Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Nancy Davis Reagan, the former First Lady of the United States, who died on March 6, 2016 at her home in California at the age of 94. Born July 6, 1921, in New York, New York, Nancy Davis Reagan was the only child of Kenneth Robbins, a salesman, and Edith Luckett Robbins, an actress. In 1929, Edith Luckett Robbins married a prominent Chicago neurosurgeon, Loyal Davis, who adopted young Nancy in 1931. Nancy Davis studied drama at Smith College where she earned a baccalaureate degree in 1943. After college, Nancy Davis followed her dreams to pursue a career in acting. Her first role was a nonspeaking part in the touring company production of Ramshackle Inn. The play eventually made it to Broadway in New York City, where Nancy Davis landed a minor role in the 1946 musical Lute Song, starring Yul Brynner and Mary Martin. In 1949, Nancy Davis noticed that her name was listed on the Hollywood blacklist, which was established by the film industry to warn studios and producers of individuals suspected of being communist sympathizers. This case of mistaken identity resulted in Nancy Davis meeting the love of her life and husband, Ronald Reagan, who at that time was the president of the Screen Actors Guild. They were married on March 4, 1952, and within a few years daughter Patty and son Ronald were born, joining Maureen and Michael, Ronald Reagan's children by a prior marriage. Nancy Reagan became California's first lady in 1967, when her husband was elected to Governor of California. In 1980, Nancy Reagan became the First Lady of the United States when her husband was elected the 40th President of the United States. As First lady she championed the ``Just Say No'' campaign to help dissuade youth from using and abusing drugs. Nancy Reagan worked tirelessly to retrieve a number of White House antiques, which had been in storage, and placed them throughout the Executive Mansion. During the Reagan Administration, Nancy Reagan was known most importantly as the president's personal protector. After her husband's term was completed Nancy established the Nancy Reagan Foundation to support after-school drug prevention programs. Nancy Reagan and President Ronald Reagan retired to the ``Reagan Ranch'' in Santa Barbara where they devoted much of their time to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. After President Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease in 1994, the couple founded the Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute, located in Chicago, Illinois. As Ronald Reagan's disease progressed, Nancy became the primary caregiver for her husband. After President Ronald Reagan's death in 2004, Nancy Reagan became a supporter of stem-cell research. Nancy Reagan was a true symbol of American elegance during her time as First Lady of the United States and a tireless advocate for those Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to take a moment of silence in remembrance of this extraordinary woman who transcended political lines.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3735, a bill to name a post office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina as the Maya Angelou Memorial Post Office. Dr. Maya Angelou's illustrious legacy is befitting this well-deserved recognition. Multi-talented barely covers the depth and breadth of Maya Angelou's accomplishments. She was an author, actress, screenwriter, dancer, civil rights activist, professor, and poet. Born Marguerite Annie Johnson on April 4, 1928, in St. Louis, Missouri, Maya Angelou is perhaps best known for her 1969 memoir, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. In 1971, Maya Angelou published the Pulitzer Prize-nominated poetry collection Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'Fore I Die. Maya Angelou received several honors throughout her career, including two NAACP Image Awards in the outstanding literary work (nonfiction) category, in 2005 and 2009 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2010. During World War II, Maya Angelou moved to San Francisco, California, where she won a scholarship to study dance and acting at the California Labor School. Also during this time, Maya Angelou became the first black female cable car conductor in San Francisco, California. In the mid-1950s, Maya Angelou's career as a performer began to take off, when she landed a role in a touring production of Porgy and Bess, later appearing in the off-Broadway production Calypso Heat Wave (1957) and releasing her first album, Miss Calypso (1957). As a member of the Harlem Writers Guild and a civil rights activist, Maya Angelou organized and starred in the musical revue Cabaret for Freedom as a benefit to raise funds for Dr. King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Maya Angelou also served as the SCLC's northern coordinator. In 1961, Maya Angelou appeared in an off-Broadway production of Jean Genet's The Blacks with James Earl Jones, Lou Gossett Jr. and Cicely Tyson. While the play earned strong reviews, Maya Angelou moved on to other pursuits, spending much of the 1960s abroad, first living in Egypt and then in Ghana, working as an editor and a freelance writer at the University of Ghana. After returning to the United States, Angelou was urged by friend and fellow writer James Baldwin to write about her life experiences. Maya Angelou's efforts resulted in the enormously successful 1969 memoir about her childhood and young adult years, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which made literary history as the first nonfiction best- seller by an African-American woman, making Maya an international superstar. Since publishing Caged Bird, Maya Angelou continued to break new ground not just artistically, but educationally and socially. She wrote the screenplay for the film drama Georgia, Georgia in 1972--and made history as the first African-American woman to have her screenplay produced. Maya Angelou went on to earn a Tony Award nomination for her role in the 1973 play Look Away and an Emmy Award nomination for her work on the television miniseries Roots (1977). Maya Angelou also published several collections of poetry, including Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'Fore I Die (1971), which was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. One of Maya Angelou's most famous works is the poem ``On the Pulse of Morning,'' which she wrote especially for and recited at President Bill Clinton's inaugural ceremony in January 1993, the first inaugural recitation since 1961, when Robert Frost delivered his poem ``The Gift Outright'' at President John F. Kennedy's inauguration. Maya Angelou went on to win a Grammy Award (best spoken word album) for the audio version of the poem. In 1995, Maya Angelou again made history, this time for remaining on The New York Times' paperback nonfiction best-seller list for two years--the longest-running record in the chart's history. Seeking new creative challenges, Maya Angelou made her directorial debut in 1998 with Down in the Delta, starring Alfre Woodard. She also wrote a number of inspirational works, from the essay collection Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now, to her advice for young women in Letter to My Daughter. Interested in health, Angelou has even published cookbooks, including Hallelujah! The Welcome Table: A Lifetime of Memories With Recipes and Great Food, All Day Long. Among her numerous accolades are the Chicago International Film Festival's 1998 Audience Choice Award, Acapulco Black Film Festival in 1999 for Down in the Delta; and two NAACP Image Awards for Outstanding Literary Work The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a close friend, was assassinated on Maya Angelou's 40th birthday, April 4, 1968, and from that year forward Maya Angelou refused to celebrate her birthday; instead, she would send flowers to Dr. King's widow, Coretta Scott King, for more than 30 years, until her death in 2006. President Barack Obama has called Maya Angelou ``a brilliant writer, a fierce friend, and a truly phenomenal woman,'' who ``had the ability to remind us that we are all God's children; that we all have something to offer.'' Madam Speaker, I can think of so many other reasons why Dr. Maya Angelou's illustrious legacy deserves this profound recognition, but I leave you with these words from Dr. Angelou's poem, Still I Rise: Leaving behind nights of terror and fear. I rise. Into a daybreak that's wondrously clear. I rise. Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave. I am the dream and the hope of the slave. I rise. I rise. I rise!

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, sixteen days ago, and just moments after learning the sad news that Antonin Scalia, the most senior Justice on the Supreme Court, had died in his sleep at the age of 79, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, announced emphatically that ``this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'' Later that evening, the Senate Majority Leader's position was echoed at a presidential primary debate in South Carolina by every Republican presidential candidate. Justice Scalia may have had many qualities but none endeared him more to his admirers on that debate stage and across the country than his professed devotion to the rule of law, his exaltation of the doctrine of ``original intent,'' and his insistence that the meaning of the Constitution is to be divined only from the strictest reading of the text. Given the praise heaped on Justice Scalia by Republican senators and presidential candidates, it is passing strange indeed that they claim to be honoring his memory by taking a position that repudiates the very principles Justice Scalia devoted his life to advancing. Mr. Speaker, so-called ``strict constructionists'' claim that the Constitution is to be interpreted according to its literal text. Well, there is nothing clearer than the provision in Article II, Section 2, which states that the President ``with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Count[.]'' To read the Constitution as containing a limitation restricting the President's exercise of this power in the fourth year of his term of office would be to treat the Constitution as a ``living document'' and to engage in the type of judicial activism that Justice Scalia opposed and fought during his 30 years on the Court. Indeed, just three years ago, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Justice Scalia in discussing his judicial philosophy, expressed his view of the Constitution: ``It's not a living document. It's dead, dead, dead.'' If it had been the original intention of the Framers to restrict the President from nominating Supreme Court Justices to fill vacancies occurring in the fourth year of his or her term, they would have manifested that intent clearly, explicitly, and unmistakably, as they did in conditioning Supreme Court appointments to the advice and consent of the Senate and in prohibiting the President from exercising the Pardon Power in cases of impeachment. Mr. Speaker, disregarding the procedure expressly set forth in the Constitution for filling vacancies on the Supreme Court because it may not result in the appointment of one's preferred justice makes a mockery of the ``rule of law,'' adherence to which is claimed to be the most sacred principle of both judicial and political conservatives. The bottom line is this: for those who revered Justice Scalia, cherish his memory, and wish to do honor to the work of his life, the way forward is clear. And that is for Republican