Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am reading a headline that says that experts say it could take Houston years to fully recover from Hurricane Harvey. This is not because my local leaders, mayors, county judges, and Governors are not working as hard as they can, but it is the most significant, singular, and devastating costly flood in the continental United States history. Certainly, we are praying that Hurricane Irma detours away from those places that it has not yet hit. We certainly pray for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the other Caribbean islands, and certainly our friends in Florida and up the East Coast. But right now we have that unlikely and unappreciated position of having the most devastating flood. So my amendment has to do with State and local funds being part of designing their own reconstruction, their own projects, their own capital projects. Specifically, my amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act under the heading Federal Transit Administration--Transit Formula Grants may be used in contravention of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. The identical amendment was offered in the Jackson Lee amendment to H.R. 2577 and received a positive voice vote. In particular, this amendment affirms the importance to the Nation of projects that create economic development, particularly in the transportation area. Pursuant to section 5309 of title 49, the Secretary of Transportation may make grants under this section to State and local governments.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The chairman is very kind. Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. If I might just take one moment and I will conclude taking your gracious offer. First, I would like to acknowledge that this amendment is supported by the trade unions, the TTD. I thank them very much for their support. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the article about our rebuilding. [From the Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2017] Nation's Fourth-Largest City Struggles to Get Moving Again After Harvey (By Ashley Halsey III, Michael Laris, Martine Powers and Luz Lazo) Cleanup and flooding in Texas continue in wake of Hurricane Harvey. Under the threat of more rain and flooding this week, the regional hub that is Houston faced the daunting prospect of clearing mud-swept roadways, opening two of the nation's busiest airports and resuming operations at the country's second-busiest port. Many streets remained impassable, with water more than waist-high. Those highways not flooded too often led to others that were. And officials said it was too soon to say when the transit system would resume operations. Houston is a city that for the past eight years led the nation in growth, and although transit was considered to have its place, the city's backbone is the oil industry, which relies heavily on new highways to get around town. When the city spread out into Harris County--which has 6.5 million people to the city's 2 million--the connections were roadways. The state maintains more than 1,200 miles of them, including four interstates, three of which crisscross the downtown area. Even though the worst of the storm appeared to be over, transportation officials continued to urge people to stay off the roads. ``We're expecting more rain,'' Houston Fire Chief Samuel Pena said. ``The roads are dangerous. Stay off the roads.'' Once the water clears, it may take weeks or months before roads are fully ready for travel, said Dave Newcomb, a senior research engineer at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. He said the primary concern will be local streets and roadways, not the freeway system. ``The freeways are probably going to be okay,'' Newcomb said. ``They're built with lots of support underneath them. They're built for heavy loads and adverse conditions.'' But local roads built on rain-saturated soil may be left in a weakened state, he said, taking a month or two before they stabilize. Bridges that had swift-moving floodwaters around them must be checked for scouring around their supports, he said. The sheer scale of the immediate recovery is daunting. ``It is really difficult because we're so spread out and highway-dependent,'' said Kyle Shelton, director of strategic partnerships at the Kinder Institute, an urban-research think tank at Houston's Rice University. ``We just have so many streets and so many roads and so much other infrastructure to make sure is okay and bring back online. That's going to take weeks and months.'' Houston's two big airports--George Bush Intercontinental Airport and the William P. Hobby Airport--will begin to see traffic on their runways even as the rest of the region struggles to find its footing. Officials said Hobby will remain closed until Wednesday; Bush until Thursday. The magnitude of the backup to the national aviation system caused when Houston shuts down was evident Monday: 772 flights had been set to depart from the two airports, carrying close to 94,000 passengers. The two airports had a record 1.9 million passengers pass through security last month. ``You may not even be heading to Houston and still run into this,'' said Anne McDermott of Farecompare.com. She said that late Sunday a flight to Dallas landed in Memphis because so many--Houston-bound flights had been diverted to Dallas. ``It's going to continue to be a fluid situation.'' The Houston Metro's bus system, three light-rail lines and paratransit services were shut down Monday, with no word on when they would resume service. In a statement, Metro officials said they will monitor the situation to determine when it would be safe to resume service. If history is precedent, it may be a while before those buses are back on the road. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, it took weeks to restore bus service in New Orleans--partly because of the condition of flooded roadways, but also because hundreds of buses were underwater after the storm. With the city's bus fleet unusable, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had to scramble to bring in more than a thousand private coaches to help with evacuation efforts. The Houston Metro tried to prevent a similar outcome for this storm, parking more than 100 buses in the HOV lane on an elevated section of Interstate 59. ``This is a city that was built, in large part, in defiance of nature,'' said Christof Spieler, an urban planner who is on the board of Metro. ``Basically, developers just treated this as a big empty canvas and just spread out across it. We tend to sort of ignore the natural underpinnings of the city. When this amount of rain falls, suddenly that natural geography reasserts itself.'' And in the long run, Houston--like the rest of the country--has to wrestle with how to become more resilient in an era when weather hazards are increasing. Over the past three years, there have been three floods that have ``all been labeled unprecedented,'' Shelton said. While freeways and many local streets have major sections that are underwater, many other areas are not submerged, depending on their elevation and how much rain there was in that particular place. ``Houston is used to flooding. We're not used to anything on the scale of what just happened,'' Spieler said. Rapid development over the past two decades--and the sprawling networks of accompanying roadways, subdivisions and parking lots have left Houston especially susceptible to major flooding, said Samuel Brody, a Texas A&M University urban planning professor who leads the Center for Texas Beaches and Shores. Such surfaces leave little return path for floodwaters to go into the ground or drainage channels. ``You've got a smearing of pavement all over a flood-prone region,'' he said. ``You're putting more impervious surfaces over a large area that is dominated by flood-prone, low-lying landscapes, so when it rains, there's all this impervious surface. It increases the volume and velocity of water going into the bayous which Houston uses as their primary drain system.'' Between 1996 and 2011, as development boomed, the percentage of impervious surfaces in Houston grew by 25 percent, Brody said, citing a report he led that examined the effect of development on flood damage in the Gulf of Mexico region. And although the extreme rainfall totals from Harvey probably would have caused flooding no matter what, Brody said the presence of pavement increases the amount of damage on the ground. The 25-mile-long complex of docks and warehouses that make up the Port of Houston planned to remain closed Tuesday. Kurt Nagle, chief executive of the American Association of Port Authorities, said that early indications show there is ``light to moderate'' infrastructure damage along the Houston Ship Channel 150 business facilities that generate $617 billion in economic activity per year. At least three vessels originally headed for Houston have been diverted to New Orleans, and more may be detoured in coming days from Houston and other affected ports in Galveston, Victoria, Beaumont, Port Lavaca and others. The continuing severe weather may have further effects on the ports in the region, Nagle said. But even once things clear up, significant work will need to be done before shipping channels in the area can reopen. The Coast Guard will need to perform surveys of the area to determine whether buoys and navigation aids have been moved or lost, and the Army Corps of Engineers will need to perform a channel assessment to ensure that no debris is blocking the shipping channels under the surface. Benny Rousselle witnessed the ravages of water during Katrina from his perch as president of Plaquemines Parish, south of New Orleans. The priorities for leaders in Houston are clear, for now: help those who are stranded. ``The pressure is on the local elected officials to get this community up and running as quick as possible, so they can come home and help with the recovery,'' said Rousselle, who is now on the parish council. ``But you cannot do that until you have enough utilities and roadways cleared so they can come in,'' Rousselle said.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by making this point to Mr. Diaz-Balart, and it is that local entities should have the right to direct funds where they believe they are most important, particularly for transportation projects. As they do so with Federal dollars, let me also add my support for Davis-Bacon. It is, in essence, completely opposite with what was represented. It is a civil rights bill for all people. I ask my colleagues to join me in making sure the State and local governments get Federal funds. And as we move forward to restore Houston and Harris County and all of the Gulf region, this will be a very important amendment to make sure that we can direct our own destiny with Federal funds. The Secretary of Transportation has that authority to give to us to be able to do so. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chair, let me thank Subcommittee Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Price for their leadership on this important legislation and for the opportunity to explain my amendment. The Jackson Lee Amendment adds at the end of the bill the following new section providing that: Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration--Transit Formula Grants'' may be used in contravention of section 5309 of title 49, United States Code. This amendment is identical to the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act for FY2016 adopted by the House on June 8, 2016 by voice vote. In particular, the Jackson Lee affirms the importance to the nation of projects that create economic development, particularly in the transportation area. Pursuant to section 5309 of title 49, the Secretary of Transportation may make grants under this section to State and local government the authority to assist in financing capital projects, small startup projects, including the acquisition of real property. This section further supports capacity improvements, including double tracking, and it specifically relates to work that deals with projects on approved transportation plans. That is key; section 5309 of title 49 grants to State and local governments the authority to undertake capital projects, which means that when local governments propose their projects, the Secretary has the authority to go forward on them. It is instructive to consider what some of the nation's leading transportation and economic development organization have to say about the importance and economic impact of investments in local light rail capital projects. It is well documented that nothing enhances the competitiveness of a nation in this increasingly globalized economy, that investments in transportation infrastructure capital projects. Whether it is the seaways, dams, highways, or tollways, and whether it involves other modes of transportation, transportation projects are major engines driving the economy. And it is important for the local community to be the drivers of that. Metropolitan regions will not be able to maintain its economic vitality without the ability to create and preserve infrastructure that supports the movement of people and goods throughout our country. The Jackson Lee Amendment clearly speaks to the global aspect of the Secretary of Transportation having the ability to work with our local and State governments. Houston is the fourth most populous city in the country; but unlike other large cities, we have struggled to have an effective mass transit system. Over many decades Houston's mass transit policy was to build more highways with more lanes to carry more drivers to and from work. The city of Houston has changed course and is now pursuing Mass transit options that include light rail. This decision to invest in light rail was and is strongly supported by Houstonians by their votes in a 2003 referendum and by their increased usage of light rail service made possible in part by transportation appropriations bills. Specifically, Harris County voters passed a massive referendum proposal that was to set the stage for transit for the next 20 years. It included a first stage of four light rail lines, to be complete by 2012, and a master plan for a 65-mile system, to be complete by 2025. An April 2014 report by the Houston METRO on weekly ridership states that 44,267 used Houston's light rail service, which represented a 6,096 or 16% increase in ridership from April of the previous year. This increase in light rail usage outpaced ridership of other forms of mass transit in the city of Houston: metro bus had a 2.3% increase over April 2013; metro bus-local had a 1.3% increase over April 2013; and Metro bus-Park and ride had a 8.o% increase over April 2013. In a story published February 5, 2013, the Houston Chronicle reported on the congestion Houston drivers face under daily commute to and from work. According to the Chronicle article, in 2011 Houston commuters continue to enjoy some of the worst traffic delays in the country, and Houston area drivers wasted more than two days a year, on average, in traffic congestion, costing them each $1,090 in lost time and fuel. Today, those figures have increased to 3.5 days a year wasted in traffic congestion, costing them each $1,850 in lost time and fuel. To put it in simpler and starker terms: A driver in Houston could see 154 movies this year or purchase 21 tickets to a home Texans game with the money wasted because of poorly maintained or traffic-clogged roads. Expanded light rail is critical to Houston's plan to meet its transportation and environmental challenges, ease its traffic congestion, and improve its air quality. Places most likely to see immediate benefit from light rail in Houston are the 50,000 students that attend the University of Houston and Texas Southern University. Funds made available under this deal should be available to support local government decisions of the Houston Metropolitan transit Authority and the city of Houston to expand rail service. When we put our minds to it, we can get things done. In Houston, we built a port 50 miles from the ocean, created the world's greatest medical center in the middle of open prairie, and convinced the federal government to base its astronauts in a hurricane zone 870 miles from the launch pad. Each of those achievements shares a common element: elected officials have advocated, built public support, and brought the agencies together. Members of Congress should respect the decisions of state and local governments when it comes to deciding how they will spend funding made available for public transportation under this appropriations bill. I ask my colleagues to again support the Jackson Lee Amendment and affirm the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to work with local governments to develop local transit projects that will relieve traffic congestion, efficiently move people and goods, create jobs and maintain America's status as the leading economy in the world. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I thank the manager of this bill, Judge Carter from Texas, for including my amendment in the en bloc amendment. Let me explain it very simply. My amendment would help facilitate the Secretary of Homeland Security from being limited in their discretion for the utilization and enhancement of the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by the Department of Homeland Security. My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshal Service effectively uses its funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limit on that ability. I believe that Federal air marshals are the last line of defense in some instances in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attacks. We know that airlines, airplanes, aviation still remains a very attractive target, as evidenced over the years, by terrorists. As the former chairwoman of the Transportation Security Committee, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure we had enough air marshals who receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft. Let me say that all of our individuals are important to the Department of Homeland Security. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank my colleagues for putting it in the en bloc, and I ask for its support. Mr. Chair, let me thank Subcommittee Chairman Carter and Ranking Member Roybal-Allard for their leadership on this important legislation and for the opportunity to explain my amendment. Thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment, which simply prohibits any funds in the Homeland Appropriations Act from being used to limit the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance the use of Federal air marshals on inbound international flights considered to be high risk by the Department of Homeland Security. My amendment ensures that the Federal Air Marshal Service effectively uses its funds to deploy personnel on inbound flights that are considered high risk by the Department of Homeland Security and that there is no limitation on that ability. I believe that Federal Air Marshals are the last line of defense in defending the cockpit and aircraft cabin against terrorist attack. As the former Chair and a current member of Homeland Security Transportation Security Subcommittee, I have worked over the years and sponsored legislation to ensure that we have enough air marshals and that they receive all the requisite training to effectively secure aircraft. To best protect our Nation from terroristic threat it is of extreme importance that we use the necessary funds to support the use of Federal Air Marshalls on inbound international flights. Make no mistake--the threat to our aviation system from aircraft inbound to the United States from foreign airports is serious and dangerous. Following the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden, intelligence was gathered that suggests that Al Qaeda still has an interest in attacking the U.S., likely through transportation modes. This fact, coupled with the numerous suspicious activities even on domestic aircraft where passengers were attempting to open cabin doors in flight or otherwise disrupt flights, is of concern. While my amendment deals with the threat on inbound aircraft to the U.S., its ultimate impact will be to ensure that air marshals are assigned to the highest-risk flights. It simply prohibits funds from being used to limit the discretion Secretary of Homeland Security to enhance air marshal coverage on inbound high-risk flights in accordance with the Department's risk model. The terroristic threats are ever changing and we must allow the Secretary of Homeland Security to make the necessary adjustments to protect the American people. This is not a funding issue or people issue, rather a security issue and this amendment is budget neutral. Let me thank those who at the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies for their service, including my friends at the Transportation Security Administration. Let me thank all Federal Air Marshals for their service to our nation. I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 89.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, to all of my colleagues and the American people, thanks so much for the outpouring of love from volunteers, first responders, and so many rescuers that came to Hurricane Harvey. Let me thank my mayor, Mayor Turner; the county judge, Judge Emmett; all of the commissioners and council members. Let me thank, most of all, our first responders and all of those who sacrificed their lives; some who died, an officer who died. Let me thank the Marines, the Navy, the Army, and the Texas National Guard. Let me thank the people who suffered through and are still suffering through this disaster, the most significant historic natural disaster in the history of the United States. They are needing food and shelter still. They are needing the help of this great Congress. They are needing love and prayers, and I am prayerful that we will go together, walking together, and providing the money that these victims need. Let me give you a sad story. As I left Houston today, announcements were coming to those in apartments: You are evicted, with no place to go. Yes, the apartments were destroyed, but there is no place to go. We need a continuing effort to be able to help them. We need the EPA to inspect the various chemical plants, and we need FEMA to be staffed more, and to be able to address some of the funding needs that we have. The debris is unbelievable; maybe $200-plus billion, but all I can say is that the lives were lost, but we are still prayerful. To the Saldivar family who lost four children in a drowning: My prayers are with you. We continue to lift them up, and work as Americans to make sure they are whole. God bless the people in the southeast where Irma might come. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by simply saying: Please don't let the DACA young people be thrown out in this devastating time. They, too, need to be embraced.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to report to the House on Hurricane Harvey, the historic storm that has devastated the Gulf Coast and my city of Houston, Texas. As a senior member and a resident of the city of Houston, I was there and witnessed the devastation that the storm wrought. Hurricane Harvey has declared war on America's Gulf Coast, and as Americans, we must respond. We will need emergency supplemental appropriations for Southeast Texas, and the Houston metroplex, to provide support to local, state, and federal government agencies in assisting with flood remediation, recovery, victim services, and reconstruction following the catastrophic damage caused by historic flooding. So far, Harvey has dumped an estimated 11 trillion gallons of water in the Houston area. The relentless rain has inundated homes, decimated area roadways and turned neighborhoods into unrecognizable lakes. Large portions of the Bayou City have been overwhelmed by rainfall amounts that occur only once in every thousand years. To comprehend the level of destruction, the volume of water that has fallen could fill the Astrodome more than 24 thousand times over and power Niagara Falls for 15 days. The disastrous events this week have been punctuated by the tragic loss of life. In Houston, at least 44 people have lost their lives, including veteran police officer Sgt. Steve Perez, 60, who had worked for 34 years with the Houston Police Department. Sgt. Perez was trying to serve and protect others when he was swept away by the rising waters. Sgt. Perez, who worked in the traffic enforcement division, left home around 4 a.m. Sunday to drive to his duty station downtown but could not find a path because flooding caused by tropical storm Harvey had made many roads impassable. A family of six attempting to flee their home perished when their vehicle was swept into Greens Bayou. Samuel ``Sammy'' Saldivar was driving eastbound on Green River Road near John Ralston Road Sunday when rising water in Greens Bayou overcame the van. Sammy was travelling with his elderly parents, Manuel Saldivar, 84, and Belia, 81. Also in the van were the great-grandchildren of his parents: Daisy Saldivar, 6, Xavier Saldivar, 8, Dominic Saldivar, 14, and Devy Saldivar, 16. A Neither Houston nor any city in the nation has ever experienced flooding of this magnitude. Our valiant emergency responders are overtaxed and citizen rescues have become a critical source of assistance in saving lives. So far the Coast Guard alone has saved more than 6,000 Lives in Houston. At times like this, I am so proud to be an American and to call Houston home. We are a close community that comes together to overcome any challenge that stands in our way. Mr. Speaker, this is why we need Congress and the President to provide immediate emergency funding and resources commensurate with the crisis at hand, and that means a minimum of $150 billion is needed now and much more later. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of all those who perished in Hurricane Harvey.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong condemnation of the horrific violence and domestic terrorism that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend. The so-called ``Unite the Right'' event that precipitated this violence was a despicable gathering of neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and other white supremacists in a deliberate attempt to promote a hateful ideology and instill fear in the hearts of racial, religious, and other marginalized communities. These sorts of gatherings are, sadly, all too familiar for those of us who remember the days of Jim Crow and de jure segregation. But when these hateful events have occurred in the past, our national leadership rose to the occasion and at the moment of crisis summoned the better angels of our nature. When Alabama Governor George Wallace threatened to stand in the schoolhouse door and block enrollment of the first two African American students admitted to the University of Alabama, President John Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the desegregation order of the federal court. Later that evening, President Kennedy addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the subject of civil rights in America and said: We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated . . . And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free. On Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. A week later, on March 15, 1965, before a joint session of the Congress and the eyes of the nation, President Lyndon Johnson explained to the nation the significance of ``Bloody Sunday'': I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. . . . At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. ``Bloody Sunday'' was one of the defining moments in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. Rising to the moment, President Johnson declared unequivocally that the cause of racial justice ``must be our cause too'' because it is incumbent on all of us to ``overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice.'' President Johnson announced to the nation that he would send to Congress for immediate action legislation designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote by striking down ``restrictions to voting in all elections--Federal, State, and local--which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.'' On August 6, 1965, that legislation, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, was signed into law by President Johnson and for the next 48 years did more to expand our democracy and empower racial and language minorities than any act of government since the Emancipation Proclamation and adoption of the Civil War Amendments. After 168 innocent people, including 19 children, were murdered on April 19, 1995, by a cowardly domestic terrorist who detonated a bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, President William Jefferson Clinton went to Oklahoma City and consoled a grieving nation: [O]ne thing we owe those who have sacrificed is the duty to purge ourselves of the dark forces which gave rise to this evil. They are forces that threaten our common peace, our freedom, our way of life. Let us teach our children that the God of comfort is also the God of righteousness: Those who trouble their own house will inherit the wind. Justice will prevail. Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear. When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life. As St. Paul admonished us, Let us `not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' When nine African Americans were gunned down by a white supremacist with neo-Confederate sympathies at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, it was President Barack Obama who spoke eloquently of the need to respond with ``big-hearted generosity'' and ``thoughtful introspection and self-examination.'' In time of national tragedy, crisis, or danger, Americans look to the President of the United States for hope, for healing, for leadership, and for inspiration. We have blessed to have had Presidents who possessed the moral authority to touch and express the conscience of the nation and could find the words to carry us through these moments of grief and anguish. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan. But sadly, the presidential leadership we have taken for granted has been absent since January 20, 2017 and is nowhere to be seen in the aftermath of domestic terror attack that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017. That act of domestic terrorism claimed the life of Heather Heyer, a 32-year old paralegal who was killed for standing up to the hatred she saw marching on her hometown. Let us be clear: The President is wrong; ``many sides'' were not to blame for what took place in Charlottesville. There were the neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen, and white supremacists chanting blood-curdling slogans steeped in racism and anti-Semitism, and then there was everyone else. ``Many sides'' did not ram a vehicle at high speed into a crowd of innocent people, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 20 other persons; but a domestic terrorist and white supremacist did. Mr. Speaker, the neo-Nazis and white supremacists came to Charlottesville to advocate hate, division, and racial superiority. They were met by persons of goodwill who gathered to affirm racial unity and the equality of all persons ordained by the Creator. One group idolized the most evil war criminal in human history; the other shared and is committed to making real the dream of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is absolutely shameful that anyone--and especially the President of the United States--would try to draw a moral equivalence between the two groups. If there was even a shred of hope or optimism that perhaps this President would recognize and temper the animus that has been unleashed since he announced his candidacy, that hope vanished in the wake of the unhinged press conference he held Tuesday, August 15, at Trump Tower in New York City. Before that date, never before in history had a President of the United States, the nation that led the alliance that defeated Nazism and fascism in the greatest conflict in world history, ever publicly defended or tried to normalize neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, or white supremacists. Civil action in support of racial justice is worthy of praise, and civil action in support of white supremacism is worthy of nothing but condemnation. I urge all Members, especially those of the Party of Lincoln, to join me in repudiating the President's suggestion that there is a moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and Klansmen advocating racial separation and white supremacy and protesters opposing that evil, racist ideology. If the President cannot recognize this difference, then it is time for a new President

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in remembrance of the innocent victims who lost their lives, and those who were seriously injured, yesterday in the cowardly but horrific attack perpetrated by terrorists in Barcelona, Spain. Our hearts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the victims and our thanks and appreciation go to the first responders who selflessly came to the aid of their fellow members of the human family. Barcelona will emerge from the attacks stronger than ever and more firmly committed to the values and principles that have made it so great. And as Barcelona recovers and responds, I hope its people take comfort in the certain knowledge that the people of the United States stand in solidarity with them. Today's attack is a reminder of the common danger the free, democratic, and peace loving nations of the world face from those who reject the norms of civilized society and abuse the liberties and freedoms afforded them by free societies. It is also a reminder that violence and instability in the Middle East resonate far beyond the region, and the international community must not retreat from addressing it. Barcelona is a shining example of everything these terrorists despise: a vibrant, cosmopolitan European city and an open, inclusive society. It is a city steeped in history and art, and its dynamism invites millions of visitors from around the world. The United States will offer its full assistance to the people of Spain as they work to bring the perpetrators and the planners of this attack to justice. We will be relentless in our fight against terror. We will not allow terrorists to succeed in blinding us with fear. To confront this threat abroad and protect the American people at home, we must be both strong and smart. No terrorist can overcome the strength of our values. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in remembrance of the victims of the terrorist attack in Barcelona.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in remembrance of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ushered in the nuclear age 72 years ago this week. The atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 thankfully represent the only instances where the awesome destructive power of nuclear weapons were unleashed. While it is true that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped to bring a speedy and decisive end to the conflict in the Pacific theater during World War II, it is also true that devastation and carnage wrought by those explosions was a vivid reminder and compelling reason for the international community to work in concert to prevent the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons. And for 72 years, the international community, led by the United States, has deterred every nation on earth from using nuclear weapons although it has been less successful in deterring several nation-states from developing their nuclear weapons capability. So while we pause to remember the victims who perished in, and the lives that were saved by, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is critically important that we take this moment to redouble our commitment towards nuclear nonproliferation and banishing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the earth. Mr. Speaker, since 1945 preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology has been a pillar of the U.S.