Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 71st anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. It is fitting today to remember to those who experienced the depth of human cruelty in that camp and all other Nazi concentration camps. It is estimated that over one million prisoners perished at the Auschwitz concentration camp over the five years that it was operational. I grieve for those lost souls, but I give thanks for the 7,500 prisoners who were liberated 71 years ago today. The stories of those survivors ensure that we will never forget this crime against humanity and remain vigilant and dedicated to combating hatred and oppression in all its forms. For that reason, I would also like to bring attention to the ongoing massacres and human rights violations being carried out by the militant terrorist organization Boko Haram in Nigeria. Just like the actions of the Nazis during World War II, the actions of Boko Haram today are an affront to human life and dignity. From their first violent uprising in 2009, to the massacre in Baga less than one month ago, Boko Haram has been waging a war that has cost an estimated 10,000 lives, and displaced more than one million people. I thank President Obama and Secretary Kerry for their active engagement in supporting the Nigerians in their efforts to combat Boko Haram. I also thank the United States military, for providing the Nigerian military with trainers and specialists to aid them. But there needs to be more. These atrocities must not be permitted to continue, and we must do everything within our power to stop the kidnapping and killing of innocent men, women, and children across Nigeria. So on this 71st anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, let us remember and honor those who perished in the Holocaust by rededicating ourselves to combating genocide and the oppression of people by regimes and entities motivated by hatred, religious bigotry, megalomania, or false ideologies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I inform this House that on January 4, 2016, Galiya Umarova, wife of Ambassador Kairat Umarov of Kazakhstan passed away. The Ambassador and Galiya were married for thirty years. Their son, Gaini, currently works for an international consulting group in Astana, Kazakhstan. Galiya and her husband have known each other much longer than the beginning of his diplomatic career. The two met in English class, where he entertained her with his funny stories. Galiya grew up in Almaty, Kazakhstan's largest city and the country's foremost historical, financial and cultural center. She dedicated her life to the promotion of the importance of education and was a passionate supporter of building progress in her home country, including her husband's work on behalf of his country. For example, the Ambassador and Galiya were posted to the United States capitol three different times in the span of 15 years. Known as the land of peace and prosperity, the beautiful country of Kazakhstan sits on 3,000 years of extraordinary history. The country's development has been influenced by legends such as Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan. For centuries, the Silk Road through Kazakhstan served as one of the world's oldest and most historically significant trade routes. All of this has contributed to the richness of the Kazakh culture and its capacity to adapt and develop. Much like her home country, Galiya Umarova adapted and developed as she accompanied her husband throughout his diplomatic service for his country. In fact, Galiya adapted to the DC life by driving herself around town, navigating the hectic DC traffic. Galiya and the Ambassador traveled the world over, spreading the imperative of cultural tourism, the beautiful culture of Kazakhstan and its over 140 different ethnic groups, while working to promote peace at home and in bilateral relations such as its relationship with the United States. The couple embodied what former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared about their country: ``Kazakhstan may serve as an example of a peaceful multiethnic country where ethnic diversity is a blessing, but not a curse.'' Kazakhstan is located in the central part of Eurasia, almost equidistant from the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Indeed, throughout history, Kazakhstan was an arena for brisk commercial and political relations and it now plays an important role as a link between Europe, Central Asia and the rapidly developing Asian-Pacific region. Notwithstanding her husband's busy diplomatic schedule over the past 2 decades, Galiya worked hard to bring balance into her family life. For example, she always found time to enjoy comedy films with her family. She also enjoyed a variety of hobbies such as tennis, golf, practicing yoga, growing her own natural fruits and vegetables in her garden. Today, I hope my colleagues will join me in sending prayers and condolences to Ambassador Umarov and his family. I also ask for a moment of silence in Galiya Umarova's honor and memory.