senators to gladly receive, when it is put forward, President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy left by the death of their hero and discharge their constitutional duty to advise and consent (or not consent) to the nomination as reflected by an up or down vote on the nominee. Republican senators protest there is an 80 year precedent against confirming a Supreme Court nominee during an election year, and besides, there is not sufficient time even if they wished to do so. This is a short horse soon curried. The most recent instance where there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court in an election year occurred not 80 but 28 years ago, in 1988, during the administration of President Reagan. That vacancy was filled on February 3, 1988 by the appointment of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed 97-0 by a Democrat- controlled Senate. The Justice Kennedy nomination is the controlling precedent, as Justice Scalia would recognize. The erudite Justice would say to anyone claiming otherwise, ``Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant,'' which is Latin for the canon of judicial interpretation that ``the last expression of the people prevails.'' There are 326 days left in President Obama's term, which is more than sufficient time for the President to nominate, and for the Senate to consider and vote to confirm or reject his nominee. Since 1900, there have been 60 Supreme Court vacancies. The average time taken to fill these 60 vacancies is 73 days, which is less than 25% of the time remaining in the President's term. The average time to fill each of the 13 vacancies since 1975 is a mere 67 days. And of the current members of the Supreme Court, the average time is 74 days, the longest being the 99 days taken to confirm the controversial nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas in October 1991. Mr. Speaker, as is often noted, elections have consequences; they also impose responsibilities and duties. And one of the most important duties imposed by the Constitution on the President is to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and for the Senate to consider those nominations with dispatch. The Supreme Court is the nation's highest court and its essential and indispensable role in our constitutional system is to provide definitive interpretations of American law and the Constitution. Its decisions are the law of the land binding in every state and territory. The Supreme Court is the only judicial tribunal capable of providing the legal clarity and certainty required for the legal system to function and give meaning to the rule of law. President Obama has announced that he intends to fulfill the responsibility devolved upon him by the Constitution and will submit to the Senate a nominee to fill the large shoes left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent, or withhold its consent, by casting an up or down vote on that nomination. That is the way to pay fitting tribute to Justice Scalia, to honor the Constitution, and to keep faith with the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of Black History Month, a time when the nation pauses to remember the contributions of African American men and women that have enriched the fabric of our nation. That is why it is fitting and proper that we take a moment to recount and appreciate the extraordinary accomplishments of one of the singular figures in American history: President Barack Obama. Mr. Speaker, those of us who were there remember well that the morning of January 20, 2009 was one of the coldest days on record in Washington, DC. But it was nothing compared to the chill wind blowing through the American economy and body politic. The nation was facing economic challenges unseen since the Great Depression: Americans were losing their jobs at a frightening rate of 800,000 per month; the national unemployment rate had risen to 7.8 percent and would continue to climb until reaching its peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009. For African Americans, the numbers were much grimmer, a jobless rate of 13.5 percent in January 2009 which would grow to 16.5 percent by the end of the year. And on top of this, tens of thousands of American families each month were losing their health insurance and their homes to foreclosure. The United States was still bogged down in the quagmire that was the Iraq War and young people by the thousands were being forced to defer or drop out of college because of lack of financial aid. And the average price of gas exceeded $4 per gallon. It was against this backdrop that I watched from the inaugural platform as Barack Obama, surrounded by his radiant and beautiful wife, Michelle, and their two adorable daughters, rose to take the oath of office. After being sworn in as the nation's 44th President of the United States, President Obama reassured an anxious but hopeful nation, saying: Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met. Watching Barack Obama address the nation that day, spectators in attendance and viewers across the country and around the world understood they were witnessing a historic president, the first African American ever to hold the nation's highest office. But more than being a historic president, Barack Obama's actions and leadership over the ensuing seven years would demonstrate his would be a consequential presidency that changed America for the better. His first and most pressing task was to rescue an economy on the brink of collapse. Working with the Democratic-controlled Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, which created 3.7 million jobs and saved the jobs of millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and social service providers. The Recovery Act also cut taxes for working families, extended unemployment insurance, and expanded the Earned Income and Child tax credits, which disproportionately benefit African American families. Seven years later the verdict is in on the economic plan put in place by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. The Recovery Act ended the Great Recession, transformed the economy from one hemorrhaging jobs to one that has created over 16 million new jobs over a record 71 consecutive months. The national unemployment rate has dipped under 5% for the first time since President Clinton left office, the deficit has been cut by 71%, and the Dow Jones stock market index topped 18,000 in 2015, an increase of 177% over where it stood the day President Obama took office. And, as an added benefit, the average price of gasoline has been reduced from more than $4.11 per gallon to $1.80, the lowest price since before the tragedy of September 11. These last seven years also effected policy changes in the areas of criminal justice reform, health and education, national security, and foreign affairs. A partial listing of these achievements is substantial, impressive, and varied. President Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act in August 2010, which reduces the disparity in the amounts of powder cocaine and crack cocaine required for the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences and eliminates the mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine. In July 2015, President Obama became the first president ever to tour a federal prison when he visited the El Reno Federal Correctional Institution outside of Oklahoma City. President Obama launched the Smart on Crime initiative through which the Department of Justice modified its charging policies for certain federal low-level drug-related offenses, improved diversion and re- entry policies, and strengthened protections for the most vulnerable. President Obama established Smart on Juvenile Justice grant program to expand the use of effective community-based alternatives to youth detention and launched the Second Chance Pell Pilot Program for Incarcerated Individuals to test new models to allow incarcerated Americans to receive Pell Grants and pursue the postsecondary education with the goal of helping them get jobs, support their families, and turn their lives around. President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to take action where it can to ``ban the box'' by modifying its rules to delay inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process and called on Congress to enact legislation ``banning the box'' on job applications in the private sector. President Obama increased the use of body-worn cameras through $20 million in grants to state and local law enforcement. President Obama issued an Executive Order to increase the capacity of VA mental-health programs by hiring 1,600 more mental-health professionals and expanding the capacity of the Veterans Crisis Line. President Obama provided nearly $60 billion in benefit payments under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to over 1.5 million individuals and relaxed the evidence requirements for veterans seeking disability pay for post- traumatic stress disorder with the Department of Veterans Affairs. President Obama acted to reduce gun violence by issuing executive orders requiring background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation and an overhaul of the background check system to make it more efficient and effective. President Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act passed by the Democratic Congress which has provided access to quality, affordable health insurance to nearly 20 million previously uninsured Americans. President Obama launched the ``My Brother's Keeper'' Initiative in 2014 to address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color and ensure that all young people can reach their full potential. In October 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, historic legislation extending coverage of federal hate-crime law to include attacks based on the victim's race, religion, nationality, or actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. President Obama established the new Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy for young undocumented people who came to the U.S. as children in an effort to better focus enforcement resources. President Obama expanded opportunity for America's children by strengthening Head Start. President Obama made college more affordable by increasing Pell grants, keeping interest rates on student loans low, and helping students manageably repay their loans. President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act, which made historic investments in improved child nutrition and health for the 31 million children who rely on school meals and updated science-based school meal standards to increase fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean protein and low-fat dairy, while reducing fats and sodium. In December 2010, the Congress passed and President Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 into law, allowing gay men and women to serve openly and with integrity in the U.S. military. President Obama also made history by appointing two women to the U.S. Supreme Court, including the first Hispanic American to serve on the Court. President Obama appointed the first African American man and woman to serve as Attorney General and the first woman to Chair the Federal Reserve Board. In the area of foreign affairs and national security, President Obama ended the Iraq War, assembled and led an international coalition to impose sanctions so crippling on Iran that it was forced to the negotiating table that yielded the Iran Nuclear Agreement that prevents Iran from ever attaining a nuclear