Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance of April as National Minority Health Month. As a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus and co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues Task Force on Women of Color, I have always believed that access to quality health care should be a universal right of all citizens. National Minority Health Month is a time to reflect and renew our shared dedication and responsibility to eradicating racial disparities in health. Commemorated every year, National Minority Health Month is to heighten public awareness of the importance of minimizing health disparities and improve the health status of minority populations. National Minority Health Month was established 14 years ago when Congress passed H. Con. Res. 388, a concurrent resolution designating April as the month to ``promote educational efforts on the health problems currently facing minorities and other health disparity populations.'' H. Con. Res. 388 encouraged ``all health organizations and Americans to conduct appropriate programs and activities to promote healthfulness in minority and other health disparity communities.'' Mr. Speaker, the differences in places where we live, work, and play frequently result in inequalities in opportunities like quality childcare and education, access to healthy foods, and safe places to be physically active. ``National Minority Cancer Awareness Week'' is observed during the third full week in April and directs attention to the fact that cancer has a disproportionately severe impact on minorities and the economically disadvantaged. The rate of premature death (death before age 75 years) from stroke and coronary heart disease are higher among non-Hispanic blacks than among whites. In 2009, homicide rates were 263 percent higher among males than females and 665 percent higher among non-Hispanic blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites. The motor vehicle-related death rate for men is approximately 2.5 times that for women. In addition, the motor vehicle-related death rate for American Indians and Alaska Natives is more than twice as high as for other racial and ethnic groups. Tuberculosis rates declined among all racial and ethnic minority groups and among both U.S. and foreign-born persons from 2006 to 2010. Rates of tuberculosis cases, however, remained persistently higher among racial and ethnic minority groups than among whites in 2010. Obesity rates remain higher among racial minorities than whites. Non-Asian racial/ethnic minorities continue to experience higher rates of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses than whites. Diabetes prevalence is highest among males, persons aged 65 years and older, non-Hispanic blacks and those of mixed race, Hispanics, persons with less than high school education, those who were poor, and those with a disability. During 2010, approximately 40 percent Hispanic adults and 25 percent of non-Hispanic black adults were classified as uninsured. In my district, two outstanding organizations, African-American Breast Cancer Outreach and Gateway to Care, have dedicated themselves to advocacy efforts for minority health. The African-American Breast Cancer Outreach program received ``models of achievement'' awards from the Center for Research on Minority Health of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and Gateway to Care was awarded special recognition for its work to help uninsured and underinsured residents acquire health care. Mr. Speaker, National Minority Health Month serves to remind each and every one of us of the importance of addressing the very real racial and ethnic health disparities that still plague our nation and to recognize and commend those community organizations that do yeoman work in eradicating them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the importance of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I have always believed that our children are our nation's greatest strength and resource. National Child Abuse Prevention Month is remembered as a time to reflect and renew our shared dedication and responsibility to protect every child in our country, no matter their social or economic background. As elected officials, we have an obligation to condemn this violence, work for stronger enforcement of the law and provide adequate funding for programs to assist children who may have experienced such abuse. There is no crime greater that an individual can commit than the crimes of child abuse, in all of its forms. The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) established the first federal child protection legislation, and was signed into law by President Nixon on January 31, 1974. This marked the new precedent for the national response to child abuse and neglect. Then in 1983, President Reagan proclaimed the month of April as National Child Abuse Prevention month. In 1989, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect awarded nine grants to assist in developing and implementing community-based prevention strategies, in furtherance of that cause. In addition, these grants assisted in developing a coordinated multidisciplinary training program for professionals and community leaders to improve public awareness campaigns, and implement crisis intervention programs. In 1996, under the Clinton Administration's emphasis on collaboration and integration among child and family serving systems, a new grants program called the Community-Based Family Resource and Support (CBFRS), was created. These grants reflected the belief that public and private child abuse prevention and treatment programs must work together toward common goals. In 2005, there was a renewed commitment to make child abuse prevention a national priority. As a result, the Children's Bureau focused on making safe children and healthy families a new priority, a theme that was also adopted by the National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect. Mr. Speaker, children were not forgotten during the great debate over the Patient Protection Affordability Care Act, which included key provisions that created the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program. Thus far during my time in Congress, I have continually proposed amendments aimed to assist families and children across the nation. My amendment to HR 3700, which was passed in this chamber, directed the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of Labor to work together to produce an annual report on inter-agency strategies. These strategies would strengthen family economic empowerment by linking housing with essential supportive services, such as employment counseling and training, financial growth, childcare, transportation, meals, youth recreational activities and other responsive services. Once again, I thank my colleagues in the House for their efforts in protecting the children of this nation. Mr. Speaker, this important month serves to remind each and every one of us, that as Americans we have a solemn responsibility to educate, feed, and protect our children at all costs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the passage of the empowering ``Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.'' Over the past three decades, the average tuition at a public, four- year college institution has more than tripled, while the typical family's income has become plateaued. This great struggle pitting the interests of the banks and financial institutions against those of vulnerable students finally came to an end on March 30, 2010, when President Barack Obama signed this legislation into law. This law reinvested savings back into education by upgrading community colleges facilities, increasing Pell Grants, and making it easier for responsible students to pay off their loans. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions in this nation were resultantly able to receive a needed benefit. For new borrowers after 2014, student loans are eligible to be forgiven after 20 years to those making timely payments, down from the previous 25 year requirement. This law also has helped parents invest in their children's education by simplifying the federal education loan borrowing process. Specifically, in my home city of Houston, Texas, this legislation has helped many of the 9,700 students currently attending the prestigious HBCU, Texas Southern University, alongside the 42,704 students attending the University of Houston. During my time serving our country, I have fought to make higher education accessible to all who strive to achieve it. That is why I am proud to have stood with 220 of my colleagues in voting ``yea'' in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this Act has spurred a movement by President Obama to help every American achieve the dream of being able to attend college no matter their financial background.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this year, the nation observes for the 48th year, the anniversary of the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Each year on this day, Americans remember the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. Fatally shot at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on Thursday, April 4,1968, at the age of 39, Dr. King was rushed to St. Joseph's Hospital, where he was pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m. that evening. He was a prominent leader of the Civil Rights Movement and Nobel laureate for Peace who was known for his creative use of nonviolence and civil disobedience. Our hearts continue beating, rejoicing his enduring legacy, and knowing that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. The incident of domestic terrorism that took the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life, reminds us of his belief, ``that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.'' Dr. King confronted the risk of death and made that recognition part of his philosophy. He taught that murder could not stop the struggle for equal rights. His inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk; he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this day a man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching, protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we, ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. ``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' Strikingly, when Dr. King discussed the end of his mortal life during one of his last sermons, ``I've Been to the Mountain Top,'' on February 4, 1968, in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted the value of service upward as the hallmark of a full life, remarking: ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day, Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others. I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.'' We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak the truth. