Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, let me state the obvious. All of us are appalled and saddened by the loss of this correctional officer. We express again our sadness and sympathy to his family although 3 years later. Eric Williams did not deserve to die. Our Federal prisons across America are dangerously overcrowded. Such conditions can frequently lead or at least contribute to unnecessary violence. High- and medium-level security facilities make up 42 percent of the total Bureau of Prisons population. In FY 2013, these facilities were operating 52 percent and 45 percent over capacity, respectively. Officers in these facilities must be equipped to protect themselves. In 2010, there were almost 1,700 assaults on BOP staff and about 49 per 5,000 inmates. BOP requires officers of regular duty to carry a radio, body alarm, and keys. Outside the pilot program and aside from the emergency situation and special teams, officers do not carry pepper spray all the time. Officers must rely on communication skills and training to deescalate confrontations. Sometimes that is not enough. These are important skills. We know that well-trained Federal correctional officers are generally able to use these skills to avoid violence, but not all the time. We must not have one single time where we have an officer at the risk of losing their life and they have no protection. In some instances, however, these skills may not be enough. When they are not, these officers must not be defenseless. Issuance of pepper spray alongside proper training will go a long way to assist these officers. We ask a lot of Federal correctional officers. In the comments made about Mr. Williams, he was engaged in counseling and rehabilitation discussions. We support these officers with training and skills. We do expect for them to interact. When faced with acts of violence against themselves and others, they must be well positioned to cut that violence short. So I ask my colleges to join in passing S. 238. I thank the author of the bill who persisted in introducing it on many occasions, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, including Mr. Marino, and others, our chairman and ranking member. I urge my colleagues to join me, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the Council of Prison Locals in supporting the Eric Williams Correctional Officer Protection Act of 2015. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there is no greater voice of the civil rights movement here in this Congress and in this Nation than our dear friend, Congressman John Lewis. I am both excited and honored to be able to support this legislation that changes what was a ``Site'' in its early beginnings to the important designation of a National Historic Park honoring Martin Luther King, Jr. I first want to thank John Lewis for his conscientious and hard work on behalf of the King family. As I sat here and listened to Congressman Lewis relaying his story, I had the slight privilege to have worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference on the very street that he has mentioned. After him, I was able to come to the then-offices of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in this historic area.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It was a small office where so many historic persons were, in essence, able to walk in the midst of those hallowed streets. Dr. King came. I don't know whether he parked a car or walked into that office. Of course, we have all of the other surrounding areas and other names of historic persons that had the ability to walk down those streets and into that area. We take great pride in the preservation of our National Park areas. And I must compliment the National Park Service, because it has a love and affection for all those lands that it takes care of. You can see it when you are able to visit these national sites throughout our country that we have had a chance to visit. In my colleague's district will be an added place for Dr. Martin Luther King's resources and things his hands touched. What an appropriate time in our history to be able again to thank this man of peace, of nonviolence, and to remind ourselves that America is really a great country to have given birth to him. Along with the plight and conditions in which he lived in at the time and the conditions which he was subjected to, to our knowledge, he never became embittered. He always, although frustrated at moments, recognized love and nonviolence. I hope that with the recognition he will get and the protection of these wonderful assets, people will come there for solace. It will be another place, along with the monument here in Washington, where people will come here for solace and the recognition that nonviolence and peace and the human dignity of all people are virtues of this Nation carried forward by a great and wonderful and heroic leader--someone whom I at least had a small moment to be associated with through his organization after his death. And I thank him. I rise today in support of H.R. 2880, the ``Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park Act.'' In 1980, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 96-428), establishing the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site. H.R. 2880 redesignates the ``Martin Luther King Junior, National Historic Site'' as the ``Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park.'' This name change is important because it recognizes the greater physical extent that the site represents not only for African American history, but American history. This legislation will improve the preservation and ensure the continuous protection of this historic district. When passed, in 1980, the law set the boundaries of the site along a portion of Auburn Avenue in Atlanta. This area includes the birthplace of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where both he and his father preached; and the immediate surrounding area. That law also designated a preservation district that extended protection beyond the immediate neighborhood surrounding the birthplace and church to include the broader Sweet Auburn commercial district. Since 1980, Congress has twice modified the boundaries of the site and preservation district (P.L. 102-575 and P.L. 108-314). H.R. 2880 will extend the boundaries of the site to include the Prince Hall Masonic Temple, which is where the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) established its initial headquarters in 1957. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a co-founder and the first president of the SCLC. It is fitting that we remember the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King walked the walk, going to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others. He knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. It is proper that we remember this man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. So it is fitting that we pass H.R. 2880 and expand, protect, and preserve the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Park so that for generations to come it remains a living memorial to the men and women who led the movement that helped our nation live up to the true meaning of its creed and inspired non-violent movements for social change the world over.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago today, a pivotal event occurred in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. On this day 60 years ago, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which began on December 5, 1955, after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man and move to ``Colored'' section in the back of the bus, was in its 57th day. To that point, the boycott had enjoyed remarkable success. Morning buses that normally would be crowded with African Americans heading to work throughout the city were essentially empty. Instead, many African Americans gathered near the bus stops, waiting for rides, many of which came from whites whose primary interest was getting their domestic employees to their homes or other workers to their places of business. Others rode Negro taxis, with many drivers giving reduced fares that day. But thousands more walked to work and school. An estimated that some 17,000 African Americans took part in the boycott initially, a number that would grow to 42,000, aided in part by the action by the bus system itself. In particular, within days after the boycott began, bus officials asked the Montgomery City Commission for permission to close routes to many of the primary black communities, arguing that the boycott had made service to those areas no longer financially attractive. So in those parts of town, even the handful of African Americans who might have wanted to use the buses could not do so. In the early days of the boycott African American taxi companies helped transport former bus riders and did so for the reduced fare of 10 cents per ride. In retaliation, city officials began strictly enforcing a long dormant city ordinance that set minimum fares at 45 cents, which priced taxi rides on a daily basis out of the reach of many working-class African Americans. But despite the backlash, retaliation, and harassment by the local police, the boycott would not be broken. The most sweeping official action designed to intimidate boycott leaders came in February 1956, when the Montgomery grand jury indicted 89 boycott leaders, including the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Rosa Parks; Rev. Ralph David Abernathy; and several other participating black ministers. The charges were based on a seldom-enforced 1921 state statute that barred boycotts without,``just cause.'' Those indicted were arrested over the next few days, booked and released on bond. But as official tactics failed to discourage the boycott, unofficial intimidation would soon take a more dangerous turn such as the