Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from my district which I might say is under water with, again, another torrential rain that has caused so many Houstonians and those in the surrounding areas to suffer. We did this with Tropical Storm Allison last year in May 2015, and now again in 2016. You see the depth of devastation by the families that I visited at M.O. Campbell and in apartment complexes. First, let me thank the mayor and county government officials who are working so hard. We need to move as quickly as possible for the Presidential declaration of natural disaster. I know it is a process, and I accept that. But we also have to have a way of investing in the infrastructure of overcoming the terrible aspect of places where water comes with no place to go. We need a national infrastructure effort and one that involves the State of Texas and Houston, Harris County, as well because we lost eight lives. Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker, as I indicate to the Texas Department of Transportation that receives Federal funds, we must put flashing lights and signals where there are underpasses where people have died. We have to save lives. I will continue to fight for housing and for the Federal declaration and for FEMA. People are suffering, and we are going to work with them and give them hope.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from New Jersey, who has led these Special Orders for communicating to the American people, and the gentlewoman from Chicago, Illinois, who has a history and record of reform. I thank the Congresswoman for her very well-stated challenge in a message and effort. Let me also thank those hundreds who have seen the inside of a Washington, D.C., jail. They have done so in the name of those who cannot speak for themselves--the millions of Americans who sit languishing because decisions are made against them and not for them. Unfortunately, big money, inertia, and the Congress not doing its job has taken the dominant place in American history. Hundreds of Democracy Spring protestors were arrested on Capitol Hill. We heard them repeatedly over the last week. Having had the experience of standing before the Sudanese embassy, standing in a fight for immigration reform myself, as well participating by way of fight and registering people to vote in the deep South in the aftermath of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, I think that protest and petition is a right of the American people--peaceful protest and petition--and I want to applaud those who sacrificed or stood their ground protesting the inertia of this Congress and the help that is needed by millions of Americans. Democracy Spring should be an agenda that all of us can support. It is, in fact, one that speaks to the question of how we are going to treat the least of those and how we are going to do what is right for the American people. There is no doubt, I think, if you were to ask one of our leading fighters in one of the States with the most draconian voter right laws, Reverend William Barber, who will be on the Hill tomorrow, he will know firsthand what voter suppression is all about. Clearly, it is an indictment of the undermining of the Bill of Rights, due process under the Fifth Amendment, and equal protection under the law. There are examples of voter ID laws where thousands are barred from voting. Maybe mistakenly the States did not realize that they did not have the offices, like Texas in over 80 counties, where individuals were supposed to get their voter ID; or in Alabama, where the Governor closed offices where people were to get their voter ID; or in other States, of course, where other reasons have been put forth--the stopping of early vote or the lessening of early vote by North Carolina, and, of course, the voter ID law. After section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was eviscerated, destroyed, in the Shelby case by the United States Supreme Court, despite having the right to have a disagreement with me--they are the Supreme Court-- they were absolutely wrong. As Justice Ginsburg said: For you would not stop using polio vaccine because you have not seen polio in the United States in any large way for a very long time. That is what we stand here on the floor today to talk about. That there is a need for a reckoning in this country that those who are part of Democracy Spring are standing up for. That is to ensure the restoration of the Voting Rights Act that is fair. Mr. Speaker, I believe the Voting Rights Act protects all of our rights to vote, irrespective of color. It does not respect color. It only indicates that if you have been barred from voting unfairly, then we have the right--the Federal Government, the Department of Justice-- to review that. Lo and behold, section 5 saved money, millions of dollars, in fact. My own State has used millions of dollars, millions of tax dollars, to pursue and fight the Voting Rights Act, when in actuality the Voting Rights Act saves money. If a jurisdiction like, for example, Pasadena, Texas, which redid their city council structure that eliminated Hispanics from being able to even win in that city--if they had been able to have their particular process reviewed and found that it is in violation of the Voting Rights Act and unconstitutional to one vote, one person, then they may not have foolishly constructed that scheme and done one that maybe all parties could work together on. I believe in that. I have done some wonderful things with bipartisan friends, Republicans and Democrats, working on important issues. Criminal justice happens to be one of them. But that did not happen. So now section 2 becomes the arm of the way of trying to solve these problems, and, of course, in doing so, we have lost our way. Let me say that I was here when President Bush signed into law the 1965 reauthorization, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, worked on it extensively and submitted amendments. Happily, it was voted for with a large margin by a bipartisan Congress 98-0 in the United States Senate, and a big celebration in the White House celebrating the signing of the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act with section 5 after 15,000 pages of testimony. Why can't we do that? The American people deserve that kind of response. Democracy Spring, you are right, let us reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That draws me as well to the issue of the Supreme Court Justice and to recognize that constitutionally we are in a no man's land. No man's land is that we have taken the Constitution and, unfortunately, we burned it. The Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent, and it has a responsibility to address the question of the missing Supreme Court Justice. Justice Scalia was grounded in conservatism. All of us respected that. We disagreed on many occasions, but Justice Scalia wrote opinions that everybody agreed with. When it was a majority court, when there were others who had previously disagreed on other matters, they agreed. That is the way the Supreme Court works, but if you block from even a consideration or a meeting or a hearing, then you are literally tearing up the Constitution, ripping it up, and burning it up. Democracy Spring were willing to go to jail because they believe that is wrong, and I join them and stand with them in their protests and their petition. Now, let me step away for just a moment--my colleague and I will get back--but I must say that I am, again, mourning the loss of those in my district who lost their lives through this terrible storm over these last couple of days. We expect rain to continue. I wanted to just make sure that, as I indicated yesterday when I was in my district, we are praying for their families. As Members of the United States Congress, I am hoping that we will find a way to work with places like New Orleans and Houston, Texas, who are 50 feet below sea level, that we are not just getting a hurricane. People understand hurricanes, they understand tornados, and they understand earthquakes. They don't understand just plain rain that comes up to 20 inches or more and you are literally under water, as we were in the spring of 2015 and now we are again. Homes destroyed of the most vulnerable of my constituents, those who are most impoverished. I cite this because I am in the midst of discussing that we should be doing our job. One of those issues is to look at the cost and the relationship to lives lost, to doing an infrastructure system, a retention system, and other systems that have been represented as being helpful, trying to work with various constituencies so they don't have to go through that again. Dying in one's car in an underpass, dying in one's car, can't get out, we had at least four people. We are up to eight. As I said, no one would understand it. It is not a flaring hurricane: Oh, you had a terrible hurricane, we understand it. Tornado. Oh, you had an earthquake, like the tragedy in Ecuador and Japan. We offer our sympathy to them. They don't understand just rain that causes loss of life--truck drivers, a young mother, a mechanical engineer. What are the horrors of dying in your car, drowning, and you are thinking someone is coming? You are using your cell phone, you think you see lights, and no one is showing up. I am burdened by this. I wanted to acknowledge them and offer my sympathy, and hope that tomorrow I will again come to the floor for a moment of silence. Let me step back to this because it ties in that we have to do our job here in Congress. All of us in our districts have had instances where the Congress' failure or the Federal Government's failure probably has impacted in some way some terrible loss of life. As I continue, we need a Supreme Court Justice, we need the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and, as I just indicated, we need an infrastructure bill. We passed one, but we need one that gets into the weeds of these questions dealing with flooding and the loss of life and the loss of property that we have. Finally, let me say this since I was here during this, and I use the Constitution in a way that, I think, is very, very important. I had a bill that I introduced that said a corporation is not a person. Citizens United is premised on that fact. The decision came down from the United States Supreme Court 5 years ago. That decision was the opening of the door of the dominance of big money over politics, and politics and policy has grown, seemingly without restraint and with dire consequences for representative self- government. ``A functioning democracy requires a government responsive to the people--`` we call ourselves the ``people's House'' ``--considered as political equals, where we each have a say in the public policy decisions that affect our lives. It is profoundly antidemocratic for anyone to be able to purchase political power and when a small elite makes up a donor class that is able to shape our government and our public policy.'' I offer that as an article written by Liz Kennedy on January 15, 2015: ``Top Five Ways Citizens United Harms Democracy and Top Five Ways We're Fighting to Take Democracy Back.'' She goes on to talk about how big money allows the wealthy elite few to overpower other voices. That sounds very familiar in the fight against gun violence and in the inability to get any gun legislation passed whether it has to do with gun storage bills that I have, whether it has to do with protecting our children, whether it has to do with background checks or with immunity that has been given to gun manufacturers and keeping away people like the Sandy Hook families or, maybe, families out of Chicago, where my colleague has been working so hard, Congresswoman Kelly. ``Secret political spending exploded after Citizens United because the disclosure requirements relied on by the Court do not yet exist.'' No. 3: ``The purported `independence' of outside spending is often a farce, allowing for evasion of contribution limits and disclosure requirements.'' She goes on to cite that big money in politics distorts representation and makes one group bigger than the other group. Then No. 5: ``The Supreme Court's decisions have distorted the Constitution by preventing commonsense rules to protect representative self-government.'' Might I say that that deals with the gun legislation as well. I think I will close with the simple words that we must do our jobs. We need to do our jobs. One of the reasons that we are in Court on the DACA and DAPA is that Congress did not do its job, and the President has the constitutional authority that says to take care, which means that that President, whoever he is, does have prosecutorial authority and discretion on how laws should be enforced, i.e., the immigration laws. The President is absolutely right. I do not know how the Supreme Court is going to rule. I would ask that they be very attentive to doing this in a constitutional manner, which means they have the