable housing programs and we are pleased that the Administration has proposed a HUD budget that increases funding for the Department by 19 percent. I urge the President to match this aggressive budget authorization and to support large investments into the Community and Regional Development and the Income Security functions in order to account for increases in Affordable Housing programs. Specifically, the President should consider including the necessary budget authority to fund the Section 8 public housing operating subsidy at 100% of need. In addition, the President must also consider providing sufficient budget authority for the renewal of all Section 8 vouchers currently in use. Although the public housing capital fund received an injection of $4 billion in the recent stimulus package, this only represents 12.5 percent of the estimated $32 billion backlog in deferred capital needs. The President should include sufficient budget authority to allow housing authorities to address ongoing and deferred maintenance needs. In addition, I urge the President to support the Administration's proposal to fund the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund at $1 billion and to fully fund the Community Development Block Grant program. I also urge full funding of HUD's housing programs for the elderly, disabled, and Native Americans, as well as for those programs that prevent homelessness. I support an increase in funding for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, which allows states, localities, and nonprofits to buy up and rehabilitate abandoned and foreclosed properties. I urge the President to account for funding efforts to combat and reduce juvenile crime and efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. I strenuously urge the full funding of the Second Chance Act, which provides transitional assistance to assist ex-offenders in coping with the challenges of reentry. Removing barriers to reentry has proven to reduce recidivism, which in the long run reduces crime. In addition, the President should account for much needed increases in youth crime intervention programs. Research has shown that targeting funding towards intervention rather than incarceration is more effective at reducing crime and saving the taxpayer money in the long run. I have long supported efforts to increase funding for the Justice Assistance Program, the Juvenile Justice Program, Civil Rights Enforcement, the COPS Program, the Byrne Justice Grant Program, and State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. I urge the President to account for sustaining many of the important increases for these programs that was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As the Chairwoman of the Children's Caucus, I support the President's efforts to reform and expand the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants are way to make education affordable to disadvantaged youth. This is very important to me. I would like to see continued and sustained increases in education funding, especially for Title I and IDEA. Even though Congress is to consider the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act this year, the Budget Committee should still account for the need to address the substantial funding shortfalls of this program over the last eight years. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act made substantial increases, but I urge the President to account for sustaining many of these new investments. The President must also account for needed increases in funding for Head Start, TRIO (including Upward Bound), GEAR UP, Youth Build, and vocational education programs. In addition, I urge the President to account for funding for expanded grants to states for workplace and community transition as authorized in the Higher Education Opportunity Act. These grants will better assist and encourage incarcerated individuals who have obtained a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent to acquire educational and job skills. I urge this body to account for fully funding the historic increases in funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions authorized in the Higher Education Act reauthorization enacted last year. I support the President's efforts at increasing spending for infrastructural projects. The President's priorities are reminiscent of the New Deal where this country invested in building up our Nation. The President has made a significant effort at achieving this by his signing of HR 1, the Stimulus Act. In the Stimulus Act, the President authorized money to be spent on infrastructural projects that were shovel ready, i.e., ready to be started within 120 days. I know that America could use this money. Indeed, Houston would benefit. Houston's Metro Rail needs to complete its RAIL service in certain quadrants of Houston. The project has been twenty years in the making. I have worked with Leadership and Chairman Oberstar to ensure that METRO Rail projects get the funding that they need to be completed. Completion of this mobility project would decrease congestion and pollution as Houstonians would travel via rail instead of using their cars. This would increase Houston mobility and the health of Houstonians as they would be forced to walk around instead of using their private transport. The House Budget Committee has shown a commitment to increased funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. I commend the President's budget for including a $25 billion above baseline increase for the VA over the next five years. Other Priorities: Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant; Increased funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund to continue to address eight years of stagnant funding under the Bush Administration; fully fund the Child Care and Development Block Grant; fully fund the Social Services Block Grant; increased funding for HOPE VI; fully fund the Neighborhood Stabilization Program; increased funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; support for the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank; continued funding for Hurricane Katrina recovery and rebuilding efforts; increased funding for the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program; increased funding for the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program at the National Park Service. This is important to me. I worked to get funding for urban parks in the Stimulus bill. This increases the health and overall well being of constituents. It is necessary in urban meccas like Houston.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am committed to what the President is committed to. All of us who believe that there needs to be a new day in America are committed to a new era of responsibility renewing America's promise. And my good friends on the other side of the aisle are in direct contrast to that because if we pass this budget, the Republican Study Group, study caucus, we will see a continuation of crumbling bridges, workers and veterans waiting months or years for benefits, the very veterans, 167,000 plus, that are returning back from the Iraq war, many who will be returning back from Afghanistan, the very families that we see in our community, we will see them missing out on the necessary resources to provide a new era of responsibility. One of the important aspects of this legislation, our budget, focuses on protecting families. Let me share one vision; protect families' financial health. Our budget, the President's budget, has a plan that must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness. We have a placeholder, a place to address the question of reforming our health care. We have a provision or a concept to make health care coverage affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste and other inefficiencies. In the President's budget he believes in renewing America. The budget that we have on the floor now believes in undermining the health care safety net. It does not have the details that are necessary. It cuts key services. It certainly doesn't provide a bridge, an ongoing bridge into the 21st century. My friends, we need to move forward with the President's vision, and we need to oppose the RSC budget.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Seventeen billion dollars in education and social services. I rise in support of the CBC budget for America.

Ms. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE

Ms. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) Budget Substitute for the Fiscal Year Budget for 2010, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Barbara Lee and my colleague from Virginia, Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott. While I support the Budget as put forth by our majority on the Budget Committee, the CBC budget augments the President's budget and the Democratic budget by providing for modest spending increases above the Democratic Budget on important programs. The President's budget is astonishing as he inherited one of the worst economic situations in recent history. The former administration, after being the first administration since the Civil War to have a surplus turned over to it, the former President left President Obama with the largest deficit in history and an economy that is in the worst recession in seventy (70) years. The CBC Budget will help turn our economy around and return the economy to fiscal responsibility. I, along with other members of the CBC, support our President as he works to clean up the mess that was left to him. Nevertheless, the CBC has submitted its budget proposal which I also support. The CBC budget fully funds No Child Left behind (NCLB), the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and it provides additional funding for the fight against global AIDS, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and higher education among other items. The CBC pays for these increases by immediately repealing the Bush- era tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers. The CBC budget also eliminates the phase-out and repeal of PEP and Pease. These important tax provisions were apart of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 and signed into law by the first President Bush and ensure that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share in taxes. Repealing these provisions of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will yield an estimated $42.2 billion in additional revenue for Fiscal Year 2010. Importantly, the CBC Budget creates the Bush Debt Tax, which adds a modest 0.565% surtax on adjustable gross income exceeding $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for joint filers. The CBC budget will use this surtax for deficit reduction. Over a ten year period, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this surtax will raise about $63 million. The CBC budget takes these savings and applies