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War, waged by the Johnson Administration; an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. His youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow laws and the Klu Klux Klan. For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. Nonetheless, a young Martin managed to find a dream; one that he pieced together from his readings, including the Bible, classics, philosophical literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. Not only did those books allow him to educate himself, they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on him, his family, and humanity. The life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that we honor today, could have turned out to be the life of just another African-American who would have had to learn to be happy with the limitations of his circumstances--with only what he was allowed. He learned however, to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination. Dr. King was a dreamer. His dreams were a tool, through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red, yellow and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. however, was not an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join the nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation and create an even better America where equal justice is a fact of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, socially and legally excluded from inclusion in the institutional execution of that declaration. Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered nearly 53 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that still echoes today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--asking America to allow its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. Provoking that clarion call, the 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict. The nightmares of Americans were filled with troubling images that rose like lava from volcanoes of violence and the terrors that they had to face, both domestically and internationally. The decade bore the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Vietnam War; and Americans were left to cradle the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. Set in motion with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott, enduring 381 days, ending only when the United States Supreme Court ruled that discrimination, on account of race in the field of interstate public transportation, was unconstitutional. The dream whisked forward into the hearts of those aggrieved in Alabama's Bible belt and the minds of Selma citizens organizing and peacefully marching for suffrage on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers, as demonstrators crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Dr. King used nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow laws in the South, organizing and leading demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was still a very young man, only 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The sanitation workers there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions for themselves. The city, however, refused to recognize the union and when the 1,300 employees walked off of their jobs, the police broke up the rally with mace and police batons. Resultantly, union leaders summoned Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face, entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse--not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was deeply intertwined with the civil rights movement, for which he gave so many years of his life. Moments before his murder, Dr. King went out onto the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis and standing near his room, he was struck at 6:01 p.m., by a single .30-06 bullet that James Earl Ray fired from a Remington Model 760 Gamemaster, completing the assassination. The killing sparked outcry and riots across the country, in addition to stimulating political support for passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. For some, Dr. King's assassination meant the end of the strategy of nonviolence. Others in the movement reaffirmed the need to carry on his work--as the nations' work--continuing the tradition of nonviolence. That night in Indianapolis, shortly after discovering that Dr. King had been murdered, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy, campaigning to gain the presidential nomination to represent the Democratic Party, who himself would be murdered in Los Angles two months later, addressed an angry, heart-broken, shocked, and horrified audience in a predominantly black neighborhood of the city. The Chief of Police in Indianapolis advised Senator Kennedy that he could not provide protection and was worried he would be at risk in talking about the death of the revered leader. Robert Kennedy saw something more powerful though and, channeling Dr. King's spirit, decided to go ahead. Standing on a flatbed truck, he spoke acknowledging that many would be filled with anger as rumors of riots palpated in listeners' hearts. He said: ``For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed . . . killed by a white man.'' The Senator said that the country had to make an effort to, ``go beyond these rather difficult times,'' and needed and wanted unity between blacks and whites, and asked the audience members to pray for the King family and for the country. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. His legacy as a dreamer and a man of action stands strong. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us who, in the present, toil in times of disparities of inequity. For without that vision--without that dream-- we can never continue to improve on our collective human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded by the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day, even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.'' Positioning the nation to accept a bold call to action to address the wrongs of slavery, ``separate, but equal,'' boycotts, assassinations, and Black power--he gave a much longed for voice to the history of uprising that drove global civil rights forward. Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality; his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity. He believed that freedom and justice were the birthrights of every individual in America. His dream became the dream of a people, documenting their collective challenges and struggle toward change; a hope to achieve a more perfect Union. The powerful words of his beloved widow Coretta Scott King remind us that, ``Freedom is never really won; you earn it and win it in every generation.'' Were he alive today, I believe that Dr. King would embolden us to acknowledge that this story and struggle, that started many centuries ago, continues today--with you. His, is an American story, and it is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, following the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise n strong support of H. Res. 658 and in remembrance of the innocent victims who lost their lives, and those who were seriously injured, this morning in the barbaric attacks perpetrated by terrorists in Brussels, Belgium. Our hearts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the victims and our thanks and appreciation go to the first responders who selflessly came to the aid of their fellow members of the human family. Brussels will emerge from today's attacks stronger than ever and more firmly committed to the values and principles that have made it so great. And as Brussels recovers and responds, I hope its people take comfort in the certain knowledge that the people of the United States stand in solidarity with them. Today's attacks are a reminder of the common danger the free, democratic, and peace loving nations of the world face from those who reject the norms of civilized society and abuse the liberties and freedoms afforded them by free societies. Those responsible for today's crime against humanity should make no mistake; they will be held to account in this life and the next. But today our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Brussels, which represents everything terrorists despise: a symbol of the modern world where persons of differing faiths, creeds, races, and cultures live together in peace, harmony, and freedom. That symbol is recognizable to Americans because it also represents the American heart and spirit. The terrorist attacks in Brussels were horrific acts on innocent civilians perpetrated by depraved individuals who misuse the peaceful religion of Islam for their own misguided purposes. Their horrible and heinous acts are their responsibility, and theirs alone, and for which they can be assured that they alone will be held accountable. But that will come another day; today I ask a moment of silence for the victims killed and injured in the terrorist attacks in Brussels.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, and I thank the chairman of the full committee and the author of this bill. I rise in combination of speaking on this bill, but also offering my deepest sympathy to the people of Brussels, the people of Belgium which, some would say, is the heart of the civic participation of Europe--they are certainly dear friends of the United States--though we would mourn any who have been impacted by the dastardly deeds of terrorism. I know in our committee, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Goodlatte are working on these issues. I would hope that we could move the no fly for foreign terrorists bill as quickly as possible as we make our way through these issues of determining how we disrupt the ideology and then the actions that result in the deaths of innocent persons. So I offer that. Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the name of this bill because I don't know who gets smarter. I know that the consumers get poorer and that there are opportunities for victimizing the consumers. This bill does not create equal rules or implement smarter legislation. But if I might take up the comment about the increasing cost of prescription drugs, that is clearly a result of not allowing the FTC to pursue and to proceed because it is our arm of equalizing and balancing the consumer. On this day, when we acknowledge the sixth anniversary of the Affordable Care Act that has brought health insurance to 20 million people, we know that what we need to fix is the rising cost of prescription drugs. So this bill is about attacking the administrative authority of the Federal Trade Commission. It is an unnecessary measure that would fundamentally undermine the FTC's independent enforcement authority and ability to prevent anticompetitive mergers. As a law student, I remember in my antitrust classes how the FTC was highlighted as one of the anchors of balance and the anchors of protection of innocent civilians. Specifically, if enacted, the SMARTER Act would strip the FTC of power by eliminating the agency's authority to enforce antitrust laws in larger merger cases and by blocking its ability to use its administrative proceedings to stop a harmful merger transaction. Why is that? The FTC is where you can engage and have discussion. The bill seeks to do so by requiring that the FTC use the same enforcement process as the DOJ. There is more ability for the little guy to be heard at the FTC. This proposed sweeping change undercuts the FTC's administrative litigation process for contested mergers or acquisitions and effectively removes a very core and functioning character of the agency, lets more people in the door to express themselves for or against this merger, how it impacts, with less resources needed to get in front of an administrative agency than dealing with the Department of Justice. Moreover, reducing the FTC's independence directly conflicts with Congress' intent in creating this antitrust enforcement agency and policymaking body as a distinct and independent shield from political and executive interference. As enforcers of section 7 of the Clayton Act, both the FTC and DOJ have the authority and responsibility to prohibit mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. That saves money because competition helps save money. These agencies serve to complement each other. Why make them the same? They are not twins. Based upon historical experience and coordinated development, the FTC serves to protect consumers and consumer spending, health care, pharmaceuticals, professional services, food, energy, food safety, among other things. The DOJ typically assumes a specialized focus on larger corporate industries, like telecommunications, banks, railroads, and airlines. Serving as joint enforcement agencies for over 100 years, they work together. Don't take away the consumers' arm. That is the FTC. This bill takes it away and puts the little guy under and the big guy up. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2745, the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews through Equal Rules Act--otherwise known as the SMARTER Act. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about creating equal rules or implementing ``smarter'' legislation. Rather, it is about attacking the administrative authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). H.R. 2745 is an unnecessary measure that would fundamentally undermine the FTC's independent enforcement authority and ability to prevent anti-competitive mergers. As we all know, the FTC was created by Congress with the specific intent of creating an independent antitrust enforcement agency and supplemental authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Specifically, if enacted, the SMARTER Act would strip the FTC of its power by eliminating the agency's authority to enforce antitrust laws in larger merger cases, and by blocking its ability to use its administrative proceedings to stop a harmful merger transaction. The bill seeks to do so by requiring that the FTC use the same enforcement process as the DOJ. This proposed sweeping change undercuts the FTC's administrative litigation process for contested mergers or acquisitions and effectively removes the very core and functioning character of this agency. Moreover, reducing the FTC's independence directly conflicts with Congress's intent in creating this antitrust enforcement agency and policymaking body as distinct and independent shield from political and executive interference. As enforcers of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, both the FTC and the DOJ have the authority and responsibility to prohibit mergers and acquisitions that would ``substantially lessen competition'' or ``tend to create a monopoly''. Under this enforcement authority, these agencies serve to complement each other, and have developed over the years to specialize in particular industries and markets. Based upon historical experience and coordinated developments, the FTC serves to protect consumers and consumer spending--e.g., healthcare, pharmaceuticals, professional services, food, energy, and certain high-tech industries like computer technology and internet services. Whereas, the DOJ typically assumes a specialized focus on larger corporate industries--e.g., telecommunications, banks, railroads, and airlines. Thus, while the FTC and the DOJ have operated with a shared responsibility of enforcing federal antitrust laws, these two federal agencies are unique and each retain exclusive authority of certain conduct. Serving as joint enforcement agencies for over 100 years, the FTC and DOJ rely upon each other to coordinate agency jurisdiction and harmonized standards and practices. The SMARTER Act is simply unnecessary as it fails to put forth any meaningful effort to enhance or rectify any expressed concerns governing these longstanding agency operations. In particular, in 2002 Congress sought to review and amend antitrust laws and policies in light of changing economy and rise in technological advances. In 2007 a report issued by the Antitrust Modernization Commission (AMC) set forth specific recommendations for the FTC to eliminate real or perceived disparities in the review process for merger transactions. According to the AMC, Congress should seek to ensure that the same or comparable standard is used when seeking a preliminary injunction against a potentially anticompetitive transaction. However, the SMARTER Act goes beyond this recommendation and seeks to chip away and carve out the entire administrative adjudication authority of the FTC. In order to identify potential violations of the Clayton Act, the FTC and the DOJ review proposed merger transactions pursuant to the Hart- Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (the HSR Act), which provides advance notice and sets forth guidelines on large merger and acquisition transactions. The heart of this concern is the alternate means in which the FTC and the DOJ carry out their enforcement role during this HSR pre-merger process. Namely, H.R. 2745 is curiously motivated by the preliminary injunction process utilized by the FTC and the DOJ to halt proposed transactions that would violate the Clayton Act if completed. Additionally, the DOJ typically consolidates the preliminary and permanent injunction proceedings, while the FTC typically only pursues the preliminary injunction. While some argue that proposed transactions reviewed through the FTC would be treated more leniently than those reviewed through the DOJ, this assertion was not fully substantiated by the AMC. The pre-merger review process and the injunction standards utilized by the FTC and the DOJ are the very procedural steps that characterize and distinguish the respective enforcement roles of these agencies. This supposed area of concern addresses only a small fraction of proposed transactions, as the vast majority of merger and acquisition proposals are found to not be in violation of the Clayton Act during the review process. The FTC and the DOJ review over a thousand merger filings every year. Yet 95% of those merger filings present no competitive issues or challenged transactions. As reported by the American Antitrust Institute (AAI), the overall concerns purported by the bill's sponsors are simply without foundation. In contrast, the overall work of the FTC has an incredible impact on American consumers, communities and corporations and will be severely impacted if disrupted. As highlighted by the FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in her testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law, the FTC prioritizes the protection of consumers and the prevention of anticompetitive market practices. In fact, the FTC exists to ensure fair competition and to prevent enormous concentrations of economic power that hurts consumers and small businesses. For example: In the past year, the FTC has challenged over 28 mergers, (although in most it was able to negotiate a remedy to allow the merger to proceed). At the consumer level in my home state of Texas, the FTC secured an $82,000 settlement against an auto-dealer found in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in September 2015. Also last year, the FTC ordered the largest divestiture ever in a supermarket merger, requiring Albertsons and Safeway to sell 168 supermarkets in 130 local markets throughout several states, ensuring that communities continue to benefit from competition among their local supermarkets. The FTC has also taken an aggressive stance on stopping anticompetitive mergers and conduct in the healthcare market by halting such practices through administrative litigation. In September 2015, the FTC secured a $1.1 million settlement to consumers who lost money to a health insurance telemarketing scam. And in the last two years, the FTC took action in 13 pharmaceutical mergers, ordering divestitures to preserve competition for drugs that treat diabetes, hypertension, and cancer, as well as widely used generic medications like oral contraceptives and antibiotics. Just last week on March 18, 2016, after a thoroughly vetted investigation, the FTC approved a final order preserving competition among outpatient dialysis clinics in Laredo, Texas. That is, the FTC cleared U.S. Renal Care, Inc.'s (the country's third largest outpatient dialysis provider) $640 million purchase of dialysis competitor DSI Renal, on the condition that three of DSI's outpatient clinics in Laredo, Texas, be handed over to a third party. Absent this agreed divestiture, the acquisition would have led to a significant increase in market concentration and anti-competitive effects. The likely result, according to the FTC, would have included the elimination of direct competition between U.S. Renal Care and DSI Renal, reduced incentives to improve services or quality for dialysis patients, and increased ability for the merged company to unilaterally increase prices. Notably, the DOJ has also been successful in securing investigations and halting suspected harmful merger practices on a much larger scale (in the health care and airline industry as of recent). In June 2015, the DOJ put pressure on several multibillion dollar health insurers seeking to engage in large merger transactions with near certain suppression of market competition in the healthcare industry. In August 2015, the DOJ issued civil investigative demands on several major US airlines seeking to halt any potential unlawful mergers. These cases demonstrate the need for continued protection of the FTC and its ability to effectively carry out injunctions on harmful merger and acquisition activities, as well as anticompetitive business conduct that harms consumers and restrains market activity. The ability of the FTC to function independently is a necessary function to the success of both the FTC and the DOJ. The far-reaching and elusive SMARTER Act fails keep the foundational integrity of these agencies and should be opposed. I urge all Members to vote against this serious threat to our fundamental protections of consumers and fair economic competition.