ability to look at the Take Care Clause. That may not work, but they have the ability to look at standing; and I would make the argument that none of the States have been injured, because, as for all of the things that they are arguing about--driver's licenses and otherwise-- they don't have to do anything. The President is saying that these individuals will not be deported because they are not dangerous. He is not saying that States need to provide them with benefits, and they should not, by interpretation, suggest that he is dictating to them unfunded mandates of items that he has not asked. That is not in his executive order. It does not say what benefits they are supposed to get. In essence, in the President's doing his work, unfortunately, he is now being penalized for helping and following the Constitution. We have a Presidential campaign going on, and the one thing that I can be proud of is that the candidates who are now running in the Democratic primary have made it very clear of their opposition to big money in politics, of their opposition to Citizens United, and of their willingness to fight against it. In particular, I want to quote from the Boston Globe on then- Secretary Clinton: ``She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall Street regulation.'' She stayed away from it. She is not immersed in big money, which is a plus for all of us. She understands the people's voice must be heard and realizes that we must do something with Citizens United. I have joined in cosponsoring a constitutional amendment to change it, but in whatever way that we can move forward to change it, the voices of the people must speak. Public finance is a reputable and reasonable way to run Presidential campaigns and to run all of our campaigns, but until it is done, it is important for us to listen to the voices of the people and to make sure that, however big money comes in, it does not carry this House--this body and the other body--on its back, marching towards legislation that will not help the American people. Democracy Spring was a movement of quality and dignity, and I am here today to thank them for their willingness to peacefully petition and protest. Over the years and decades, America has seen those protests peacefully leading to, as Dr. King might say, a promised land in which all of us can enjoy the benefits of what America truly stands for.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 18, I missed Roll Call Votes 153 and 154 due to flight delays in traveling to Washington, D.C. associated with my need to monitor the emergency response to flash flooding in my congressional district. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call 153, I would have voted AYE (H.R. 4570--100 Years of Women in Congress Act (Representative Meng-- Agriculture)) On Roll Call 154, I would have voted AYE (S. 719--To rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, Montana, the Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center (Senator Tester--Armed Services))

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to eight extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Remmington Belford from Texas Southern University; Bianca Remmie from the University of Texas at Austin; Madelyn Wilson from the University of Houston; Promise Ukandu from Texas Tech University; Gabriela Irizarry from the George Washington University; Itzayana Lopez from the University of Houston-Downtown; Taylor Rainey from Howard University; and Karis Johnson, Esq. from St. Mary's Law School. Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in strong support of S. 1638, the ``Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act.'' I support this bipartisan legislation because it would move DHS forward in accomplishing the important objective of establishing a home for the Department's many components and agencies. Eleven days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge was appointed as the first Director of the Office of Homeland Security in the White House. In November 2002, I was proud to join my colleagues in voting to create a Department of Homeland Security. On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security official became a Cabinet-level department charged with the responsibility of unifying national homeland security efforts. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created through the integration of all or part of 22 different Federal departments and agencies into a unified, integrated Department. S. 1638, directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA), to submit information on the implementation of the enhanced plan for the DHS headquarters consolidation project within the National Capital Region, approved by the Office of Management and Budget and included in the budget of the President for FY2016, that includes: a proposed occupancy plan with specific information about which DHS- wide operations, component operations, and support offices will be located at the site, the aggregate number of full time equivalent employees projected to occupy the site, the seat-to-staff ratio at the site, and schedule estimates for migrating operations to the site; a comprehensive assessment of the difference between the current real property and facilities needed by DHS in the Region to carry out its mission and its future needs; an analysis of the difference between the current and needed capital assets and facilities of DHS; a current plan for construction of the headquarters consolidation at the St. Elizabeths campus that includes the estimated costs and schedule for the current plan and any estimated cost savings associated with reducing the scope of the project and increasing the use of existing capacity developed under the project; An important goal of S. 1638, is an evaluation of the current plan to determine the leased portfolio of DHS throughout the Region that includes an end-state vision that identifies which DHS-wide operations, component operations, and support offices do not migrate to the St. Elizabeths campus and continue to operate at a property in the leased portfolio. The bill will result in real numbers regarding the total compliment of full-time equivalent employees who are expected to operate at each property, component, or office for each year until the consolidation project is completed. S. 1638, identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project, including a comparison of the long-term cost that would result from leasing to the cost of consolidating functions on government-owned space and the identification of any cost impacts in terms of premiums for short-term lease extensions or holdovers due to the uncertainty of funding for, or delays in, completing construction required for the consolidation. Mr. Speaker, since DHS initiated its headquarters consolidation in 2006, it has progressed despite changes in senior leadership and waning funding support from Congress. As a result, in April 2015, DHS and GSA announced that the construction sequence and timetable for the headquarters consolidation would be adjusted to reflect reduced funding by Congress. DHS must now re-compete up to 69 percent of its commercial leases in the National Capital Region as they are scheduled to expire between 2016 and 2020. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in strong support of the suspension bill, S. 1638, the ``Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4570, the ``100 Years of Women in Congress Act,'' which renames the existing Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program, or WAMS program, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as the ``Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program.'' I commend Congresswoman Meng and Congressman Zinke for introducing this bipartisan legislation which: Highlights the importance and contributions of women Members in Congress; Recognizes the importance of the Suffragette Movement in achieving opportunities for women; Emphasizes the imperative of promoting education for women in STEM; and Affirms our nation's commitment to expanding opportunities for rural women in my home state of Texas and across the country. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first woman being elected to Congress, Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana. This bill is a fitting way to honor Representative Rankin's legacy, and to celebrate the many contributions of the female lawmakers who have succeeded her in this institution. Jeannette Rankin was a trailblazer who broke barriers throughout her lifetime and whose example continues to inspire women the world over. She graduated from the University of Montana with a biology degree in 1902. She later became active in the women's suffrage movement, organizing the New York Women's Suffrage Party and working for the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In 1916, Representative Rankin became the first woman elected to Congress, even before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed the right to vote to women. For all of her contributions to women's rights, to political activism, and to this institution, it is only fitting to pay tribute to her achievements. The USDA WAMS program was created specifically to encourage women and minorities from rural areas to participate in research and projects in the sciences. Women and minorities have been and continue to be underrepresented in STEM fields. Although women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. labor force, they comprise only 36 percent of the computing workforce, 24 percent of the engineering workforce, and 18 percent of the advanced manufacturing workforce. Indeed, minority representation in STEM fields is even lower, with African-American and Latino workers comprising 29 percent of the general workforce, but only 15 percent of the computing workforce, 12 percent of the engineering workforce, and 6 percent of the advanced manufacturing workforce. The WAMS program is one way that we can address these glaring disparities. WAMS grants are awarded to universities and institutions of higher learning to distribute to eligible applicants, and they prioritize projects and programs of particular relevance to USDA. Recipient institutions have used WAMS grants for worthy endeavors, such as: establishing a WAMS fellowship program for women and minority high school students in rural areas; providing mentorship and hands-on, service-based learning to high school students and undergraduates in particular STEM fields; and offering mentoring services to current undergraduates to help them successfully complete STEM-based degrees. Because Representative Rankin is a graduate of the sciences from a rural area, renaming the WAMS program as the Jeannette Rankin Women and Minorities in STEM Fields Program is the perfect way to honor her legacy as a woman of the sciences and the first woman elected to Congress, and to encourage the next generation of women and minorities from rural areas to take up STEM fields. I join my colleagues in support of this important measure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my colleagues for their eloquence but, more importantly, for the Congressional Black Caucus in its taking up the mantle of the moral compass of justice. One would argue that justice is tied to our committee, the Judiciary Committee; but as I look at this Congress and as I look at a very small document called the Constitution, one can anchor the responsibilities of this body--of both the House and the Senate--Mr. Jeffries, in the Bill of Rights. I would like to just, very briefly, take us on a journey that indicates that our moral compass is broken because a budget that was supposed to be passed on April 15, by midnight, was not. To the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, let me thank her. She will have her own distinctive story, in her eloquence, about the fairness to the territories. I listened, as I came in, to the presentation by the gentlewoman from Ohio, who knows full well that we need a budget to ensure that there is full employment in America. Then I work extensively with my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, and we will not pass or fund prison reform without a budget. I rise today, however, to weave in and out of my comments about the moral compass that is broken to indicate that my district--the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas, and Harris County--is under a terrible emergency disaster. We are underwater. We are again facing an enormous rainfall that has been listed as historic and, possibly, as catastrophic. Let me acknowledge my mayor, Mayor Turner, and county judge, Judge Emmett, for the work that has been done so far; and let me indicate two pastors with whom I have just gotten off the phone, Bishop Dixon and Bishop Bady, who are watching hungry people come to a site, looking for food. As I was speaking to the emergency leadership, they are indicating they were evacuating babies from apartments