bombing of the parsonage in which King and his family lived was bombed. Mr. Speaker, the Montgomery Bus Boycott showed the nation and the world that there is a limit to a people's patience and tolerance in the face of injustice. In rebelling against the unjust, unfair, dehumanizing, and discriminatory practice of racial segregation, the Montgomery Bus Boycotters were acting in the finest American tradition, following the admonition in the Declaration of Independence that: [A]ll experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Mr. Speaker, the books of literature are filled with stories about the plucky underdog striving and succeeding against the odds but what is amazing and remarkable about the Montgomery Bus Boycott is that it is a modern day story of little David felling mighty Goliath that has the advantage of being true and inspired other successful social movements around the world. The Montgomery Boycott shows that one person can make a difference and can inspire similar acts of courage in others which when combined send out ripples of hope that, as Robert Kennedy, said ``can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' Rosa Parks said she acted because she wanted to be free: Whatever my individual desires were to be free, I was not alone. There were many others who felt the same way. And inspired by her example, others acted, and then joined by the actions of others, and then still others, the bus boycott succeeded. Mr. Speaker, 60 years has passed since a small band of committed activists, armed only with their faith in a righteous cause, won the battle of Montgomery and set in motion a movement that tore down the walls of legalized injustice across the South. They changed America for the better and for that we owe them an eternal debt of gratitude.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 3584, the Transportation Security Administration Reform and Improvement Act, which would authorize, streamline, and identify efficiencies within the Transportation Security Administration. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I served as chair of this subcommittee and continue to support its work to improve transportation security. I currently serve as the Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. The work of the TSA is a front line Department of Homeland Security and it is not easy--it can in fact be very dangerous. Like many of my Colleagues, I recall the shooting incident at LAX last year that killed Gerardo Hernandez, who became the first TSA officer killed in the line of duty; and the machete attack at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport earlier this year that resulted in injuries to Senior Transportation Security Officer Carol Richel. Each day, TSA processes an average of 1.7 million passengers at more than 450 airports across the nation. In 2012, TSA screened 637,582,122 passengers. The Bush Intercontinental and the William P. Hobby Airports are essential hubs for domestic and international air travel for Houston and the region: Nearly 40 million passengers traveled through Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH) and an additional 10 million traveled through William P. Hobby (HOU). More than 650 daily departures occur at IAH. IAH is the 11th busiest airport in the U.S. for total passenger traffic. IAH has 12 all-cargo airlines handling more than 419,205 metric tons of cargo in 2012. I believe that Congress has not done all that it could to make employees' work easier--Sequestration, a government shutdown, and a delay in fully funding the Department of Homeland Security was not in the security interest of the nation. Reports issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) have identified shortcomings within the Agency, raising questions how effectively TSA is fulfilling its mission. Allegations about mismanagement, wasteful procedures, retaliation against whistleblowers, low morale, and security gaps within the Agency are causes for concern. Other issues related to inconsistent requirements between what is written and what employees are told is essential for them to successfully meet the agency's standards for good performance needs work. The need for attention to TSA administrative procedures and due process within the agency to backstop decisions regarding reprimands or negative actions toward employees can be an essential step in addressing some morale issues that are related to uncertainty regarding the successful performance of duties. In other words, the same conduct by persons holding the same level of responsibility or positions within an airport results in the same positive or negative outcome. TSA is charged with: The protection of America's transportation systems; monitoring the movement of people and supplies during their use of our transportation systems; and ensuring the effectiveness and integrity of government agencies. H.R. 3584, directs the TSA to: ensure that all screening of passengers and their accessible property will be done in a risk-based, intelligence-driven manner with consideration given to the privacy and civil liberties of such passengers; and operate the ``TSA PreCheck'' program in a manner that provides expedited screening for low-risk passengers and their accessible property based on a comprehensive and continuous analysis of factors. More needs to be done to support the men and women working on the front lines of our nation's domestic security and that includes those who work at the TSA. I will continue to seek out opportunities to promote the mission of the TSA and role that TSA professionals fill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4398, ``DHS Acquisition Documentation Integrity Act of 2016.'' I support this bill because it requires the DHS to produce cost estimates and schedules for all major acquisition programs and to maintain complete and accurate documentation of these projects. Specifically, for all programs expected to cost $300 million or more over its lifecycle, the department must maintain complete, accurate, timely and valid acquisition documentation. This bill will set a standard for all programs under DHS to follow and will save programs money and time. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed 22 major programs in DHS and out of 22 major programs: 1. GAO was unable to access six programs (including four in Customs and Border Protection). 2. The remaining 14 programs experienced schedule slips and cost growths. On average, these program milestones slipped more than three and a half year, and their life-cycle cost estimates increased by $9.7 billion, or 18 percent. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I believe this act will maintain a standard across the board for programs to follow the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) best practices. The Department of Homeland Security is constantly changing to fit the needs of our ever-changing world and there is a need of transparency between the DHS and GAO. This bill further requires that cost estimates and schedules for major acquisition programs be consistent with best practices as identified by GAO. Finally this bill limits the Secretary's authority to waive acquisition documentation requirements for a report to Congress on the status of major acquisition programs. This sets forth narrow conditions where waivers could be granted for a fiscal year, and requiring the Secretary to report annually to the Congressional homeland-security committees on each use of waiver authority during the preceding fiscal year. This bill creates an accountability model for the DHS which creates transparency between GAO and DHS and saves programs time and money, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4402 the ``Foreign Fighter Review Act of 2016,'' which requires the president, acting through the Homeland Security Secretary, to initiate a review of known instances since 2011 in which a person has traveled or attempted to travel from the United States to a conflict zone in Iraq or Syria to join or provide material support or resources to a terrorist organization. As a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I take seriously threats to the security of the homeland and our responsibility to put in place adequate measures to defeat them. That is why in the first session of this Congress I introduced H.R. 48 ``No Fly for Foreign Fighters Act,'' which reviews the completeness of the Terrorist Screening Database and the terrorist watch list utilized by the Transportation Security Administration. I support H.R. 4402 because it would evaluate any flaws in existing programs or procedures that aim to prevent such travel and identify ways to improve their effectiveness. Since 2011, more than 30,000 foreign fighters from over 100 different countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIL. In the last 18 months, the number of foreign fighters traveling to Syria and Iraq has more than doubled. In the first six months of 2015, more than 7,000 foreign fighters have arrived in Syria and Iraq. According to a report issued last year by the Committee on Homeland Security's Foreign Fighter Task Force, U.S. officials apprehended less than 20 percent (28/250) of Americans who sought to travel to the region. The report also found that while information sharing had improved, there is currently no comprehensive global database of foreign fighters. It is estimated that at 250 persons who have traveled to Syria or Iraq to join ISIS hold American citizenship. Since these persons who identify with the terrorist aims of ISIS can leave and enter the United States, it is critically important that American customs and security officials have the most accurate and effective terrorist screening tools available. H.R. 4402 helps address this problem by identifying areas for improvement to prevent additional travel by ``Foreign Fighters'' to conflict zones in areas such as Iraq, Syria, or other terrorist safe havens abroad, to join or provide material support or resources to a terrorist organization. Specifically, H.R. 4402 directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a review and report to the Congress on the following: 1. Relevant unclassified and classified information held by the U.S. government related to each instance: 2. The factors including operational issues, security vulnerabilities and systemic challenges that may have undermined efforts to prevent the travel of such persons to a conflict zone in Iraq or Syria, including the timely identification of suspects, information sharing, intervention and interdiction. 