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I come with a heavy heart to acknowledge the deep tragedy that happened in Brussels, Belgium, yesterday. Having participated in the Inter-Parliamentary Exchange, I traveled to Brussels on a number of occasions to join with the European Union. But more importantly, I had the sad duty of coming onto the then-Select Committee on Homeland Security and, ultimately, the Committee on Homeland Security in the very shadows of 9/11. I was in this Congress as it occurred, and I went to Ground Zero as they were still recovering individuals, as those firefighters and first responders would not stop. Our hearts are heavy and we are desirous of being helpful. As Brussels recovers and responds, we need to stand with them. But as well, let me be very clear: let us not allow the terrorists to terrorize us; let us recognize the broadness of this Nation, the Muslims who put on the uniform of the United States military to fight on our behalf. Let us act with consciousness, providing more security and more human resources to make a difference. As I close, let me acknowledge the historic trip of President Obama to Cuba and say that engagement is very important.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4755, the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers Women Act (INSPIRE Act). As a senior member of the House of Representatives who has served on the House Committee on Science I am well aware of the excellent work that NASA has done to bring diversity to the space program. Houston, where my district is located, is proud that the Johnson Center calls our city home. Earlier this year, I offered two amendments that were adopted for inclusion in H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act, which improve diversity in future space programs. One Jackson Lee Amendment facilitates the participation of HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions; National Indian institutions, in fellowships, work-study, and employment opportunities in the emerging commercial space industry. The second Jackson Lee Amendment requires work with small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities. One of the most enduring difficulties faced by underrepresented populations in the STEM field is a lack of awareness and understanding of the connection between STEM and employment opportunities. In 2012, a survey found that despite the nation's growing demand for more workers in science, technology, engineering, and math grows, the skills gap among the largest ethnic and racial minorities groups remain stubbornly wide. Blacks and Latinos account for only 7 percent, of the STEM workforce despite representing 28 percent of the U.S. population. I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. Statistics show that women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014). Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (58 percent); biological and medical sciences (48 percent); relatively low shares in engineering (13 percent); computer and mathematical sciences (25 percent) (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014). According to the U.S. Labor Department, although women make up nearly 50% of the total U.S. workforce their representation in science and engineering occupations is much less. 39 percent of chemists and material scientists are women; 27.9 percent of environmental scientists and geoscientists are women; 15.6 percent of chemical engineers are women; 12.1 percent of civil engineers are women; 8.3 percent of electrical and electronics engineers are women; 17.2 percent of industrial engineers are women; and 7.2 percent of mechanical engineers are women. These statistics show that measures need to be taken in order to promote women participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace. H.R. 4755 is intended to establish paths for success at NASA for girls and boys, such as establishing. The following programs: NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS, virtual mentoring programs, that give young students the opportunity to interact and learn from real engineers, scientists, and technologists; Aspire to Inspire (A2I) program, which engages young girls to present science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM career opportunities through the real lives and jobs of early career women at NASA; and Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER) program at the Goddard Space Flight Center, which is designed to increase awareness of, and provide an opportunity for, female middle school students to be exposed to and explore nontraditional career fields with Goddard Space Flight Center women engineers, mathematicians, scientists, technicians, and researchers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4755.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember the innocent victims who lost their lives, and those who were seriously injured, this morning in the barbaric attacks perpetrated by terrorists in Brussels, Belgium. Our hearts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the victims and our thanks and appreciation go to the first responders who selflessly came to the aid of their fellow members of the human family. Brussels will emerge from today's attacks stronger than ever and more firmly committed to the values and principles that have made it so great. And as Brussels recovers and responds, I hope its people take comfort in the certain knowledge that the people of the United States stand in solidarity with them. Today's attacks are a reminder of the common danger the free, democratic, and peace loving nations of the world face from those who reject the norms of civilized society and abuse the liberties and freedoms afforded them by free societies. Those responsible for today's crime against humanity should make no mistake; they will be held to account in this life and the next. But today our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Brussels, which represents everything terrorists despise: a symbol of the modern world where persons of differing faiths, creeds, races, and cultures live together in peace, harmony, and freedom. That symbol is recognizable to Americans because it also represents the American heart and spirit. The terrorist attacks in Brussels were horrific acts on innocent civilians perpetrated by depraved individuals who misuse the peaceful religion of Islam for their own misguided purposes. Their horrible and heinous acts are their responsibility, and theirs alone, and for which they can be assured that they alone will be held accountable. But that will come another day; today I ask a moment of silence for the victims killed and injured in the terrorist attacks in Brussels.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4742 the ``Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.'' As a Senior Member on the House Committee on Homeland Security who sits on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, I know well of the need to encourage and train women to thrive in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Promoting diversity in the STEM professions is more than just an idea; it requires an understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure the inclusion of all minorities and women in all areas of American life. Studies have found that women make up almost 50 percent of the workforce. Studies note that 23 percent of STEM workers are women; however, women make up 48 percent of workers in all occupations. Only 26 percent of women who do attain degrees in STEM fields work in STEM jobs. According to the most recent available data women are less likely to focus on the STEM disciplines in undergraduate and graduate studies. In 1991, women received 29.6 percent of computer science B.A.'s, compared to just 18.2 percent in 2010. Jobs in computer systems design and related services, a field dependent upon high-level math and problem-solving skills, are projected to grow 45 percent between 2008 and 2018. There are approximately 6 million women and minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. My home city of Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, knows the importance of professionals in the STEM industries. It has been reported that the highest-paying STEM occupations are petroleum engineers with an annual salary of $147,520, architectural and engineering managers with an annual salary of $138,720, natural sciences managers with an annual salary of $136,450, computer and information systems managers with an annual salary of $136,280, and physicists with a reported annual salary of 117,300. There is an increasing demand for individuals with STEM degrees to extend their focus beyond the laboratory so they can be leaders in discovery and commercialization. Women deserve a fair shot in the STEM programs in this nation. In addition, I believe that work needs to be done to modernize key contracting developmental programs designed to increase opportunities for women, minorities and low-income individuals who pursue STEM degrees and STEM job training. I support programs at the National Science Foundation that have worked to reduce the current barriers and ensure women have the support they need in the STEM fields. Mr. Speaker, we should encourage women to pursue degrees and careers in the STEM fields so we can continue to compete in the global economy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4336, ``Women Airforce Service Pilot Arlington Inurnment Restoration Act