and people were being displaced. So what does that have to do with where we are today and no budget? Well, we know that the President introduced his budget a few months ago. Because of his responsibility, we know that Homeland Security was provided funding and FEMA was provided funding to deal with emergency declarations of a disaster. My district now needs it more than they have ever needed it. They need it in terms of providing for those immediate needs of vulnerable people without the resources to have stocked food, medical care, clothing, and also those who may be off work now because of the disaster. So we don't have a budget. We are not moving along to ensure that FEMA, which has seen a lot of disasters over the last 2 years, has the necessary funding to do their job. That is a broken moral compass. It also reflects the Constitution because we are owed an equal treatment under the law and due process under the Fifth Amendment. There is no due process when I hear that one area is under water and we are not able to get help. Let me also say that, as I watch a broken moral system, I also look at the predicament that we will be in with the Zika virus. Congressman Jeffries has mentioned the opioid crisis, and we cannot forget the water crisis in Flint, but there is also the water crisis across the Nation. There is hard work that is being done by the Members in Michigan and Mr. Kildee. They need a budget to be able to fund the crisis or to help repair the crisis, restorative dollars, that a budget does to give a roadmap to the appropriators. I also know that we are facing another potential epidemic, if you will, the Zika virus that is taking control of places like Puerto Rico and other places in the Caribbean, places that we have not yet fully documented. I can assure you that the Gulf Coast States of Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are in the eye of the storm. The President a couple of months ago dutifully and responsibly introduced to this Congress a request of $1.9 billion--no, I didn't say trillions. I didn't say 5 billion. I said 1.9 billion--so that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can do their job. Mr. Jeffries, colleagues, if we are not doing our job, we need those who have the distinctive responsibility for issues of health and epidemics in this country to be able to do their job. We have now been told by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that it is not just in the prestages of pregnancy that the Zika virus can have a severe impact. It is throughout the pregnancy. We also know that they have just determined that it will be severe brain damage that will come about. So how irresponsible can it be to not put forward the emergency supplemental of $1.9 billion? I have sent letters to Secretary Burwell. I have sent letters to, obviously, the President of the United States in supporting his efforts. I have sent letters to our leader, Nancy Pelosi, who has been a champion on these issues of Zika funding. And I have sent a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan. Might I speak to the Speaker and certainly ask that a half-baked, if I might say, contribution to fighting the Zika virus is not going to work because any taking of monies from other places is going to damage the funding of malaria, tuberculosis, and a universal flu vaccine. Yes, it is going to undermine our needed and continued effort of fighting Ebola. Let me finish by simply saying this: Along with the idea of the Zika virus and other crises, when we hear headlines like this that indicate Americans still don't see a vibrant labor market, then you know what else is needed under this budget? We need a budget to be able to fully fund the retraining of Americans. I have introduced legislation that will train middle-age or middle- management workers and others and give them a stipend while they are being retrained for the 21st century jobs. We cannot do that with a budget not passed and an assessment not being made on how we would fund job training. Lastly, the Supreme Court heard a case today dealing with the issues of executive orders and immigration. I would argue that Texas and the other States do not have standing because they are not required to give driver's licenses or anything else, as the President provides a prioritization of who should be deported. I will say to you that, over the years, we have said over and over again to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which could have been a key element of a budget revenue to be able to help this country move along. Without a budget and an intelligent discussion about what comprehensive immigration reform would do as an added revenue for this country, here we are mumbling along while Houston remains under water, needing resources from FEMA, while the Zika virus is in distress with no monies and while a number of other important issues are not addressed. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Jeffries for allowing me to spend a moment to at least tie in the Bill of Rights that deal with the very core values of this country. We have let down that basic document that guarantees equal protection, guarantees a certain freedom to be protected, guarantees that Americans have due process, if you will, and certainly guarantees the freedom of expression so that Americans can speak and be heard. They are speaking, but they are not being heard. What a shame that this budget has not been passed. I am grateful to the Congressional Black Caucus. Let me acknowledge the chairman and say: Let us keep our fight going because we have reason to provide that kind of comfort to the American people. Madam Speaker, Last week, House Republicans blew past the statutory deadline for Congress to enact a budget--reflecting apparently the belief of the Leadership that their already severe budget proposal was not radical enough to pass through a Republican Majority. The Do-Nothing Republican Congress is back. Instead of coming together with Democrats to pass a budget resolution that will create jobs and grow the paychecks of hard-working American families, Republicans have decided not to pass a budget at all. The Republican-led Budget Committee, at the direction of the House GOP Leadership, put forward the most devastating `Road to Ruin' budget in history, but the Republican majority has rejected the plan as insufficiently severe. Here's what was too weak to satisfy the radical forces that have seized control of the Republican Party; a budget that would: 1. End the Medicare guarantee for seniors; 2. Make $6.5 trillion in cuts--the sharpest cuts ever proposed by the House Budget Committee; 3. Devastate investments in good-paying jobs, education, and American infrastructure; 4. Repeal the Affordable Care Act and dismantle the affordable health care of 20 million Americans. Republicans have failed to keep their promise to pass a budget but their goal is still clear: to take us back to the radical trickle-down agenda that shattered our economy and hollowed out the wages of middle- class Americans. At the same time, House Republicans have done nothing to help the thousands of Americans struggling to protect their families from the three public health emergencies of the Zika virus, opioid addiction and the Flint Water Crisis: 1. As the House Democratic Leadership wrote to Speaker Ryan last month, these public health crises require swift and decisive Congressional action. 2. Also last week, Democrats on the Appropriations Committee wrote to Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), requesting an immediate hearing on the Administration's $1.9 billion emergency supplemental request for Zika, pointing out that ``The Zika virus is a true public health emergency that has the potential to affect millions of Americans this summer, including more than two million pregnant women.'' 3. But House Republicans have responded with nothing but inaction and indifference. Instead of taking action to pass a budget or address urgent public health crises, House Republicans are now wasting a full week grandstanding on the IRS. That's just the kind of hollow, meaningless posturing the American people have come to expect from the Do-Nothing Republican Congress. As NPR notes: Under Republican leadership, the 114th Congress has been ``short on meaty legislation and short on weeks in session . . . But there seems to be plenty of time to think about other things. Last month, one House member introduced a measure that would nationally recognized magic as an art form.'' Hard-working families deserve a Congress that invests in their future, protects safety, and creates a level-playing field for them and their children to succeed. Democrats will continue to press for a budget that creates jobs and raises the paychecks of the American people, while reducing the deficit in a balanced and responsible way. Today, the Supreme -Court heard oral arguments in its review of the President's Immigration Executive Actions, which, as a result of congressional Republicans' inaction, address our Nation's broken immigration system and set important priorities in enforcing our immigration laws. The President's executive actions fall well within both the clear legal authority provided by Congress and the Constitution, and the well-established precedents of immigration actions by every Democrat and Republican President for the last 50 years. 1. Six Republican presidents have used the same clear authority to make our immigration enforcement priorities better fit our values as a people and our needs as a nation; 2. Past presidents have routinely acted in the face of Congressional inaction; 3. Numerous noted legal scholars have found that the President's actions are well within his legal authority. The Immigration Executive Actions follow the same constitutional and legal precedent used by every Administration--Republican and Democratic--since President Eisenhower. Just as Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did before him, President Obama took executive action to make our immigration system better meet the needs of our country and better reflect our values as Americans. As former Republican Senator Richard Lugar wrote in the New York Times: ``. . . whether or not you like President Obama's actions, he has operated under longstanding provisions of law that give the executive branch discretion in enforcement. This presidential prerogative has been recognized explicitly by the Supreme Court.'' Democrats stand for restoring sense to our utterly broken immigration system--so that we stop tearing apart families and separating parents from their children. Last month, House and Senate Democrats filed our own amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the President's Immigration Executive Actions. We are confident that the Supreme Court will affirm these vital immigration reforms and allow the President's steps to start fixing our immigration system to move forward. While Republicans stand with Donald Trump's incendiary anti-immigrant agenda, Democrats will continue to champion the comprehensive immigration reform our nation needs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just finish my point by saying that the reason why the budget is not here is because they could not muster the votes of the majority and they could not muster them even though their budget ended Medicare, it took $6.5 trillion in cuts from the overall budget, it devastated good-paying jobs, education, American infrastructure, and, again, it repealed the Affordable Care Act and dismantled the Affordable Care Act for 20 million people. Even with those poison pills to draw in support for some kind of budget that would fit within the law, their responsibility or the responsibility of Congress--they are in the majority--they could not pass or get on the floor a budget. Clearly, the moral compass is broken. More importantly, it denies equal protection under the law, in my interpretation, of millions of Americans depending on this Congress doing its job.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 37th Anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) which was signed thirty-seven years ago on April 10, 1979. Since its enactment, the TRA has undergirded U.S.