-led, rules-based international order that has brought an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity to the United States and its allies in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific. It is this commitment to nuclear non-proliferation that has led the United States to work with the international community to keep rogue nations from developing their own nuclear arsenals, the most recent achievement in this regard is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated with the Iranian government in 2015. Multilateral efforts like the JCPOA were made possible by responsible, level-headed leadership that did not needlessly engage in brinksmanship. Today, the world faces a grave threat from the rogue and hostile regime in Pyongyang in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we continually seek to reduce the risk of war, and this is not accomplished through the use of overheated, reckless, and bombastic rhetoric. It is vitally important that the Trump Administration understand the importance of using restrained and judicious rhetoric in trying to diffuse this delicate situation. Mr. Speaker, blustery statements and bombastic tweets will not defuse the tense situation on the Korean peninsula or frighten the regime in North Korea. Instead, we must employ the full arsenal of America's smart power assets--diplomacy, economic sanctions--to persuade North Korea that it is in its self-interest to turn away from the dangerous path it is traveling. The United States does not harbor hostile intentions toward North Korea and is seeking to overthrow the regime in Pyongyang. Mr. Speaker, direct diplomatic engagement with North Korea represents America's best option and holds the promise of a favorable and peaceful outcome, just as was achieved with the JCPOA and the 1994 Agreed Framework reached with North Korea that stopped North Korea's nuclear weapons program for nine years. On July 16, 1945, after witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb in Alamagordo, New Mexico, Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan Project, remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita: ``Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'' Mr. Speaker, for more than 70 years the international community, led by the most indispensable of nations, the United States, has kept the nuclear genie in the bottle. We have been successful to date in no small part due to the thoughtful, persistent, judicious, restrained application of American power by responsible, sober, determined, informed Presidents of the United States, from Harry Truman through Barack Obama. When he took the oath of office on January 20, 2017, that torch, and the burden of leadership, was passed to Donald Trump and all Americans are anxiously hoping and praying he can restrain his impulses and rise to the occasion.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2017, with his right hand placed on the historic Lincoln Bible, Donald Trump uttered the most important sentence of his life: ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'' These 35 words--spoken verbatim by every U.S. President at their inauguration--have achieved a hallowed status in our nation's collective memory and psyche. These 35 words have immense symbolic meaning, but they also possess real power. They are enshrined in Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, the blueprint for our democratic system of government and the founding document upon which our society is built. They bind their speaker in an oath to uphold the Chief Office of the Executive Branch of the United States. These 35 words state, in the starkest of terms, the two fundamental duties of the President: to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed'' and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Before January 20, 2017, every President, from George Washington to Barack Obama, had served in elected office or the military, held a government position, or been a member of the bar prior to entering the Oval Office. Before January 20, 2017, Donald Trump had never been elected to public office, nor served in the military, nor held a position in the government, nor been admitted to practice law before the bar. This is noteworthy because it means that in his 70 years of living, Donald Trump had never taken a public oath to uphold the Constitution before January 20, 2017. During his campaign, Trump often touted his lack of political experience as a strength. Since January 20, however, it has become increasingly obvious that Trump's career as a real estate mogul, television personality, and owner of the Miss Universe beauty pageant has left him wholly unequipped to grasp the full weight, scope, meaning of--and the obligations he assumed in taking--the Presidential Oath of Office. It is the solemn duty of the President to exercise his authority consistent with the Constitution and in a manner that supports and strengthens the rule of law. The Constitution imposes on the Congress the responsibility to hold the Chief Executive accountable if he abuses his powers. Such is the genius of the Framers who created the system of separated powers and checks and balances that are the hallmark of our Constitution. Congress, especially the House of Representatives, is the political branch of the government closest to the people; therefore, if the President is called upon to answer for abuses of power, he answers to the Congress acting on behalf of the American people. As a senior member of Congress and the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security, I am ever mindful of my responsibility to preserve and protect the pillars of our democracy. I answer to my constituents directly and indirectly to all Americans, and my publics actions are constrained by my fidelity to the rule of law. Donald Trump, unfortunately, has yet to grasp this fact or accept these democratic constraints. This President has repeatedly acted out his selfish desire to discredit or eliminate an official investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election--as evidenced by his firing of former FBI Director James Comey and his contemplated dismissal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Special Counsel Robert Mueller. These actions illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of, and brazen disregard for, the rule of law, checks and balances, and separation of powers that define our democracy. If Donald Trump fires Special Counsel Mueller, he will set into motion a sequence of events eerily reminiscent of one of the darkest chapters in our nation's history--the Watergate scandal of 1974. In particular, Donald Trump will be reenacting the Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon's order to fire special prosecutor Archibald Cox led to the resignations of Attorney General Elliott Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. The public reaction and congressional response to tile Saturday Night Massacre was swift: numerous resolutions of impeachment were quickly introduced in Congress, and just nine months later, the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment charging Nixon with obstruction of justice. As the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, it is my job to take a proactive stance on presidential abuses of power that violate the Constitution and threaten our democracy. I am not alone in my grave concern about this President's attempts to circumvent the investigation into the tacit or active involvement of his campaign in activities of entities allied with the Russian Government to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. With each passing day, the Special Counsel, journalists, Members of Congress in both Chambers and on both sides of the aisle, and ordinary Americans are coming closer to connecting all the dots. For this reason, I have introduced H. Res. 474, a resolution condemning any action by this President to remove Special Counsel Mueller, impede his investigation, or pardon any person for offenses against the United States arising out of Russia's meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated his intention to introduce legislation in the Senate making the firing of a Special Counsel appointed to investigate a president or his staff subject to judicial review. The message to the President is clear and unmistakable: if he takes any action to hinder the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, he will provoke a bipartisan backlash and be met with a proportionate congressional response to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2017, Donald Trump took an oath--the first of his life--to preserve and protect the Constitution and to take care that our nation's laws are faithfully executed. We, the American people, must all do our part to hold him to his word.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the remarkable accomplishments of Mitchell J. Ross, the Director of the Acquisition and Grants Office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This month, August 2017, Mitchell retires after more than 20 years of faithful, honorable, and distinguished service to the United States government and the people of the United States. Mitchell Ross began his career of service to the United States government and the people of the United States when he was appointed to the first class of Presidential Management Interns and assigned to the Department of the Navy. Mitchell then went on to join the Naval Air Systems Command as a career civil servant and became a Contracting Officer. After a period spent in the private sector, during which time he held leadership roles specializing in government relations, Mitchell returned to continue serving our nation in his capacity as the Director of the Acquisitions and Grants Office at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The contracts and grants that are awarded by NOAA not only address critical national priorities in the environment and science, but also provide small, minority and women-owned businesses an opportunity to expand and succeed in the public sector. Mitchell Ross was committed to helping women and minority communities secure opportunities to compete and excel. I thank Mitchell Ross for his efforts in facilitating the development and success of a diverse array of business owners. Mr. Speaker, Mitchell Ross' excellent performance, distinguished service, and professionalism have earned him the respect and friendship of his colleagues, and countless women and minority business-owners. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to Mitchell Ross for his service to our nation and our very best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement. He will be missed dearly.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in less than one week, the Trump Administration has managed to level a double blow to the fight against discrimination faced by minority groups in our country. Yesterday, the Trump Justice Department, currently headed by Attorney General Jeff Session, announced plans to redirect departmental resources toward investigating and suing universities over their affirmative action admissions policies. Mr. Speaker, this preemptive attack on higher education affirmative action programs, if fully implemented, will deny educational opportunities to millions of deserving students from underrepresented communities and hamper America's ability to compete and win in an increasingly complex, competitive, multicultural global economy. Not only does the announcement by the Justice Department threatens to undo decades of progress in trying to ensure that every child in America--regardless of race or ethnicity--has an equal opportunity to succeed, but it is directly contrary to long line of judicial precedent upholding the use of race-conscious affirmative action programs that are narrowly drawn and administered to achieve diversity in higher education. It was only a year ago that the Supreme Court, in Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, 579 U.S. __ (2016), affirmed that the admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin complied with the principles established in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), which held that ``obtaining the educational benefits of student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.'' Mr. Speaker, as the Member of Congress for the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas, I am proud to be a representative from a state that has played a pivotal role in the nation's educational equity jurisprudence, beginning with the landmark case of Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950), won by Thurgood Marshall and which held that segregated law schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and laid the foundation for the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which prohibited racial segregation in all schools. Affirmative action is needed to ensure diversity on college campuses which will yield diversity in the ranks of America's future leaders. In a globalized and increasingly interconnected world, the nation that succeeds is the one best positioned to adapt to a world of differences--cultural, religious, economic, social, racial, and political. The