3. The lessons learned and areas for improvement to prevent additional travel by such persons to conflict zones or other terrorist safe havens. The bill also requires the President to direct the heads of relevant federal agencies to provide to the Homeland Security Secretary the information needed to complete the review, which is due within 120 days of enactment. Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that progress has been made in preventing individuals inspired by the Islamic State and other Islamic extremist groups to either travel to Syria and Iraq or carry out attacks on U.S. soil, but we need to do more and remain ever vigilant to protect the security of our homeland. H.R. 4402 is a positive step in the right direction and I urge all Members to support this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, there is senseless gun violence. Over the past weekend in our community, a young man who was 19 years old, who worked in a pizzeria, was gunned down. The story says that, during this robbery, he attempted to respond to the killer's demands. In spite of that, he was gunned down--murdered. We have listened to the sad but eloquent comments of our colleagues from Michigan of vicious gun violence--of a person with 11 guns in his home. Yes, as many say, people kill; guns don't--but they use guns to kill. It is time for this Congress, as many police officers have said to me, to get its hands around the rampage of guns and gun violence, of senseless killings, of bad guys--some good guys--killing people with guns. It is important to close the gun show loophole, to be able to use and to demand science and safety restraints. I am appalled, but I am outraged. Enough is enough of innocent people being killed by gun violence.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman. I also thank my good friend. I will move as quickly as I possibly can. Mr. Chairman, these legislative issues are important to us, and we realize that there is a difference of opinion. So I don't come to the floor harking with great adversity, but I do come with a reasonable response to my opposition to H.R. 2017 in terms of its overall impact. So I would like to say that it is overly broad in its approach to address narrower concerns from the pizza industry and other food establishments that are better resolved through guidance. The bill will reduce the likelihood that consumers will receive clear and consistent calorie information at chain food service establishments, and the bill weakens an important tool intended to help Americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition-related health problems are at crisis. Our constituents have gotten used to seeing the calorie content. They look for it. They want transparency. Obviously, Americans eat less than the recommended amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dairy products, and oil. Although we are not the Big Brother, we have to create opportunities for such. I live in communities where there are food deserts. More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food deserts, areas that are more than a mile away from a supermarket. In 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million children, experienced food insecurity--limited availability to safe and nutritionally adequate foods--multiple times throughout the year. So anytime there can be an increased knowledge about the nutrition of a food product, that is crucial. In addition, as the co-chair and founder of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I work on the issues of childhood obesity. Data from 2009 to 2010 indicates that over 78 million U.S. adults and about 12.5 million--16.9 percent--children and adolescents are obese. We need to help those individuals both in terms of their own confidence about themselves, but to eat healthy. So I rise today to oppose this legislation because I believe we can find a better place of guidance. I include in the Record a letter, Mr. Chairman, from the National Restaurant Association, which says: ``We are writing to inform you of our opposition to H.R. 2017. This legislation would create an unfair advantage between competitors by specifically carving out segments of the food service marketplace from the federal requirement. . . . '' National Restaurant Association, Washington, DC, April 28, 2015. Dear Representative: We are writing to inform you of our opposition to H.R. 2017. This legislation would create an unfair advantage between competitors by specifically carving out segments of the food service marketplace from the federal requirement to provide uniform nutrition information. We urge you to treat establishments selling restaurant type food equitably. Congress should not provide a competitive advantage for one segment of an industry over another. H.R. 2017 would broadly exempt thousands of chain grocery and convenience stores from providing uniform nutrition information on restaurant type food to customers notwithstanding that each day thousands of customers purchase such meals at these establishments. Such establishments each made strategic decisions to compete directly with their local restaurants. While we welcome their competition, there is no justifiable reason why they should not be held to the same rules as those with whom they have chosen to compete. While we recognize the need expressed by supporters of H.R. 2017 to have appropriate time for menu-labeling implementation, H.R. 2017 would outright exempt entities from providing nutrition information, create an uneven playing field, and cast different requirements amongst competitors. The food service industry is a broad but competitive industry that is ever expanding in areas that have not traditionally provided restaurant meals. For example, today there are 54,000 grocery stores and 59,000 convenience stores that offer freshly prepared food and beverages, with annual average foodservice sales of $25 billion dollars. Taken together, these two foodservice segments alone represent 12% of total restaurant and foodservice locations in the U.S. In fact, in recent years, sales in this broad `retail host' segment have grown much faster than the restaurant industry as a whole. Between 2006 and 2011, sales in this sector jumped 31%, compared to a 16% increase in total restaurant industry sales. It is clear that grocery and convenience stores are expanding into the traditional restaurant space and competing for the traditional restaurant customer. Just as a restaurant that decides to sell gas or packaged food would be required to adhere to the laws governing those products, our competitors should follow the rules that apply to restaurant products. Moreover, as with most federal legislation, we recognized the need for a small business protection in the menu labeling requirements. As a result, the law only applies to chains with 20 or more locations that operate under the same trade name and offer for sale substantially the same menu items. Smaller chains and independent operators have the choice to voluntarily provide menu labeling but they are not required to do so under the federal law. Lastly, the menu labeling rule comes at a time when consumers are demanding more information about the food they eat. In providing the nutritional content of restaurant foods, customers will have access to the information they seek. In fact, this information is being met favorably with estimates suggesting 76% of consumers want menu labeling. We appreciate your consideration that establishments offering restaurant food be treated equally under the law. Should you have questions on the final requirements around menu labeling, please feel free to consult our website at www.restaurant.org/menulabeling. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at the National Restaurant Association. Sincerely, Dan Roehl, Vice President, Government Relations.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the National Restaurant Association. I received a letter from the Trust for America's Health. They, too, are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. They have asked for us to oppose this, which would weaken and partially repeal critical Food and Drug Administration, FDA, menu labeling. The bill, as I said, is scheduled to come, and here we are today. So my final points are this. If we have a problem, let's try to work it out, but let's not take a sledgehammer and sledgehammer the requirements that help Americans have transparent information about their food. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2017, the ``Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2015,'' which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to revise the nutritional information that restaurants and retail food establishments must disclose. As the founder and chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I oppose this legislation for the following four reasons: 1. H.R. 2017 is overly broad in its approach to address narrower concerns from the pizza industry and other food establishments that are better resolved through guidance; 2. The bill will reduce the likelihood that consumers will receive clear and consistent calorie information at chain food service establishments; and 3. The bill weakens an important tool intended to help Americans make informed food choices at a time when obesity and other nutrition- related health problems are at crisis levels. The FDA has been responsive to industry concerns and has already delayed implementation of menu labeling by two years, which is more than six years after it was enacted. Moreover, H.R. 2017 states that its goal is to establish that the nutrient content disclosure statement on the menu or menu board at establishments that serve prepared foods must include: 1. the number of calories contained in the whole menu item; 2. the number of servings and number of calories per serving; 3. the number of calories per common unit of the item, such as for a multi-serving item that is typically divided before presentation to the consumer; and 4. allow nutritional information may be provided solely by a remote- access menu (e.g., an Internet menu) for food establishments where the majority of orders are placed by customers who are off-premises. nutrition and obesity Typical American diets exceed the recommended intake levels or limits in four categories: calories from solid fats and added sugars; refined grains; sodium; and saturated fat. Americans eat less than the recommended amounts of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dairy products, and oils. About 90% of Americans eat more sodium than is recommended for a healthy diet. Reducing the sodium Americans eat by 1,200mg per day on could save up to $20 billion a year in medical costs. Food available for consumption increased in all major food categories from 1970 to 2008. Average daily calories per person in the marketplace increased approximately 600 calories. Since the 1970s, the number of fast food restaurants has more than doubled. More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food deserts--areas that are more than a mile away from a supermarket. In 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million children, experienced food insecurity (limited availability to safe and nutritionally adequate foods) multiple times throughout the year. In 2013, residents of the following states were most likely to report eating at least five servings of vegetables four or more days per week: Vermont (68.7%), Montana (63.0%) and Washington (61.8%). The least likely were Oklahoma (52.3%), Louisiana (53.3%) and Missouri (53.8%). The national average for regular produce consumption is 57.7%. Empty calories from added sugars and solid fats contribute to 40% of total daily calories for 2-18 year olds and half of these empty calories come from six sources: soda, fruit drinks, dairy desserts, grain desserts, pizza, and whole milk. US adults consume an average of 3,400 mg/day [of sodium], well above the current federal guideline of less than 2,300 mg daily. Food safety awareness goes hand in hand with nutrition education. In the United States, food-borne agents affect 1 out of 6 individuals and cause approximately 48 million illnesses, 128,000 hospitalizations, and 3,000 deaths each year. US per capita consumption of total fat increased from approximately 57 pounds in 1980 to 78 pounds in 2009 with the highest consumption being 85 pounds in 2005. The US percentage of food-insecure households, those with limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways, rose from 11% to 15% between 2005 and 2009.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the story of Texas Southern University. It started out in Houston, Texas, in the early 1920s to educate then, of course, the colored or Negro population, and they have grown into the 21st century. In the 1940s, they were expanded because a young man by the name of Heman Sweatt attempted to attend the University of Texas School of Law and he was prohibited, he was prevented. So by a court, the law school was established which is now named Thurgood Marshall. I really rise to say that this school is a Texas asset, and yet the State of Texas publicly has underfunded this university. In 2000, I helped settle a desegregation lawsuit of which that school had sued because it was discriminated against. Sadly, I rise today to ask for another investigation by the Department of Education, Civil Rights Division, because the State of Texas is now again discriminating against the students and faculty of Texas Southern University by not funding them equally with other majority-based institutions. It is sad to rise today to say that. But in that school, Barbara Jordan graduated, our colleague; Mickey Leland graduated. Of course, Barbara Jordan was a colleague. Many outstanding scientists and doctors. Stop discriminating against Texas Southern University. We need to investigate it again to make this school whole.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I stand in celebration of my good friend Yolanda Adams on this the 10th anniversary of her radio show. Yolanda Adams rose to fame as one of Gospel Music's greats making her debut in 1988 with the acclaimed and uplifting Just As I Am album. Since then Yolanda has been wowing gospel audiences all over the world. Following an illustrious musical career, Yolanda began the Yolanda Adams Morning Show. Yolanda simply connects with listeners by bringing her warm, embracing spirit to the airwaves in a playful blend of contemporary music, news, interviews, and daily features that are entertaining and inspiring. The Yolanda Adams Morning Show is the longest running inspirational morning drive radio show of its kind. Currently in over 40 markets. The show has over 5 million in listening audience every morning. Yolanda and her Co-hosts Anthony Valary, and Marcus D. Wiley have made it about love and comradery make it about more than just a morning show . . . it's a celebration of friends and family. It is with endearing sentiment that I celebrate The Yolanda Adams Morning Show, and I look forward to 10 more years of un-matched laughter, spirituality, and celebration on the radio waves.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great enthusiasm to honor and salute Yolanda Adams, an enormous and wonderful talent of gospel music, and to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Yolanda Adams Morning Show. Many know that I introduced legislation to make September Gospel Music Heritage Month in order to honor the many talented Americans who enjoy singing, writing, and providing inspiration through gospel music. Elvis Presley won his first Grammy with gospel music. I remember young Yolanda Adams singing in a church in Houston, and the inspiration she gave even then. She was a young teacher who worked until she finally knew that her talent was worthy of presenting it to the American people. Yolanda Adams rose to fame as one of gospel music's greats, making her debut in 1988. I remember her song, ``Just as I Am.'' Since then, Yolanda has been wowing gospel audiences. She has been before the President of the United States and all over the world, but yet she is a humble person. Following her illustrious music career, she began the Yolanda Adams Morning Show. These shows often don't last, but her spirit has guided it forward. She connects with listeners, bringing them warm and inspirational messages. Her music and growth has been wonderful. Mr. Speaker, Yolanda's co-hosts, Anthony Valary and Marcus D. Wiley, give love and camaraderie every morning. They make it not just a morning show, but a celebration of friends and family. I am delighted to stand here today to call Yolanda Adams an American treasure. She is a native daughter of Houston, and someone who understands God's blessings, but is not selfish. She provides those blessings to others through her musical genius. Congratulations to Yolanda Adams for 10 years of the Yolanda Adams Morning Show.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am delighted to follow the gentlewoman from New Jersey, focusing on the Congressional Progressive Caucus' commitment to ensuring every American can vote. Might I add that we have worked together with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, we have worked together with the Congressional Black Caucus, and we have worked together with the Democratic Caucus. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the entire House to be committed to the very values of this Nation. This should not be a Republican or Democratic issue, of which it has become. We stand here as Democrats arguing for the empowerment of voters all over the Nation, yet legislative initiatives have been introduced by members of the Judiciary Committee and others. I have joined a number of those legislative initiatives, and these initiatives cannot be heard and cannot be voted on. The American people need to know that. There is no other reason than the Republican majority does not want to have empowered voters. This is unlike what we did in years past. I have had the privilege of being on the House Judiciary Committee for a number of years, and the most powerful and moving experience was--and there have been many experiences on the House Judiciary Committee--when all of us came together to help write the restoration or reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was a very emotional and tearful moment. It was a moment of great extensiveness--15,000 pages of testimony; many, many, many witnesses; individuals explaining how precious it is to vote; but, more importantly, how not having protection for the vote can, therefore, disallow them to vote. I guess the most provocative experience was a Republican President being joined by Republican and Democratic Members on a joyful sunny day signing the legislation that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that bill exhibits, if you will, the pain and suffering of so many who marched and marched and marched and marched. Not only did they march, they died, like Jimmie Lee Jackson. Or our own colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, who