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have taken to this floor too many times to mourn tragic deaths caused by senseless acts of gun violence. I rise today to remember Mr. Carroll Patrick Oliver of Houston, Texas, a well-loved and respected businessman and community leader of my 18th district. Mr. Oliver was tragically murdered on Monday, January 11, 2016, when he was shot and killed in a robbery as he left his place of business to do a morning bank run. A former Chicago police officer and lawful gun owner, Mr. Oliver attempted to defend himself when approached by the robbers but was ruthlessly shot by one of the thieves as they attempted to steal his briefcase. As a McDonalds franchise owner for nearly 37 years, Mr. Oliver was well known throughout Houston as a kind-hearted and giving man, who helped open many doors for those in his community. He often fed the homeless and neighborhood children simply in need of a warm meal. He did not hesitate to help those he knew or those he came across in need of a helping hand. Laudably, Mr. Oliver was most recognized for providing employment opportunities to help individuals succeed in his community, including hiring teenagers from a local high school and working with several programs to hire individuals with criminal records looking for a second chance. Mr. Oliver also served as a volunteer Chaplain for the Fort Bend County Precinct Two Constable's office, where he led the community in prayer at school events and nursing homes. Giving back to his community in more ways than one, Mr. Oliver had a servant's heart and a lifelong calling to help the poor and underprivileged. He is survived by his wife of 49 years, Jolene Oliver and their two children Cedric Oliver and Stephanie Oliver, as well as a host of relatives, friends and his McDonald's family. The loss of this great man will run deep throughout Houston. We will miss him and his beautiful acts of kindness and generosity. I hope Houston can find peace and comfort in the legacy of greatness he leaves with us, and that others continue to follow in his footsteps. I also hope that we continue to fight gun violence and find ways to prevent these awful acts of violence. This tragic event sadly demonstrates the clear and present dangers of gun violence in our society, despite individuals being a lawful gun owner themselves. As my colleagues and I continue to push for gun safety legislation, we must come together and acknowledge that we are all at risk, and that none of us are immune from the dangers of gun violence. In solemn remembrance of this beloved and remarkable community leader, I ask that a moment of silence be observed in his memory.

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 David Bowie, a true trailblazer of the music and film industry. David Bowie died on January 10, 2016 in New York City, from cancer; he was only 69 years old. David Bowie was born David Robert Jones in Brixton, South London, England, on January 8, 1947. David showed a strong interest in music from an early age and began playing the saxophone at the age of 13. After graduating from Bromley Technical High School at the age of 16, David started working as a commercial artist. David Bowie was also a stand-in with a number of bands and the leader of his own group, Davy Jones and the Lower Third. David Bowie changed his last name to Bowie to avoid confusion with Davy Jones of The Monkees, a name which was inspired by the knife developed by Jim Bowie, the 19th century American frontiersman. The first solo album David Bowie recorded was unsuccessful and soon thereafter he decided to take a hiatus from the music world. But by early 1969, David Bowie had returned full time to the music industry, releasing the hit single ``Space Oddity.'' The song resonated with the public, sparked in large part by the BBC's use of the single during its coverage of the Apollo 11 moon landing. His next work, 1971's Hunky Dory, featured two blockbuster hits: the title track that was a tribute to Andy Warhol, the Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan; and ``Changes,'' which came to embody Bowie himself. As David Bowie's celebrity profile increased, so did his desire to keep fans and critics guessing, first by claiming he was gay, and then introducing Ziggy Stardust, Bowie's imagining of a doomed rock star. His 1972 album, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars, made him a bona fide superstar. By the mid-1970s David Bowie had continued his chameleon style by jettisoning the outrageous costumes and garish sets. Then in two short years released the albums David Live in 1974 and Young Americans in 1975. In 1980 David Bowie, while living in New York, released Scary Monsters, a much-lauded album that featured the single ``Ashes to Ashes,'' an updated version of his earlier ``Space Oddity.'' David Bowie's creative interests were not limited to music. In 1980, David Bowie performed on Broadway in The Elephant Man and his passion for film helped land him the title role in The Man Who Fell to Earth in 1976 and a starring role in the film Labyrinth in 1986. Over the next decade, David Bowie bounced back and forth between acting and music. The most popular of David Bowie creations of late has been Bowie Bonds, financial securities the artist himself backed with royalties from his pre-1990 work. David Bowie was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996, and was a 2006 recipient of the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award. He kept a low profile for several years until the release of his 2013 album, The Next Day, which skyrocketed to #2 on the Billboard charts. He released Blackstar, his final album, on his 69th birthday, January 8, 2016. New York Times critic Jon Pareles noted that it was a ``strange, daring and ultimately rewarding'' work ``with a mood darkened by bitter awareness of mortality.'' The world would soon learn that the album had been produced under truly difficult circumstances when the music icon died on January 10, 2016, in New York City, two days after its release. Mr. Speaker, David Bowie famously said of himself, ``I'm not a prophet or a stone aged man, just a mortal with potential of a superman. I'm living on.'' Yes, David Bowie truly possessed the ability of an artistic superhuman and will live on in the hearts of his dedicated fans, admirers, and the present and future artists he has inspired around the world. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of David Bowie, the Man Who Fell to Earth and gave the world Ziggy Stardust and who never lacked the courage or confidence to change.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this year, the nation observes for the 30th time the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King Holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness.'' ``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life: ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.'' We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. the life of the rev. dr. martin luther king, jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. And not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that we celebrate here today could have turned out to be just another African-American who would have had to learn to be happy with what he had, and what he was allowed. But he learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King was a dreamer. His dreams were a tool through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society, and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper. But Martin Luther King, Jr. was not just an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 50 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. The sixties were a time of great crisis and conflict. The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally. It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. It started with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. But the dream did not die there. Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, often with Rosa Parks. The boycott lasted for 381 days, as an end result, the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation. Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow Laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. On April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City, he spoke out against the Vietnam War, when he saw the devastation that his nation was causing abroad and the effect that it had on the American men and women sent overseas. He said, and I quote: Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: ``I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.'' Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity. There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America. He was in midst of planning the 1968 Poor People's Campaign for Jobs and Justice when he struck down by the dark deed of an assassin on April 4, 1968. It is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 22, a bill providing for Congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to a ``Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States.'' Today, the House is debating S.J. Res. 22, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove the Administration's Clean Water Act Rule issued in June 2015. The CRA is a blunt instrument and the resolution would not only strike the rule in its entirety--throwing out decades of work and reigniting confusion and uncertainty among industry and conservation communities--it would block future administrations from ever resolving the confusion surrounding the Clean Water Act's definition of ``waters of the United States.'' This joint resolution is an extraordinary and radical action to overturn a fundamental, once-in-a-generation final rule that is critical to the effective implementation of the 1972 Clean Water Act, and that was adopted following an exhaustive public rulemaking process. This joint resolution would overturn this rule that finally resolves longstanding confusion and debate, promotes clarity and efficiency for regulatory programs promoting river health, and preserves longstanding protections for farmers, ranchers, and forester. America's hunters and anglers cannot afford to have Congress undermine effective Clean Water Act safeguards, leaving communities and valuable fish and wildlife habitat at risk indefinitely. Along the Texas Gulf Coast where Houston is located we have worked long and hard to protect essential habitats for fish, crabs and bird estuaries. This joint resolution dismisses out of hand the voices of the millions of Americans, including businesses that depend on clean water, who support the new rule and are eager to reap its benefits. The President has communicated that this bill will be vetoed if passed in its current form. The ``Resolution of Disapproval'' under the Congressional Review Act attacks the Clean Water Rule, the Obama Administration's landmark initiative to restore safeguards against pollution and destruction for lakes, streams, wetlands and other water bodies. The Clean Water Rule restores important safeguards that once existed for a variety of water bodies that are the breeding grounds for fish. The rule restores prior protections for many critical wetlands, which curb flooding, filter pollution, and provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including endangered species and wildfowl and fish prized by hunters and anglers. We must reject this attempt to inject Congress into a regulatory process that is best managed by the agency experts who are well versed in the process and the objectives. Although this issue of the children of Flint haven been poisoned by lead contamination of drinking water it is relevant to the broader debate on clean water and what we must remain focused upon. The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution. It is credited for restoring clean water levels in the United States that were contaminated by chemicals and pollutants being dumped into fresh water sources. The law maintains the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands. It