of 2016'' which directs the Department of the Army to ensure that the cremated remains of persons who served as Women's Air Forces Service Pilots are eligible for interment in Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. I support this legislation sponsored by Congresswoman Martha McSally of Arizona, because the women who have devoted their lives to the armed services deserve appropriate recognition and praise for their sacrifice. This important bill provides the remains of a person who dies on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, and whose service has been determined to be active duty, eligibility for inurnment in Arlington National Cemetery. The Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the interment and inurnment capacity of Arlington National Cemetery. With respect to the unique and iconic meaning of the cemetery to the United States, the Secretary of the Army determines necessary considerations for additional expansion opportunities beyond the current boundaries of the cemetery. The Secretary of the Army must submit the estimated date the cemetery will reach maximum interment and inurnment capacity. The Secretary of the Army has the ability to redefine eligibility criteria for interment and inurnment in the cemetery. Implementation of the arrangements necessary to facilitate the burial of the cremated remains should be a priority. It is our responsibility to ensure that the suitable recognition is provided to Americans who have devoted their time and physical assistance towards our freedom. This bill actively displays our gratitude towards all who participated in the armed services. Even after death, we reflect on their contributions with our hearts and minds for those who put themselves in harm's way to protect our nation. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 4336.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1180, the ``Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Modernization Act of 2015.'' I support this bill because it would address interoperability deficits among information technology systems and radio communications systems used by emergency services to exchange voice, data, disasters, and video in real time As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I am intimately aware, as are many of my colleagues, of the essential and lifesaving role of communications during a crisis. S. 1180 directs FEMA to establish the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Subcommittee to develop and submit recommendations for an integrated public alert and warning system to the National Advisory Council through: establishing common alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating procedures for the system; include in such system the capability to adapt the distribution and content of communications on the basis of geographic location, risks, and multiple communication technologies and to alert, warn, and provide equivalent information to individuals with disabilities, access and functional needs, or limited English proficiency; ensure that specified training, tests, and exercises for such system are conducted and that the system is resilient, secure, and can withstand external attacks; and conduct public education efforts and a general market awareness campaign about the system. The bill requires the system to: be designed to adapt to and incorporate future technologies for communicating directly with the public, provide alerts to the largest portion of the affected population feasible, and improve the ability of remote areas to receive alerts; promote local and regional public and private partnerships to enhance community preparedness and response; provide redundant alert mechanisms; and protect individual privacy. Because the tragedies of September 11, 2001, were compounded by communication failures among first responders who entered the burning towers that comprised the World Trade Center it has been an imperative of the Homeland Security Committee to address first responder communication interoperability challenges. S. 1180 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency to modernize the integrated U.S. public alert and warning system to help ensure that under all conditions the President, federal agencies, and state, tribal, and local governments can alert and warn the civilian population in areas endangered by natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters or threats to public safety. Hurricane Katrina is an example of the need for emergency response agencies to be connected. After the storm the majority of the rescue operations were being conducted by the U.S. Coast Guard locating people who were on the roofs of their houses. The coast guard was not aware of the individuals who were stuck in their home calling 911, because they could not reach their roofs, causing about 986 Louisiana residents to perish after the storm due to the lack of effective communication. An estimated 1,836 lives were lost as a result of the hurricane. The City of Houston covers over a 1,000 square mile region in Southeast Texas. It has a night-time population of nearly two million people, which peaks with over three million daytime inhabitants. The city of Houston's 9-1-1 Emergency Center manages nearly 9,000 emergency calls per day. The volume of emergency calls can easily double during times of inclement weather or special City social/ sporting events like Hurricanes Ike in September 2008; and Katrina as well as Rita, which occurred in September and October of 2005. The types and severity of potential emergencies can encompass floods, hurricanes, and industrial incidents which would require multiple emergency agencies to respond. On the average, EMS responds to a citizen every 3 minutes. Each EMS response is made by one of 88 City of Houston EMS vehicles. There are over 200,000 EMS incidents involving over 225,000 patients or potential patients annually. In 2013, the City of Houston's fire Department lost Captain EMT Matthew Renaud, Engineer Operator EMT Robert Bebee, Firefighter EMT Robert Garner and Probationary Firefighter Anne Sullivan when they responded to a hotel fire. Throughout the history of the Houston Police Department over 110 officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. Each member of the House of Representatives knows of the loss of a first responder who was going to the aid of those in harm's way. S. 1180 will offer additional resources that can save the lives of first responders and those they help. S. 1180 will ensure that FEMA's response to a crisis is organized with state and local resources. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of S. 1180.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Martin Olav Sabo, a great American who served his country with distinction as a Member of this House who passed away on March 13, 2016 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the age of 77. Martin Sabo was born on February 28, 1938, in Crosby, North Dakota, the son of Norwegian immigrants. While growing up he worked the wheat farm that his family owned and operated. In 1959, Martin Sabo earned his baccalaureate degree at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. The following year, 22-year old Martin Sabo was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives, where he served for the next 22 years. In 1963, Martin Sabo met Sylvia, who became his wife and the love of his life, and together they had two wonderful children, Julie and Karin Sabo. In 1973, Martin Sabo was elected by his colleagues to become the 45th Speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, and served in that position until 1979, when he was elected to serve the people of the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota in the U.S. House of Representatives. During his time in Congress Martin Sabo chaired the House Committee on the Budget. Congressman Martin Sabo was a champion of bipartisan legislation. A shining example of his ability to work across the aisle is the effort he led as Budget Chairman to put together and pass the 1993 federal budget and deficit reduction package that resulted in the budget surplus in 1998, the first in almost 30 years. Martin Sabo characterized this collective effort as one of his proudest legislative accomplishments. Despite the sharp increase in divisive political discourse, Congressman Sabo never publicly disparaged another colleague in Congress, Republican or Democrat. Congressman Sabo said that, ``I've also tried to treat my colleagues with respect.'' On March 13, 2016, surrounded by loving family members, Martin Sabo died peacefully at Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis. Mr. Speaker, as a former colleague and friend of Martin Olav Sabo, I will miss this great man who put aside partisan politics to focus on great governance. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of our beloved former colleague, Congressman Martin Olav Sabo.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1670, ``National POW/MIA Remembrance Act of 2015'' which directs the Architect of the Capitol to place in the United States Capitol a chair honoring American Prisoners of War/Missing in Action. I support this legislation sponsored by Congressman Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, because all soldiers should be commemorated for their heroic efforts. This important bill directs the Architect of the Capitol to enter into an agreement to obtain a chair featuring the logo of the National League of POW/MIA Families, and place it in the U.S. Capitol in a suitable permanent location within two years after enactment of this Act. The Architect of the Capitol may enter into an agreement with any tax-exempt, charitable organization to solicit private donations to carry out this Act; and accept resulting donations of funds, property, and services. An astonishing 83,000 American service personnel are still missing in action--from previous wars--and 142,233 Americans have been Prisoners of War (POW). Thankfully, revolutionary new communications, information management and surveillance technologies, the total dominance of the air dimension, better training, and the nature of the adversary and geography has halted the increase of POWs and soldiers missing in action. It is our duty as Americans to remember those who have bravely fought for our beloved country. Having this chair at our Nation's capital will serve as a continuous reminder that our freedom was fought for. This bipartisan bill stands as a testament that our soldiers should be honored for their efforts in protecting our freedom and rights as Americans. Our nation has a proud legacy of appreciation and commitment to the men and women who have worn the uniform in defense of this country but for those who never reunite with their families it is our duty as citizens to keep their memory alive. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 1670.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 192, the ``Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' which amends the Older Americans Act of 1965 (OAA), to require the Director of the Office of Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs to collect and analyze best practices to prevent and respond to elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in long-term care facilities, and to publish a report to document best practices to achieve these goals. S. 192 also requires the administration to provide information and technical assistance to State and local agencies on aging as well as service providers. S. 192 also mandates the development of a consumer-friendly tool to assist older individuals and their families in choosing home and community-based services, with a particular focus on ways for consumers to assess how providers protect the health, safety, welfare, and rights of older individuals. S. 192 directs the administration to ensure that programs authorized under the OAA include training in the prevention of abuse, neglect, and exploitation and provision of services that address elder justice and exploitation of older individuals. S. 192 also reauthorizes appropriations for specified supportive services, congregate nutrition services, home delivered nutrition services, disease prevention, health promotion services, and family caregiver support. Mr. Speaker, S. 192 will increase public awareness of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and remove barriers to education, prevention, investigation, and treatment of elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Mr. Speaker, it has been noted often that the moral test of government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, our children; those in the shadows of life, the sick and infirm; and those in the twilight of life, the elderly. I urge my colleagues to support S. 192 because it makes a significant contribution to meeting our obligations to our senior citizens who have done so much to make our country great.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2393, the ``Foreclosure Relief and Extension for Service Members Act of 2015,'' which amends the ``Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012'' by extending through December 31, 2017, the provisions that protect service members from actions to foreclose on a mortgage for one year after their service. S. 2393 prohibits the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of a service member's mortgaged property without a court order or a waiver from the service member. In 1940, Congress passed the ``Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act'' (SSCRA) to provide protections and rights to individuals based on their service in the U.S. armed forces. In 2003, Congress passed the ``Service Members Civil Relief Act,'' which was modernized and reauthorized the protections and rights previously available to service members under SSCRA. The Service Members Civil Relief Act protects service members in the event that their military service impedes their ability to meet financial obligations incurred before entry into active military service. In 2012, the ``Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012'' amended the SCRA to extend the timeframe from nine months to one year in which service members are protected from the sale, foreclosure, or seizure of mortgaged property and any actions filed against them for an inability to comply with the terms of the mortgaged obligation. The ``Foreclosure Relief and Extension for Services Members Act of 2014,'' which passed the House by voice vote, extended this provision through December 31, 2015. Mr. Speaker, our service members keep us safe from all manner of threats around the globe, so the least we can do is to keep them and their families safe from foreclosure as they transition back to civilian life. I urge my colleges to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 16, 2016, I missed Roll Call Votes 124 through 126 due to my necessary attendance in Massachusetts at a memorial service for Ms. Tiffany Johnson, who ably served the House of Representatives and the nation as my Democratic Counsel for the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the Committee on the Judiciary. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: 1. On Roll Call 124, I would have voted AYE--(Final Passage of H.R. 4596, Small Business Broadband Deployment Act). 2. On Roll Call 125, I would have voted AYE--(H.R. 4416, To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project). 3. On Roll Call 126, I would have voted AYE--(H.R. 4434, To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project).

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman from New York for her courtesies. Mr. Speaker, it is important to take note, in light of the previous debate and comments that were made, that this is a House divided. This amicus brief more than likely will be supported by a number of Members, but it will not be supported by the entirety of the House. So whether or not it is a majority, which is the other party, it is not going to be the voice of the entirety of the House. As far as I am concerned, and as the Constitution has made clear, that responsibility that the President has exercised is a constitutional authority. So I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than our Republican majority's latest partisan attacks on the President and a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing some of the more important issues such as the broken immigration system. Just a few years ago, the Senate Republicans and Democrats came together to produce and pass a very thorough assessment of the immigration system, and they actually passed laws, the intent of the Nation, represented by Senators, and that came to the House and never saw the light of day to be able to be voted on. But yet the Homeland Security Committee, in an extensive series of hearings and then, of course, legislation, then wrote legislation that passed by voice vote in a bipartisan manner to protect the border, everything that the Republican side is asking for. But lying at the heart of the plaintiff's misguided and wholly partisan complaint is a specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional authority and statutory authority to take executive action. This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA declared to be invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama administration from implementing those salutary policies. Let me briefly speak about these actions by the President. They are reasonable. The reason they are reasonable is because, in addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring Presidential control over those who execute and enforce the laws and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. Arizona v. United States, Bowsher v. Synar, Buckley v. Valeo, Printz v. United States, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Let me also say to you that this is a Texas case that they are submitting the amicus on. These are Texas DREAMers. Many of us have worked with them. They are in our institutions of higher learning. They are going to be contributing to society. This is what this amicus brief is, to turn them back and to turn their families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How would DACA and DAPA impact domestic violence? DACA provided a sense of peace, knowing that this woman would not be deported. I would argue to my friends that whatever the vote is today, it is not the sense of the House. It is a divided House, and we are not supporting an amicus to turn back the President's constitutional authority. With that, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule governing debate of H. Res. 639, and the underlying resolution, which authorizes the Speaker to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674. I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 639, if adopted, would vest in the Speaker alone the power to file on behalf of the full House an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the constitutionally untenable position of 26 Republican-controlled states in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674. Lying at the heart of the plaintiffs' misguided and wholly partisan complaint is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to implement Administration policy with regard to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, the creation of (DAPA). This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA declared invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama Administration from implementing these salutary policies, both of which are intended to keep law-abiding and peace loving immigrant families together. The purely partisan nature of the resolution before us is revealed by its text, which authorizes the Speaker to waste precious taxpayer funds and file on behalf of every Member of the House an amicus brief that no Member has seen in support of a position opposed by virtually every member of the Democratic Caucus. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the ``Take Care'' Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the inherent power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Mr. Speaker, to see the utter lack of merit in the legal position to be supported by the amicus brief permitted by H. Res. 639, one need take note of the fact that deferred action has been utilized in our nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both parties without controversy or challenge. In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar forms of prosecutorial discretion. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A rincipal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.'' Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth. Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security. Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime. The President was correct in concluding that exercising his discretion regarding the implementation of DACA and DAPA policies enhances the safety of all members of the public, serves national security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping families together. Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and Council of Economic Advisors, the President's DACA and DAPA directives generate substantial economic benefits to our nation. For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per year over the next 10 years. That is a lot of jobs. Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Let me cite a just a few examples of executive action taken by American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 2. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. 6. In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and visionary executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me note that the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland. Instead of wasting time debating divisive and mean spirited measures like H. Res. 639, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth. I urge all Members to join me in voting against H. Res. 639.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. And to my fellow Texan who is managing on the other side, the chairman of the Rules Committee, it is a moment in history that we are speaking of, and it is powerful to follow my fellow Texan on the moment in history that we have. Earlier today, I said that as my friends on the other side were debating about the will of the House, I indicated that it is a divided House, and that is not the will of the American people. It is evidenced in the rules. So to go and suggest that any brief that would wish to overcome, if you will, the President's constitutional authority is bogus; it is not true. If this was a consensus, the brief would be prepared, and all Members would sign onto the brief. That is not the case. As I come from Texas, let me say that much of what is being done is out of fear. You don't understand it. You don't understand DREAMers. We do in Texas. We have a State law that allows our DREAMers to go to college, and they are making good. I see them in my office. And I know their parents, of whom we are speaking about, because some of their parents' children are, obviously, children who are citizens and who are able then at a point in time to be able to be under the DACA and the DAPA. So let me reinforce the fact that the President has acted under executive orders that squarely fall under the Take Care Clause, as ensuring Presidential control over those who execute and enforce the laws. You can rely on Arizona v. United States, Bowsher v. Synar, Buckley v. Valeo, Printz v. United States, and Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. The enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, properly may exercise their discretion to devise and implement policies specific to laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize our Nation's resources.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are we to kick out children who are on their way to success and then their parents? And the reason why I want to dispel this myth of fear: These parents are working. Maybe they are working in positions that others would not have; maybe they are working alongside of fellow Americans. I don't adhere to in any way to think of people displacing Americans looking for jobs. That is not this issue. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter--we have prioritized criminals and those who would do us harm. But we are operating out of fear, just as was earlier said. When someone who--the world does not know whether he is a Presidential candidate or whether he is a spokesman for America--blocks and puts his hand up to stop all Muslims from coming in. Who will be next? Would it have been the Irish in the 1800s? Would it have been the Italians in the 1900s? America has to get back to reasonable lawmaking, pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill, and make a difference. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to close by saying I don't want the next victim of domestic violence to be thrown out. Vote against this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to both the rule (governing debate of H. Res. 639, and the underlying resolution, which authorizes the Speaker to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No. 15-674. I oppose the resolution because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 639, if adopted, would vest in the Speaker alone the power to file on behalf of the full House an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the constitutionally untenable position of 26 Republican-controlled states in the matter of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al., No.15-674. Lying at the heart of the plaintiffs' misguided and wholly partisan complaint is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to implement Administration policy regard to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents, the creation of (DAPA). This frivolous and partisan lawsuit seeks to have DACA and DAPA declared invalid and to permanently enjoin the Obama Administration from implementing these salutary policies, both of which are intended to keep law-abiding and peace loving immigrant families together. The purely partisan nature of the resolution before is revealed by its text, which authorizes the Speaker to waste precious taxpayer funds and file on behalf of every Member of the House an amicus brief that no Member has seen in support of a position opposed by virtually every member of the Democratic Caucus. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the ``Take Care'' Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion,'' the inherent power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Mr. Speaker, to see the utter lack of merit in the legal position to be supported by the amicus brief permitted by H. Res. 639, one need take note of the fact that deferred action has been utilized in our nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both parties without controversy or challenge. In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar forms of prosecutorial discretion. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.'' Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth. Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to better herself and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security. Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime. The President was correct in concluding that exercising his discretion regarding the implementation of DACA and DAPA policies enhances the safety of all members of the public, serves national security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping families together. Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and Council of Economic Advisors, the President's DACA and DAPA directives generate substantial economic benefits to our nation. For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per year over the next 10 years. That is a lot of jobs. Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Let me cite a just a few examples of executive action taken by American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 2. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. 6. In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and visionary executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me note that the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland. Instead of wasting time debating divisive and mean spirited measures like H. Res. 639, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth. I urge all Members to join me in voting against H. Res. 639.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill but in support of the Engel amendment. It is perfect, good sense giving the Governor of a State the ability to opt out of the section of the bill that modifies the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule if the Governor determines that implementing those provisions would increase the overall cost of complying with the rule. There goes, if you will, the underlying problem of this bill. There has been no determination as to the burden of this particular bill, and I oppose it. I oppose it in particular because the bill would undermine the emissions limits for hazardous acid gasses from those established under the MATS, leading to increased health and environmental impacts from increased emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and other harmful acid gasses and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, the CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, including the air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution. The pollution reduction from CSAPR and MATS have real-life impacts: prevention of thousands of premature deaths, asthmatic attacks, and heart attacks. I would offer to say, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, we are always dealing with toxics as it relates to chemical plants and protecting the homeland in the area of security, but we also need to protect them in the area of good quality health care. I would argue that this bill would economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs, reduce compliance choices for other State units, and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by any other sources. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation. I don't believe that this bill will be considered in the Senate. I don't believe that it will be considered for signature by the White House. I would offer to say that, besides the budget and the appropriations process that is ongoing, we in this Congress need to deal with the restoration of the Voting Rights Act and provide for section 5. Let's get to work on things impacting the American people, creating more jobs, as opposed to providing poor quality of life, poor quality of air for our citizens throughout this Nation. Once again, I support the Engel amendment. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3797--Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment (SENSE) Act. I oppose this unwise and unnecessary legislation for several reasons. H.R. 3797, would threaten the health of Americans by requiring changes to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for electric generating units (EGUs) that use coal refuse as their main fuel source. In doing this, H.R. 3797 would restrict the market-based approach currently used to allocate sulfur dioxide emission allowances issued under the CSAPR, thereby raising the costs of achieving the pollution reduction required by the rule. This bill also would undermine the emissions limits for hazardous acid gases from those established under the MATS, leading to increased health and environmental impacts from increased emissions of hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, other harmful acid gases, and sulfur dioxide. Specifically, CSAPR and MATS protect the health of millions of Americans by requiring the reduction of harmful power plant emissions, including air toxics and emissions that contribute to smog and fine particle pollution. The pollution reductions from CSAPR and MATS have real life impacts: prevention of thousands of premature deaths, asthma attacks, and heart attacks. Let me also underscore that an important feature of the CSAPR is its trading program which allows power plants to meet emission budgets in different ways, including by trading emissions allowances between emission sources within a State and some trading across States. This market-based approach reduces the cost of compliance while ensuring reductions in air pollution for citizens across the CSAPR region. I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would create an uneven playing field by picking winners and losers in CSAPR compliance. Indeed, this bill establishes a special market of CSAPR allowances for EGUs that burn coal refuse and prohibits the trading of allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs, which would interfere with and manipulate market conditions. Specifically, H.R. 3797 would: economically advantage coal refuse EGUs over other EGUs by giving them allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to others; reduce compliance choices for other State units; and distort the economic incentives of coal refuse EGUs to reduce emissions. Also, the allowances allocated to coal refuse EGUs would be unavailable for use by any other sources. This will result in the aggregate, in less efficient and more costly CSAPR compliance. Finally, I oppose H.R. 3797 because it would interfere with existing opportunities under the CSAPR for each State to control the allocation of allowances among its EGUs. Instead of wasting time supporting this bill, I urge my colleagues to join me in focusing on more important issues affecting our nation: more jobs for Americans in the energy and other sectors, energy security and independence and utilization of innovation in energy to solve some of the contemporary issues we face in our country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of S. 2426, directing the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). Last year, I supported H.R. 1853, which passed here in the House of Representatives, directing the Administration to develop a strategy to obtain observer status for Taiwan in the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), and for other purposes. As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, the empowerment of law enforcement in order that they be able to carry out their mandate in upholding the rule of law and preservation of peace and security are imperatives I believe we must continue to seek to facilitate here in the homeland as well as in the global community from Nigeria to Taiwan and everywhere in between to maintain global stability and combat violent extremism. Our world today is fraught with global terrorism, with groups such as ISIL, Boko Haram, al-Shabab and their other affiliates, utilizing information sharing and technologies to advance their vitriolic causes. This is why organizing, inclusion and empowerment of nations willing to work together to combat domestic and global terrorism is in our global and national security interest. This measure facilitates the United States' and the global community's ability to move swiftly to empower police and law enforcement in our collective efforts of coordinating, preempting and acting swiftly in unison, strategically in combatting terrorism, crisis prevention and response and maintaining, peace, security, law, order and respect for the rule of law. I join this bipartisan measure which seeks to facilitate INTERPOL member states' efforts to promote Taiwan's ability to bid to obtain observer status in the INTERPOL. Indeed, since 1964, Taiwan had maintained full membership, but was ejected 20 years later when the People's Republic of China (PRC) applied for membership. Part of what the United States Administration can do is to take the lead in endorsing Taiwan in obtaining its observer status. Let me underscore that the Administration and our Secretary of State are doing a fantastic job in diplomatic efforts on behalf of our nation, earning us goodwill in the global community. The United States has expressed its affirmative intentions in support of Taiwan's participation in appropriate international organizations, as delineated in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review. For instance, Public Law 108-235 authorized the Secretary of State to initiate and implement a plan to endorse and obtain observer status at the annual World Health Assembly for six consecutive years, owing to Taiwan's significant contribution to the global community's efforts of addressing pandemic control and global public health issues of our day. Indeed, the INTERPOL's constitution allows observer status at meetings by police entities who are not members of the Organization. The current status of non-membership status preludes Taiwan from gaining access to INTERPOL's I-24/7 global communications systems, an important real time information sharing infrastructure on domestic and global criminals. The current state of affairs relegates Taiwan to hearsay or second hand information from friendly nations such as the United States. This impedes Taiwan's ability to move swiftly in information acquisition as it relates to its domestic and global crime fighting efforts. As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, global and national security efforts and infrastructures that promote global communications to achieve peace and stability are very important to me. This measure seeks to protect our security interests in Taiwan as well as the global security of the world. Taiwan's inaccessibility to critical information readily made available to its law enforcement forces places our entire world at risk. This measure seeks to facilitate Taiwan's direct and unobstructed participation in the International Criminal Police which promotes global security. I support and urge the support of this measure because it is beneficial for all nations and their police authorities to be able to share information with authorized police authorities in their law enforcement and peacekeeping efforts in combatting local and global crimes, including the contemporary crime of violent extremism.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness and overwhelming grief to acknowledge the passing of my beloved staff member, Tiffany Joslyn. As we return to Washington, I did not want one day to pass without a tribute to her, although I will return again with more details and more expressions of how talented she was. Tiffany died Saturday, March 5, in a very tragic car accident while traveling between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, having gone home to mourn with her family on the passing of a relative. The greatest tragedy of all is that not only did Tiffany lose her life, but her beloved only brother died and his wife was injured in the same accident. I come today to acknowledge her light and to tell her parents of the great respect Tiffany has garnered throughout the Washington community and beyond. She was a brilliant writer. She served as Deputy Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations of the House Judiciary Committee. Republicans and Democrats loved her well. She had the kind of spirit, generosity, and eagerness to get the job done that everyone loved. Tiffany had a passion to help the most vulnerable and those who were caught up in the criminal justice system unfairly, but also those who deserved restoration and rehabilitation. Together we were on a journey to continue to find a way to reform the criminal justice system. She made great progress. Two of the bills we worked on have already passed out of the Judiciary Committee, and I am praying that they come to the floor not only in her name, but in the names of all the vulnerable people that would benefit from her great work. To her family, this tragedy is so enormous that words cannot comfort, but you should know that your daughter and your late son were lights to so many. May good bless them as they rest in peace, for they left a legacy. It will go on and on. I am ever grateful for the opportunity to work with Tiffany, a young woman with a big heart and maybe even an old soul. She had a lot to give and a lot of intellect to make a difference in this world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 1471, the ``FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 2015.'' The Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA), which was signed into law in 1979 by President Carter, provides support to improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards. Under the Clinton Administration FEMA became the premier emergency response organization in the world. Mr. Speaker, we all remember the disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana and the management mistakes that cost so many innocent Americans their lives. Since that time FEMA has vastly improved its organization and response protocols to disasters throughout the country. An example is FEMA's response to the 2015 historic floods in of Houston, Texas, which helped saved countless lives. H.R. 1471 reauthorizes FEMA through Fiscal Year 2018 authorizes millions per year up to $947 million in annual appropriations, and authorizes the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System. This legislation also contains several provisions intended to reduce future losses from disasters and to improve the recovery process for victims and affected communities. In addition the bill provides for a study of disaster costs and why they have continued to increase and gives greater weight to severe localized impact and adjusts disaster relief policies to reflect this change. To protect families and individuals H.R. 1471 prohibits FEMA from initiating new action to recover disaster assistance payments made to an individual or household more than three years after the payments were made, or to recover emergency assistance funds owed by an individual or household more than three years after the funds were determined to be owed. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1471, ``FEMA Disaster Assistance Reform Act of 2015'' provides many changes that will allow this vital agency to operate effectively and respond quickly to the areas in this country where its services are needed most.