-Taiwan relations-- resulting in a mutually beneficial relationship that encourages strong security, cultural, and economic ties. Taiwan's story is an example to the world of the potential of a country. Taiwan and the United States share many values including: a commitment to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Indeed, I am particularly proud that as a Member of the U.S. Congress, my colleagues and I can serve an important role in strengthening bilateral relations by engaging our counterparts in Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, Taiwan has grown to become America's ninth-largest overall trading partner and our seventh-largest destination for agricultural exports. After Taiwan became part of the U.S. Visa Wavier Program in November 2012, travel from Taiwan to the United States increased by more than 50 percent. Taiwan is set to join the U.S. Global Entry Program--a manifestation of its commitment to continuous cooperation between our two countries. Mr. Speaker, I commend the speech delivered by Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou on March 30, 2016 at AmCham Hsie Nian Fan celebration, in which he emphasized the strong and abiding friendship between Taiwan and the United States, which was integral to Taiwan's transformation into the free, prosperous, and just society it is today. President Ma also mentioned that through the effort to seek peace, Taiwan has become a peacemaker and provider of humanitarian aid. President Ma also spoke of Taiwan's future through the lens of three key issues: cross-strait relations, energy, and economic development. During this time, as we commemorate the 37th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act, I encourage my colleagues to continue to join me in support of and in promotion of our bilateral relations with Taiwan. I also want to congratulate Taiwan on the January 16, 2016 election of the first female President to be elected--Dr. Tsai Ing-wen. Mr. Speaker, the inauguration of President Dr. Tsai Ing-wen is the third peaceful transition of power in Taiwan's democratic history. The United States congratulates the people and government of Taiwan on the election of President Tsai Ing-wen and Taiwan's enduring and strong commitment to nurturing democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the importance of the National Domestic Violence Hotline, and the critical work they do to save lives and provide support for victims of domestic violence. For nearly 20 years, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has been operating as a 24/7 lifeline for victims and survivors of domestic violence nationwide. In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act authorized the creation of the National Domestic Violence Hotline. On August 17, 1995 the Texas Council on Family Violence received a $1 million federal grant that established The Hotline. On February 21, 1996 the Hotline took its first call. The Hotline's approximately 130 dedicated advocates receive almost 35,000 monthly contacts and have managed this high contact volume while ensuring quality services. Marketed to millions through public outreach, the Hotline has assembled a comprehensive database with thousands of referral resources, influenced policies and practices in victim services. The Hotline helps survivors see options for next steps and connects them to immediate sources of practical help. In 2007, the Hotline partnered with Liz Claiborne Inc. to launch the ``loveisrespect'' which is a program aimed to mobilize parents, educators, peers, and victims to raise awareness about healthy dating behaviors and unhealthy and abuse patterns in relationships. In addition to the availability of 24/7 phone, chat, and SMS text helplines designed to meet the specific needs of young adults, ``loveisrespect'' works to grow the next generation of anti-violence advocates. Nationwide nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning. In 2014, in Texas alone 132 women were killed as a result of domestic violence, along with 185,817 reports of family violence incidents, while there were 185,373 hotline calls answered. As the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I know the importance of protecting victims of crime and providing the vital support they need. Mr. Speaker, I stand here as Mother, Wife, and Member of Congress to acknowledge the important work of those who staff the National Domestic Violence Hotline, they provide a comfort to those Americans who are in abusive relationships.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance of Equal Pay Day. As a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues Task Force on Women of Color, I have always believed that equal pay should be a universal right for all citizens regardless of gender. Equal Pay Day is a time to reflect and renew our shared dedication and responsibility to eliminate pay inequalities in the workforce. Equal Pay Day is the date in the current year that represents the extra days a typical woman working full-time would have to work just to make the same as a typical man did in the previous year. Women in America still earn an average of 78 cents to a man's dollar, even after having attained the same level of experience and education. For women of color: 60 cents on the dollar for the typical Black woman. 55 cents on the dollar for the typical Hispanic woman. The gender pay gap in the United States is among the largest of many industrialized nations. On average there's a yearly pay gap of $11,084. At this rate, the wage gap will not close completely for another 40 years; costing women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. Women make up nearly half of our workforce, therefore this disparity impacts us all. The wage gap not only disadvantages women who worked just as hard to earn less, it also hurts those families supported by women's incomes. Pay discrimination puts greater strain on families to cover costs like child care or health care, and it holds our economy back from achieving its full potential. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a commonsense measure that will bolster the ability of women to fight pay discrimination. This women's Equity measure will: Require that employers seeking to justify unequal pay bear the burden of proving that its actions are job-related and consistent with a business necessity. Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. Put gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination--such as race, disability or age--by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. Require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities. Require the Department of Labor to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender. Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women. This Equal Pay Day, we celebrate the Paycheck Fairness Act. Mr. Speaker, Equal Pay Day restores the American promise, an idea that with hard work, anyone can reach their dreams and know no limits but the scope of their aspirations. I believe in equal pay for equal work, and we need to rededicate ourselves to building a future in which women are paid based on their merits.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I had the privilege of participating with the Union Theological Center, in New York, to speak about our faith and our legislation. It causes me to come to the floor today to act upon that very strong faith in the Good Samaritan, which means that we are, in effect, our brothers' and sisters' keeper. We have a devastating disease in the Zika virus that has now been announced as being more devastating than had been expected as it causes severe brain damage; and my State and Gulf States and other States across America are, in fact, in the target line. In Texas, for example, we recently had a Zika virus hearing, and our infectious disease experts told us that this is a devastating disease. Yes, we can take money from someplace else and borrow from Peter to pay Paul, but I am asking this Congress, in the spirit of the Good Samaritan, to pass the President's emergency supplemental request of $1.9 billion. I will be asking the Secretary of Health and Human Services to come to Texas and sit down with our law enforcement and health professionals in order to make a difference. Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that this is budget day, and we have not passed a budget. We will not pass a Republican budget because it kills education; it doesn't protect Social Security; and it is not in the spirit of a Good Samaritan. Let us do what is right--pass a budget for the American people and provide for those in the line of danger with the Zika virus.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in the dark of night on this very day 2 years ago, young girls at the early ages of 11 to 17 were in nightgowns, preparing for sleep, and were getting ready for the exams that would open the doors of opportunity, as they were told by their Nigerian parents. One daughter had rushed back to the school from a weekend trip because her father said: You shouldn't be home. You must go and take your exam. That night, terrorists came and rounded them up and threatened them and took them into the dark of the Nigerian bush in Borno State, upwards of Abuja. They have now been gone for 2 years, the Chibok girls. I stood alongside Frederica Wilson and Lois Frankel when we went to Nigeria within weeks of their kidnapping. Boko Haram, which is now ISIL, and ISIL, which is now Boko Haram--the most dangerous terrorist group in the world--will come to the shores of America if we are not vigilant to find them and quash them. We must find the Chibok girls. They deserve our constant refrain and study to realize that it is terrorists who took them. We must bring the terrorists down and find the Chibok girls to take them to their families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership, along with Mr. Conyers, and for the introduction of a very important initiative, H.R. 4899. Mr. Speaker, many would think, particularly as we have watched the mediation and arbitration process grow as a newly developed practice amongst lawyers and one that businesses and others have seemed to adopt, that that was, in fact, helping consumers by allowing the concept of arbitration to be able to be utilized, thereby, allegedly, lowering the costs of litigation. In a 2010 survey, 27 percent of employers, covering over 36 million employees--or one-third of the nonunion workforce--reported that they required the forced arbitration of employment disputes. The practice of forced arbitration is widespread and damaging. For example, the ability to obtain key evidence that is necessary to prove one's case is often restricted or eliminated in arbitration proceedings, and it can be nearly impossible to appeal adverse decisions by arbitrators. We know that, in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, there is a right to a trial by jury, a jury of one's peers. Therefore, it is a sacred right. This new practice had been projected as helping the victim: oh, it will be a low-cost procedure; you will get an immediate decision; you won't have the stress of litigation; you might not even have to hire a lawyer. But, as indicated, the ability to obtain key evidence that is necessary to prove one's case is often restricted or eliminated in arbitration proceedings, and it can be nearly impossible to appeal adverse decisions by arbitrators. I was one of the first Members to bring attention to this issue when I prevailed upon the late Chairman Hyde to authorize the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law, when I was the ranking member, to hold a hearing on that matter involving Carl Poston and the NFL Players Association, with Gene Upshaw, then executive director, in the LaVar Arrington case. You may recall the LaVar Arrington case as being of the former Washington Redskins football player who was forced into arbitration in order to resolve a contract dispute. Forced arbitration of State and Federal employment discrimination laws is also harmful to women workers. In 2015, nearly 64,000 discrimination claims were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under title VII, and more than 41 percent of those charges were for sex-based discrimination. Sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment, remains a persistent problem for women in the workplace. Nearly 83 percent of sexual harassment charges that are filed with the EEOC are filed by women. Just imagine that mandatory arbitration of claims under State or Federal family and medical leave laws could have a disproportionate impact on women as well. I am pleased that this legislation was introduced, because it is a legislative initiative to restore rights. The bill is rightly named the Restoring Statutory Rights Act. It is also, I believe, the restoration of constitutional rights. Let me quickly tell you of the case of Stephanie Sutherland, which illustrates the difficulties of this forced arbitration. Stephanie was hired by her company to work as a staff assistant. Her work involved relatively routine, low-level clerical work for which she was paid a fixed salary of $55,000. She routinely worked 45 to 50 hours per week, but because she was classified by her employer as exempt from overtime, she did not receive any additional compensation. By the time Ms. Sutherland was terminated in 2009, she had worked 151 hours of overtime for which she should have been paid $1,867 had the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State labor laws been observed. She filed a class action lawsuit and sought to recover overtime for her work in excess of 40 hours a week and for other current and former nonlicensed staff--one or two staff employees of the firm--who worked overtime. When Ms. Sutherland was hired, she was given an offer letter that also provided, if an employment-related dispute arises between you and the firm, it will be subject to mandatory mediation. That was what the company attempted to do--enforce mandatory mediation. In her lawsuit, she attempted to enforce her rights because the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act had a provision to expressly permit lawsuits for minimum wage. To this end, the lower court was sympathetic to Ms. Sutherland's arguments. However, the United States Court of Appeals reversed, relying on the 2013 Supreme Court case. Therefore, we do have a conflict in the issue of dealing with arbitration that is forced. This is the core of why this legislation is so very important. I believe that, if parties agree to engage in mediation and arbitration, Mr. Speaker, so be it; but if you choose to use the court system that is designed by the Constitution as one of the three branches of government that all Americans should have access to, I will make the argument that you should not be forced into arbitration or mediation. I believe Mr. Johnson--and I look forward to joining him on his legislation--along with Mr. Conyers, is really lifting up the Constitution to ensure that every citizen has access to the courts of this land to help decide their issues of conflict and to choose the forum which they desire to use. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I look forward to working with him on this very crucial constitutional issue. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to discuss the critical importance of an impartial and fair justice system, corporate accountability, consumer and employee protection, as well as the importance of enforcing laws on the books. I would like to thank Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) for his leadership in putting forth this Special Order. The practice of forced arbitration is widespread and damaging. In a 2010 survey, 27 percent of employers--covering over 36 million employees, or one-third of the non-union workforce--reported that they required forced arbitration of employment disputes. Although arbitration can be a valid and effective method of dispute resolution when both parties voluntarily agree to arbitrate, forced arbitration clauses that limit an employee's legal rights in a non- negotiable contract are abusive and erode employees' traditional legal safeguards. For example, the ability to obtain key evidence necessary to prove one's case is often restricted or eliminated in arbitration proceedings, and it can be nearly impossible to appeal adverse decisions by arbitrators. I was one of the first Members to bring attention to this issue when I prevailed upon Chairman Hyde to authorize the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative and Commercial Law to hold a hearing on that matter involving Carl Poston and the NFL Players Association (Gene Uphsaw, Executive Director) in the LeVar Arrington case. You may recall LeVar Arrington as the former Washington Redskins football player who was forced into arbitration in order to resolve a contract dispute. Forced arbitration of state and federal employment discrimination laws is especially harmful to women workers. In 2015, nearly 64,000 discrimination claims were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title VII, and more than 41 percent of those charges were for sex-based discrimination. Sex-based discrimination, including sexual harassment, remains a persistent problem for women in the workplace. Nearly 83 percent of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC are filed by women. In a national survey by ABC News and the Washington Post, one in four women reported experiencing sexual harassment, compared to one in ten men. Mandatory arbitration of claims under state or federal family and medical leave laws could have a disproportionate impact on women as well. Nearly 56 percent of employees who took time away from work to deal with a serious personal or family illness, or to care for a new child under the FMLA in 2012 were women. If my colleagues fail to take necessary action, mandatory arbitration will continue to be a barrier to justice for workers. I am pleased by the action of Mr. Conyers and Mr. Johnson for their leadership on Tuesday, Equal Pay Day, for introducing a very important piece of legislation that will address these inequities, (H.R. 4899) the Restoring Statutory Rights Act, which I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of. The Restoring Statutory Rights Act would ensure that when Congress or the states have established rights and protections for individuals, including protection against wage discrimination, that they are able to enforce these rights in court. This bill amends the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit mandatory pre-dispute, commonly known as ``forced,'' arbitration agreements for claims rising under federal or state statute, the U.S. Constitution, or a state constitution. The bill would further require that a court determines whether an agreement is unconscionable, legally invalid, or otherwise unenforceable as a matter of contract law or public policy. Under current law, parties may resolve statutory claims, including claims rising under anti-discrimination statutes, through forced arbitration instead of the justice system. This important legislation is a critical step in eliminating longstanding and unacceptable discrimination and barriers imposed on women and minority. It should be noted that forced arbitration is a private system controlled by corporations to prevent corporate accountability. Buried in the fine print of countless employment, cell phone, credit card, retirement, and nursing home contracts, forced arbitration eliminates Americans' access to the courts, tipping the scales of justice in favor of corporate wrongdoers. When corporations force arbitration on individuals using nonnegotiable and many times unnoticed contract terms, it becomes an abusive weapon. Forced arbitration means giving up the most fundamental legal protection: the right to equal justice under the law. For decades, we have fought hard for dozens of laws that protect against discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race, disability, and unequal pay for equal work, such as the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act But these laws are meaningless if unenforceable in court. It's time to close the arbitration loophole that gives employers and businesses the right to ignore civil rights and consumer protection laws. Although states have tried to address this problem through their consumer protection laws, the courts have interpreted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to trump state laws leaving consumers very little recourse. Arbitration can be a fair and effective method of dispute resolution when parties voluntarily agree to arbitrate. When the choice of arbitration is post-dispute--and therefore understandable and voluntary--it is a fair process that parties choose willingly. I call upon my colleagues to come together and pass legislation that would reinstate workers' ability to enforce their rights in a court of law and protect the rights of women and minorities. More than 20% of employees are covered by mandatory arbitration clauses. Tens of millions of consumers use consumer financial products or services that are subject to pre-dispute arbitration clauses. Federal court statistics show that 17,977 labor claims and 35,965 civil rights claims were filed in 2012. National Arbitration Forum (NAF) arbitrators ruled in favor of consumers in less than 0.2% of all cases (30 out of 18,075) heard. These 30 victories only occurred in hearings where a consumer brought claims against a business; when companies brought claims against consumers, they were successful in hearings 100% of the time. The employee win rate after arbitration was 21.4%, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials (36.4% in federal court and 43.8% in state court). In cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation ($384,223 for federal court litigation and $595,594 in state court litigation.) A 2015 study of federal court employment discrimination litigation by Theodore Eisenberg found that the employee win rate has dipped in recent years to an average of only 29.7 percent. At the same time, another 2015 study found that the employee win rate in employment arbitration had also dipped in recent years, to an average of only 19.1%; similar dip in employee win rates has occurred in state courts. 58% settlement rate in federal court employment-discrimination litigation. While recent research on mandatory arbitration found a 63% settlement rate across all employment cases in that forum. In court, summary judgment motions were filed in 77% of the court cases, while summary judgment motions were raised in 48% of arbitrations. The win rate was 32% lower in mandatory arbitration than in litigation. Plaintiffs' overall economic outcomes are on average 6.1 times better in federal court than in mandatory arbitration ($143,497 versus $23,548) and 13.9 times better in state court than in mandatory arbitration ($328,008 versus $23,548). 21.1% of employment cases in mandatory arbitration are brought by employees without legal counsel. Damages from arbitration are 16% of the average damages from federal court litigation and a mere 7% of the average damages in state court-- thus lawyers are reluctant to take cases that are subject to mandatory arbitration. Whereas on average plaintiffs' attorneys accepted 15.8% of potential cases involving employees who could go to litigation, they accepted about half as many, 8.1% of the potential cases of employees covered by mandatory arbitration. The first time an employer appeared before an arbitrator, the employee had a 17.9% chance of winning, but after the employer had four cases before the same arbitrator the employee's chance of winning dropped to 15.3%, and after 25 cases before the same arbitrator the employee's chance of winning dropped to only 4.5%. The study results provide strong evidence of a repeat employer effect in which employee win rates and award amounts are significantly lower where the employer is involved in multiple arbitration cases where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration. In the credit card market, larger bank issuers are more likely to include arbitration clauses than smaller bank issuers and credit unions. As a result, while less than 16% of issuers include such clauses in their consumer credit card contracts, just over 50% of credit card loans outstanding are subject to forced arbitration clauses. In the checking account market, which is less concentrated than the credit card market, around 8% of banks, covering 44% of insured deposits, include arbitration clauses in their checking account contracts. 40% of the arbitration filings involved a dispute over the amount of debt a consumer allegedly owed to a company, with no additional affirmative claim by either party. In another 29% of the filings, consumers disputed alleged debts, but also brought affirmative claims against companies. The average disputed debt amount was nearly $16,000. The median was roughly $11,000. Across all six product markets, about eight cases a year involved disputed debts of $1,000 or less. Overall, consumers were represented by counsel in roughly 60% of the cases, though there were some variations by product. Companies almost always had counsel. Of the 1,060 arbitration cases filed in 2010 and 2011, so far as we could determine, arbitrators issued decisions in just under 33%. In approximately 25%, the record reflects that the parties reached a settlement. The remaining cases ended in an unknown manner or were technically pending but dormant as of early 2013.