weapon. And of course, as the world knows, because of President Obama's leadership, General Motors is alive and Osama Bin Laden is dead. For seven years, President Barack Obama has represented our country with grace, integrity, honor, and distinction. He has provided consolation, hope, and healing in the face of unspeakable tragedies such as the massacre of innocent children at Sandy Hook, worshippers at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, spectators at the Boston Marathon, and mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona. He expressed and symbolized our joy and pride in the progress made over the last half century--and the distance we still have to travel-- when he marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge and addressed the multitude from the spot on the steps where the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream for America's future. So as President Obama serves the final year of his presidency, it is clear beyond doubt that he kept the promise he made to the nation seven years ago on that cold day in January when he said: Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. . . . But know this America: They will be met. They were more than just met; under his leadership they were overcome with amazing grace. And because of President Barack Obama, today the United States is stronger, more prosperous, and better positioned than ever to win the future. As a presidential candidate in 2008, then Senator Obama promised the America people ``change you can believe in.'' In office, President Obama made good on that promise, delivering positive change that the American people can see and feel. And that is what makes his one of the most consequential presidencies in American history.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order. Let me also thank Mr. Wittman and Mr. Beyer for their leadership on this issue. Let me state for the record that I am from Texas, where there are many fishermen, many hunters, and many sportsmen and -women, but we are also a people that understand unto whom much is given, much is expected. My amendment speaks to that very issue. My amendment No. 3 strikes title III of the underlying bill that creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would allow a handful of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United States. Let me provide for my colleagues a simple bit of information. Most people do not know, but polar bears are officially classified as marine mammals and, as such, are included under the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act. They are also listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, affording the iconic animals further protection against hunting, trapping, and capturing. Over the last few years, these laws did not stop a handful of wealthy individuals from flying up to Canada to bag a trophy polar bear for their collection back home, even though they were warned that U.S. law would prohibit the importation of skins, heads, and other products from bears that they were hunting. In 1994, well-funded hunting interests convinced Congress to amend the act, allowing a limited number of bears from trophy hunts, but only if the animal came from a designated population that could withstand the loss. Then in 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed rule to list the polar bear as threatened. This continues. In the Humane Society letter that supports my amendment, it is indicated that, in fact, we may lose two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2070. My amendment is smart, it is right, it is humane. It responds to the conscience and the rightness of this country. I am saddened to see these lovely animals--if I can call them that-- become trophies to make someone else feel good. I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of taking care of what God has given us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from the Humane Society that I will include in the Record, along with an article regarding polar bear hunting. The Humane Society of the United States, February 24, 2016 Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Jackson Lee: The Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, and Humane Society International strongly support your amendment to H.R. 2406, the so-called ``Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015.'' This harmful legislation contains a variety of provisions that threaten wildlife, including one that would allow U.S. trophy hunters to import the heads and hides of threatened polar bears from Canada. Your amendment to strike this language sends a strong message that our country should be protecting vulnerable species, not carving out exceptions for the small fraction of the hunting public that travels the globe to kill its most majestic creatures. Title III of H.R. 2406 would weaken the Marine Mammal Protection Act by permitting the importation of trophies from 41 polar bears killed as the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The wealthy trophy hunters that shot these bears had full knowledge of the pending rule, and knew that U.S. law would likely prohibit them from bringing back their kill. We should not give these hunters a free pass to exploit a regulatory loophole. This is just the latest in a recent series of import allowances by Congress. It would send a message that politically-connected trophy hunters can kill endangered and threatened species around the globe, put the trophies in storage, and wait around for their congressional allies to get them permission to bring the heads and hides into the country for display over mantles in living rooms. The provision does not help rank-and-file hunters and sportsmen, who would never dream of traveling to the Arctic to shoot a polar bear, or to Africa to shoot a lion. Scientists estimate that we may lose two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2050. Congress should do all it can / to protect such vanishing species from extinction instead of incentivizing trophy hunters to kill as many as possible in advance of pending ESA listings. This is a critical measure to ensure the long-term viability of imperiled animals around the globe. When Cecil, the beloved African lion, was killed by an American dentist it shined a light on the shameful subculture of trophy hunters, who spend their fortunes traveling the globe to kill the rarest and most majestic species on earth. We applaud your amendment, which provides real protections for endangered and threatened species. Sincerely, Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the United States. Michael Markarian, President, Humane Society Legislative Fund.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, scientists estimate, as I indicated, that we may lose two-thirds of the polar bear population by 2050. Therefore, we, as custodians of these very precious animals, should do all that we can to protect a vanishing species from extinction instead of incentivizing trophy hunters to kill as many as possible in advance of pending ESA listings. This is a critical measure to assure the long-term viability of imperiled animals. Let me also cite for the record that the appeals court upholds Endangered Species Act protections for polar bears. Let me suggest to my colleagues that we saw an unfortunate circumstance just a few months ago when Cecil the lion was killed out of mistake or I don't know what, but this giant of an animal, this reflection of the idea of the importance of the animal kingdom, was killed. I introduced H.R. 3448, Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act. It is similar to the amendment I have today. I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chair, let me express my appreciation to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva for their leadership and commitment to working to maintain and preserve America's natural resources and wildlife habitat. I also wish to thank Chairman Sessions, Ranking Member Slaughter, and members of the Rules Committee for making in order Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3 is an important revision to the SHARE Act because it serves to preserve the original intent of Congress under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, as well as the Endangered Species Act. Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment strikes Title III of the underlying bill that creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act which would allow a handful of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United States in contravention of current law. While H.R. 2406 purports to enhance recreational outdoor opportunities and does in fact have some favorable provisions, Title III, as well as many other harmful provisions make clear, that this legislation would in reality jeopardize already fragile ecosystems and negatively impact animal welfare and wildlife. As a longstanding member of the Congressional Animal Rights Caucus and champion of wildlife preservation and protection of animals, I am deeply concerned about the harmful provisions of H.R. 2406 and the impact this legislation will have on endangered and threatened populations. Title III of the SHARE Act is particularly concerning, because it creates a loophole in the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) allowing for a special class of hunters to import polar bear trophies into the United States in contravention of the law. The MMPA was set up because it was recognized that many marine mammal stocks, including polar bears, were in danger of becoming endangered or extinct. The sole, most important, objective of the MMPA is to help maintain the health and stability of the ecosystem. The polar bears for which these hunters seek permits for were hunted in Canada after the species was proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and was done so with full knowledge and warning that U.S. law would prohibit their eventual importation. Enacting Title III of the SHARE Act would threaten this imperiled species by encouraging hunters to race for trophies the moment a species is considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act, store them abroad and then seek waivers from Congress to import their trophies later. Granting such a waiver sets a dangerous precedent and sends signals to trophy hunters that they can flout the law--effectively rewarding hunters who raced to kill polar bears for trophies before their listing under the Endangered Species Act. Alternately, removal of this language will help ensure that hunters are not encouraged to seek bad faith waivers from Congress to import threatened and endangered species at a later time. These bears were knowingly hunted in Canada after the species was proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The survival and protection of the polar bear habitat is an urgent issue for wildlife experts and those who treasure our natural habitat. H.R. 2406, as it stands, is opposed by virtually every leading environmental organization in the nation. The Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society Legislative Fund, and the Humane Society International, as well as several others including the Animal Welfare Institute, Center for Biological Diversity, and Born Free USA have all submitted letters in strong support my Jackson Lee Amendment as a necessary provision to provide real protections for endangered and threatened species. Earlier this year, I also introduced H.R. 3448, the Cecil the Lion Endangered and Threatened Species Act in response to the tragic killing of Cecil