them towards increased investments in important functions that will help Americans become more prosperous. The CBC Budget provides an additional $18 million for healthcare; $17 billion for education, job training, and social services, $8 billion for Transportation and Infrastructure; $5.5 billion for the administration of justice and approximately the same for international affairs; $5 billion for income security and veterans benefits, and $3 billion for community and regional development and homeland security. The CBC Budget pays for all these increases and still produces a five-year budget deficit that is $67 billion lower than the Democratic Budget and saves America $7 billion on the National Debt. advancing the priorities of the american people We must not only be economically healthy, but assist in balancing it with the health, education, and security of our citizens. The CBC budget will advance the priorities of the American people by: Covering all eligible children with health insurance through funding SCHIP, more than the Democratic budget to help one of our most vulnerable populations--children; Ensuring No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has increased funding for Head Start programs, IDEA, college access programs, college loan programs and job training; Honoring our veterans by increasing funding for health care, benefits and educational opportunities; Making more local communities with support through increases to Community Development Block Grants, nutrition programs and housing programs; and Contributing to the global community by investing in child survival and health, international family planning and the global effort to fight AIDS. health initiatives The CBC budget under the Health Function 550 included a program that I continually push for increased funding, and that is the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Hope for juvenile diabetes cure lies in research. Real progress is being made, thanks largely to government funding of the Special Diabetes Program. The health and health care spending in the CBC budget alternative is the fiscally, socially and morally appropriate and responsible response and it will improve the health, well being and life opportunities of all Americans. The CBC budget like the President's budget, strengthens our nation's overwhelmed and under-resourced health care system, champions the critically important health care needs of health care seekers, and fills the gaps in health care access and quality that detrimentally affect our nation's health care providers and the overall health care system. The CBC budget alternative strengthens and expands the State Children's Health Insurance Program to ensure that the majority of the nation's 9 million uninsured children have access to health care. This is of particular relevance to the CBC because a disproportionate number of the 9 million uninsured children today are African American or Hispanic. Without reliable access to quality health care, children are in poorer health, are less productive in school and in their communities, and are less likely to fulfill their life's potential. strengthens medicare The CBC budget alternative strengthens Medicare--a critically important program that ensures that our nations' senior citizens, as well as those living with disabilities, have access to the health care services and treatments they need to live longer, healthier and fuller lives. The CBC budget alternative also: Saves Title VII (health professions training) programs, which are integral to strengthening and expanding tomorrow's health care workforce; Funds the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program in a manner that allows it to expand ADAP, the efforts of National Minority AIDS Education Training Centers, and the other important services and treatments offered to our most vulnerable with HIV infection; Funds the Minority AIDS Initiative in a manner that will build the needed capacity in racial and ethnic minority communities throughout the nation to respond and address HIV/AIDS; It is our children that will bring forth a thriving future. We need to invest in tomorrow by investing in them today. This starts with their physical well-being. Children, who cannot see the doctor when they are sick, research programs that are not adequately funded to find a cure for diseases such as diabetes, hurt our future generations, and not help lay a foundation for a bright future. education and african americans in texas A quality education continues to be the best pathway to social and economic mobility in this country. As a Member and Senior Whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, I have consistently advocated for the maintenance of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This budget provides greater funding to our nation's schools and colleges than even our Democratic budget supplies. For African Americans health and education concerns spill beyond budgetary issues into the criminal justice consequences. In Texas, over 87,000 African-Americans are incarcerated compared to approximately 48,000 African-Americans attending college or university. The disparity between the percentages of our youth in prison versus the number of young people in college, particularly in the African- American community, is disturbing to say the least. Higher education continues to be one of the main pathways to social and economic mobility, particularly in the African-American and Hispanic communities. port of houston and security measures Last week, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Port Authority of Houston. They were here to discuss their security measures but also their need for continued federal dollars. The Bush Administration claims they want to secure our nation but cuts funding in areas that are important to our local security such as the ports in Houston, Texas. The CBC seeks to cure that shortfall. administration of justice Under the proposed CBC budget, there is emphasis on the administration of justice and the protection of all Americans. The CBC budget funds programs that are important to our communities. The CBC budget funds the Justice Assistance Grant Program, Juvenile Justice Programs, the Byrne Weed and Seed Program, Office of Violence Against Women, COPS and JAG programs. All of these programs help keep American communities safe and provide for greater law enforcement at the federal, state, and local enforcement levels. The CBC budget reinvests in DOJ Prisoner Reentry Program. In addition, the CBC budget invests in our children by requiring funding for Boys and Girls clubs. This investment in our communities and in our children helps keep our youths safe and out of the prison system. general sciences, space and technology The CBC budget proposes to invest heavily in our nation's development in science, space, and technology. The CBC budget also invests in the NSF--Education and Research Programs, with a special emphasis on Minority Post Doctorates. The CBC budget not only invests in minorities, it also invests in women by providing for Graduate Research Fellowships for Women in Engineering and Computer Science. energy The CBC budget addresses the environment, energy, and natural resources. These programs are of particular interest to the people of Texas and I think it is necessary for America to remain a vital, energy efficient country. education, training, employment, and social services The proposed CBC budget puts greater emphasis on education, training, employment, and social services. These are critical to the needs of Americans and minority populations in general. The CBC budget provides funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Included in that Act is funding for Title I, Safe and Drug Free Schools, 21st Century Learning Centers, and Teacher Quality Programs. We must continue to invest in our children because they represent the future of America. The CBC budget also recognizes that there must be investment in Head Start, mentoring, and drop out prevention. The proposed CBC budget provides money to vocational programs and increases the funding of HBCUs. The CBC budget provides for funding in investment in Minority Science and Engineering Improvement. The CBC budget invests in adult employment and training activities. conclusion This important piece of legislation gives us a budget that is balanced fiscally and morally. It does not sacrifice the great many programs and services that this nation needs to correct eight years or more of decay. Defense of our nation is important, however, we must not support only one portion of the budget to the detriment of everything else. The CBC budget makes tough choices that result in a fiscally and morally responsible budget that will fund essential programs and services vital to our communities and the American people as a whole. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Congressional Black Caucus Budget Substitute for FY2010.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, earlier today I recounted the calamity that we find ourselves in with the budget and the spending of money here in the United States. Frankly, of course, the budgets over the past 8 years and the enormous expenditure of funds created a huge and growing deficit. I indicated earlier that we spent $667 billion for the Iraq war, high unemployment still ongoing, stories that you hear from constituents about mortgage foreclosures, inability to have their loans re-modified, and so you can see the importance of the debate today. And I'm very proud that, of the number of budgets that I had the opportunity to participate in and to argue for and to suggest the direction that they should take, they all focused on restoring the humanity and dignity of the American people. The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget focused on reducing the deficit by 58 percent in fiscal year 2012. In addition, it targeted waste, fraud, and abuse. It repealed the Bush tax cuts for the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Let me emphasize that, the top 1 percent of taxpayers. That means that 99 percent of the American people would not get a tax increase of any kind. In fact, alongside of that principle is the principle of the President's budget, the budget we passed finally that guaranteed middle-class Americans a tax cut. The budget included in the Progressive budget health care for all, affordable, accessible health care so that there would be no tragedies such as young people, children needing transplants or transfusions, and they can't get it because their insurer denies it. We add an additional $300 billion as an additional part of the economic stimulus package so that there can be added assistance for unemployment insurance, food stamps, infrastructure spending, housing assistance, job creation. I come from the gulf region, where we are still suffering both from Hurricane Katrina and