reminds us every day of the fear and feeling of being beaten near to death in his march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. He also reminds us how precious the right to vote is. When Dr. Martin Luther King, who refused to give up or give out or give in, marched again, and they made it--with so many people from all backgrounds and all over the Nation--to Montgomery, Alabama, on that fateful trip back, everyone was celebrating that they had marched for the Voting Rights Act, that they had gotten through without violence--attributable, of course, to a Texas President by the name of Lyndon Baines Johnson. When a wonderful, wonderful lady--whose children I had the privilege of meeting--was driving back some foot soldiers, whom we will honor shortly at the leadership of Terri Sewell, when they were driving back and Viola Liuzzo was behind the wheel, lo and behold, somebody violently took a gun and killed her. Voting has never been easy. Voting rights has never been easy. A lot of blood was shed. It baffles me why we are faced with a situation where the United States Supreme Court eliminated section 5--not an illegal provision, but a provision that somebody disliked because, I believe, it empowered voters. What the Congress was tasked to do by the Court, which I think incorrectly and wrongly ignored 15,000 pages of testimony, ignored tens upon tens of witnesses in a meticulous rewriting of the Voting Rights Act to prove that it was still necessary, in a skewed deliberation, the Supreme Court decided to reject it, indicating that it was long passe. And, of course, some brilliant legislators used the example: because we have eliminated polio because of the vaccination, is it appropriate to get rid of the vaccination? No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. So with that skewed and, if I might use the term, weird reasoning, we are left holding the bag and the door is open to the kinds of laws, such as voter ID laws, that spread across America like a contagious disease because we did not have the protection of section 5, which the idea of section 5 was a preclearance for men and women of goodwill to look and determine whether or not a procedure was going to block individuals from voting. Of course, the voter ID law from Texas sprung up. You will soon hear from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), my dear friend and colleague, because he was, in fact, the leader on the lawsuit. Let me say that that terrible law blocked a lot of people from voting. I want to remind people that the day of August 6, 1965, in the presence of such luminaries as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, Whitney Young of the National Urban League, James Forman of the Congress of Racial Equality, A. Philip Randolph, John Lewis, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen--mind you, a lady was missing, but, in the event, many women were foot soldiers. The point was made on the Voting Rights Act: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. In this instance, I would modify it and say ``women.'' When the voting ID law--because of the misgivings of the State of Texas and its legislature--was put in place, there were 80 counties at least in Texas that did not have a Department of Public Safety office for individuals to be able to register or to be able to get an ID. That is a tragedy. Each moment there is something coming out of Texas that wants to, in essence, put down the rights of individuals to vote. One case that should be brought to our attention is a case before the Supreme Court that indicates a group of petitioners who don't like the fact that you represent a population of people. So they want to characterize and get a definition of what a person means, and they want to make that person be an eligible voter. So, in essence, a sick person laying in a bed who needs health care and needs to be represented is not an eligible voter. Or a senior citizen that has gotten so old and feeble that they may not have been registered because of their illness and their feebleness, but they need to be represented. Or it may be a child--Hispanic, African American, Anglo, or Asian--who is not at the age of voting and they are not an eligible voter. Or, as I know they are focusing on, is hardworking individuals who happen to be immigrants and they are not yet eligible to vote. And this case is brought primarily to make sure that those people who need to be represented to the extent that they are taxpayers but are not yet status, they will not be counted. This case is not anything to do with voter fraud. These people are not trying to vote. They are just trying to survive. But you are telling me that they are human beings, and this case is suggesting that they cannot be represented. This is the devastating impact of not having voter protection in section 5. So I rise today to ensure that it is heard throughout the land: We can pass voter restoration, voter advancement. We can pass fixing the Voting Rights Act and restoring section 5. There are many people in this Congress who previously were here when we stood with President Bush, a Republican, and Republicans and Democrats 98-1, 98-2 in the Senate, massive support in the House, to restore the Voting Rights Act. Let me ask the question, Mr. Speaker: Why now? Why are we struggling in this Presidential year not to allow people to vote? Let me close my remarks because we could go on with--how should I say it--the irony and, as well, the wrongness of not passing legislation. But let me say this in closing: Redistricting is a result of the Voting Rights Act. Those of us in Texas are still in litigation--for 20 years some of us--on the question of redistricting and making fair districts where all people are represented. And the gerrymandering that has been done, that disallows and disenfranchises whole chunks of minorities, disallowing them from voting for the person of their choice, do you know what it brings about? It brings about this House in the majority--good friends of mine--having the sheer gall to deny the President's representative of the Office of Management and Budget to present the President's budget. In its 41-year history, that has never happened. But because we have these districts that are drawn, not representing the vast numbers of people who should be able to hear the President's statement about his budget, by having his representative, the OMB Director, come before Congress and speak about what the President is trying to do: reducing the deficit, providing for education, protecting health care, job creation, economic security, universal access to child care, education for all, year-long Pell Grants, all of that, and a national security for peace--we can't hear from the OMB Director because of the skewed redistricting that allows for the majority to be so overwhelmingly in charge that they would deny the normal processes of government. The Voting Rights Act and the empowerment of voters is crucial and a fair redrawing of lines to let all of the people be heard and all of the voters be able to speak. That is why I am on the floor today. I am looking forward to reasonable people coming together and fostering legislation that answers the constitutional call that we all are created equal with certain unalienable rights--the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--which is embodied in the vote of the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I restate my earlier premise that science is the work of the 21st century. Maybe we will be saying the 22nd century. Because when you are innovative and do research, you create jobs and opportunities. This amendment establishes that basic research is in the national interest of the United States. Let me suggest to you that we have a lot of universities in this country. When I travel, I always hear individuals seeking to come to be taught in American institutions of higher education. It is because of the creative thought and, in many instances, the research that is done, whether in medicine or all the forms of science and technology, because we have a free-flowing basis upon which people can think and invent. I want that to continue. I want the National Science Foundation to be at the cornerstone of that. I will include in the Record an article titled, ``The Future Postponed.'' Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit. [From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology] The Future Postponed Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit (A Report by the MIT Committee to Evaluate the Innovation Deficit) 2014 was a year of notable scientific highlights, including: the first landing on a comet, which has already shed important light on the formation of the Earth; the discovery of a new fundamental particle, which provides critical information on the origin of the universe; development of the world's fastest supercomputer; a surge in research on plant biology that is uncovering new and better ways to meet global food requirements. None of these, however, were U.S.