the Lion and the impermeable need for greater protections to shield all threatened and endangered species from trophy-hunting. You have no doubt heard about the recent tragic illegal killing of Cecil the Lion, a 13-year-old lion, dominant male of his pride, and one of Zimbabwe's most beloved symbols of wildlife and important driver of tourism. The hunter, along with hired professionals, lured Cecil out of Hwange National Park and shot him, allegedly without a permit, and collected the head and skin. Beyond Cecil, over two thirds of the world's cat species are recognized as species in need of protection under federal or international law. My legislation to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973, would prohibit the taking and transportation of any endangered or threatened species as a trophy into the United States. Currently, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not protect the vast majority of wild animals killed and imported by American hunters. While the ESA allows for the importation of endangered and threatened species for scientific research, propagation or survival of the species, hunters are abusing this limited exception to murder and transport protected wildlife for sport. As a result of the ESA loophole, tens of thousands of wild animals are killed every year by American trophy hunters and transported into the United States. In particular, Africa's lion population has declined 90 percent in the past 75 years. The conservation of rare and threatened species is critically important to the sustainability of our ecosystem and wildlife as we know it. Polar bears, like African lions, currently face unprecedented threats by humans on two fronts: sport hunting and loss of habitat. The polar bear and African lion are vulnerable species sitting at the top of the food chain. The health of these animals is an indicator and foundation for the health of the ecosystem as a whole, and by protecting the sustainability of these specific umbrella species, we can have tremendous impacts on entire ecosystems. The International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has ``Red Listed'' polar bears as a ``Vulnerable'' species--thus, meeting criteria as a threatened species facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. While Canada is the only country that allows for sport hunting of polar bears, it is unfortunate that what was once a necessity of life for indigenous Inuit communities in Canada, killing polar bears has now become a bloody sport for profit and prestige. It is estimated there are 20,000-25,000 polar bears left in the wild a number that has only been sustainable through federal protection. Mr. Chairman, the SHARE Act of 2015, if enacted would continue to threaten the sustainability of one our most vulnerable species as well as the critical preservation of our wildlife. Scaling back protections on vulnerable and threatened species in the face of legislation aimed to do otherwise will have substantial adverse impacts on wildlife and conservation efforts, as well as policy implications rewarding those who failed to comply with federal law. We simply cannot afford to let threatened and endangered species die needlessly for sport or profit. The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect polar bears while at the same time preserving Congress's intent under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. I urge all members to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 3. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, there are a litany of organizations that are supporting this amendment: the League of Conservation Voters, the Alaskan Wilderness League, Animal Welfare League, Born Free USA. With respect to lions, let me recite that over the last 75 years, we have lost 90 percent of African lions because we did not have the restraints. I would make the argument that we should not do that in this case. When we let go and let free, we will find out that they will go beyond the 41. They will be calling after polar bears for trophies. We need to ban this in our legislation to ensure the protection of all of those. Let me ask my colleagues to take into consideration the importance of our responsibilities of preservation. Trophies? Money? I can assure you that there are a bounty of humane organizations that will provide any amount of dollars to do the research that is necessary to protect this vulnerable population. They are listed on the Endangered Species Act. They are vulnerable. These trophies should not be an indication to the American people that they can bring in polar bears--who may themselves become extinct-- because we believe that trophies are more important than studying the species and growing the species to the extent that scientists and others can restrain them and make sure that we do have a population within the realm and reason of supporting the ecosystem that we need. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) very much. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman who is the proponent of the legislation that, first of all, we have a responsibility to keep law and order; we have a responsibility to protect the Second Amendment; and we have a responsibility to law enforcement officers. Tragically, in the backdrop of this debate was an individual who secured guns and killed and slaughtered people just last night. We want to make sure that we are safe and that we are dealing with issues that are important to protecting our law enforcement. First of all, this amendment is unnecessary. Current Federal law already entitles a person to transport a firearm from one place to another so long as the firearm is unloaded and the needs of the firearms or any ammunition being transported is not readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment, et cetera. This amendment intends to make a Federal open carry law. This open carry law should be one of the State's determinations. It happens to exist in the State that I am from. It should not be placed upon the entire country by Federal law. Why? Because whether a gun is supposed to be locked or has a trigger on it, it still poses a threat, possibly, to our law enforcement. I oppose this amendment because it is unnecessary and because it puts our law enforcement persons in danger. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment and acknowledge the shooting in Kansas as evidence that we don't need more guns being carried back and forth on the streets.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes ago the Judiciary Committee ranking and chairman were in a hearing that exuded bipartisan expressions for fixing the challenges that we have, with the location of data and international requests for data being held by America's technology companies. It was an interesting and open discussion, which I want to evidence on the Record. The Judiciary Committee is continuing and has had over the years bipartisan approaches to a number of difficult questions, which we have solved, including our approach to criminal justice reform. I thank the chairman and ranking member for that. I also want to acknowledge that we have some challenges, as was evidenced by comments from the gentleman from Tennessee, on the restoration of the Voting Rights Act. We find ourselves again in a challenge that I hope can be fixed. First, I want to make it very clear that I practiced law for a number of years and served as an associate municipal court judge and as well was a quasi-prosecutor on the Select Committee on Assassinations which, I allow, this body did research when that select committee was in place the issues of the investigations of Dr. Martin Luther King's assassination and John F. Kennedy. So I know the importance of lawyers, of which I have the greatest respect and of which I am one. I understand that trial lawyers are representing both defendants and plaintiffs and corporations come into the court with trial lawyers. So I am a little taken aback by any suggestion that the words ``trial lawyers'' have a negative connotation. Anyone who wants to win a case in a courtroom must have a lawyer, and you would want to make sure that they are a trial lawyer. As well, you want to make sure that you have the rights of due process. So I would make the argument that trial lawyers go into court, whether they are representing corporations or plaintiffs. Corporations in many instances may be defendants. In that case, I will tell you you are making it far more difficult by pushing cases into the Federal court under H.R. 3624. It is more expensive and they take longer, making it difficult for workers, consumers, and patients generally to have their cases closer to home in State courts. However, there may be an instance where a corporation is a plaintiff and you will have the same blocking of that corporation by this bill. If this bill was enacted, it would tip the scales of justice in favor of corporate defendants or others that make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs. It would effectively eliminate the local defendant exception by diversity jurisdiction. I heard someone say--and it bears repeating--it is a solution looking for a problem. The current standard used by the courts to determine whether the joinder of a nondiverse defendant is improper, however, has been in place for a century. We have no evidence that this has put anyone in a position of not getting due process. That is our goal in the court system. The fraudulent joinder doctrine is well established and, in fact, will only be found if the defendant establishes that the joinder of the diversity-destroying party in the State court was made without a reasonable basis. We have a system, but this particular bill reverses this longstanding policy by imposing new requirements. Finally, Mr. Chairman, if I might, further taking away a defendant's responsibility to prove that Federal jurisdiction over State cases is improper alters the fundamental precept of a party seeking removal. I ask my colleagues to recognize that we have bipartisanship on this committee. I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues to oppose it. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3624, the ``Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act of 2016.'' H.R. 3624 is the latest effort to deny plaintiffs access to the forum of their choice and, possibly, to their day in court. H.R. 3624 seeks to overturn longstanding precedent in favor of a vague and unnecessary test that forces state cases into federal court when they don't belong there, and gives large corporate defendants an unfair advantage to pick and choose their forum without the normal burden of proving proper jurisdiction. If enacted this bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of corporate defendants and make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to bring their state claims in state court. H.R. 3624 would effectively eliminate the local defendant exception to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2), which currently prohibits removal to federal court even when there is complete diversity when a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. The current standard used by courts to determine whether the joinder of a non-diverse defendant is improper, however, has been in place for a century, and no evidence has been put forth demonstrating that this standard is not working. Rather, the ``Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine,'' is a well-established legal doctrine providing that: fraudulent joinder will only be found if the defendant establishes that the joinder of the diversity-destroying party in the state court action was made without a reasonable basis of proving any liability against that party. H.R. 3624 reverses this longstanding policy by imposing new requirements on federal courts considering remand motions where a case is before the court solely on diversity grounds. Specifically, it changes the test for showing improper joinder from a one-part test (``no possibility of a claim against a nondiverse defendant'') to a complicated four-part test, requiring the court to find fraudulent joinder if: There is not a ``plausible'' claim for relief against each nondiverse defendant; There is ``objective evidence'' that ``clearly demonstrates'' no good faith intention to prosecute the action against each defendant or intention to seek a joint judgment; There is federal or state law that clearly bars claims against the nondiverse defendants; or There is actual fraud in the pleading of jurisdictional facts. What should be a simple procedural question for the courts, now becomes a protracted mini-trial, giving an unfair advantage to the defendants (not available under current law) by allowing defendants to engage the court on the merits of their position. By requiring litigation on the merits at a nascent jurisdictional stage of litigation based on vague, undefined, and subjective standards like ``plausibility'' and ``good faith intention,'' and by potentially placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff, this bill will increase the complexity and costs surrounding litigation of state law claims in federal court and potentially dissuade plaintiffs from pursuing otherwise meritorious claims. Further, taking away a defendant's responsibility to prove that federal jurisdiction over a state case is indeed proper alters the fundamental precept that a party seeking removal should bear the heavy burden of establishing federal court jurisdiction. The bill is a win-win for corporate defendants. At its most harmful, it will cause non-diverse defendants to be improperly dismissed from the lawsuit. At its least harmful, it will cause an expensive, time-consuming detour through federal courts for plaintiffs. Wrongdoers would not be held accountable for the harm they cause, while the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. For example: large corporate defendants (i.e. typically the diverse defendants) would be favored by the bill because, if the nondiverse defendant is dismissed, they can blame the now-absent in-state defendant for the plaintiff's injuries. Smaller, nondiverse defendants would also be favored because the diverse defendant does all the work for them. The diverse defendant removes the case to federal court and then argues that the nondiverse defendant is improperly joined. If the federal court retains jurisdiction, the nondiverse defendant must be dismissed from the case. If one or more defendants are dismissed from the case, it is easy for the remaining defendant to finger point and blame the absent defendant for the plaintiff's injuries. Even if a federal court remands the case to state court under the bill, the defendants have successfully forced the plaintiff to expend their limited resources on a baseless, time-consuming motion on a preliminary matter. While large corporate defendants can easily accommodate such costs, plaintiffs (i.e. injured consumers, patients and workers) cannot. Regardless of whether the case is remanded to state court or stays in federal court, this new, mandated inquiry will be a drain on the limited resources of federal courts. By mandating a full merits-inquiry on a procedural motion, H.R. 3624 is expensive, time-consuming, and wasteful use of judicial resources. Lastly, by seeking to favor federal courts over state courts as forums for deciding state law claims, this bill offends principles of federalism. The ability of state courts to function independently of federal courts' procedural analysis is a necessary function of the success of the American judiciary branch. For these, reasons I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing H.R. 3624, the Fraudulent Joinder Prevention Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3004, to amend the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act to extend the authorization for the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission. In 2005, Congress passed legislation--H.R. 694, preserving the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage. This law also established a Commission, nominated and appointed by the Secretary of Interior. At the passage of the original Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Act, the membership of the commission was limited to a 3 year term. The Commission is comprised of 15 members who are recognized experts in historic preservation, anthropology, and folklore. The Commissioners assist in identifying and preserving sites, historical data, artifacts, and objects associated with the Gullah/ Geechee for the benefit and education of the public. The purpose of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor Commission is to assist Federal, State, and local authorities in the development and implementation of a management plan for those land and waters of the Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor. H.R. 3004 would ensure the continued protection and preservation of the history and contributions of the Gullah/Geechee people of Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida. Lastly, the law stated that the Commission should be terminated after 10 years. H.R. 3004 will extend the authorization of the Gullah/Geechee Commission from ``10 years'' to ``15 years''. This Black History, the work of the Commission is imperative in facilitating the enhancement and preservation of the Gulla/Geechee cultural heritage. It also continues to facilitate highlighting the important history of African Americans with Gullah/Geechee heritage. Indeed, the original Act, H.R. 694 as passed was intended to recognize the seminal contribution of African American Gullah/Geechee made to American culture and history. These African Americans settled in the coastal states of South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. Since its passage, the Act has facilitated efforts in these identified coastal states in interpreting the story and role of the Gullah/Geechee. Additionally, through the work of the Commission, efforts are now underway to preserve the Gullah/Geechee folklore, arts, crafts, and music. Most critically, the Act and extension of the authorization of the tenure of the Commission will further support the work of continued identification and preservation of sites, gathering of historical data, protection of artifacts, and objects associated with the Gullah/ Geechee. The extension of the work of the Commission under the original Act and this current legislation will yield benefits of education of the general public on the important contribution of the Gullah/Geechee. Through the educational outreach work alone, our nation will learn about the Heritage Corridor which comprises those lands and waters generally depicted on a map entitled ``Gullah/Geechee Cultural Heritage Corridor.'' This is just one prime example of the benefit of the original Act and this current extension of the tenure of the Commission, which I rise in support of.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning I spent some time, and last evening, communicating with leaders of my transit system, Houston METRO, that has received numerous awards; and I applaud them for working very hard, sometimes against odds, to provide mobility for the great citizens of the Houston, Harris County, metroplex area. I had a particular beef, or a particular issue, that we have been working on since last November, and that is to give disabled veterans in this very vast territory of Texas the ability to ride on what we call the HOT lanes for free. My premise is simple. When we ask our men and women in the United States to put the uniform on, we ask, with no qualifications, meaning no restraints, that they are expected to defend the United States to the utmost. In the course of that, some fall in battle, lose their lives, or are veterans who ultimately come to their demise by their age and illnesses. Therefore, I think it is enormously important that, when they make a request that helps them in their mobility, whether it is to doctors' offices and family or going back to school, there should be no barriers, no restraints. So today my METRO board is meeting, and I made contact again, as I did this past week, with the committee, late into the night, to say that there should be no delay, no barrier in allowing those lanes to be used for free by disabled vets. I want this in the Record because I will pursue and persist, even to the extent that an emergency board meeting will need to be called. There just simply is no reason to delay. November, December, January, February, and near March, there is no reason to delay. I am waiting for the decision, and I will look forward to the Disabled Veterans of America and others reaching out to my office so that together, collectively, we can make sure that not only does this happen in Houston, Texas, but that it be a policy across America. We should find a way to be able to assist those who have willingly, without any hesitancy, and unselfishly, put on the uniform. Respect for the Three Branches of Government

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to turn the attention of my colleagues to another issue of justice, and that is the fair existence of and respect for the three branches of government. This involves vets and nurses and schools and school teachers and families across America. It is a process that the Congress goes through every year. We call it the budgeting process; and it is an act of Congress and the administration, we hope, working together. That is the time that the Congress works on the plan for the American people; and it is, of course, the time when the President works on the plan for the American people. It includes reports like this, an economic report of the President. It includes the budget, which is the roadmap for the American people. Let me be very clear. We are all elected; but there is one person--in this instance, one man--that has been elected by all of the people, and he has submitted a budget. I would not ever imagine in my tenure in Congress that we would have this Congress overlook a 41-year tradition for the American people, on their behalf, whether you are for it or against it: the right of the representative of the President, in this instance, Shaun Donovan, the President's Budget Director, to make his presentation before the United States Congress. If I were not standing on this floor, Mr. Speaker, I might simply break down and cry, because I love this institution. I love the constitutional processes documented in the Constitution of the three separate branches of government. We have often disagreed, but we have and should never disrespect. G. William Hoagland, who was the Republican staff director at the Senate Budget Committee for much of the 1980s and 1990s, now senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, could not recall a year, since the Martin budget process took effect in the 1970s, when a President's Budget Director was not invited to testify, Republican or Democrat. While the last budget of an outgoing President is usually aspirational and sets a tone for what he or she hopes will be followed up by, it is not and has not been a