Rita and now Hurricane Ike. My neighbor to the south, the city of Galveston, the mayor and city manager and many of her constituents are still facing the calamity of trying to build housing, trying to restore the University of Texas medical branch, and we, as a Texas delegation, worked with the district Member to try to ensure that restoration. The budgets that were put here today respect the fact that there will be disasters in America, calamities such as fires and floods and, of course, hurricanes, storms, volcanos, that are spilling out such as in the State of Washington, that create havoc if those issues occur. And so this is a time when we opted to opt on the side of the people of America. The Congressional Black Caucus budget puts in place $18 billion more in health care, $17 billion more on education and job training. What happens to a person who is unemployed? They look for jobs or they look to steer themselves into another career. And what do you need to do that? You need job training, whether it's in the community college system like the Houston Community College, whether or not it is going into nursing school, going to become a truck driver, or going into IT, you need job training. Eight billion dollars on infrastructure so that the roads and the potholes and the bridges and the tunnels can be fixed, but more importantly, people can be put to work as we make a new America; $5.5 billion on justice programs; and $4.5 billion on veterans benefits and services. And of all of these budgets, Madam Speaker, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and CBC and the President's budget all reinforce our commitment to veterans and our returning soldiers who put themselves and their families on the front lines. Families and our soldiers are likewise on the front lines. So I'm very proud to stand here today to say that we did the right thing in voting on this budget. We did the right thing in focusing on health care reform--trying to fix the broken system of some 44 million to 47 million Americans who are still uninsured. In that effort, we managed to save some $316 billion over 10 years; several provisions to improve quality and efficiency in health care. Then, as well, we made a significant down payment on health care reform by putting these savings, along with $317.8 billion from a tax policy change on upper-income taxpayers, into a $634 billion health reform reserve. We're holding a spot, Madam Speaker, so we can fix this for the American people. I mentioned education and energy. That is going to bring about green jobs. Madam Speaker, we did the right thing for the American people and I'm proud to be part of this Congress and go home to speak with my constituents on how we have helped to change their lives.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today we will begin an historic opportunity to address the budget of this country, which I call the restoration budget. There may be a number of perspectives from the White House, from this Congress, both House and Senate. But I am delighted that many of us have organized to support basic principles of reducing the deficit. The congressional progressive budget does it at 58 percent. Or, focusing on enhancing the opportunities of health for all; or, providing additional stimulus money of $300 billion; looking at the issues of global warming and energy independence; and fully funding elementary and secondary education, ideas that permeate throughout the various discussions and budgets that you will see here today, particularly as we in the majority lead. Our principles are equality for all, putting the economy back on its feet, and putting the economic engine back in the hands of America, educating them, extinguishing poverty. I am very proud that we will have the opportunity to serve America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, thank you, Chairman Conyers for holding today's very important Markup on H.R. 1139, the Community Oriented Policy Services (COPS) Improvement Act of 2009. The COPS program was designed to help bring about fundamental changes in policing by drawing officers closer to the citizens they protect. And, in scores of communities across the nation, the COPS program did just that. The idea of community policing is to get away from the traditional ``call and response'' model, in which officers run from one emergency call to the next. It involves sending officers into the streets and into the neighborhoods to build relationships with residents, identify the sources of crime problems, and solve them before they get worse. The success of the COPS approach to policing is dependent upon the relationships built between the police and the members of the communities they serve. Since 1995, COPS has awarded more than $10 billion to advance community policing, including grants awarded to more than 13,300 state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to fund the hiring and redeployment of nearly 117,700 officers. In addition to funding law enforcement positions, the Office of Community Policing Services has been the catalyst for innovations in community policing and broad implementation of effective law enforcement strategy. Presently, departments that employ community policing serve 87 percent of American communities. On March 16, 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice will be accepting applications for $1 billion in Recovery Act Funds for the COPS program. Approximately 5,500 law enforcement officer jobs will be created or saved in law enforcement agencies across the country through funding provided by the Department of Justice. Recently, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, H.R. 1, included $4 billion in Department of Justice grant funding to enhance state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts, including the hiring of new police officers, to combat violence against women, and to fight against internet crimes against children. Similar to Edward Byrne Justice Act Grant (JAG) awards, Recovery Act funds that are authorized for COPS can also be used to hire new officers or rehire recently laid off officers, fill unfunded vacancies and help prevent scheduled layoffs within law enforcement agencies. COPS funds are allocated directly to the local level governments and law enforcement agencies and provide a three-year period of funding. Specifically, H.R. 1139, the ``COPS Improvements Act of 2009,'' reinvigorates the COPS program's ability to accomplish its critical mission by establishing three grant programs: (1) the Troops-to-Cops Program, (2) the Community Prosecutors Program, and (3) the Technology Grants Program. The Troops-to-Cops Program would fund the hiring of former members of the Armed Forces to serve as law enforcement officers in community-oriented policing, particularly in communities adversely affected by recent military base closings. The Community Prosecutors Program would authorize the Attorney General to make grants for additional community prosecuting programs that would, for example, assign prosecutors to pursue cases from specific geographic areas and to deal with localized violent crime, among other crimes. The Technology Grants Program would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to develop and use new technologies to assist State and local law enforcement agencies reorient some of their efforts from reacting to crime to preventing crime. The investment in COPS through the Recovery Act although crucial is a one-time investment limited to the purpose of hiring officers. The reauthorization of COPS is necessary for the program to continue past the investment of the Recovery Act. Reauthorization is also necessary so that the COPS program can include the innovative aspects of the program as explained above. The Houston area has made great strides in reducing crime. I am confident that with programs like COPS Houston can better combat crime.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Cohen, for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and frankly, I think it is important that we clear the air and provide a treatise, an instructive recalling, of the reason we are on the floor today. First of all, this is a moderate approach, a temperate approach, a constitutional approach of, really, paying the taxpayers back, of giving the taxpayers a day in the sun and of using the Constitution and the respect of three branches of government to be able to protect the taxpayers. This does not thwart the work of Secretary Geithner or the administration. It is a complement to them. Mr. Speaker, the committee undertook a careful constitutional assessment of this bill. We were quite well aware that we did not want to violate the Constitution, and we secured the assistance and the insight of four prominent constitutional scholars to affirm its constitutional soundness. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this point the letters of law professors Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, March 24, 2009. Re constitutionality of H.R. 1575. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. I have been asked to address the constitutional validity of H.R. 1575, the ``End the Government Reimbursement of Excessive Executive Disbursements (End the GREED) Act.'' Having carefully reviewed the text of the bill, I believe it stands on solid constitutional ground. This judgment applies both to the bill as reported by the Judiciary Committee on March 18, 2009, and to the revised version your staff sent me on March 23, which has been narrowed to a provision authorizing the Attorney General to petition a court to avoid a covered payment of compensation in exchange for ``less than a reasonably equivalent value,'' and a related subpoena provision. Because I understand that this narrowed version of the bill is the one now being considered for the House floor, it is this bill that I will address primarily in this memorandum. Enacting this legislation is well within Congress's affirmative constitutional authority under the Bankruptcy Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, ``[t]o establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.'' That this authority extends not only to laws regarding bankruptcy itself, but also to laws regarding companies facing insolvency generally--and thus to the very entities defined in Section 2 of H.R. 1575-- is established beyond question by settled Supreme Court precedent. In Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 294 U.S. 648, 667-68 (1935), for example, the Supreme Court stated that, ``[w]hile attempts have been made to formulate a distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency, it has long been settled that, within the meaning of the [Bankruptcy Clause], the terms are convertible.'' And, in Railway Labor Executives' Ass 'n v. Gibbons, 455 U.S. 457, 466 (1982), the Court explained that, ``[a]lthough we have noted that `t]he subject of bankruptcies is incapable of final definition,' we have previously defined `bankruptcy' as the `subject of relations between an insolvent or nonpaying or fraudulent debtor and his creditors, extending to his and their relief.' Congress' power under the Bankruptcy clause `contemplate[s] an adjustment of a failing debtor's obligations.''' (citation omitted.) H.R. 1575 thus fits comfortably within the category of laws that the Bankruptcy Clause empowers Congress to enact--particularly when that clause is coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, and when it is supplemented by the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Moreover, because H.R. 1575 is limited to the subject of fraudulent transfers from companies that have received at least $5 billion in federal funds since the beginning of September 2008, it is also readily justified as a reasonable condition on the expenditure of funds provided by Congress in the exercise of its power ``To lay and collect Taxes, . . . to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.'' U. S. Const., Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. The power of Congress to invoke this taxing and spending authority, again in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause, to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds where, as in this instance, those conditions relate directly and substantially to ensuring that those funds are expended solely for the purposes contemplated by Congress, is thoroughly settled. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206-07 (1987); Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 474 (1980); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 569 (1974). Questions have been raised about whether H.R. 1575 might constitute a forbidden Bill of Attainder, but any such claim would be wholly without merit. The bill is carefully structured to apply to a broad class of individuals and inflicts no punishment whatsoever but merely subjects those individuals to suits brought by the Attorney General to recover excessive compensation. The government cannot prevail in such suits without proving ``in an appropriate district court of the United States'' that the individuals in question gave ``less than a reasonably equivalent value in exchange'' for the ``compensation'' the government seeks to avoid as a ``fraudulent transfer.'' H.R. 1575, Section 2. Even if the ultimate recovery of such compensation were deemed punitive rather than regulatory, that recovery would take place only pursuant to trial in an Article III court, a far cry from the trial by legislature against which the Bill of Attainder Clause is directed. See Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841, 851-53 (1984); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 472-73 (1977); United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 458-61 (1965); United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303 (1946). As I explained in my constitutional law treatise, ``The essence of the bill of attainder ban is that it proscribes legislative punishment of specified persons--not of whichever persons might be judicially determined to fit within properly general proscriptions duly enacted in advance. . . . Its application necessarily depends on the presence of improper specification by the legislature of the individuals singled out for punishment. . . . [N]o attainder may be said to have resulted from the mere fact that the set of persons having the characteristic [designated by the legislature] might in theory be enumerated in advance and that the set is in principle knowable at the time the law is passed.'' Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 643 (2d ed. 1988). In this instance, moreover, the ``set of persons having the characteristic'' of receiving what H.R. 1575 deems a ``fraudulent transfer'' is not knowable in advance, in part because the characteristic is by no means self-defining and requires factual development in each individual case and in part because the statute would operate not just retrospectively to transfers made between September 1, 2008, and the date of the bill's enactment as law but also prospectively from that date forward. The remaining constitutional questions raised about H.R. 1575 are somewhat more plausible superficially but in the end are all without merit. The first of those remaining questions is whether setting aside completed transfers of compensation from functionally insolvent entities receiving more than the designated amounts of federal funds to keep them afloat would amount to a ``taking'' of financial resources from the recipients of those transfers to benefit the federally-supported entities from which the transfers had come and could thus trigger an obligation on the part of the Federal Treasury to provide ``just compensation'' to the transferees--which would, of course, defeat the entire purpose of the bill insofar as its ultimate aim is to avoid a waste of federal tax revenues. The answer is that the Takings Clause is simply inapplicable. Federally imposed obligations to make monetary payments to third parties are not properly characterized as ``takings'' at all under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Indeed, such obligations have never been subjected to the Takings Clause by a Supreme Court majority. Although four Justices, writing for a plurality in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), invoked the Takings Clause to review a law imposing such financial obligations, a majority of the Court in that case--including both Justice Kennedy, concurring in the result, id. at 539-47, and Justice Breyer, dissenting in an opinion joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, id. at 554-57--squarely held the Takings Clause altogether inapplicable to such mandated monetary transfers, noting that ``application of the Takings Clause [to such financial obligations] bristles with conceptual difficulties,'' id. at 556 (Breyer, J., joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ.), difficulties that in my view would be completely insuperable. To be sure, this conclusion of the five Justices in Eastern Enterprises is not itself a holding of the Supreme Court, see When The Dissent Creates The Law: Cross-cutting Majorities And The Prediction Model of Precedent, 58 Emory L.J. 207, 216, 240 (2008), but it affords a strong basis for predicting what the Court would hold in any case presenting the issue today, especially in light of the fact that Justice O'Connor, the author of the plurality opinion viewing the Takings Clause as applicable, has been replaced by Justice Alito, and that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who joined the O'Connor opinion, has been replaced by Chief Justice Roberts. Moreover, the analysis of the five Justices who deemed the Takings Clause inapplicable seems to me logically unassailable. Those five Justices explained why the Takings Clause is ``the wrong legal lens,'' id. at 554, through which to view such measures. Either ``the Government's imposition of an obligation between private parties, or [its] destruction of an existing obligation, must relate to a specific property interest [such as an interest in a specific parcel of land or a specific item of personal or intellectual property] to implicate the Takings Clause.'' Id. at 544 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part) (italics added). The financial liability that would be imposed on the transferee by the operation of H.R. 1575, and the monetary recovery to the transferor that enforcement of this liability against the transferee would entail, ``no doubt will reduce [the] net worth'' of the transferees who are subject to the law's avoidance provisions, ``but this can be said of any law which has an adverse economic effect.'' Id. at 543 (Kennedy, J.). A decision to apply the Takings Clause to a measure that, like HR 1575, requires only the restoration of improperly transferred funds and not the confiscation or transfer of any specific property interest ``would expand an already difficult and uncertain rule [treating some regulatory measures as takings] to a vast [new] category of cases not [previously] deemed . . . to implicate the Takings Clause,'' id. at 542, and ``would throw one of the most difficult and litigated areas of the law into confusion, subjecting [every level of government] to the potential of new and unforeseen claims in vast amounts.'' Id. There is no realistic prospect that the Supreme Court would plunge headlong into that thicket by applying the Takings Clause to any measure like H.R. 1575, nor is there any good reason for any court or lawmaker to do so. This is even more obviously correct when the federally imposed obligation to make monetary payments to third parties ripens only with a judicial determination that those subjected to the obligation were wrongfully enriched in the first instance and when the payment obligation has the character of avoiding that unjust enrichment so as to restore the status quo ante. The implicit theory underlying the seminal case of Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), was that a government-mandated transfer from one private party to another was either a naked redistribution of wealth and thus beyond the powers the people ceded to government under the original social compact or an act of corrective justice and thus a violation of the separation of powers unless taken pursuant to a judicial determination of prior wrong. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, supra, at 561, 571 & n.9; Thomas Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations Which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union 357 (8th ed. 1927). Precisely such a determination forms the heart of the transfer authorized by H.R. 1575. To call it a compensable taking would thus be incoherent. Admittedly, the Coal Act provision at issue in Eastern Enterprises was ultimately found to be unconstitutional. But that result followed only because the Coal Act, ``in creating liability for events which occurred 35 years [before its enactment,] ha[d] a retroactive effect of unprecedented scope,'' id. at 549 (Kennedy, J.), and was viewed by five Justices as being in no meaningful sense ``remedial'' in purpose, id., leading Justice Kennedy to the conclusion, as a matter of substantive due process, that the measure was understandable only as ``'a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals.''' Id. at 548 (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266 (1994)). But ``[s]tatutes may be invalidated on due process grounds only under the most egregious of circumstances,'' id. at 550, circumstances that four Justices deemed absent even with respect to the extreme measure at issue in Eastern Enterprises and that are absent by any conceivable measure with respect to H.R. 1575. This conclusion is strongly reinforced by a long string of Supreme Court rulings concluding that nothing beyond a standard of reasonableness, usually amounting to a bare showing of rationality, constrains retroactive federal legislation in the economic sphere. United States. v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 30-31 (1994); Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 729-30, 733 (1984); Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 16-18 (1976). The second remaining question is whether changing the lens from that of the Takings Clause (or the Due Process Clause) to that of the Ex Post Facto Clause would provide a sounder basis for attack by those seeking to challenge H.R. 1575. Again, the clear answer is no. Ever since Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the Ex Post Facto Clause ``has [been] considered . . . to apply only in the criminal context,'' Eastern Enterprises, supra, at 524, 538 (Thomas, J., concurring). Measures that are not the functional equivalent of criminal punishment are not subject to the clause. Although Justice Thomas has indicated that ``[i]n an appropriate case [he] would be willing to reconsider Calder and its progeny to determine whether a retroactive civil law that passes muster under . . . Takings Clause jurisprudence is nonetheless unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clause,'' id., there is no prospect that others would join him in taking so radical a step. And, more than that, it is hard to imagine that even Justice Thomas would regard H.R. 1575 as presenting ``an appropriate case'' for reconsideration of a principle with so venerable a pedigree. There is also venerable precedent supporting the general principle that neither the Ex Post Facto Clause nor the Due Process Clause stands in the way of congressional measures authorizing the federal government to rescind even privileges as basic as U.S. citizenship when the means by which such privileges were obtained indicate that they never rightfully belonged to those from whom the government is authorized to recover them. See Johannessen v. United States, 225 U.S. 227, 240-43 (1912). In upholding a congressional measure reversing a decision that would have permitted an instrumentality of the Cuban government to recover the proceeds from a sale of sugar wrongfully expropriated by the Cuban government, a district court quoted the Johannessen Court's observation of the underlying principle that ``[t]here is no such thing as a vested right to do wrong.'' Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 243 F. Supp. 957, 979 (S.D.N.Y. 1965), aff'd, 383 F.2d 166 (2d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956 (1968) (quoting Johannessen, 225 U.S. at 241-42). That principle, too, supports the constitutionality of H.R. 1575. Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor.* * University affiliation listed for identification purposes only.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The reason we wanted to be extraordinarily thoughtful is that we knew these questions would be asked, but let me tell you the simplicity of what this legislation speaks to: At the same time, let me go on record, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee from Houston, Texas: I am in support of the Nation's financial markets, investment houses. They have been at our back for a number of years. They have invested your moneys, your 401(k)s. Capitalism has, in fact, worked, but abuse does not work, so we speak today about abuse, not about crumbling the financial houses, the investment houses. We want them to be strengthened. Young people every day are graduating from college and are saying, ``I want to be an investment banker.'' They want to help grow the economy. We are not unsupportive of that. In fact, in my own congressional district, it used to be American General. I have AIG employees. I applaud them. They come up to me on the street. I want them to know I appreciate their work in the insurance business--in protecting and in insuring everything from whistles, to haystacks, to Hollywood actors, to the transportation modes that you travel on--but we have got to be able to protect your tax dollars. Let me tell you why this bill works. Attorney General Cuomo made it work. He issued subpoenas. What do we get? Some $50 billion back--and more growing--from AIG. It shows that the long hand of the law can be effective. The $160 billion given to executives is more than most Americans will see ever in their lifetimes. This is a simple response to it. What it does is it allows the Attorney General to recover prior excessive payments to employees made by the company. It allows the government, as a creditor, to show that the excessive payments that were made have no bearing on the work. It is permissive. It allows. It does not suggest that, in fact, there is a coup d'etat, that the Attorney General can do it without any oversight. They must go into court. That makes a difference. The judge must ultimately say, You know what? I agree with the petitioner/the attorney general/the government as creditor or I disagree. Second, it allows the Attorney General to limit payments to company executives to 10 times the average nonpayment wages just as it would have been if the case was forced into bankruptcy. This is a fair assessment if a company has taken Federal dollars, and $700 billion given to these companies in October of 2008. Most of them bought up your baby banks, not put that money out to help Americans. So Mr. Speaker, I think what is key here is that this is reasonable. We have constitutional scholars who have indicated that you are within the constitutional framework. Why would the Judiciary Committee want to eliminate those barriers. And then secondly and thirdly, we thank the employees that are doing their job every day trying to make this economy work. But what we say to the taxpayers is, if there is ever a committee that has to play the enforcement role to enhance the Constitution, to gather in those who have gone outside the boundaries of reason, who are abusive in issuing moneys to people who are part of the problem, it is the Judiciary Committee, and the Attorney General that complements the work of the Secretary of the Treasury, and our very able leader in the White House, who is constructively trying to put this capitalistic system back on its feet. Then it has to be those of us with the responsibility of enforcement to ensure that we provide the coverage for taxpayers who cannot speak for themselves. I rise enthusiastically to support H.R. 1575 for the very reason that we will be derelict if this committee, the holders of the Constitution, did not come to the floor and provide this thoughtful legislation that provides you with the protection of evidence that you have already seen in the moneys that have been returned under the New York State Attorney General. Imagine the wielding of that action on behalf of all of the people of the United States. Support H.R. 1575. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1575, the ``End Government Reimbursement of Excessive Disbursements (End Greed) Act.'' I want to thank my colleague Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Background Mr. Speaker, since August 2008, the federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in private financial institutions. The credit crisis deepened in September when the federal government put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship after it became clear that the financial situations of two of the nation's largest mortgage purchasers were rapidly deteriorating. On September 14, 2008, the impact of the crisis widened as global financial services company Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and international insurer and financial services company American Insurance Group (``AIG'') asked the federal government for a $40 billion bridge loan. On September 23, 2008, then-Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appeared before Congress asking for a $700 million rescue plan to buy and resell mortgage backed securities citing fears of a recession if the government did not act. On October 3, 2008, Congress authorized $700 billion for the Treasury to buy troubled assets to prevent disruption in the economy. One week after the $700 billion was authorized, the Bush Administration decided that it would use a portion of the $700 billion to recapitalize some of the nation's leading banks by buying their shares. The idea was to help healthy banks continue to provide loans to businesses and consumers. This did not happen. Instead, banks began to acquire smaller banks that were not given access to the $700 billion. Funds were used to pay employee bonuses. The payment of employee bonuses and the use of TARP funds to do so, was expressly prohibited by the TARP bill. Despite this prohibition, the nation's largest banking and financial institutions continued to pay employee bonuses using the TARP funds. This bill puts the teeth in the original TARP bill and provides a mechanism for these financial institutions to return the funds they wrongly used. Our constituents are worried about the Golden Parachutes that they see given to big business while they struggle to pay mortgages, keep the electricity on, and send their children to college. The saving of corporate executives while unemployment rates continue to go up, has driven many Americans to wonder what has happened to corporate responsibility and accountability. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1575, the ``End Government Reimbursement of Excessive Executive Disbursements (End GREED) Act,'' applies to companies that have received more than $10 billion in federal financial assistance since September 1, 2008. The bill ends the unjust enrichment of the corporate executives who wrongly benefitted from their companies' receipt and misuse of TARP funds. As discussed further below, the bill has two key components. First, it creates a federal fraudulent transfer statute that will allow the Attorney General to recover prior excessive payments to employees made by the company. This allows the government, as a creditor, to show that excessive payments were made bearing no relationship to fair value and to recover those payments for the company. Second, on an ongoing forward basis, it allows the Attorney General to limit payments to company executives to ten times the average non- management wages, just as would have been the case if the company had been forced into bankruptcy. In addition, the bill authorizes the Attorney General to issue a subpoena to obtain pertinent information from these companies about employee bonus and compensation payments. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is the right thing to do and prevents unjust enrichment by the bank and financial institution executives. The TARP funds were originally intended to be used by the banks to continue to provide services to the public. The TARP funds were not supposed to be used for the executives and bankers to get engorged and rich.