-led achievements. The first two reflected 10-year, European-led efforts; the second two are Chinese accomplishments, reflecting that nation's emergence as a science and technology power. Hence the wide- spread concern over a growing U.S. innovation deficit, attributable in part to declining public investment in research (see figure). This report provides a number of tangible examples of under-exploited areas of science and likely consequences in the form of an innovation deficit, including: opportunities with high potential for big payoffs in health, energy, and high-tech industries; fields where we risk falling behind in critical strategic capabilities such as supercomputing, secure information systems, and national defense technologies; areas where national prestige is at stake, such as space exploration, or where a lack of specialized U.S. research facilities is driving key scientific talent to work overseas. This introduction also cites examples of the benefits from basic research that have helped to shape and maintain U.S. economic power, as well as highlighting industry trends that have made university basic research even more critical to future national economic competitiveness. Basic research is often misunderstood, because it often seems to have no immediate payoff. Yet it was just such federally-funded research into the fundamental working of cells, intensified beginning with the ``War on Cancer'' in 1971, that led over time to a growing arsenal of sophisticated new anti-cancer therapies--19 new drugs approved by the U.S. FDA in the past 2 years. Do we want similar progress on Alzheimer's, which already affects 5 million Americans, more than any single form of cancer? Then we should expand research in neurobiology, brain chemistry, and the science of aging (see Alzheimer's Disease). The Ebola epidemic in West Africa is a reminder of how vulnerable we are to a wider pandemic of emergent viral diseases, because of a lack of research on their biology; an even greater public health threat looms from the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria right here at home, which, because commercial incentives are lacking, only expanded university- based research into new types of antibiotics can address (see Infectious Disease). America's emergence last year as the world's largest oil producer has been justly celebrated as a milestone for energy independence. But the roots of the fracking revolution stem from federally-funded research--begun in the wake of the first OPEC oil embargo 40 years ago--that led to directional drilling technology, diamond drill bits tough enough to cut shale, and the first major hydraulic fracturing experiments. Do we also want the U.S. to be a leader in clean energy technologies a few decades hence, when these will be needed for large scale replacement of fossil energy sources, a huge global market? Then now is when more investment in advanced thin film solar cells, new battery concepts, and novel approaches to fusion energy should begin (see Materials Discovery and Processing, Batteries, Fusion Energy). Some areas of research create opportunities of obvious economic importance. Catalysis, for example, is already a $500 billion industry in the United States alone and plays a critical role in the manufacture of virtually every fuel, all types of plastics, and many pharmaceuticals. Yet today's catalysts are relatively inefficient and require high temperatures compared to those (such as enzymes) that operate in living things. So the potential payoff in both reduced environmental impact and a powerful economic edge for countries that invest in efforts to understand and replicate these biological catalysts--as Germany and China already are--could be huge (see Catalysis). The U.S. also lags in two other key areas: developing advances in plant sciences that can help meet growing world needs for food while supporting U.S. agricultural exports, and the growing field of robotics that is important not only for automated factories but for a whole new era of automated services such as driverless vehicles (see Plant Sciences and Robotics). In an increasingly global and competitive world, where knowledge is created and first applied has huge economic consequences: some 50 years after the rise of Silicon Valley, the U.S. still leads in the commercial application of integrated circuits, advanced electronic devices, and internet businesses. But foreseeable advances in optical integrated circuits, where both Europe and Japan are investing heavily, is likely to completely reshape the $300 billion semiconductor industry that today is largely dominated by U.S. companies (see Photonics). In this area and other fields of science that will underlie the innovation centers of the future, U.S. leadership or even competitiveness is at risk. Synthetic biology--the ability to redesign life in the lab--is another area that has huge potential to transform bio-manufacturing and food production and to create breakthroughs in healthcare--markets that might easily exceed the size of the technology market. But it is EU scientists that benefit from superior facilities and dedicated funding and are leading the way (see Synthetic Biology). Research progress in many such fields increasingly depends on sophisticated modern laboratories and research instruments, the growing lack of which in the U.S. is contributing to a migration of top talent and research leadership overseas. Some areas of research are so strategically important that for the U.S. to fall behind ought to be alarming. Yet Chinese leadership in supercomputing--its Tianhe-2 machine at the Chinese National University of Defense in Guangzhou has won top ranking for the third year in a row and can now do quadrillions of calculations per second--is just such a straw in the wind. Another is our apparent and growing vulnerability to cyberattacks of the type that have damaged Sony, major banks, large retailers, and other major companies. Ultimately, it will be basic research in areas such as photonics, cybersecurity, and quantum computing (where China is investing heavily) that determine leadership in secure information systems, in secure long distance communications, and in super-computing (see Cybersecurity and Quantum Information Systems). Recent budget cuts have impacted U.S. efforts in all these areas. Also, technologies are now in view that could markedly improve the way we protect our soldiers and other war fighters while improving their effectiveness in combat (see Defense Technology). It is not just areas of science with obvious applications that are important. Some observers have asked, ``What good is it?'' of the discovery of the Higgs boson (the particle referred to above, which fills a major gap in our understanding of the fundamental nature of matter). But it is useful to remember that similar comments might have been made when the double helix structure of DNA was first understood (many decades before the first biotech drug), when the first transistor emerged from research in solid state physics (many decades before the IT revolution), when radio waves were first discovered (long before radios or broadcast networks were even conceived of). We are a remarkably inventive species, and seem always to find ways to put new knowledge to work. Other potential discoveries could have global impacts of a different kind. Astronomers have now identified hundreds of planets around other stars, and some of them are clearly Earth-like. Imagine what it would mean to our human perspective if we were to discover evidence of life on these planets--a signal that we are not alone in the universe--from observations of their planetary atmospheres, something that is potentially within the technical capability of space-based research within the next decade? Or if the next generation of space telescopes can discover the true nature of the mysterious ``dark matter'' and ``dark energy'' that appear to be the dominant constituents of the universe (see Space Exploration). Do we want more efficient government, more market-friendly regulatory structures? Social and economic research is increasingly able to provide policymakers with useful guidance. Witness the way government has helped to create mobile and broadband markets by auctioning the wireless spectrum--complex, carefully-designed auctions based on insights from game theory and related research that have netted the federal government more than $60 billion while catalyzing huge new industries and transformed the way we live and do business. Empowered by access to more government data and Big Data tools, such research could point the way to still more efficient government (see Enabling Better Policy Decisions). In the past, U.S. industry took a long term view of R&D and did fundamental research, activities associated with such entities as the now-diminished Bell Labs and Xerox Park. That's still the case in some other countries such as South Korea. Samsung, for example, spent decades of effort to develop the underlying science and manufacturing behind organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) before commercializing these into the now familiar, dramatic displays in TVs and many other digital devices. But today, as competitive pressures have increased, basic research has essentially disappeared from U.S. companies, leaving them dependent on federally-funded, university-based basic research to fuel innovation. This shift means that federal support of basic research is even more tightly coupled to national economic competitiveness. Moreover, there will always be circumstances when private investment lags--when the innovation creates a public good, such as clean air, for which an investor can't capture the value, or when the risk is too high, such as novel approaches to new antibiotic drugs, or when the technical complexity is so high that there is fundamental uncertainty as to the outcome, such as with quantum computing or fusion energy. For these cases, government funding is the only possible source to spur innovation. This central role of federal research support means that sudden changes in funding levels such as the recent sequester can disrupt research efforts and cause long term damage, especially to the pipeline of scientific talent on which U.S. research leadership ultimately depends. In a survey of the effects of reduced research funding conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education last year among 11,000 recipients of NIH and NSF research grants, nearly half have abandoned an area of investigation they considered critical to their lab's mission, and more than three quarters have fired or failed to hire graduate students and research fellows. Other evidence suggests that many of those affected switch careers, leaving basic research behind forever. Despite these challenges, the potential benefits from expanding basic research summarized in these pages--an innovation dividend that could boost our economy, improve human lives, and strengthen the U.S. strategically--are truly inspiring. We hope you will find the information useful. What this paper cites, in 2014, notable scientific advancements included landing of a manmade Earth object on a comet, discovery of a new fundamental particle which provided vital information on the origin of the universe, development of the world's fastest supercomputer, and a tremendous increase in plant biology that is discovering new and better ways to make global food requirements. None of these, however, Mr. Chairman, were U.S.