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, and former ranking member of its Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I rise in support of H.R. 3586, the ``Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act.'' Our Nation has thousands of miles of coastlines, lakes, and rivers and hundreds of ports that provide opportunities for legitimate travel, trade, and recreation. There are currently 328 ports of entry to the U.S., including 167 land ports of entry with Canada and Mexico, staffed by approximately 21,000 CBP officers in the U.S. and abroad. There are more people and goods coming through our ports of entry than ever before. Last fiscal year, CBP inspected more than 360 million travelers at our air, land, and sea ports of entry. Since 2009, we have seen growth in both trade and travel. In Fiscal Year 2013, total passenger volume was 6.4% higher and total import value was nearly 40% higher than in Fiscal Year 2011. Houston's George Bush International and the William P. Hobby Airports are vital hubs for domestic and international air travel: 1. Nearly 40 million passengers traveled through Bush International Airport (IAH) and an additional 10 million traveled through William P. Hobby (HOU); 2. More than 650 daily departures occur at IAH; 3. IAH is the 11th busiest airport in the U.S. for total passenger traffic; and 4. IAH has 12 all-cargo airlines that handled more than 419,205 metric tons of cargo in 2012. It was reported in October 2015 that the William P. Hobby Airport has opened a new 280,000 ft complex that includes 5 gates for its international concourse in an effort to re-establish the airport's daily international air service. The addition is expected to support travel service for nearly 7,500 international passengers and 25 departing flights a day. At the same time, these waterways offer opportunities for terrorists and their instruments, drug smugglers, and undocumented persons to enter our country. Protecting the nation's border--land, air, and sea--from illegal entry of people, weapons, drugs, and contraband is vital to our homeland security, as well as economic prosperity. The Border and Maritime Coordination Improvement Act: Creates an office of Biometric Identity Management; Establishes the Border Security Joint Task Forces in the East, West and for investigations; Updates the Maritime Operations Coordination Plan; Establishes an Asset Development for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Air and Marine; Secures the Transportation Worker Identification credential against use by unauthorized aliens; Creates a cost-benefit analysis of co-locating operational entities; Evaluates the Coast Guard Deployable Specialized Forces; Constructs an evaluation of Coast Guard Deployable Specialized Forces; and Establishes a Customs-Trade Partnership against Terrorism Improvement among other important changes. I support this legislation because it will help protect the integrity of our borders and the security of our homeland. H.R. 3586 provides specific responsibilities for the Undersecretary to establish and operate the newly implemented departmental Joint Task Forces and appointing the directors to those joint task forces. Under H.R. 3586, the Joint Task Force--East and Joint Task Force-- West is to execute a strategic plan to secure the land and maritime borders, which will coordinate criminal investigations supporting such task forces. The bill also directs the the DHS to establish additional Joint Task Forces to: 1. coordinate operations along the northern border; 2. prevent and respond to homeland security crises; 3. establish other regionally based operations; and 4. combat cybersecurity. The smuggling of illicit drugs, illegal immigrants, and contraband weapons over the Texas border is a major problem that needs to be addressed. Approximately 1 million passengers and pedestrians cross the Texas border on a daily basis; of these, on average 23 of these persons are wanted for arrest. H.R. 3586 is a positive step in the right direction and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4509. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his astuteness, along with Mr. Walden, for a very important initiative. Having been on the Homeland Security Committee since the tragic terrorist attack against the United States, I have watched the formation of this department and the issues that are important to secure America. I have lived through various processes and various disasters that are not terrorist related to know how important these grants overall are. The grants, in particular, that are dealing with this bill in planning committee are extremely important to add to the planning committee those individuals who are beyond the very able work of our firefighters and police officers. Those are first responders. But it is very important to engage the community, such as schools, medical professions, and beyond. I hope, as this legislation passes, we will also look to having on the planning committee some of the leaders on Homeland Security issues that are in our community. For example, I have an individual by the name of Charles X. White who has led issues on homeland security for a very long time. His activism created an opportunity for there to be a homeland security specialty and discipline at Texas Southern University because the community is involved, involved on issues of evacuation, involved on issues of restoration, involved on issues of making sure funding gets to those necessary entities that may not be known on a global sense and, when I say that, in a countywide, city-wide, or statewide sense. They provide the insight into neighborhoods. I think it is important that, as this bill makes its way, its interpretation will be that we add community leaders who are the kind of persons who are engaged with the day-to-day goings-on of neighborhoods, knowing how important it is for them to be heard during times of a terrorist act or any other disaster to be restored. Again, I am grateful for this legislation and the leadership of Mr. Payne and Mr. Walden. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this legislation. To those who may be engaged all around America with preparedness, it is important, of course, to have every aspect of our community involved in these planning committees so that their voices can be heard on how best to heal, to solve, and to restore after a tragedy has occurred in our local communities. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4482, a legislation that will require an analysis of the Southwest Border Threat from the Secretary of Homeland Security and a Border Patrol Strategic Plan from the Chief of the Border Patrol. I support this legislation as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations; I believe that Congress can and should do more to ensure the safety of our southern border from terrorism and criminal threats. My service in the House of Representatives has focused on making sure that our nation is secure and prosperous. The U.S. has thousands of miles of coastlines, lakes, and rivers and hundreds of ports that provide opportunities for legitimate travel, trade, and recreation. Ports serve as America's gateway to the global economy since the nation's economic prosperity rests on the ability of containerized and bulk cargo arriving unimpeded at U.S. ports to support the rapid delivery system that underpins the manufacturing and retail sectors. A central component of national security is the ability of our international ports to move goods in and out of the country. According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion. In 2012, ship channel-related businesses contributed 1,026,820 jobs and generated more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic activity. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. In 2014, the Port of Houston was ranked among U.S. ports: 1st in foreign tonnage; 1st among Texas ports with 46% of market share by tonnage and 95% market share in containers by total TEUS in 2014; 1st among Gulf Coast container ports, handling 67% of U.S. Gulf Coast container traffic in 2014; and 2nd in U.S. ports in terms of total foreign cargo value (based on U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census). The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that the Port of Houston and its waterways and vessels, are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in cargo annually. The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries. The Port of Houston is home to a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest in the world. With the nation's largest petrochemical complex supplying over 40 percent of the nation's base petrochemical manufacturing capacity, what happens at the Port of Houston affects the entire nation. At the same time, these waterways offer opportunities for terrorists and their instruments, drug smugglers, and undocumented persons to enter our country. U.S. seaports, like the Port of Houston, are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. H.R. 4482 will require the Secretary of Homeland Security to analyze and assess the southwest border threat: Terrorism and criminal threats seeking unlawful entrance to the U.S. through the southwest border or exploiting border vulnerabilities; Improvements needed in border ports to prevent the entrance of terrorism into the U.S.; Law, policy, cooperation between state, local or tribal law enforcement, international or tribal agreements that hinder effective and efficient border security, counterterrorism, anti-human smuggling and trafficking efforts and legitimate trade along the southwest border; Current percentage of situational awareness and operational control of U.S. borders achieved by DHS of international land and maritime borders of the U.S. H.R. 4482 will require the Chief of the Border Patrol to issue by March 1, 2017, and every five years after, a Border Patrol Strategic Plan: Evaluation of southwest border threat analysis; Assessment of principal border security threats; Efforts to focus intelligence collection to disrupt transnational criminal organizations outside of U.S. borders; Ensure new border security technology can be operationally integrated with existing DHS technologies; Technology required to maintain, support, and enhance security and facilitate trade at ports of entry; Cooperative agreements and information sharing with state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction on the northern and southern borders; Prioritized list of research and development objective to enhance the security of borders; Assessment of training programs for detecting fraudulent documents, understanding scope of enforcement authorities and the use of force policies, and screening, identifying, and addressing vulnerable populations; Assessment of how border security operations affect crossing times. Let me close by reminding my colleagues that earlier this year we passed the Northern Border Security Act, which secured our border with Canada. Now it is time to protect our Southern Border, therefore I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4482.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the sponsor of this bill, as well as the numbers of individuals who came to the floor. I chaired the Subcommittee on Transportation Security of the Committee on Homeland Security some years ago and happily remain on that committee because I do think it has a crucial and important role. I do believe in your cause and in this legislation. We like to think of rural America as being tranquil areas. But in light of the recent incident in Brussels, many of us who are students of aviation security are well aware of a number of elements of weakness, period. Whether or not it is the perimeters of the airports or ingress and egress of airports, whether or not it is the access of employees, of which we make no general indictment of the hardworking individuals who work at airports, but we know that the ingress and egress in many of our large airports still gives us pause, and now, obviously, the conspicuous utilization of the open space where the terrorists did their havoc in Brussels. We would hope that would not be the case in America, and as well in rural airports. But certainly if a commercial airline comes back to a rural community, they need appropriate security. As we grow in developing our security matrix, they may need security that expands into the outer areas, depending upon risks. But the one thing we know is that they need to fall in the category of what we said after 9/11: a professional, well-trained security team, the Transportation Security Administration and TSO. I have a lot of confidence, as I have had in previous TSA Administrators, in their understanding of the seriousness of their responsibilities. I have the same kind of confidence in the admiral, along with Secretary Johnson, that they understand that we are the front line on securing this Nation. So the airports that have a commercial airline signed, agreed, and sealed need that kind of security. We must leave no stone unturned as it relates to airport security. Now, obviously, with no security mechanism, it makes it difficult to have a commercial structure, but more importantly, it opens up the airport system to get into, if you will, the system of travel and, not knowing how terrorists think, to start at one point that is more vulnerable than others and wind up in the Nation's busiest airports. So I support this legislation. I look forward to determining and encouraging funding for this expansion. Obviously, that would be the concern--certainly, in the appropriations process--and I can only imagine that there are those of us who are committed in a bipartisan way to making sure that every aspect of the Nation's travel system, whether you are going from rail to bus to plane or in any other manner, is, of course, protected. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank Mr. Payne and Mr. Hurd for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a former chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, I rise in support of H.R. 4549, ``Treating Small Airports with Fairness Act of 2016'' which requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to restore security and screening services to any airport that lost air services after January 1, 2013 but has a guarantee from a commercial airline to resume service. A number of airports in rural parts of the United States have lost commercial air service in the past years. Those living in rural areas without easy access by highway to other airports have lost a vital travel option. Once an airport receives a commitment from an airline to begin or re- establish service it at an airport, it also must get TSA to re- establish passenger and baggage screening, but in some cases TSA denies the airport's request to re-establish security screening. For example, TSA at Crater Lake-Klamath Regional Airport in southern Oregon denied the airport's request to restore security screening, citing the unpredictability of air service in the region and the inability to maintain consistent passenger loads. Without TSA security screenings, airports must make alternative security arrangements, such as having security screening of passengers and baggage occur once the flight arrives at a large connection airport. Under H.R. 4549, TSA must begin security screenings at an airport either 90 days after a request for screening is made by the airport or when commercial air service commences, whichever is later. This requirement would apply only to airports where the airline has said it will resume services within a year of when the airport has requested the restoration of TSA screening. Small cities in 25 States have lost commercial air service and the local economy of the cities involved suffers. The loss of airports in these small communities results in using small propeller-powered planes that charge fares much higher proportionately than those of conventional airlines. Closing airports in these cities results in lost tourist dollars and airport revenue which benefits the community tremendously. H.R. 4549 directs TSA to restore security and screening services to airports that lost air service and have a guarantee from a commercial airline to resume service. H.R. 4549 requires restoration of TSA screening to a limited number of airports that have a guarantee from a commercial airline including: Klamath Falls, Oregon; Del Rio, Texas; Sheridan, Wyoming; and Salina, Kansas. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4549.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of S. 2512, the Adding Zika Virus to the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act. This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to add the Zika virus to the list of tropical diseases under the priority review voucher program, which awards a voucher to the sponsor of a new drug or biological product that is approved to prevent or treat a tropical disease. A voucher entitles the holder to have a future new drug or biological product application acted upon by the Food and Drug Administration within six months. My support has been steadfast, since I signed a letter at the virus' onset, urging the FDA to quickly exercise the authority provided by Congress to add the Zika virus to the Neglected Tropical Disease list. I thank local, state and national health care professionals, public servants and others who have instituted preventative measures to combat the public health and safety threat that the Zika virus poses to our nation and our Western Hemisphere neighbors. The Zika virus, spread primarily through mosquitos and first detected decades ago in Uganda, has now begun to spread rapidly in South America. The recent outbreak has been linked with serious neurological disorders and life-threatening birth defects. As the Member of Congress representing the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas, centered in Houston, along the mainland United States' Gulf Coast, I know first hand that Texans in particular are among the nation's most at-risk. On March 10, 2015, I held a summit in Houston for the leading state and local experts in health, environmental control, and mosquito eradicating fields who are challenged with protecting communities from the Zika Virus to strategize and develop an action plan for the City and Harris County, Texas to reduce and control virus transmissions. Houston and other cities in the Gulf Coast region, during the late spring and summer months, have tropical climates that support the breeding habitats of Zika Virus carrying-mosquitoes. In early March of this year, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 153 laboratory-confirmed cases of the Zika virus infection, among U.S. travelers between December 2015 and March 9, 2016--today, the number of reported cases has grown to 346, many of which are in areas further north than the 12 originally expected vulnerable states. The first confirmed cases of the Zika virus hit Houston in November of 2015, after the Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services (HCPHES) received confirmation from the CDC that the Zika virus was confirmed in a traveler recently returning from Latin America. Not long after, in January 15, 2016, the Centers for Disease Control issued a health advisory. On January 26, 2016, President Obama called for the rapid development of tests, vaccines and treatments to fight the mosquito-transmitted virus and insisted upon the need to develop vaccines and therapeutics. We have known of the potential enormity of the Zika threat since January 28, 2016, when the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that it was ``spreading explosively'' throughout the Americas and was likely to reach North America soon. As of January 28, 2016, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) promulgated Practice Advisory guidance regarding the Zika virus and pregnant women. On February 1, 2016, the WHO announced an international public health emergency due to the recent cluster of neurological disorders and neonatal malformations reported throughout the Americas. On February 3, 2016, the first local transmission of a Zika virus infection was reported in the Caribbean, meaning that mosquitoes in the area were infected and began spreading the disease to people. Additionally, the Pan American Health Organization reported 26 countries and territories in the Americas exhibiting local transmission. On February 4, 2016, the CDC reported a case in Texas, my home state, of Zika's spread by sexual transmission. The Zika virus is primarily transmitted via three types of mosquitoes--two of which are rampant in the Houston area. The poor are an especially vulnerable population, living in a hot environment. The Gulf Coast presents unique vulnerabilities impacting the spread of the Zika virus in Houston that are of the utmost concern, and a key motivation for supporting today's legislation. My foremost priority is to protect the health and safety of Americans, especially those in Houston. My city's people and their surrounding neighbors are living daily in extreme poverty--and now have to contend with this devastating disease. We saw in Brazil that the poorest communities of their nation experienced the worse Zika-plagued outcomes. Environmental issues, such as discarded tires, furniture, and debris are part of the landscape of the Americans' lives we ought to be safeguarding--and are creating the perfect breeding conditions for Zika mosquitoes. Amplifying the impact, the CDC reports that the virus is spread through sexual contact and advises special precautions for pregnant women. The Zika virus can be spread from a pregnant woman to her fetus and has been linked to a serious birth defect of the brain called microcephaly in the babies of mothers who were exposed to the Zika virus while pregnant. Exacerbating measures, expectant mothers may not know that Zika virus mosquitoes inhabit the areas in which they live, until they see the terrible birth defects associated with the disease, plaguing the late- term-30-week ultrasound images of their unborn child's sonogram. Other problems have been detected among fetuses and infants infected with Zika virus before birth, such as absent or poorly developed brain structures, eye defects, hearing deficits, and impaired growth. About one in five people infected with the Zika virus become symptomatic. Characteristic clinical findings include acute onset of fever, maculopapular rash, arthralgia, or conjunctivitis. Today we are witnessing the spread of yet another tropical disease, threatening the health of U.S. citizens, much like Ebola did during the past few years. The WHO confirmed that as many as four million people could be infected by the end of the year. There is no treatment or cure for those infected by the Zika virus. The WHO is concerned about this rapidly spreading disease due to the lack of immunity in newly affected areas, the wide geographical distribution of infected mosquitos, and the absence of any vaccines, treatments, or rapid diagnostic tests. Given the lack of treatment available for the Zika virus, many supported the critical need for the FDA to use its Congressionally granted authority to add Zika to the list of Neglected Tropical Diseases eligible for the Priority Review Voucher program. On February 22, 2016, President Obama asked Congress to consider an FY 2016 emergency supplemental appropriations request of approximately $1.9 billion to respond to the Zika virus, both domestically and internationally. In conjunction with today's bill's efforts, this funding would build upon ongoing preparation efforts and provide resources for the Departments of Health and Human Services and State, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The collective goal of these efforts, as I see them, is to provide immediate responsiveness to prepare for and prevent the spread of Zika virus transmission; Speed research, development, and procurement of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics; and Enhance the ability of Zika-affected countries to better combat mosquitoes, control transmission, and support affected populations. The necessity presents itself to fortify our domestic health system, detect and respond to any potential Zika outbreaks at home, and to limit the spread in other countries. S. 2512 encourages the Federal Government to take a needed step, addressing the changing circumstances and emerging needs of populations exposed to the Zika virus. The CDC and NIH said that the previously endemic Ebola Virus created a template for Federal and State agencies that are currently attempting to address the Zika virus threat. If nothing else, the Ebola crisis demonstrated the critical need to develop effective vaccines and treatments before an endemic outbreak begins. This simple action by the FDA, I hope, will spur the development of an effective vaccine or treatment combating the Zika virus, and as a result save countless American lives. This bill is a step toward providing the protections that should be guaranteed to every American. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S.2512, the Adding Zika Virus to the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dr. Lester Thurow, the iconoclastic economist and former dean of MIT's Sloan School of Management, who passed away on March 25, 2016. Lester Thurow was born on May 7, 1938 in Livingston, Montana. Lester Thurow's father was a Methodist minister and his mother was a teacher. Lester Thurow worked in the local copper mines for four summers as a young man, but as an excellent student soon found himself on a fast academic track. Lester Thurow's journey began when he received his bachelor's degree in political economy from Williams College in 1960. Following his graduation from Williams College, Lester Thurow was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics at Balliol College of Oxford University in London. Lester Thurow graduated with first class honors from Oxford University in 1962. In 1964, Lester Thurow earned his doctorate in economics from Harvard University. Lester Thurow joined the faculty of MIT's Sloan School of Management in 1968 and was appointed dean in 1987, a position he held until 1993. In 1964, Lester Thurow served on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisors during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson, and served as an economic advisor to Governor Jimmy Carter during the 1976 presidential campaign. In 1986, Lester Thurow joined with five other leading economic policy experts to found the Economic Policy Institute, the mission of which was to find solutions to address the growing problems of rising income inequality in the United States. Lester Thurow was a longtime advocate of a political and economic system of the Japanese and European type, in which governmental involvement in the direction of the economy is far more extensive than is the case in the United States--a model that has come to be known as ``Third Way'' philosophy. He supported policies that would help society and corporations make long-term investments in research in order to spur growth. Lester Thurow authored several economics books targeted to a general readability in the 1990s, including: 1. ``Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe, and America'' (1992), which surveyed the post-Cold War economic landscape and suggested that investment and education would be keys to renewing developed economies; 2. ``The Future of Capitalism: How Today's Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow's World'' (1996); and 3. ``Building Wealth: The New Rules for Individuals, Companies, and Nations in a Knowledge-Based Economy.'' Lester Thurow's ability to explain the most complex economic issues created a path for anyone who was willing to listen and learn no matter their social or economic background. Lester Thurow summarized the impact that economists have on society when he stated that, ``Economists, can for example, always retreat to unobservable variables to explain unwelcome facts.'' Lester Thurow knew that the advice economists give is not always what is the most popular thing to say, but what leaders and students need to hear. On March 25, 2016, Lester Thurow passed away at his home in Westport, Massachusetts, surrounded by his family. Lester Thurow is survived by his wife of 18 years, the former Anna Soldinger, of Westport and Tel Aviv; two sons, Torben Thurow and Ethan Thurow, both of Boston; two stepchildren, Yaron Karasik and Yael Shinar, both of Tel Aviv; a brother; and seven grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence for this trailblazing economist and educator whose pioneering work made a significant contribution to our understanding of micro and macroeconomics.