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to rise in support of this bill. I would also like to thank Chairman Conyers for helping to bring this bill, H.R. 985, Free Flow of Information Act of 2009, to the floor. I also would like to thank the author of this bill, Representative Boucher for this thoughtful legislation. This bill is popularly known as the ``press shield law.'' I urge my colleagues to support it. H.R. 985, protects the public's right to know by protecting the identities of reporters' confidential sources. The bill is identical to the one that passed the House in the 110th Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 398 to 21. H.R. 985 creates a balancing test that would determine when the federal government may compel journalists to disclose information that they have gathered. This balancing test protects journalists from being compelled to disclose information that the government may obtain through other available means. The bill gives substantial protection to journalists' confidential sources, allowing compelled disclosure where doing so would protect national security or serve the public interest. This legislation is necessary because it responds to a real and on- going problem. Since 2001, five journalists have been sentenced or jailed for refusing to reveal their confidential sources in federal court. Two reporters were sentenced to 18 months in prison and one reporter faced up to $5,000 a day in fines. A 2006 study estimated that in that year alone, 67 federal subpoenas sought confidential material from reporters. Of those, 41 subpoenas sought the name confidential sources. This bill establishes reasonable and well-balanced grounds for when a reporter can be compelled to testify about confidential sources. Reporters would not receive protection if information is needed to prevent or investigate an act of terrorism or other significant harm to national security, to prevent death or substantial bodily harm, to investigate a leak of properly classified information or private health or financial information, and to furnish eyewitness observation of a crime. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have various statutes or judicial decisions that protect reporters from being compelled to testify or disclose sources and information in court. H.R. 985 would set national standards similar to those that are in effect in the states. This bill has relevance to Texas. One of my constituents, Vanessa Legget, served maximum jail time in case. She was not the defendant-- she was a reporter whose first amendment right was under siege. I worked extensively on this issue. Ms. Leggett spent four years researching the 1997 murder of Doris Angleton for a book she was writing. When she refused to give in to threats and intimidation by an overzealous prosecution seeking her work product she was found in contempt and jailed. Because of this injustice, I wrote letters to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft requesting that Leggett be permitted to assert her journalist privilege. I also requested that she be freed from incarceration. Despite my ardent efforts, Leggett remained jailed. The facts and outcome in this case were absurd. Surely, the law could not have intended for the result that transpired in the Leggett case. The present bill if enacted would address such anomalies. When a federal grand jury was convened to investigate the possibility of filing federal murder charges against Houstonian Robert Angleton, the city braced itself for a media frenzy. In 1998, Robert Angleton had been acquitted in state court of murdering his wife, a well-known Houstonian, Doris Angleton, who was found shot to death on April 16, 1997, in her River Oaks home. The state court had been a media circus. However, the person who received the most attention was not directly involved in the murder. Vanessa Leggett, a part-time college instructor and aspiring true crime writer, stole the limelight when she refused to turn over to the federal grand jury information that she had gathered during her four-year investigation. On July 19, 2001, Leggett was held in civil contempt under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1826 as a recalcitrant witness. She went to jail the next day and was not released until January 4, 2002, when the grand jury ended its Angleton investigation without handing down a single indictment. Leggett was incarcerated longer than any reporter in U.S. history up to that time for refusing to disclose research collected in the course of newsgathering. Texas is one of the states that had and presently has no shield law. Leggett was forced to serve the maximum term for contempt of court, which was the shorter of either the duration of the grand jury investigation or eighteen months. But the most disconcerting aspect of the Leggett case is that no court in Texas adequately investigated the actions of the U.S. Department of Justice or balanced the interests of the First Amendment against the government's need for Leggett's research. Indeed, there may have been no need for her information at all. On January 8, 2002, four days after Leggett's release, the U.S. attorney empanelled another grand jury to investigate Robert Angleton. It was able to hand down an indictment in sixteen days without subpoenaing Leggett or her records. This bill is sound. The bill will address the situation that was present in the Leggett case. It adds balance and protection to journalists in the course of their vocation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow and for the rest of the week, this body will engage in a very important, principled debate that really responds to the calamity that we have been facing over the last 6 to 8 months, and that is the economic crisis. The administration has put forward its initiative that addresses the principles of a budget. This Congress, along with several caucuses, has offered budgets to be able to address the pain of the American people. What I am so proud of and the reason I am standing here today is that Democrats have come together around principles that will help to heal the economy: the infusion of dollars into education, into health care, a continued commitment to energy reform, and the review of energy opportunities across, if you will, the spectrum of resources. Certainly, we recognize the needs of our veterans and of our soldiers across the land. I hope we will have a vigorous debate on behalf of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 838) to provide for the conveyance of a parcel of land held by the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice in Miami Dade County, Florida, to facilitate the construction of a new educational facility that includes a secure parking area for the Bureau of Prisons, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1029, ``Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2009.'' I want to thank my colleague Congressman Baron Hill of Indiana for introducing this resolution. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and as a Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I have long been an outspoken leader on this issue. Alien smuggling is not only a threat to our national security, but it also diminishes the value of human lives, and as the world's moral leader we must take a tough stance against these horrific practices. In fact as part of the Save America Act, immigration legislation that I introduced, I address this very issue. My legislation would create a special class of aliens who act as informants to assist U.S. authorities in the prosecution and apprehension of alien smugglers. In special cases these individuals would receive permanent resident status if the information substantially led to a successful prosecution and apprehension of those involved in alien smuggling. A few years ago in Texas, prosecutors indicted 14 people who allegedly organized or facilitated the smuggling incident when a crowded trailer was found abandoned at a truck stop in Victoria, 100 miles southwest of Houston, Texas. The 14 were charged with various counts of conspiracy to conceal or transport immigrants. Twelve could face the death penalty if prosecutors decide to pursue it. More than 70 immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and the Dominican Republic were crammed into the tractor-trailer. Among the dead was a 5-year-old boy from Mexico. Seventeen immigrants died at the scene, and 2 others died later. My preference is to provide the Border Patrol with the additional agents, equipment, and resources it needs to secure the border. I have introduced legislation that would meet these needs by providing critical resources and support for the men and women who enforce our immigration, customs, and other laws. This would include adding 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next five years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. It would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond rapidly to border crises by deploying up to 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents to a State when a border security emergency is declared by the Governor. It would add 100,000 more detention beds to ensure that those who are apprehended entering the United States unlawfully are sent home instead of being released into our communities. And, it would provide critical equipment and infrastructure improvements, including additional helicopters, power boats, police-type vehicles, portable computers, reliable radio communications, hand-held GPS devices, body armor, and night-vision equipment. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation for the following reasons. This bill makes a strong statement against alien smuggling while maintaining core Democratic principles. It is a tough yet fair approach to border security. It is a holistic anti-smuggling regime that reaches those who recruit aliens in their home countries, smuggle aliens across the land borders, or transport or harbor aliens in the United States. This legislation ensures border security. It recognizes the contribution of the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Customs & Border Protection, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, FBI, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Department of Justice prosecutors who are on the front lines of interdiction and investigation of alien smugglers. It gives agents and prosecutors tools to address alien smuggling and terrorism by re-structuring the Alien Smuggling statutes. This legislation is tough on crime. It brings in new penalties of up to life in prison for rape, kidnapping, or attempted murder in the course of alien smuggling. H.R. 1029 revises the current statutes to provide stiff sentences for those who commit alien smuggling that facilitates terrorist activity, or those whose smuggling results in serious bodily injury or placing the life of another in jeopardy. It creates the first federal crime that recognizes transportation in inhumane conditions as a ground for an increased sentence. The Act recognizes the needs of the Coast Guard for effective maritime anti-smuggling tools, including tough penalties for those who do not heave to, and risk their passengers' lives by intentionally beaching their vessels at high speed in an attempt to discharge their human cargo. It directs the Sentencing Guidelines Commission to put ``teeth'' into the statute by adopting sentencing enhancements for terrorism, moving large groups of aliens, or abandoning aliens in harsh conditions such as the desert or at sea. It maintains the current sentencing structure in which smuggling for profit or to facilitate a crime results in mandatory minimum sentences, and maintains the current sentencing structure in capital cases. Alien smuggling will not stop until we establish an immigration policy that substantially reduces the need for illegal entry into the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I yield back my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, again, I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) for his leadership on this issue. This is a legislative initiative that really is long overdue. And I'd like to respond as well to the point that he made that was very, very succinct but also very, very potent about the need for comprehensive reform. He is right. As he returned to the United States Congress, it was an enormously vigorous debate. I believe some of the satellite hearings might have wound up in Indiana that were held by the U.S. House of Representatives. If we are to complement this legislation, we also need to engage in comprehensive immigration reform so there are laws that will govern the ingress and egress of individuals here in the United States. That is a very important statement and challenge that we have. And, therefore, as we move this legislation along and give a firm response of intolerance to those who would human traffic or engage in trafficking slaves, or to cause the loss of life or the dastardly treatment of individuals, we are making the statement that we will take it seriously and that they will be punished. In addition, I think it's very important that we complement this legislation with strong response to the violence at the border that has occurred due to drug cartels. I look forward to having the opportunity to present to our Judiciary Committee legislation that I will introduce on this issue of providing more resources for the, if you will, inhibiting and prohibiting the kind of dastardly violence that is occurring and providing the resources for DEA and ATF that I think are so very necessary. Mr. Speaker, again I want to congratulate Mr. Hill on this legislation, and I would enthusiastically urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I have the right to close. I believe there are no more speakers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to now yield to the distinguished sponsor of the legislation, Mr. Baron Hill of Indiana, for such time as he might consume. (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this legislation, sponsored by Baron Hill of Indiana, is particularly important to Texas, and I want to congratulate the gentleman for his foresight and his leadership. Maybe in his research he knows that just a few short years ago we lost a number of individuals, obviously smuggled for wrong reasons into Texas, who died in an overheated 18-wheeler. And so this is a legislative initiative that is long overdue. The legislation gives Federal prosecutors and agents stronger enforcement weapons against human smuggling in all its forms, including human trafficking and slavery, smuggling related to terrorism or espionage, and smuggling that involves kidnapping, rape, serious injury or death. The previous version of this bill passed the House in the last Congress 412-0. As I noted, in Texas, we see these losses regularly, including in our sister States, individuals dying who have been trafficked or smuggled, dying in the desert out of desperation and thirst. And as I indicated, the particular case that was so egregious in Texas, people smothered to death in an 18-wheeler in the heat of the summer. Like the previous bill, H.R. 1029 amends the alien smuggling provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as the criminal provision for failure to ``heave to,'' to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, to increase maximum penalties for serious offenses, and to clarify the necessity defense that applies to legitimate maritime rescues. The bill also establishes for the first time in Federal law that it is a serious felony to transport persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or to intentionally run vessels ashore at high speed to escape apprehension. Those kinds of inhumane practices have resulted in death or serious injury to numerous alien passengers. The bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists those who are suspected of smuggling, as well as smuggled individuals who are interdicted at U.S. land, air and sea borders. I want to thank the gentleman for his foresight. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee as well, and a member of the committee, the chairperson of the committee that has oversight over the watch list, I know how important an act this is, that it further ensures the security of America. It provides tough penalties for the kind of serious smuggling offenses I have just described, while distinguishing those offenses from family reunification or humanitarian efforts, for which the penalties are appropriately severe. While strengthening the current offense language, the bill preserves important case law. For instance, it will remain a violation of Federal law not only to bring illegal aliens to the United States, but to bring any alien across the border through places other than those designated as official entry ports. This is especially critical as Congress mandates that the Department of Homeland Security institute biometric entry and exit systems. For an orderly and fair immigration system to work, people must come in through the designated sites. And certainly, I agree with the gentleman as we look toward fixing that broken system. Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to consider providing sentencing enhancements for particularly egregious offenses, smuggling aliens in a life-threatening manner, abandoning them in the desert or on a spit of land that will be submerged at high tide, or smuggling aliens to facilitate acts of terrorism. I commend Baron Hill for his leadership and his persistence on this bill. And I commend Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Bennie Thompson and Ranking Member Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee for their work in improving this bill and making it a consensus, bipartisan measure. I would like to include in the Record at this point an exchange of letters between our two committees. House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC, March 27, 2009. Hon. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding H.R. 1029, the ``Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2009,'' introduced on February 12, 2009, by Congressman Baron P. Hill. This legislation was initially referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and, in addition, to the Committee on Homeland Security. I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this bill before the House in an expeditious manner. Accordingly, I am willing to waive further consideration of H.R. 1029. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction over H.R. 1029. Further, I request your support for the appointment of Committee on Homeland Security conferees during any House- Senate conference convened on this or similar legislation. Finally, I request that a copy of this letter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of H.R. 1029. I look forward to working with you on this legislation and other matters of great importance to this nation. Sincerely, Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1029) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18, United States Code, to combat the crime of alien smuggling and related activities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the Speaker, and I thank Mr. Miller and his committee. I think it is important to note that this Congress and the leadership of this government has allegedly or in numbers been only in office less than 4 months. And the good that has been done is one that should be recognized. Alongside of the stimulus package now, as we move forward to frame how taxpayer dollars we spend to help Americans are moving forward in the appropriations process to restore hardworking Americans, now we come to address the passion and the love of America. I want to thank Mr. Miller. I would like to thank our good friend on the Senate side, Mr. Kennedy, my good friend Carolyn McCarthy from New York, and I want to thank them for allowing me to contribute language that allows the outreach to be broad and widespread throughout our historically and Hispanic-serving institutions of higher learning. I was just a few days ago in an elementary class, and I was talking about what the government does. I was speaking on behalf of Teach for America. It is great fun. I love the work that our teachers do, and I was so honored for them to allow me just a small amount of time to teach those beautiful kids. We should pay tribute to our teachers. But when I asked the question, how many of them would like to work for their country, serve their country, clean up, help people who are suffering in the Dakotas, suffering from floods, or help the Katrina victims or Hurricane Ike victims, or be able to help, God forbid, in some tragic incident facing America, and those children raised their hands. That is what America is about. So I rise to support this legislation, H.R. 1388, that will help improve or expand AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, VISTA, National Civilian Community Corps and Senior Corps. It will give the opportunity for green jobs. It will have America feeling good about herself because we will be out serving and improving the conservation of energy and environmental protection. I am also very pleased that language was added in the Senate to give the opportunity to youngsters in foster care. I have worked for them. I used to be the cochair of foster care in Harris County along with a former Member of Congress, my good friend, Mike Andrews. And our job was to bolster up foster care parents and to be able to give them comfort in the care of young foster care children. Now, again, we add status to them by allowing them to further participate along with those who have disabilities. This is a critical step for America. Every year more than 70,000 Americans participate in the AmeriCorps program alone, which provides relief to cities during national disasters and reinvigorates communities.