key to success in a diverse global economy is learning to adapt and thrive in diverse communities where the next generation and its leaders are educated and trained. That is why it is truly appalling that the Sessions-led Department of Justice is seeking to undermine the principles established in Grutter v. Bollinger: that diversity in higher education is such a compelling governmental interest that race-conscious admission policies are permissible if other alternatives are found to be inadequate. Mr. Speaker, we have seen before the effects of university admissions policies that do not address racial disparities in access to higher education. From 1997 to 2004, affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas was barred by the infamous Fifth Circuit decision in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th. Cir. 1996). As a result of the University of Texas's inability to consider a qualified applicant's race in the admissions process, between 1997 and 2004 African-American students never comprised more than 4.5 percent the entering class--far below the 13 percent of Texas high school graduates who are African Americans. Worse yet, for the students attending the University of Texas during that period, 4 out of every 5 of classes (79 percent) at the University had zero, or only one, African-American student. It should go without saying that these are not statistics we would like to see repeated, nor is this any way to produce a generation of American leaders for the 21st century. Affirmative action works; it is the right thing to do for our country. Fostering educational diversity and greater opportunity is critical to our nation's future in a global economy and an increasingly interconnected world. That is why diversity is supported by a broad cross-section of American society, including military leaders, major corporations, small business owners, educators, and students from all backgrounds. An America that celebrates diversity in higher education will produce the leaders, inventors, entrepreneurs, diplomats, public servants, and teachers that will serve our nation well in the global economy of the 21st century. We must stand loudly and unequivocally against any effort made by this Administration to subvert the progress we have made in guaranteeing every American student, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or other immutable characteristics, access to higher education and in positioning our country to compete and win in the global economy of the 21st century.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in recognizing and commemorating the 52nd Anniversary of Medicaid and Medicare. As Medicare and Medicaid turn 52 this week, I stand with the nation to declare my unequivocal commitment to two of the most impactful government programs ever launched. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act. This landmark legislation that truly represents Americans at our best became a reality due to the tireless efforts of great leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson. The signing of the law that established Medicare forged a promise with American seniors. A promise that assured those who have contributed a lifetime to our nation could enjoy their golden years with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high quality healthcare. Likewise, Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the Government and the Governed to provide a basic health care safety net for some of the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities and the poor. Mr. Speaker, 52 years later, the legacy of these programs has proven how powerful government action can be to the life and well-being of our nation's most vulnerable. In 1965, almost half of those 65 and older had no health coverage, living in fear that the colossal healthcare costs would drive them and their families into poverty. Today, because of that monumental legislation, over 98 percent of seniors have health insurance, which has led to a five-year increase in life expectancy for those over 65. Today, 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs. It is difficult for some to image what 1965 was really like, when today affordable, accessible and available health insurance is a reality for so many people living with disabilities. Before Medicaid poor families with children, pregnant women, and low- income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive. When the legislation was first passed, many claimed that Medicaid would never prosper, yet today because of expansion of Medicaid through passage of the Affordable Care Act the program provides comprehensive coverage for over 73 million children, pregnant women, low-income adults, and people living with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, it is indisputable that both programs, Medicare and Medicaid, have been monumental victories and the proudest accomplishments of the Democratic Party and our great Nation. In my home state of Texas and in communities across the country, both programs have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best American values where we believe Health is a Human right not a commodity. This is bittersweet for the residents of the state of Texas anniversary because celebrate these programs that have saved lives, helped people live longer, expanded care to marginalized communities, closed healthcare access gaps, and provided the peace of mind that comes with affordable and equitable health care. Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured (17.7) in the nation. The State of Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act puts the poor residents my state in jeopardy. In the 18th Congressional District there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid and 74,704 with medical care provided by Medicare. Mr. Speaker, my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. Like those great achievements, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse. Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the G.I. Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong. The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success. This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and has helped to bring and peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach. The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security. Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by more than one-third, or roughly 20 million people. These Americans come from all walks of life. They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be force to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex. They are nine million seniors and people with disabilities, who have saved $1,600 each on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication. And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 31 states and the District of Columbia. These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in home state of Texas. In Texas alone: 1. 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history. 2. 4,889,000 uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the ACA Marketplace. 3. 5,198,000 individuals on private insurance who have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization. In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with disabilities saved on average $866 on prescription medications. In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the Affordable Care Act has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade, and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance. Contrary to the claims of the law's critics, private insurance companies have leapt at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed. Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remain obsessed with destroying this law, and with unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans. Medicaid serves a notable share of children, nursing home residents, and Americans younger than 65 years, while a significant share of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes less than $23,500, have 5 or more chronic conditions, or report a health status that is fair or poor. Medicare and Medicaid also continue to drive innovation and these programs have become the standards for coverage, quality, and innovation in American healthcare. Mr. Speaker, together these programs serve the nation's most vulnerable people--low-income children and adults, people with disabilities, and older persons. Both programs continue to play crucial roles in providing equitable and affordable healthcare, leading innovation in payment and delivery reform, carrying out outreach to the most vulnerable communities, and reshaping the delivery of care for the future. It is for these reasons, Medicare and Medicaid remain central to the nation's public health insurance system and vital to the health of Americans and prosperity of our nation. Because of these programs, more Americans have access to affordable, equitable health care today than at any point in our history. And I am committed to making sure that number will continue to grow. On this anniversary of these vital programs, we should remember that a healthy America is a prosperous America. As we look ahead to the next half century, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1965 has given us the foundation for a healthy and prosperous future for all Americans. And I invite those detractors who confidently predicted that Medicare and Medicaid then, and the Affordable Care Act now, would lead to the ruination of the country to join me in saying: Thank you LBJ. Thank you Obama.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 95, the ``Veterans' Access to Child Care Act,'' which makes permanent the VA's Child Care Pilot Program and expands it so that all veterans who are primary caretakers have a safe, reliable, and cost-free option for child care when they use VA healthcare. As the founder and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I fully understand the importance of having access to affordable and safe child care. The bill provides child care assistance to an eligible veteran for any period that the veteran receives covered health care services at a VA facility, and is required to travel to and return from such facility for the receipt of such services. My own city of Houston is home to the second largest veterans' community in the United States in terms of resident veterans. The U.S. Census Bureau recorded that Houston is home to approximately 282,000 veterans, which is almost one-fifth of the state's veteran population. The Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in the city of Houston has 111,189 veterans enrolled in the center. For these veterans in Houston and veterans across the country, H.R. 95 provides access to child care for veterans receiving mental health services and other intensive health care services at VA facilities. The VA reported that it had provided free childcare to 10,000 children through the pilot program and that veterans were consistently ``completely satisfied'' with the services received. H.R. 95 ensures that veterans continue to get the care they have earned and deserve, and that includes ensuring that those seeking treatment at VA medical facilities do not miss appointments because they do not have access to safe and reliable child care. The lack of convenient and affordable child care has prevented veterans from getting the medical care they need. The cost of full time infant care across the United States in 2012 ranged from $4,600 to $20,200 a year. The cost of full time care for a 4 year old ranged from $3,900 to $15,450. Of those seeking childcare, 89 percent were looking for full time care and only 11 percent were looking for part-time care. Parents who serve as the primary care taker of a child should not have to sacrifice their own health to find safe and reliable child care. We must remove barriers that impede veterans' access to health care. Currently, the Child Care Pilot Program offers free child care for qualified veterans using VA healthcare services at a limited number of participating sites around the United States. Congress has reauthorized this popular pilot program three times in separate bills, but it is time to make this program permanent. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and vigilant defender of our national security, I rise in support of H.R. 3180, the ``Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018,'' which will provide the Intelligence Community (IC) with the necessary resources and authorities to ensure they remain capable of protecting and defending the United States. Our intelligence community is facing unprecedented threats from our adversaries around the world as this Administration struggles with the basics of leading this great nation. The Obama Administration left the nation with a stable and growing economy; several important international coalition wins that include the Iranian Nuclear Arms Deal; the Russia Sanctions; and the Paris Climate Agreement. The work of our intelligence community is a key asset in our efforts to thwart our adversaries when they seek to do Americans or our interests harm. Following the Election, President-elect Trump was critical of the intelligence community. In December 2016, he attacked the CIA over its assessment that Russian hacks on Democratic political targets were intended to help him win the White House. In January of this year just prior to his inauguration, he compared our intelligence community to Nazi Germany, while making an unfounded accusation that the intelligence community leaked an unconfirmed dossier of sensitive information regarding him compiled by a private investigator. President Trump's disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence to Russian officials during a visit they had in the oval office raises grave concerns among our allies regarding sharing information with our intelligence community and the disclosure threatened to fracture his already-delicate relationship with the intelligence community. The revelation that President Trump met a second time in secret with Russian President Putin was not disclosed to the public, but came to light due to investigative journalism. The New York Times reported that lawyers and aides to President Trump are investigating the investigators hired by special counsel Robert Mueller, by scouring their records for potential conflicts of interest in an attempt to discredit their work. There is a pressing need for not only funding the work of the intelligence community, but to also provide additional protections to guard this national asset from undue interference from an Administration with too many entanglements with the Russian government that are under investigation. This bill authorizes appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018 for vital intelligence activities of the U.S. Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. H.R. 3180 comes at a critical time in the status of our national security and the IC's ability to protect it. As we continue to face a diverse and growing array of threats from terrorist groups, hostile nation states, and questionable or incompetent figures in the Trump administration, it is crucial that the IC receive all the resources it needs to do its job while Congress has the necessary tools to carry out rigorous oversight of its work. This bill seeks to meet these challenges by supporting critical national security programs, particularly those focused on countering terrorism and cyberattacks. Under H.R. 3180, the Director of National Intelligence will be required to electronically publish an unclassified advisory report on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to federal elections. It also bolsters intelligence oversight by ensuring that IC contractors can meet freely with Congress. Lastly, this bill improves IC accountability to Congress by requiring the IC to provide reports on: Investigations of leaks of classified information; Security clearance processing timelines; The process for reviewing information about computer vulnerabilities for retention or potential release; And Russian influence campaigns directed at foreign elections and threat finance activities. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3180 is a necessary response to the overwhelming evidence pointing to a carefully planned and executed infiltration of our 2016 Presidential Election by the Russian government and its operatives. The issue of cybersecurity, particularly with regards to our federal election computer system infrastructure, has been of great concern to me and the American public as more and more reports of Russian hacking efforts have come to light. In addition, the provision requiring reports on security clearance processing timelines should shed light on the highly dubious and inscrutable security clearances of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Donald Trump's blatant and irresponsible nepotism towards his daughter and son-in-law have made us all vulnerable to Russian and other foreign influence at the highest levels of our federal government. H.R. 3180 will give the American people what they crave and deserve: clarity and transparency to pierce through the haze of cover-ups and distractions surrounding the Trump Administration. This bill also takes significant, much-needed steps to improve benefits for members of the IC, such as increasing employee compensation and authorizing $514 million in appropriations for the CIA's Retirement and Disability System. Congress must do its part to adequately recompense the patriotic Americans who serve our nation through their work in the IC, especially employees with disabilities, who make up 9 percent of the intelligence workforce. At the same time, we must continue to ensure that Congress can exercise oversight over and maintain transparency for the 17 agencies that comprise the IC. I am heartened that my Republican colleagues in the Intelligence Committee are starting to see the light in recognizing the sinister threat of Russian infiltration and White House collusion, both of which endanger our nation's ability to practice and protect its core democratic values. I look forward to working with all Members of Congress to strengthen our IC, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her consistent leadership. Being a frequent visitor to the Rules Committee as a Member, I want to thank the manager for the courtesies extended to all of us. Let me say that I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I want to associate my stance with the gentlewoman from New York. We do not have a budget, but, in fact, the budget is not a roadmap that we are even attempting to do. The budget was a slash and burn of Medicare, Medicaid, only to give tax cuts, and it had no vision but to plus-up the Defense Appropriations. So now we come with a minibus that wants to do more damage. I have no quarrel with my friend from Texas, but it is very clear that this budget is based upon this wall, and this rule is based upon this wall. It is important for the American people to know that, while we are fighting for Medicaid and Meals on Wheels, better policing, and better education for our children, the wall that was supposed to be paid for by Mexico--let me say it again, the wall that was supposed to be paid by Mexico, as evidenced by the Commander in Chief--is now, in this rule, not for $100 million, not for $200 million, not for $50 million, but for $1,571,239,000. That is what this rule is all about. Frankly, I believe that this is a shame. Frankly, I oppose it because the Commander in Chief swore that Mexico would pay for the wall. Now we are paying for the wall, and, as indicated, a Member of Congress from Texas who represents the area is adamantly against it. I would only argue to say that there are other needs in this minibus that the American people desire. I also rise to express strong opposition to the fact that the Lee amendments were not put in. Congresswoman Lee had an amendment for us to debate the AUMF, two amendments, and those amendments were rejected. Let us go back to regular order and pass appropriations for the American people and debate whether we go to war. Going to war is a point for the American people to hear and discuss. Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to the exclusion from H. Res. 478 of the amendments offered by colleague, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. This rule makes in order 54 amendments to Division A of H.R. 3219, the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and an amendment by Congressman Carter, the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, providing $1.57 billion in funding to begin construction of the infamous ``Trump Border Wall'' that the presidential candidate Trump promises, assured, and guaranteed American and the would be paid for by Mexico. Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange indeed that the Lee Amendments, which were offered, debated, and approved in the regular order were excluded from the rule while the Carter Amendment, which was introduced at the 11th hour, was included. Lee Amendment No. 95 would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of enactment of this Act. Lee Amendment No. 96 does not repeal the 2001 AUMF but would prohibit the expenditure of any funds to implement, administer, or enforce the 2001 AUMF beginning 240 days of enactment of this Act. They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be. Over the last 16 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use the 2001 Afghanistan AUMF as a blank check to engage in serious military action. In 2016, the Congressional Research Service issued a report detailing 37 unclassified uses of this authorization in 14 countries, including for operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and recent military action in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The overly broad 2001 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of Congressional oversight, which should be repealed, rather than repeated with respect to North Korea. As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat zones, Congress is missing in action. As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to conduct military operations in foreign lands and to assess whether such action is in the national security interest of the United States and its allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of military force based on this assessment. As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 16 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often underestimated and the benefits overstated. For example, more than 6,800 American service members gave the last full measure of devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or psychological wounds that may never heal. The direct economic cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds $1.07 trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in Afghanistan. I am confident that affording Members the opportunity to debate and vote on the Lee Amendments would strengthen our democracy and help restore Congress's preeminent constitutional role in the decision to take the nation to war. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the Carter Amendment to H.R. 3219, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018. I oppose the amendment because it is ineffective, costly, and wasteful legislation for three reasons: it is costly and ineffective; President Trump broke his promise that Mexico would fund the wall; and a policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the Committees of Jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American people should a wall be built. First, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is costly and ineffective. It wastes $1.6 billion to build an unnecessary wall with our already peaceful neighbors to the south. Only $32 million dollars of that $1.6 billion would actually go towards the wall. That leaves over $1.5 billion simply wasted. The wall throws away American taxpayers' money when it could and should be spent on a number of necessary initiatives like education, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, or even military preparedness. Second, I oppose H.R. 3219 because Trump swore Mexico would pay for the wall. The President has broken his promise to the American people and is asking American taxpayers to foot a $1.6 billion bill for a useless, expensive wall. No wonder the wall is strongly opposed by Democrats and many Republicans. There is no assurance that Americans would ever be reimbursed by Mexico. Trump's cost estimations do not include the cost of building in more treacherous terrain, access roads, maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all border landholdings are privately held. Building this wall would require stripping landholders in my very own home state of Texas of their private land. Instead of wasting $1.6 billion on building a wall, that money could be appropriated to maintaining our effective border security and immigration practices, like those currently in place for asylum seekers. The United States already enforces the most extensive immigration and border security practices in the world. We have This is a bad business deal for the American people. Third, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is represents a policy shift that will have dire consequences for our economy that far exceed the $50 billion estimated cost of this wall. A policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the committees of jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American people should a wall be built. Mexico happens to be one of the United States' strongest trading partners. U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled an estimated $579.7 billion in 2016. Exports were $262.0 billion; imports were $317.6 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $55.6 billion in 2016. Mexico is currently our 3rd largest goods trading partner with $525.1 billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2016. Goods exports totaled $231.0 billion; goods imports totaled $294.2 billion. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $63.2 billion in 2016. Trade in services with Mexico (exports and imports) totaled an estimated $54.5 billion in 2016. Services exports were $31.1 billion; services imports were $23.5 billion. The U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico was $7.6 billion in 2016. According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and Services to Mexico supported an estimated 1.2 million jobs in 2015. Mexico was the United States' 2nd largest goods export market in 2016. U.S. exports to Mexico in 2016 were $231.0 billion, down 2.0 percent ($4.8 billion) from 2015 but up 72.7 percent from 2006. U.S. exports to Mexico are up 455 percent from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. exports to Mexico account for 15.9 percent of overall U.S. exports in 2015. The top export categories in 2016 were: machinery ($42 billion), electrical machinery ($41 billion), vehicles ($21 billion), mineral fuels ($20 billion), and plastics ($16 billion). U.S. total exports of agricultural products to Mexico totaled $18 billion in 2016, our 3rd largest agricultural export market. Leading domestic export categories include: corn ($2.6 billion), soybeans ($1.5 billion), pork & pork products ($1.4 billion), dairy products ($1.2 billion), and beef & beef products ($975 million). U.S. exports of services to Mexico were an estimated $31.1 billion in 2016, 1.4 percent (441 million) less than 2015, but 30.5 percent greater than 2006 levels. It was up roughly 199 percent from 1993 (pre- NAFTA). Leading services exports from the U.S. to Mexico, in 2015, were in the travel, transport, and intellectual property (computer software, industrial processes) sectors. Mexico was the United States' 2nd largest supplier of goods imports in 2016. U.S. goods imports from Mexico totaled $294.2 billion in 2016, down 0.8 percent ($2.3 billion) from 2015, but up 48.4 percent from 2006. U.S. imports from Mexico are up 637 percent from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). U.S. imports from Mexico account for 13.4 percent of overall U.S. imports in 2015. The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2016 were: vehicles ($75 billion), electrical machinery ($62 billion), machinery ($51 billion), optical and medical instruments ($13 billion), and furniture and bedding ($11 billion). U.S. total imports of agricultural products from Mexico totaled $23 billion in 2016, our 1st largest supplier of agricultural imports. Leading categories include: fresh vegetables ($5.6 billion), other fresh fruit ($4.9 billion), wine and beer ($3.1 billion), snack foods ($2.0 billion), and processed fruit & vegetables ($1.5 billion). U.S. imports of services from Mexico were an estimated $23.5 billion in 2016, 7.0 percent ($1.5 billion) more than 2015, and 57.9 percent greater than 2006 levels. It was up roughly 216 percent from 1993 (pre- NAFTA). Leading services imports from Mexico to the U.S., in 2015, were in the travel, transport, and technical and other services sectors. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $63.2 billion in 2016, a 4.2 percent increase ($2.5 billion) over 2015. The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $7.6 billion with Mexico in 2016, down 20.7 percent from 2015. U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico (stock) was $92.8 billion in 2015 (latest data available), a 3.5 percent increase from 2014. U.S. direct investment in Mexico is led by manufacturing, nonbank holding companies, and mining. Mexico's FDI in the United States (stock) was $16.6 billion in 2015 (latest data available), up 0.2 percent from 2014. Mexico's direct investment in the U.S. is led by manufacturing, wholesale trade, and depository institutions. Sales of services in Mexico by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were $45.9 billion in 2014 (latest data available), while sales of services in the United States by majority Mexico-owned firms were $8.5 billion. We share one of the longest peaceful borders in the world with our neighbors to the north and to the south. We are not at war with our peaceful neighbors; we do not need to build an almost 2,000 mile wall to divide us from our neighbor. This tragic initiative is inconsistent with the American character of building bridges not walls. These are just some of the facts that Committees of Jurisdiction would have to weigh before we make any decision. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this Rule so that this bill can return to the Rules Committee to have Division E removed from this appropriations package.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, one of my predecessors set the standard for service to this Nation, among many, certainly--the Honorable Mickey Leland and Craig Washington--but the Honorable Barbara Jordan served on the Judiciary Committee. It was her standard during the Watergate impeachment hearings that set the Nation afire about the relevancy of the people's right to justice. That is why I hold this Constitution in hand and rise to the floor today to express my concern of the issues surrounding the Attorney General and the potential firing of the special counsel, Mr. Mueller. This book that has the Constitution in it guarantees three equal branches of government. There is an orderliness to the responsibilities of the Executive and of the United States Congress. We have oversight. The people want answers regarding Russian collusion and the steering of the election to one person over the other. Yes, they want jobs and opportunities, but we have the opportunity--or the responsibility--to clean our kitchen up. I am very concerned about any executive, any Commander in Chief, who would suggest, in violation of the Constitution, that they would fire the Attorney General and then have the opportunity to ensure that the special counsel was fired in contravention of the American people's desires. That is why I have introduced H. Res. 474, to cause this Congress to disapprove of any firing of the special counsel and reckless pardons of those who are under investigation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest fighting force for peace on earth. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on earth. The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking. Mr. Chair, the United States is committed to combating violent extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of terrorism. The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and technological capability that will aid not only in combating and defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly. But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or norms of morality and decency. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 helps provide the Department of Defense with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources that promote the security of the American people and allied nation states. Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on us all. According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, affecting over twenty thousand women and girls. Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of providing technical assistance through our military might, as this enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the United States. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making available American technical military expertise to military in other countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their country and to keep those terrorists out of our country. Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of terrorists. These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the diplomatic corps and the Armed Services. This is why the technical assistance offered by our military personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local forces to combat terrorism. Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and cannot be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our national security and the security of the world. Mr. Chair, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of our highest national priorities. Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe serves our national interest. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation safe. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2017 (H.R. 5293). My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's research and development by $10 million. These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United States military. The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; in this instance, it is a triple negative. But I raise an article: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer and the Military.'' Breast cancer can affect both men and women. The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. Let me say that sentence again. Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011. And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows. The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add my appreciation to the military. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25, however, will allow for the additional research. That research is particularly needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership. Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer. Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story. Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on military breast cancer issues. Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer. So, I am asking that we do the right thing. We are on the right track, we're on the right road. But with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live longer, healthier lives. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25. Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the En Bloc Amendment also includes Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 that was made in order under the Rule. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 million. These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear. For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday. But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back. PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes. People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human, who live their experiences. Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 will help ensure that ``no soldier is left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country. I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for including Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 in the En Bloc Amendment and urge my colleagues to support the En Bloc Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, in these difficult times, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member, Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur of the subcommittee, for shepherding this legislation to the floor, and for their efforts, and the commitment that we all have to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come. My amendment increases funding for the DOE departmental administration by $1 million, which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice program activities. The Environmental Justice program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities, as well as the environment at large. Twenty years ago, this particular program was established directing Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. So we have engaged with Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving institutions, Tribal colleges, and other organizations to improve and develop the sustainability through developing young people and faculty to work on these important issues. The crisis in Flint, Michigan, teaches us how important it is that minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environmental threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika virus. I particularly remember convening a Zika task force in Houston to ensure that areas in my community, because of the sitting water and a lot of heat, did not breed these mosquitos to create a devastating condition in some of our communities. This Environmental Justice program is extremely important, involving community education and advisory projects, community capacity building through technology, the Community Leaders Institute, but, more importantly, it works on important research. Mr. Chair, might I find out how much time I have remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to make note of the fact that in some of the universities that participate in this program, the chairs-- meaning the faculty chairs--are a team of world-class scholars, researchers, and educators from 14 Historically Black Colleges and Universities, one Hispanic-serving institution, who advance research, enhance academics, promote partnerships, and effect outreach in the environmental sciences. Finally, the Minority Serving Institutions Program that includes a wide array of institutions provides funding to minority-serving institutions to advance scientific research, student internships, faculty fellowships, and curriculum development. Mr. Chair, the more we can invest in science and research, helping to improve our environment--and let me make it very clear, in urban and rural areas. This is not an urban program only. It is urban and rural areas. The more we can help our communities be clean and environmentally safe and secure, the more we create a better quality of life for all people, no matter what their economic station in life or where they live. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come. My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by $1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice program activities. Mr. Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the environment at large. Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth. Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment. The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes. The crisis in Flint, Michigan teaches us how important it that minority groups and low-income communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to environment threats and hazards like lead in drinking water or nesting areas for mosquitos carrying the Zika virus. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings. Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups. This program provides better access to technology for underserved communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low income populations. The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership positions understand what is happening in their communities and can therefore make informed decisions in regards to their communities. In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also brings important factors including public health and economic development into the discussion for community leaders. The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other minority groups can be assisted as well. Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects. The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find employment. Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest in renewable sources of energy. With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness. We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country. I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment for the Environmental Justice Program. Mr. Chair, I ask my friends and my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain Jackson Lee Amendment No. 22. Before I begin, let me express my appreciation and thanks to my good friends, Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz for their hard and constructive work in shepherding this important legislation to the floor. Chairman Dent and I worked together constructively for many years on the Homeland Security Committee and he has always distinguished himself as one of the most bipartisan members of the House. And Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz has for years been one of the ablest Members of this body; I thank them both for their commitment to the important work of ensuring that our veterans receive the care and support they have earned from a grateful nation. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 22 makes a modest but important improvement to the bill by increasing the amount of funding for the ``Supportive Services for Veterans' Families'' account by $2 million, offset by a reduction of $2.5 million to the $4 billion allocated to the VA's ``Information Technology Systems'' account. Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female) who are homeless on any given night. And perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. The VA's ``Supportive Services for Veterans' Families'' Program helps veterans; and their families, who may have fallen on hard times or hit a rough patch in life and need a little help from the country they selflessly risked their life to defend. Homeless veterans or veterans facing homelessness who have minor age children are in need of special programs that allow for housing that welcomes children. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 22 will enable this vital program to serve more veterans' families in need of help by providing a bit more funding for grants to private non-profit organizations and consumer cooperatives that provide supportive services to very low-income veteran families living in or transitioning to permanent housing. The SSVF Program ensures that eligible veteran families receive the outreach, case management, and assistance in obtaining VA and other benefits. These services may include health care, daily living, legal services, fiduciary and payee services, personal financial planning, child care, transportation, housing counseling. The SSVF Program enables VA staff and local homeless service providers to work together to effectively address the unique challenges that make it difficult for some veterans and their families to remain stably housed. Many homeless veterans, including in my own state of Texas, lack housing because they lost their job or could no longer afford rent; many suffer from an untreated mental illness that keeps them from working. Every day the SSVF program makes a real difference in the lives of real people. Veterans like the Air Force veteran who, hoping to utilize the skills he learned in the service, instead bounced from job to job after being discharged and found himself sleeping at night on the cold cement under a bridge in Chicago. Through the Thresholds Veterans Project, funded through the SSVF, this hero received steady community service support and eventually was placed in his own studio apartment. He now says, in his own words: ``I have a home. I enjoy bein' inside.'' Veterans like the one in Texas who because he lost his job at a manufacturing plant and was unable to pay the bills, was forced to seek shelter for himself and his family at a homeless shelter. Fortunately, the homeless shelter was a SSVF grantee and was able to assist the veteran obtain employment and his family in securing affordable low-cost housing. There are thousands of similar success stories made possible by the SSVF Program that I could share but all of them share a common theme: they involve veterans who served their country proudly, fell down on their luck, picked themselves back up, and found affordable and sustainable housing for their families because of the assistance and support made possible by the SSVF program. Ensuring that veterans have a place of their own to call home is the very least we can do. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment and commit ourselves to the hard but necessary work of ending veteran homelessness in America. I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 22. ``Heroism Knows no Gender'' Liz (Names and some identifying information have been changed to protect confidentiality) is an Army Veteran and a single mom. After losing her job, she struggled to pay the rent and provide for her daughter. Liz's landlord said she had always been an excellent tenant but his patience was wearing thin as her rent arrears continued to increase. Disheartened with a fruitless job search and unsure of where else to turn, Liz came to the Veterans Outreach Center (VOC). She was immediately connected with a Case Manager, an Employment Specialist, an Accredited State Veterans Benefits Counselor, and the SSVF team. In order to avoid the immediate crisis of homelessness, the Services To Enable Positive Solutions (S.T.E.P.S) program at the VOC paid Liz's rent arrears, which had escalated to an amount that was insurmountable. Within a few short days of connecting with the team at VOC, Liz had a job interview that resulted in full-time, meaningful employment. In less than a week, she had a benefits review with an on-site counselor from the New York State Division of Veterans Affairs during which she applied for an increase in disability compensation. The payment of Liz's back rent allowed her and her daughter to keep a roof over their head. With a roof over their heads and their living situation stabilized, Liz was able to focus on her employment and securing her benefits, which are both components of an Individual Development Plan (IDP) that will help Liz sustain permanent housing in the future. The VOC was able to stabilize Liz and her daughter while concurrently providing the supportive services necessary for her to maintain permanent housing. The temporary financial assistance was delivered to the landlord in a timely, efficient manner with the help of a S.T.E.P.S collaborative partner. Through coordinated case management, the aforementioned supportive services were provided quickly and effectively. The longterm result of this effort is yet to be determined, but at the 90-day benchmark, Liz has retained both her job and her home. She has realized this goal independently, without requesting any additional financial assistance. Consequently, the VOC was able to better the lives of a mom (a Veteran) and her child immeasurably through SSVF funding. ``Your Unselfish Helping Hand Gave Us Hope'' Mariano Salas and his family were the first clients to participate in Community Psychiatric Clinic's (CPC) SSVF program. Both Mariano and his wife had lost their jobs and they and their young daughter were facing homelessness. The SSVF program secured their housing and helped stabilize their lives. Here is Mariano's story in his own words: ``I was on the brink of giving up completely. But truthfully one thing I can say, no words express enough our sincerest gratitude to you in assisting my family and I during a very difficult hardship. Desperation, fear and depression were daily emotions upon my family. But with your unselfish helping hand, you gave us hope, peace, and great big smiles on our faces. Your untiring assistance has given us tremendous hope for a better future. SSVF gave us a boost as we are working so hard to get decent paying jobs to support our family and put food on our table. Today, instead of focusing all our energies on fear of being homeless, we are focusing our energy on securing a stable job and to become self-sufficient. My wife is working now and I have interviews lined up so we can support ourselves and manage our daily living expenses. I am privileged and honored to have been served by SSVF. Thank you SSVF and GOD BLESS YOU