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on Crime Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, which reported this legislation, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4676 ``Preventing Crimes Against Veterans Act of 2016'', a bill that provides an important additional tool for federal prosecutors to combat veterans' benefits fraud. I support this legislation, because of the honorable sacrifices our veterans have made for us, it is particularly important that we protect them from fraud and ensure the integrity of the system of benefits we provide for them. H.R. 4676 amends the federal criminal code to declare that any person who knowingly engages in any scheme or artifice to defraud a veteran of veterans' benefits, or in connection with obtaining veteran's benefits for that veteran, shall be fined, imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Currently, there are approximately 21 million veterans of the United States military living all across our country. It is estimated that about 30 percent of all Vietnam veterans have had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and up to 20 percent of veterans serving in more recent conflicts in the Middle East are estimated to suffer from PTSD in a given year. Given the extreme sacrifice by our veterans and the hardships many of them continue to face after their military service, it is our duty to provide, to the best of our ability, an appropriate measure of compensation for them-particularly for those in need. For instance, we provide disability payments to those with service- connected disabilities, pensions for veterans with limited incomes, education and training under the GI Bill, and also various life insurance benefits. Over 24,000 veterans reside in my 18th Congressional District and one of my top priorities is to fight for their benefits and to fight for the rights of our most patriotic Americans. Amending title 18, United States Code of H.R. 4676, provides an additional tool to prevent certain frauds against veterans. H.R. 4676 will ensure that prosecutors may bring criminal charges against those who knowingly defraud a veteran of their benefits or engage in fraud in connection with obtaining veterans' benefits. 476,515 veterans are living with PTSD, and need their benefits to provide the top care for their disorder; it is criminal that some are left untreated. H.R. 4676 will bring justice to our veterans and shine a light on those who are abusing the benefits given to veterans for defending our country. Those who defraud veterans and the system of veterans' benefits harm the victims and diminish resources required to pay the claims and fund the programs that are needed to help those who have served their country. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4676.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of March, I held a briefing in Houston with leaders of the health community and our research community on the Zika virus. At that time, we had at least one case diagnosed in the city of Houston. Since that time, we have watched the Centers for Disease Control travel to Puerto Rico, and we have seen the potential for a Zika epidemic in the United States, first starting in Florida and Texas. There are conditions in our particular area that are susceptible to the transmission of the Zika virus. Today, the Centers for Disease Control has indicated it may be more dangerous than we ever would have expected. Over 2 months ago, I believe, the President submitted to Congress a request for $1.9 billion in an emergency supplemental. All of my constituents in the health profession are begging for this supplemental to be passed. Yesterday I sent out a statement asking for the Speaker and the majority leader to bring the supplemental to the floor. It is an emergency. Having gone through a number of epidemics in our community and in this Nation, it is time that we put the American people's interests first. It is now the time, Mr. Speaker, to pass the emergency supplemental and save lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Patty Duke, an American icon and advocate for those suffering in silence from various forms of mental illness, who passed away on March 29, 2016 at the age of 69. Patty Duke was born Anna Marie Duke on December 14, 1946 in Elmhurst, New York. Anna Duke and her siblings grew up in a difficult household, raised by an alcoholic father and a mother who suffered from what was then called ``manic depression,'' later known to be bipolar disorder. Anna Duke was introduced to acting by her brother's managers, John and Ethel Ross, who changed her name to Patty and eventually became her guardians. Later in Patty Duke's life, she revealed that she was a survivor of sexual assault. In 1959, Patty Duke's first big role came when she was cast as Helen Keller in the Broadway version of The Miracle Worker, with Anne Bancroft portraying her teacher, Anne Sullivan. Then in 1962, that play was turned into a feature film, in which she also starred. For her performance in the film, the 16-year-old won a ``Promising Newcomer'' Golden Globe as well as an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress--making her the youngest person to win an Oscar at that time. Sadly, following her Oscar win, Patty Duke began to privately unravel. The abuse she endured along with her family's history of bipolar disorder began to plague her. All the while, she continued to dazzle the outside world with a successful career. Patty Duke then starred in her own sitcom called The Patty Duke Show, which she artfully played two cousin characters simultaneously. In 1965, she also became a pop music contender with her top 10 hit ``Don't Just Stand There'' and headlined the acclaimed film Billie, which was the first movie ever sold to a television network. Thus, began Patty Duke's reign as the ``Queen of TV Movies.'' Patty Duke continued her big-screen career by starring in the cult classic Valley of The Dolls in 1967 and indie films such as Me, Natalie in 1969. Patty Duke married assistant director Harry Falk, remaining in the marriage from 1965 to 1969. After her marriage ended, Patty Duke bore a son named Sean Patrick Duke. In 1972, she married actor John Astin, who played Gomez in the television version of The Addams Family. John Astin adopted her son Sean, and fathered her second son, Mackenzie Astin, born in 1973. Then in 1976, Patty Duke won her second Emmy for the highly successful mini-series Captains and the Kings. Other popular TV movies followed, including the 1979 small screen version of The Miracle Worker, in which she portrayed Anne Sullivan, a role that won her third Emmy. In the mid-1980s, she became president of the Screen Actors Guild. Her 1987 autobiography, Call Me Anna, was made into a TV movie in 1990 in which she portrayed herself and served as co-producer. Following in 1992 second book, A Brilliant Madness: Living With Manic Depression Illness, was published. With the help of family and friends Patty Duke was able to quiet her personal demons, and become a vocal advocate for those suffering from mental illnesses, along with dispelling social stigmas attached to them. Patty Duke died on March 29, 2016 in Coeur D'Alene, Idaho, at the age of 69 from a sepsis infection from a ruptured intestine. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to take a moment of silence in remembrance of this strong woman who was able to stand against the suffocating struggles of depression and became a source of inspiration for hundreds of thousands of Americans struggling with mental illnesses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest appreciation for the life, legacy, and actions of the late Cesar Estrada Chavez. The changes that Cesar Chavez fought for throughout his life have dramatically changed the way that farm workers are treated in our country. Cesar Chavez was one of the nation's greatest civil rights activists and the tireless champion of migrant farm workers fighting for humane working conditions. As a young man Cesar Chavez worked in the fields where he saw firsthand the dangerous conditions which farm workers were forced to endure. In 1952 he became an organizer for the Community Service Organization (CSO), a Latino civil rights group, and eventually became the national director of the organization. In 1965, Chavez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association with Dolores Huerta which evolved into the United Farm Workers union. The National Farm Workers Association was successful in securing fair wages and safe working conditions for farm workers. The UFW also led a worldwide grape boycott that helped ensure farm workers had a voice in contract negotiations. Cesar Chavez is also known for his fasts which he used as a nonviolent method of promoting his beliefs. In 1972, Chavez fasted in response to Arizona's passage of legislation that prohibited boycotts and strikes by farm workers during the harvest season. Cesar Chavez achieved unprecedented gains for farmworkers. His influence also exceeded to empowering the people to strive for their own rights. Numerous other social movements utilized his tactics in their own work. On April 23, 1993 Cesar Chavez died, bringing great sadness to the farm workers community that he spent his life fighting for. With his death also came a great sense of pride for all the progress that Cesar Chavez brought as a direct result of his unwavering commitment to farm workers' rights. I urge my colleagues to join me in celebrating Cesar Estrada Chavez's life and legacy. America is a better place because of Cesar Chavez.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commemorate World Health Day. World Health Day is celebrated every year on the founding day of the World Health Organization (``WHO''), which was established in 1950. WHO puts together regional, local, and international events to shed light on a specific world health issue. Under the leadership of United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, this year the WHO is focusing efforts and attention to combat the rise in diabetes and improve the lives of those living with this preventable and treatable disease. Diabetes is a chronic disease that occurs when the pancreas does not produce enough insulin or when the body is unable to utilize the insulin produced. We need to focus on increasing preventative healthcare policies in America by providing the public and healthcare providers with innovative prevention strategies. Diabetes can be controlled by increasing access to the following: diagnosis, self-management education, and affordable treatment. In 2008, approximately 347 million people in the world had diabetes. The number of cases have grown exponentially over the years. Eighty percent of approximately 1.5 million deaths, attributed to this disease, occurred in low- and middle-income countries. By 2030, the World Health Organization projects that diabetes will be the 7th leading cause of death. We need to acknowledge this as an epidemic and increase awareness towards the staggering burdens/consequences associated with diabetes. I support this World Health Day's 2016 goal to scale up prevention, strengthen care, and enhance surveillance through the launch of the first Global report on diabetes.