-led. So my amendment turns our attention, again, maybe to the obvious. Maybe if I say Alexander Bell, as we learned as children in school, everybody knew that he created the telephone. George Washington Carver was associated with the many scientific discoveries out of a single peanut, someone that those of us, in this month of African American History, when they would teach us African American History, we would all know George Washington Carver, that we had a real role model that was a scientist and that generated probably thousands of scientists, people of African American heritage and beyond. So I want my amendment to emphasize that we want the long list of innovation to be on our side and to continue the tradition and trajectory that we have had of basic research that then applies to all levels to create opportunities of work and genius that is here in this country. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter for making three Jackson Lee Amendments in order for consideration under H.R. 3293, the ``Scientific Research in the National Interest Act.'' My thanks and appreciation to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson's staff for working with my staff on drafting this amendment. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4--adds to the list of goals in the national interest--the conduct of basic research that follow well established protocols and scientific methods. The scientific method--it is what happens every day and can lead to basic research experiments conducted by scientists. Basic research is the foundation of tomorrow's innovations. The Jackson Lee Amendment will help ensure that the nature of basic research is preserved because without basic research the United States will be dependent on others to make and reap the tremendous economic rewards from new discoveries. Applied science depends on a well-grounded understanding of the basic research that leads to discovery. I call my colleagues attention to a groundbreaking report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology entitled ``The Future Postponed: Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit.'' For much of our history, the United States' industries took a long term view of research and development and did fundamental research, activities associated with basic research at Bell Labs and Xerox Park. Today, as competitive pressures have increased, basic research has essentially disappeared from U.S. companies, leaving them dependent upon federally-funded, university-based basic research to fuel innovation. In 2014, notable scientific advancements included: 1. landing of a man made earth object on a comet; 2. discovery of a new fundamental particle, which provided vital information on the origin of the universe; development of the world's fastest supercomputer; and 3. a tremendous increase in plant biology that is discovering new and better ways to meet global food requirements. These are wonderful accomplishments, but none of them were U.S. led. The first two were European in origin and the second two were accomplished by China. China landed the Jade Rabbit, its first lunar probe on the moon, and on Sunday North Korea launched a long range rocket that put a satellite into space that flew over the location of the Super Bowl. The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to strengthen the nation's commitment to basic research so that the United States remains preeminent in the field of discovery. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Texas and the ranking member for their support. With that, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, for her leadership. I also want to thank Mr. Smith for his chairmanship of the committee. I have known the commitment to science that so many Members have. I hope that my amendment reinforces the emphasis that we have had with respect to science. Scientists should control the direction and guidance of our research. The National Science Foundation does simply that. I hope that both of my amendments contribute to that premise, and I would like to acknowledge the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to improve H.R. 3293 by ensuring that NSF-funded research, as it has been, remains consistent with established and widely accepted scientific methods applicable to the study of exploration. In conducting experiments or research in new areas of inquiry, grant recipients would now follow protocols that ensure that the outcomes of research are able to be reproduced by other scientists or researchers. I have always believed that science is the work that creates the ultimate work in decades and centuries to come. Having served on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee some years back, I used to always say: science is the work of the 21st century. If you create in science, innovation, products, and research, you create opportunities for jobs and products to be sold. This is what good science is all about and why basic research relies on the scientific method in the routine practice of scientists and researchers around the world. I fully believe that the National Science Foundation gets it. That is what their underlying work is about. The Jackson Lee amendment will support the promise that basic research is conducted with the expectation that good science should be the underlying goal. History has shown that basic research often leads to results with the utmost beneficial consequences for society. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank Chairman Sessions and Ranking Member Slaughter for making the Jackson Lee Amendment in order for consideration under H.R. 3293, the ``Scientific Research in the National Interest Act.'' My thanks and appreciation to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Johnson for their support of this amendment and their staffs for working with my staff to ensure the amendment reflects a goal we all share. The Jackson Lee amendment improves H.R. 3293, by ensuring that NSF funded research, as it has been, remains consistent with established and widely accepted scientific methods applicable to the study of exploration. In conducting experiments or research in new areas of inquiry, grant recipients would now follow protocols that ensure that the outcomes of research are able to be reproduced by other scientists or researchers. This is what good science is all about and this is why basic research relies on the scientific method in the routine practice of scientists and researchers around the world. In 1950, Congress passed the National Science Foundation Act to ``promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense; in addition to other purposes'' by creating the National Science Foundation. The Act authorized and directed the Foundation to ``initiate and support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen the potential of scientific research and education programs at all levels in the mathematical, physical, medical, biological, social, and other sciences.'' The 1950 Act also authorized and directed NSF to fund applied scientific and engineering research. One hundred years of basic scientific research has revealed its value, exemplified in the advances that helped our nation win World War II and allowed Congress to appreciate science as the gateway to the pre-eminent economic global success the nation could achieve. This Jackson Lee Amendment would support the promise that basic research is conducted with the expectation that good science should be the underlying goal. History has shown that basic research often leads to results with the utmost beneficial consequences for society; although, at the time that basic research is conducted, it may be impossible to predict how it will benefit the nation or the world. One such example is the Genomic studies of nematode worms that led to the discovery of genes that ultimately control cell death; this study in turn opened the avenues of discovery for new treatment possibilities for cancer and Alzheimer's Disease. Additionally, basic research on atomic physics led to the development of the atomic clocks that now enable the highly precise Global Positioning System (GPS) used to guide commercial aircraft to their destinations. In 2014, due to a global embrace of scientific research the world saw: The first landing of a space craft on the surface of a comet; The discovery of a new fundamental particle, which provided information on the origin of the universe; Development of the world's fastest supercomputer; and A surge in research on plant biology that is uncovering new and better ways to meet global food needs. Unfortunately none of these achievements were led by our nation's researchers or scientists. I ask my colleagues to support this Jackson Lee Amendment so that we may make strides toward joining and surpassing our global competitors in the emerging scientific community. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for supporting this amendment, and I thank the ranking member for supporting it. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that, in addition to following protocol, we must invest funds, money, in basic research. But I also want to take note of something that I have watched over the years, and I have added amendments, and I have seen the growth. One of my first acts on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee was to utilize laboratory tools or equipment that were no longer needed by the Federal Government in its national science lab to give them to middle schools and high schools so that they would have access to this kind of equipment. Many of us know that there are schools all throughout America who are deficient in science labs. I see them in my district. I hear about them. I think the other important point is that, over the years, we have expanded the research collaboration to Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Native American-Serving, rural, and colleges that serve the economically disadvantaged. Those are good things because we don't know where the genius is America and how many people may come up with outstanding research. So I hope that we do focus on how important basic research is. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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 Maurice White, a man who touched the hearts of millions of Americans as a founding member of the legendary band called Earth, Wind & Fire. Maurice ``Reese'' White was born on December 19, 1941, in Memphis, Tennessee. From a young age he displayed a true talent for playing music. He left Memphis to study music in Chicago at the elite Chicago Conservatory of Music. In 1963, Maurice White began working as a session drummer for Chess Records. Soon after, he began playing with the Ramsey Lewis Trio. In 1969, he formed his own band, the Salty Peppers. After moving to Los Angeles, California, Maurice White renamed the band as Earth, Wind & Fire. He asked his younger brother, bassist Verdine White, to join his band. The band's first album failed to become a break out hit, which prompted Maurice White to shuffle the membership. Maurice White brought in several new members that included singer Philip Bailey, keyboardist Larry Dunn, and guitarist Al McKay. The band began experimenting with jazz, R&B, funk, soul, pop music, and African sounds. Then in 1973, with the new band members and a new sound, Earth, Wind & Fire released their first hit album titled Head to the Sky, selling more than 500,000 copies. The group continued to build on that success by producing a succession of gold and platinum albums throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s. Maurice White helped compose many of the band's hits and the songs that helped define the decade: ``Shining Star,'' ``That's the Way of the World,'' ``Reasons,'' ``September,'' and ``Let's Groove.'' Maurice White won six Grammys with Earth, Wind & Fire, and received a solo award for his arrangement of ``Got To Get You Into My Life.'' Maurice White and Earth Wind & Fire were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2000. Also, in 2000, Maurice White revealed to the world that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. This announcement served as an explanation to his legion of loyal fans around the world for his decision to withdraw from performing. Despite the effects of his health condition, Maurice White decided to remain active in the Music industry by founding a new recording label called Kalimba Records. He also collaborated on Hot Feet, which was a musical set to Earth, Wind & Fire songs. Then in 2010, Maurice White was inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame. After a long battle with Parkinson's disease, Maurice White passed away in his sleep on February 3, 2016 in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Speaker, Maurice White leaves behind a legacy as one of the most innovative and unique artists and songwriters of the 21st century.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3016, ``Veterans Employment, Education, and Healthcare Improvement.'' I support this bill because it will benefit our veterans who have suffered debilitating injuries to their lower extremities as a result of their service to the United States. Specifically, this bill clarifies the role of podiatrists in the Department of Veteran Affairs and increases their pay grade to match other VA physician compensation. There is a need in the Department of Veteran Affairs to classify podiatrists as physicians. Our veterans continue to suffer from a variety of foot and lower leg conditions as a direct result of their honorable service which can result from both traumatic and progressive etiologies. A growing number of our veterans have diabetes, which puts them at risk for other disorders and even amputation. The VA Podiatry Program Office spends a great deal of its time collaborating with a number of other programs developing and implementing initiatives relative to the prevention and treatment of diabetes and disorders related to diabetes. Houston, Texas is home to the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, in one of the nation's greatest medical centers; the MEDMC has 837 medical providers, but no board certified podiatrists. Our veterans need and deserve specialized treatment and assistance for foot injuries. My congressional district is home to over 25,000 veterans and as an avid supporter of Veteran Affairs I strongly support this bill. As a supporter and co-sponsor of numerous bills to assist veterans, such as H.R. 90, the Healthcare Improvement Act, I strongly believe it is our duty to give our veterans the best care when they return home. It is important we recognize podiatrists, who change the lives of our veterans, to be defined as physicians by the Department of Veteran Affairs, and increase their pay grade to reflect other VA physician compensation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in support of H.R. 2360, the ``Career-Ready Student Veterans Act of 2015.'' This bill encourages new criteria for state approval of applications by educational institutions providing veterans with non-accredited courses. H.R. 2360 respects the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) educational assistance, provides specific instructions for when the VA can waive requirements by the bill, and instructs the VA to submit to Congress notice of, and justification for, a waiver within 30 days of issuance. The bill clarifies specific circumstances for when the VA shall disapprove a course of education and when a course shall not be subject to disapproval by reason of this Act. Specifically, H.R. 2360 achieves these goals by: 1. Requiring programs designed to prepare individuals for state licensure or certification to fulfill any state instructional curriculum licensure or certification requirements 2. Providing conditions for the Department of Veterans Affairs to refer to when waiving requirements or disapproving a course of education Finally, H.R. 2360 facilitates the approval of certain programs of education for the purposes of enhancing educational assistance provided by the Department of Veteran Affairs. I am pleased that H.R. 2360 aligns with the significance of legislation I have introduced in the past. I introduced H.R. 76, Helping to Encourage Real Opportunity for Veterans Transitioning from Battlespace to Workplace Act Of 2015. This bill also enhanced the educational options for veterans by focusing on the necessity to establish opportunities that facilitate the transition for veterans from the hostile armed force environment to school or workplace. I introduced H.R. 78, New Chance for a New Start in Life Act of 2015. This bill addresses financial awareness pertaining to grants, and employment training programs to assist long-term unemployed persons to re-enter the workforce in areas projected to have the highest rates of demand. Pertaining to educational institutions providing veterans with non- accredited courses, enforcement of the criteria for state approval of applications allows veterans to benefit from the improvement of the approval process. H.R. 2360 is the first step toward enforcing this implementation strategy and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the ``Career-Ready Student Veterans Act of 2015.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 677, the ``American Heroes COLA Act.'' This bill requires that, whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase by the same percentage the amounts payable as veterans' disability compensation. H.R. 677 does the following: 1. compensates for dependents 2. a clothing allowance for certain disabled adults 3. compensation for surviving spouses and children This bill requires that veterans are given the correct percentage and benefit amounts from the Social Security Act. Retired military veterans, VA rates for compensation and pension for disabled veterans and surviving families will be effective December 1, 2015 and will be reflected on the first check to be paid on December 31, 2015. Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs began in 1975. Before that, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation. COLA impacts benefits to about 59 social security recipients, 1.96 million military retirees and 4 million disabled veterans. This increase in benefit amounts will help alleviate financial stress that millions of our disabled veterans have. As the sponsor of H.R. 76 ``the HERO Transition from Battlespace to Workplace Act,'' I strongly support our veterans and any bill that helps mitigate soldier to citizen transition. As Abraham Lincoln stated, ``Honor to the soldier and sailor everywhere, who bravely bears his country's cause. Honor, also, to the citizen who cares for his brother in the field and serves, as he best can, the same cause.'' H.R. 677 is a positive step forward in increasing in benefit amounts payable as veteran's disability compensation. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to join me and do the same.