time to not see the President's budget. The President's budget is good for education and job creation and national security, and it does not cut, as the Republican budget does, Mr. Speaker, 46 percent in education. Where is our collegiality? Shame on us. Let the President's man speak on the budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) for his leadership and for the service that he has given to this Congress. We are so delighted to have him join us. I thank the manager as well, his colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman). Madam Chair, in coming from Texas and knowing many of those who seek recreational hunting, fishing, and participation on lands, private and Federal, one wonders whether or not we could have found a way to deal with the concerns of our friends of whom I support: environmental groups and the Humane Society and just a litany of individuals from the Atlantis, the Alaska Wilderness League, the Alliance of the Wild Rockies, the Humane Society International, the Endangered Species Coalition, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the National Audubon Society, the Kentucky Heartwood, and just a whole array of individuals, the names of whom I will offer into the Record at another time. This bill comes and specifically interferes with what I believe is the important protection, if you will, of items that impact our wilderness. This bill undermines the NEPA Wilderness Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to solve a problem that does not exist. It blocks the administration's rule to restrict trade in African elephant ivory and protects African elephants from being slaughtered for their tusks. It adds indiscriminate and inhumane trapping practices to the legal definition of hunting and does not include a long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a high priority for hunters and anglers. My simple question is: Couldn't we have found some common ground and not be supporting legislation that, for one, my amendment on polar bears will, in fact, impact; that the wealthy trophy hunters who shot bears had full knowledge of the pending rule? This is an issue that occurred when 41 polar bears were killed as the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule listing them as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The polar bears are vulnerable. They are not yet under the Endangered Species Act, but they are vulnerable. So we have individuals who want to take advantage and seek to utilize the loophole. That is my opposition to this legislation, that it does not find a balance. What it does do is it puts our animals in jeopardy, animals that make for the ecosystem in a positive way. So I would ask my colleagues really to go back to the drawing board and come forward with a bill that actually protects animals, allows sport but does not undermine the whole ecosystem, undermine the structure of protecting animals, and certainly, in the memory of Cecil--although a lion--continue to kill our vulnerable species of polar bears just to have trophies. I urge opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2406, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act of 2015 (SHARE Act). While several of the proposals are non-controversial, the bill includes provisions that would seriously undermine the Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act, and fails to include important, bipartisan program reauthorizations sought by outdoor enthusiasts. There are many for reasons for opposing this bill but I list just a few: More than 75 percent of all federal lands are already open to recreational hunting, fishing and shooting, making the bulk of this legislation unnecessary. Undermines NEPA, the Wilderness Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act to solve a problem that does not exist. Blocks efforts to crack down on poachers and protect elephants from being slaughtered for their tusks. Adds indiscriminate and inhumane trapping practices to the legal definition of hunting. Does not include a long-term reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a high priority program for hunters and anglers. Does not include important, bipartisan program reauthorizations that would provide critical funding for wetlands conservation and expanding hunting and fishing access; programs supported by hunters and anglers. Exempts ammunition and sports fishing equipment from the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) despite the fact that EPA has no plans to regulate this equipment under the Act. Mr. Chair, H.R. 2406 simply patches together a slew of legislative proposals, allegedly to enhance access to federal lands for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. The bill is opposed by virtually every leading environmental organization and the President has announced that it will be vetoed if presented to him for signature. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this unwise and unnecessary legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey, and I thank her for her leadership. As well, I thank my colleagues who are here on the floor of the House who have joined us. Mr. Speaker, let me associate myself with the comments by the gentlewoman from New Jersey as they relate to Louisiana. Let me be clear. As I stand here as a constituent of the State of Texas, as a Representative of the State of Texas, and as a woman who lives in Texas, that Texas State Law HB2 has led to the closure of more than 20 abortion facilities in the State, taking the total number of providers down from 40 to 19, its true purpose being to take away women's rights to make their own healthcare decisions. It could not be more blatant, again, to take away every woman's right to choose. No one stands on this floor tonight to promote and coddle abortion, but we do stand on the floor to protect a woman's right to choose her health and to protect her sacred right of making such decisions with her God, her family, and her physician. How do HB2 and other bills have the right to interfere with that? Let me also cite for you that a U.N. working group concluded that women in the United States inexplicably lag behind international human rights. Pointing to data and research on public and political representation, economic and social rights, and health and safety protections, experts in the U.N. working group boldly acknowledged that there is a myth that women in the United States already enjoy all of the expected standards of rights and protections afforded under America. Isn't that shameful? Under America, we are still denied our rights. The reality is women in the United States are experiencing continued discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent the true ability for them to fully participate as equal members of society. We stand here this evening to acknowledge one striking issue that will be argued at the Supreme Court next week, and that is this case--HB2-- that has shut down clinics and has denied to women that any other access be open to them with this particular legislation. So we are advocating, as it goes to the Supreme Court, that this is an issue of human rights equals women's rights. In America, we face a real problem of hypocrisy. Isn't it interesting that we say that we believe in the rights of families and in the sacredness of one's religion and in one's choice between one's family, doctor, and God, yet, Danielle Deaver was denied an abortion even as the uterus crushed the fetus. This family wanted children. This family wanted to be able to have this child. Unfortunately, due to medical reasons, this young lady needed to have this baby taken. She was 22 weeks pregnant. The real crime is that this was not allowed to take place in a legal manner because just 1 month earlier Nebraska had enacted the Nation's first fetal pain legislation that banned abortions after 20 weeks. It is not one that she wanted. It is not one that she desired. It was because of health care and need and the fact that a tragedy had happened to her and her family; yet, she was denied. Women's rights equal human rights. With respect to the Texas case, the Supreme Court is scheduled next Tuesday to hear the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which will challenge the Texas law that has stripped thousands of women of access to their constitutional right. Whole Woman's Health is the most consequential reproductive case in the last two decades that challenges the longstanding precedent of upholding a woman's constitutional right to access to safe and legal abortion services. It is not a supporting of abortion, but a supporting of the right to choose. It is protective of women's health, of the life of the mother, and of the fact that you engage with your family, with your God, and with your physician. Ever since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which was affirmed again in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that women have a constitutional right to safe, legal abortion care and that States do not have a right to unduly interfere. The Casey decision explained these matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices that are central to personal dignity and autonomy and that are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. The so-called experts who testified in favor of HB2 have been discredited by multiple Federal courts and have been exposed for submitting testimony written by an anti-abortion activist with no medical training. Texas' HB2 has led to the closure of more than 20 abortion facilities in the State, taking the total number of providers down from 40 to 19. Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me give an additional personal anecdote that has taken place in the State of Texas. That is, of course, the masquerading of going into the Planned Parenthood offices that have provided these clinics and that have provided health care to college students and to those in rural communities where there are no doctors, OB/GYNs, or facilities to handle the medical needs of these women. Remember what I said. Women's rights are human rights, and human rights are women's rights, so said by then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is true today. As I have shown in documents, the United Nations working group has challenged whether or not we are providing women the same rights in America as men. That is a daunting question and an unfortunate answer because the U.N. working group has said no. In the backdrop of this great discussion and of the Texas HB2, we had the circumstances of people falsifying who they were, stealing the ID of this person's high school classmates and imitating that he was looking for fetuses for research. Interestingly enough, all of them were calling for the indictment of the Planned Parenthood personnel. Yet, an unbiased grand jury in Texas did not indict those innocent persons who were having a discussion about what was legal, but they indicted those who falsified their documents and tried to mislead people. Again, this case will be argued in the backdrop of so many who are trying to undermine women's rights. I will continue to work with my colleagues to find ways to address the illogical, unfair, and unjust disparity by reviewing and responding to unwarranted restrictions that result in the disparate access to these constitutionally protected rights. One day I hope that we will learn and have as our constitutional premise that the Constitution works and that women's rights are human rights. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Gentlelady for yielding, and I commend the Progressive Caucus for standing firm in defense of our hard-fought women's rights, which in truth, are constitutionally protected American rights. We face a real problem in America with hypocrisy. As a country founded on principles of liberty, justice and equality, and a global leader in formulating international human rights standards, the United States fails to meet these basic standards for women who are denied equal access to legal rights and protections. The United Nations Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law and Practice (U.N. Working Group) recently issued a sobering statement and assessment detailing a picture of women's missing rights in America. Upon visiting several states throughout the country, including my home state of Texas, the U.N. Working Group concluded that women in the United States inexplicably lag behind international human rights standards. Pointing to data and research on public and political representation, economic and social rights, and health and safety protections, experts in the U.N. Working Group boldly acknowledged that there is a myth that women in the United States already enjoy all of the expected standards of rights and protections afforded under America. The reality is women in the United States are experiencing continued discrimination and daunting disparities that prevent the true ability for them to fully participate as equal members of society. One of the most alarming deficiencies for women in America is the inability to access basic health care and the imposition of devastating barriers to reproductive health and rights. Too many women are suffering dire and deadly consequences. Between 1990 and 2013, the maternal mortality rate for women in the U.S. has increased by 136%. Black women are nearly 4 times more likely to die in childbirth, and states with high poverty rates have a 77% higher maternal mortality rate. Our global experts and allies acknowledge that even though women's reproductive rights in America are constitutionally protected, access to reproductive health services are severely abridged by states imposition of sweeping barriers and restrictions. For instance, in many states, women must undergo unjustified and invasive medical procedures; endure groundless waiting periods; be subjected to harassment, violence or other threatening conditions that remain constant throughout all reproductive health care clinics; and forced to forgo treatment or engage in lengthy and costly travel due to closure of clinics faced with burdensome licensing conditions. These restrictions disproportionately discriminate against poor women. The United States can and should do better! It is unacceptable that women in America are facing a health care crisis so dire that the global community is denouncing it as a human rights violation. Sadly, the direction States are taking will only further dismantle women's access to affordable and trustworthy reproductive healthcare. While clinics are shutting down at drastic rates throughout the country, devastating restrictions and barriers imposed throughout Texas strike at the core of this abomination. A Texas statute known as HB2 (House Bill 2), was enacted several years ago under false claims to promote women's health, when in fact it only set in motion dangerous restrictions on women's access to reproductive health care. In addition to constant attacks on funding for reproductive health care clinics, abortion providers in Texas were forced to undergo impossible million dollar renovations and upgrades. Denying hundreds of thousands of women health care services in Texas, nearly half of all reproductive health care clinics were forced to shut down, and now only 10 remain in the second largest state in the country. Taking an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, the Supreme Court recently granted certiorari of Whole Woman's Health v. Cole to decide the fate of these remaining clinics and the lives of women in Texas, and throughout the nation. I am proud to say that I, and a number of my colleagues, signed on to a number of amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, detailing the hardship and injustice Whole Woman's Health v. Cole presents. While we await the decision of the Supreme Court, in Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, we can only hope that the court will help turn the tide of attacks and diminution on women's rights. No woman in America should be denied the dignity of being ability to make choices about her body and healthcare. Access to safe, legal and unhindered healthcare must be realized by all women. These simple facts can no longer be denied, and hypocrisy can no longer be tolerated. A woman's right to choose to have an abortion is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. More than 40 years ago in the landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion. More recently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade and further explained that states could not enact medically unnecessary regulations meant to create substantial obstacles for women seeking abortion services. Yet, fairness and access to exercise constitutionally protected fundamental rights is trampled on and denied to millions of women. We cannot ignore the hypocrisy of imbalanced protection and access to fundamentally protected rights for women in America when it is easier to purchase and lawfully possess a firearm--even for a person on the terrorist watch list--than it is for a woman to exercise her constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, this is neither fair nor right and it should not be rewarded. As our nation continues to push back against horrific acts of violence at the hands of dangerous and irresponsible gun owners and gun dealers, and our nation's number one provider of women's healthcare continues to experience violent and devastating attacks on its services and facilities, it is time we find common ground as we look to resolve these polarizing issues that have all too often collided. A woman's right to choose to have an abortion and an individual's right to possess a firearm are both constitutionally protected fundamental rights. I will be working with my colleagues to find ways to address this illogical, unfair and unjust disparity by reviewing and responding to unwarranted restrictions that result in disparate access to these constitutionally protected rights. Namely, if a woman is required to wait several days, undergo a physical examination, receive counseling and education about alternative options before making the decision to terminate a pregnancy, an individual purchasing a deadly weapon should be required to jump through the same restrictive hoops and apparent safety measures. I hope one day we can come to an agreement in America that it should not be harder for a woman to exercise her fundamental right to choose than it is for a person on the terrorist watch list to lawfully purchase and possess firearms. At a minimum, I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at our constitutional protections and founding principles to resolve the growing crisis and unacceptable conditions of inferiority in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sadness and a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the individuals in law enforcement who have fallen in the line of duty while serving and protecting their communities. It is important to acknowledge that no one is immune from gun violence, including our law enforcement officers stepping in the line of danger to protect us. While overall rates of officers killed by gun violence have declined over the years, we continue to see and hear about horrific cases of officers falling victim to gun violence. Since 2005, shooting-related deaths account for approximately 37 percent of officer fatalities in the line of duty. In the past five years, 259 police officers have died by gunfire across the nation. Thirteen of those deaths were accidental. Sadly, Texas had the highest number of fatalities, losing 12 officers in 2015. This year, we have already lost nine officers to senseless gun violence across the nation in Utah, Oregon, Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi and two in Maryland. Five of these shootings occurred in just three days in February. The recent incident that occurred on February 10, 2016, in Harford County, Maryland, accounting for two of five officers killed in less than a week is particularly alarming and egregious. Senior Deputy Patrick Dailey and Senior Deputy Mark Logsdon of the Harford County Sheriff Department were killed upon approaching a troubled and wanted man in a local restaurant. They were the first Harford County Sheriff's deputies to be shot and killed in the line of duty since 1899. The suspect, who legally purchased the weapon used in shooting these officers, had a history of domestic violence including stalking and a suspected shooting of his estranged wife, substance abuse, and a criminal record including assault on an officer. Awarded Medals of Honor, Deputy Dailey and Deputy Logsdon paid the ultimate sacrifice for responding to a call of need, and encountering an individual who should have never been in legal possession of a firearm. Mr. Speaker, this tragic event highlights the desperate need for mental health and common sense gun reform in this country. We do not need any more first tragedies for communities and law enforcement agencies, and we do not need to repeat history as this year sets a shocking pace for increased officer killings by gunfire. There is no place in a civilized society for such senseless and preventable acts of violence in this country. As Members of Congress we have a solemn obligation to pass legislation that improves the safety and respect between every law enforcement officer and the communities they serve to protect. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of the fallen police officers in this nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, ten days ago, on February 13, 2016, the nation was saddened to learn of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, who loved the Court, served it ably for nearly 30 years and was involved in some of the most consequential cases in history. Mr. Speaker, I urge those who revered Justice Scalia, cherish his memory, and wish to do honor to the work of his life, to join me in calling upon the Senate, and every senator, to discharge their constitutional duty to advise and consent (or not consent) to the nomination that will be put forward by the President by holding an up or down vote. Mr. Speaker, those who claim there is an 80 year precedent against confirming a Supreme Court nominee during an election year and that there is not sufficient time to fill the vacancy are incorrect. The most recent instance where there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court in an election year occurred not 80 but 28 years ago, in 1988, during the administration of President Reagan. That vacancy was filled on February 3, 1988 by the appointment of Justice Anthony Kennedy who was confirmed 97-0 by a Democrat-controlled Senate. The Kennedy nomination is the controlling precedent, as Justice Scalia would recognize. In fact, Justice Scalia would say to anyone claiming otherwise, ``Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant,'' which is Latin for the canon of judicial interpretation that ``the last expression of the people prevails.'' There are 332 days left in President Obama's term, which is more than sufficient time for the President to nominate, and for the Senate to consider and vote to confirm or reject his nominee. Since 1900, there have been 60 Supreme Court vacancies. The average time taken to fill these 60 vacancies is 73 days, which is less than 25% of the time remaining in the President's term. The average time to fill each of the 13 vacancies since 1975 is a mere 67 days. And of the current members of the Supreme Court, the average time is 74 days, the longest being the 99 days taken to confirm the controversial nomination of Justice Clarence Thomas in October 1991. Mr. Speaker, as is often noted, elections have consequences. They also impose responsibilities and duties. And one of the most important duties imposed by the Constitution on the President is to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court and for the Senate to consider those nominations with dispatch. The Supreme Court is the nation's highest court and its essential and indispensable role in our constitutional system is to provide definitive interpretations of American law and the Constitution. Its decisions are the law of the land binding in every state and territory. It is the only judicial tribunal capable of providing the legal clarity and certainty required for the legal system to function and give meaning to the rule of law. President Obama has announced that he intends to fulfill the responsibility devolved upon him by the Constitution and will submit to the Senate a nominee to fill the large shoes left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate should fulfill its constitutional duty to advise and consent, or withhold its consent, by casting an up or down vote on that nomination. That is the way to pay fitting tribute to Justice Scalia, to honor the Constitution, and to keep faith with the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, all of us were saddened in the last 2 weeks at the loss of the longest serving jurist, Justice Scalia. There is no doubt he loved the law and he loved the Court. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that, in recognition of Justice Scalia's love of the law and the love of that Court, we honor his memory by fulfilling the constitutional duty that the other body has to and the constitutional duty that the President has to, which is to advise and consent on a nomination made by the President or not consent made by the President of a Supreme Court Justice. The claim that this is an 80-year precedent that has not been broken based upon the time that the President is now serving--332 days--there is no such term as a lame duck in the United States Congress is incorrect. It was recently done in 1988, under President Reagan, with Justice Kennedy, when he was nominated by a Democrat-controlled Senate, 97-0. It is important that we express to the American people that we are willing to do our duty. I would adhere to the Latin term in English: the last expression of the people prevail. The President of the United States was duly elected in 2012. His term has not ended. I applaud the President for doing his constitutional duty. I think it is important for us to do our constitutional duty, the Congress of the United States, and address the question on making sure the Court is full to do its duty.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, as the Representative of Houston, I am privileged to be able to support this legislation, legislation that, I am very glad to say, had been included in our draft prison bill, a bipartisan bill. But because of the urgency of this matter, I am very glad to be on the floor of the House with the cosponsors, sponsors, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodlatte; and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, as well, joins in the importance of this effort. My heart aches for Eric Williams' family, and it aches for the circumstance that caused him to lose his life. Obviously, this young man was committed to public safety, the criminal justice system, and, in fact, the rehabilitation of those who were incarcerated, even in high-risk circumstances. I rise to support S. 238, the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015, to make sure that this provision, providing a tool of safety for these brave corrections officers, does not go out of existence. I want to extend my thanks again to Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, as I indicated, for their ongoing, bipartisan leadership. But again, let me refer back to Eric Williams, the namesake of this legislation and the tragedy of his death. I want to offer my sympathy to the family members and to again say that this death did not have to happen. As I discuss the bill, I want to make the point that we should not shortchange the resources needed for the men and women who are on the front lines of protecting us and securing a criminal justice system to make it work. In this instance, that is what happened. A death had occurred earlier, but the pilot program did not reach to Eric's facility, and that is inexcusable. But, fortunately, this permanent adding or expanding of this bill will make sure that every high-risk facility under the Bureau of Prisons will have this pepper spray. The Judiciary Committee unanimously passed the groundbreaking prison reform bill, as I said, 2 weeks ago. This measure was included. S. 238 codifies a pilot program that has increased Federal prison safety nationwide. It is crucial. However, it is set to expire in a few days, and I look forward to my colleagues bringing forth the criminal justice bill. It is important to move this bill now. Tomorrow marks 3 years since the death of Correctional Officer Eric Williams, who was stabbed by an inmate at a high-security facility. He was working alone, as I said, with 100 inmates, high risk. Armed with only a radio, keys, and handcuffs, he was unable to defend himself against the aggressive attack. If Officer Williams was equipped with pepper spray, then he might still be here with us today. Passing S. 238 will honor Officer Williams. The provisions of this bill require BOP to issue oleoresin capsicum spray, known as pepper spray, to certain staff at a higher security prison. This requirement is truly common sense and does not apply to minimum or low-security facilities. It only applies to staff that may respond to an emergency situation in the prison. S. 238 includes critical safeguards to ensure pepper spray is used appropriately and only when necessary to prevent acts of violence, it is determined that pepper spray is not dangerous, only in limited circumstances. The legislation requires the officer or employee to complete a pepper spray training course before being issued the spray, annually thereafter. It establishes parameters for using the spray, and it may only be used to reduce acts of violence. In doing so, S. 238 makes it clear that pepper spray may not be used to punish or coerce inmates, or in an excessive, inappropriate fashion. Finally, let me say that it is with sadness, but with pleasure, that we provide this legislation and move it quickly so that we can provide that permanent armor, if you will, to protect these officers who are dealing with high-risk inmates. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. As a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee; as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; as the representative from Houston and as a co-sponsor of legislation that includes this same measure, I rise in support of S. 238, the ``Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015.'' Let me extend my thanks to Judiciary Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers for their ongoing leadership on bipartisan criminal justice reform. When the Judiciary Committee unanimously passed a groundbreaking prison reform bill just two weeks ago, that bill included the measure before us today. S. 238 codifies a pilot program that has increased federal prison safety nationwide. This crucial program, however, is set to expire in just a few days. While I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring our bipartisan criminal justice reform bills before this Chamber soon, we must pass S. 238 now to avoid letting this important program expire. Tomorrow marks three years since the death of Correctional Officer Eric Williams, who was stabbed by an inmate at a high security facility in Waymart, PA. Officer Williams was working alone in a unit of more than loo inmates. Armed only with a radio, keys, and handcuffs, he was unable to defend himself against the aggressive attack. If Officer Williams was equipped with pepper spray, then he might still be here with us today. Passing S. 238 will honor Officer Williams. The Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015 provides officers in higher security facilities with the means to protect themselves when necessary. S. 238 requires BOP to issue oleoresin capsicum spray, known as pepper spray, to certain staff at higher security prisons. This requirement is truly common sense: it does not apply to minimum or low security facilities; and it only applies to staff that ``may respond to an emergency situation'' in the prison. S. 238 includes critical safeguards to ensure pepper spray is used appropriately and only when necessary to prevent acts of violence. Specifically, this legislation: requires the officer or employee to complete a pepper spray training course before being issued the spray, and annually thereafter; and establishes perimeters for using the spray--it may only be used to reduce acts of violence committed by prisoners against themselves or others. In doing so, S. 238 makes it clear that pepper spray may not be used to punish or coerce inmates, or in an excessive and inappropriate fashion. The need to provide permanent protective equipment cannot be overstated. Mass incarceration has led to dangerously overcrowded federal prisons. Such conditions can frequently lead, or at least contribute to, unnecessary violence. High and medium security level facilities make up 42 percent of the total BOP population. In FY2013 these facilities were operating 52 percent and 45 percent over capacity, respectively. Officers in these facilities must be equipped to protect themselves and others. In 2010, there were almost 1,700 assaults on BOP staff--about 49 per 5,000 inmates. BOP requires officers on regular duty to carry a radio, body alarm, and keys. Outside the pilot program and aside from emergency situations and special teams, officers do not carry pepper spray or batons. Officers must rely on communication skills and training to de- escalate confrontations. These are critically important skills and we know that our well- trained federal correctional officers are generally able to use these skills to avoid violence. In some instances, however, these skills may not be enough and, when they are not, these officers must not be defenseless. The issuance of pepper spray, alongside proper training, will go a long way to assisting these officers when all else fails. We ask a lot of federal correctional officers. We support these officers with training and skills, but that is not always enough. When faced with acts of violence against themselves and others, they must be well-positioned to cut that violence short. It is therefore vital that we pass S. 238 now. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me; the National Association of Police Organizations; Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; American Federation of Government Employees, and Council of Prison Locals; in supporting the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.