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman. Over 50 million American volunteers build homes, organize food drives, and improve schools through national service programs. The GIVE Act will broaden the opportunities for students and activists. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Miller, this is a great day for America. It only gives them the infrastructure of what they have been crying out to do, the very question we raised with the past administration: Where there is benefit, there must be sacrifice, there must be burden. And we now have an opportunity, no matter who we are, what our capabilities, what our intellect, what our physical capabilities are, to give back to America. This is a good thing that is happening in this country, a good thing that is happening today. I rise to support H.R. 1388. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1388, the ``Generations of Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act or the `GIVE Act'.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congresswoman McCarthy for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will expand the already highly successful volunteer programs that empower community activists and improve the education and economic conditions of cities throughout the United States. It supports and increases funding for key community services programs, including AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America, VISTA, National Civilian Community Corps, and Senior Corps. The GIVE Act creates opportunities for green jobs that will contribute to energy conservation and environmental protection. It will create critical educational opportunities for disadvantaged youth and will create incentives for students to improve their communities. Every year, more than 70,000 Americans participate in the AmeriCorps program alone, which provides relief to cities during natural disasters and reinvigorates communities. Over 50 million American volunteers build homes, organize food-drives, and improve schools through national service programs. The GIVE Act will broaden the opportunities for students and activists to participate in national service via education rewards that keep up with soaring costs of universities and Summer Service programs. After Ike and Katrina, thousands of local students worked to help rebuild communities and provide necessary services to distressed families. The GIVE Act is the critical lynchpin in sustaining this civic activism. The Senate Amendments to the GIVE Act would expand opportunities for youth in foster care; and allow for more participation for persons with disabilities. The GIVE Act will provide job opportunities for Volunteers in Service to America, or VISTA, to re-integrate youth into society, increase literacy in communities through teaching opportunities in before and after-school programs, and to provide health and social services to low-income communities. VISTA is a critical step toward poverty alleviation, and the GIVE Act will equip it with the resources to fulfill its obligations. The Senate's additions would require the Corporation for National and Community Service, to enter into a contract with an entity that is not a recipient of Learn and Serve funding to conduct a 10-year longitudinal study on the impact of the service-learning activities. The entity would submit a final report to the Corporation containing the results of the study and information on best practices. The Corporation would submit the report to the authorizing committees, and would make the report available to the public on the Corporation's Web site. This provides greater transparency and accountability in the administration of these important programs. I am pleased to see that the GIVE Act will create 4 new service opportunities including a Clean Energy Corps, an Education Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, and a Veteran Service Corps. These volunteer opportunities will further improve environmental protection, health- care access, and services for veterans. These new service corps will address critical concerns in low-income communities. I am very happy that the revised legislation aids veterans in their pursuit of education and professional opportunities, and help veterans with the claims process, and assist rural, disabled, and unemployed veterans with transportation needs. Moreover, the GIVE Act will recognize colleges and universities that are strongly engaged in service through grants and rewards that will in turn improve educational access in the United States. I am pleased to see the Retention of my Language from the 110th Congress that gives special consideration to historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal universities, and colleges serving predominantly minority populations. The GIVE Act will create a Campuses of Service Program that will encourage and assist students in pursuing public service careers. It will also focus on recruiting scientists and engineers to keep America competitive for years to come. The Act will expand the Senior Corps as a way to keep Older Americans including seniors engaged in public service, and will create a Youth Engagement Zone to increase the number of young students in volunteer services. Moreover, it expands the focus of The National Civilian Community Corps to include disaster relief efforts and infrastructure improvement to allow quicker and more effective responses to disasters like Katrina and Ike that devastated numerous communities in the United States. Finally, the GIVE Act will launch a nation-wide Call to Service Campaign that encourages all Americans to engage in national service and to recognize September 11th as a National Day of Service and Remembrance. I am honored to cosponsor this legislation that will add service before self to America's future leaders. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of our veterans and in support of H.R. 1513, the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act by my colleague from Arizona, Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, and the Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Congress annually reviews veterans' service-related disability compensation, and other compensation programs for surviving spouses and dependent children to ensure that such benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation. This year, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that it will provide disability compensation to just over three million veterans with service-related disabilities. Importantly, H.R. 1513 would increase the amounts paid to veterans for disability compensation and to their survivors for dependency and other compensation by the same cost-of-living adjustment payable to Social Security recipients. The increase would take effect on December 1, 2009. We, as Members of Congress, must stand together to support our veterans and their families. Our nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of our country. We must be united in seeing that every soldier, sailor, airman, and marine is welcomed back with all the care and compassion this grateful nation can bestow to them and to their supportive families. I firmly believe that we should celebrate our veterans after every conflict, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to both more than 32,000 veterans living in my Congressional district alone. I hope we will all take the time to show appreciation to those who have answered the call to duty. As the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting our troops of yesteryear and of today, as well as their families, by providing for this cost-of-living increase.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand in support of our veterans and in support of H.R. 1377, to amend title 38, United States Code, to expand veteran eligibility for reimbursement by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for emergency treatment furnished in a non- department facility and for other purposes by my colleague from California, Representative Bob Filner and the Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. H.R. 1377 would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay for emergency care that certain veterans receive at non-VA medical facilities or to reimburse veterans if they have paid for that care. Specifically, veterans with non-service-connected conditions whose third-party insurer does not cover the full cost of care would be reimbursed. The bill also permits the VA to reimburse veterans for emergency treatment that was provided prior to the date of enactment. Under current federal law, the Department of Veterans Affairs has the authority to reimburse certain veterans or pay for emergency treatment of a non-service connected condition if the VA is the payer of last resort. However, the VA currently does not pay for emergency treatment for non-service connected conditions in facilities outside the VA system if a veteran has third-party insurance that pays for any portion of the medical cost. H.R. 1377 would make these veterans eligible for reimbursements from the VA. I have been a strong advocate of supporting our veterans. We are providing for our veterans with legislation such as: H. Res. 234--which would designate a ``Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.'' H. Res. 1054--Honoring the service and achievements of women in the Armed Forces and female veterans (Rep. Davis (CA)--Armed Services). H.R. 2790--To establish the position of Director of Physician Assistant Services within the office of the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health as amended (Rep. Hare--Veterans' Affairs). H.R. 3889--To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a longitudinal study of the vocational rehabilitation programs administered by the Secretary (Rep. Boozman--Veterans' Affairs). H.R. 5554--Veterans Substance Use Disorders Prevention and Treatment Act of 2008 (Rep. Michaud--Veterans' Affairs)--Passed. H.R. 5664--To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to update at least once every six years the plans and specifications for specially adapted housing furnished to veterans by the Secretary (Rep. Rodriguez--Veterans' Affairs). Currently, there are over 25 million veterans in the United States. There are more than 1,633,000 veterans living in Texas. According to the Texas Veterans Commission, there are 197,030 veterans in Harris County. In the 2007 fiscal year health care costs in the 18th district of Texas were over $80,000. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in expanding Title 38 for reimbursement of emergency care in non-department facilities for veterans.