is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws. The disapproval resolution would undo years of work by this and previous Administrations to clarify which waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act, reducing costly confusion and permitting delays and restoring protections for streams and wetlands across the country. The confusion surrounding which waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act protections originates from two Supreme Court decisions (2001 and 2006) which called into question whether the Act protects isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters and waters and tributaries in the upper portions of a watershed. Subsequent interpretive guidance by the Bush Administration has led to an inconsistent, patchwork system frustrating the regulated community and general public concerned with health and safety of our waterways. In April 2014, in response to requests from regulated industry and the conservation communities, the Obama Administration published a proposed rule, replacing the Bush Administration-era guidance documents, to reduce regulatory uncertainty and establish a dear process for asserting Clean Water Act jurisdiction over waters. The EPA held more than 400 public meetings and listened to a significant amount of public comment on the proposed rule. The final rule was issued on June 29, 2015. In October 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the Clean Water Act Rule nationwide. Accordingly, the rule is tied up in Federal and state courts and, therefore, is not in effect. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member Peter DeFazio opposes this damaging disapproval resolution and is urging Members to vote NO. The White House has threatened to veto this disapproval resolution if it reaches the President's desk: The Administration strongly opposes S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify a specified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army (Army) final rule clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The agencies' rulemaking, grounded in science and the law, is essential to ensure clean water for future generations, and is responsive to calls for rulemaking from the Congress, industry, and community stakeholders as well as decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. If enacted, S.J. Res. 22 would nullify years of work and deny businesses and communities the regulatory certainty needed to invest in projects that rely on clean water. S.J. Res. 22 is not an act of good governance. If the President were presented with S.J. Res. 22, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill. There is broad opposition to this disapproval resolution from the conservation, consumer, science, and recreational sports communities including: Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, Greenpeace, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies, American Fly Fishing Trade Association, International Federation of Fly Fishers, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, The Izaak Walton League, National Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Trout Unlimited. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from New York for his kindness. I acknowledge the chairman of this committee for his courtesies in debating this legislation. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think it is important for all of us to acknowledge the safe return of our United States sailors and to recognize that the United States was persistent and determined and, as well, made no apology and that the Iran Government moved quickly to return them. Let it be very clear that our sailors did nothing wrong. Obviously, when other sailors are in trouble, let me thank those who remain, as our heroes do. They leave no person, in essence, behind. So I am very grateful, and I know their families are grateful that they are safe. That, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctive point from where we are today. Everyone knows that Iran is a bad actor. Some of us on this floor voted for the Iran non-nuclear agreement while others did not. But I believe that we do ourselves harm when we continue to renegotiate or to re- vote, as we have continued to do 62 times with regard to ObamaCare. This legislation would restrict the President's ability to lift sanctions on Iranian entities, thereby preventing the U.S. from carrying out its commitment under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed in Vienna, Austria, on July 14, 2015. Specifically, the bill would require the President to certify that the delisted entity has not knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction or has provided significant financial services to the IRGC or to terrorist affiliates. This, of course, would be a very difficult and hindering aspect of the President's responsibilities in his role as the Commander in Chief. It would specifically prevent the delisting of 400 banks, companies, and individuals that are engaged in Iran's nuclear program, particularly the Central Bank. Section 2 would require the President to certify to Congress that any entity from the Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions list has not ever knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation impedes, prohibits, and stops the President and the next President, as our representative of the face of America internationally and who has the responsibility, from enforcing this agreement. It was done primarily to stop Iran's nuclear efforts. I, too, as one who has supported this legislation, believes that sanctions should be increased and that we should respond to Iran's ballistic missile episode, but there are ways to do that by strengthening the sanctions, not by tying the hands of the Commander in Chief--the President of the United States--and not by renegotiating this on the floor of the House to the extent that we have, in essence, giving the President no latitude with which to negotiate. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it is not legislation that enhances our place. It takes away from the President's authority, and it makes it very difficult to interact with Iran. Let me be very clear: Iran has its troubles, and it is a bad actor, but I will tell you there are better ways to handle this situation. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act. We are here again wasting valuable time on measures we know have no real chance of survival beyond these debates. I strongly oppose this futile measure to block all efforts to enforce the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). H.R. 3662, would prevent the U.S. from implementing the JCPOA by tying the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under this long negotiated deal to unrelated, non-nuclear issues. The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3662, the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, which would prevent the United States from implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) by tying the Administration's ability to fulfill U.S. commitments under the deal to unrelated, non-nuclear issues. This bill includes provisions that connect the United States' JCPOA commitment to provide sanctions relief by delisting certain Iran- related individuals and entities, including banks, to non-nuclear issues outside of the scope of the JCPOA. Certain provisions would effectively preclude delisting of individuals or entities on Implementation Day of the JCPOA--the day on which the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has completed key nuclear-related steps that significantly dismantle and constrain its nuclear program--based on activity that may have taken place and ended long before Implementation Day and involving persons or activity that will no longer be sanctioned post-Implementation Day. By preventing the United States from fulfilling its JCPOA commitments, H.R. 3662 could result in the collapse of a comprehensive diplomatic arrangement that peacefully and verifiably prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Such a collapse would remove the unprecedented constraints on Iran's nuclear program that we achieved in the JCPOA, lead to the unraveling of the international sanctions regime against Iran, and deal a devastating blow to America's credibility as a leader of international diplomacy. This would have ripple effects, jeopardizing the hard work of sustaining a unified coalition to combat Iran's destabilizing activities in the region, calling into question the effectiveness of our sanctions regime and our ability to lead the world on nuclear non- proliferation. The Administration has consistently made clear that the purpose of the nuclear negotiations, and ultimately the JCPOA--was to address one issue only: the international community's concerns over Iran's nuclear program and to verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA is the critical mechanism through which the United States was able to garner international support for our sanctions and achieve a diplomatic resolution. As we address our concerns with Iran's nuclear program through implementation of the JCPOA, the Administration remains clear-eyed and shares the deep concerns of the Congress and the American people about Iran's support for terrorism. Powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile activities, its human rights abuses, and its destabilizing activities in the region remain in effect. Anyone worldwide who transacts with or supports individuals or entities sanctioned in connection with Iran's support for terrorism or development of WMD and their means of delivery, including missiles--or who does the same with any Iranian individual or entity who remains on Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List, puts themselves at risk of being sanctioned. Up until this point, Iran has been meeting all commitments under the JCPOA--any impediments to the United States ability to uphold its commitments jeopardizes the security of our nation. The President has made it clear that he will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of the JCPOA. According to the Statement on Administrative Policy, if presented with H.R. 3662, the President will VETO this bill. Let's just take a quick look back at some of the President's foreign policy achievements: The capture and neutralization of Osama Bin Laden which brought an end to a nearly decade long manhunt. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq which helped to bring an end to a costly war, helping our country save billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds. The current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has been instrumental in deterring and stemming Iran's nuclear ambitions and enabling security in the global society. The repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an aspersion on the personal private matters of those who have dedicated their lives to protecting our nation. Signing into law the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), an important treaty that showcases how the U.S leads by example by signing a treaty that requires both the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear warhead arsenals to 1,550 each, a 30 percent reduction from the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and a 74 percent reduction from the 1991 START treaty. Neutralization of al Qaeda propagandist and foreign fighter recruiter Anwar Al Awlaki, one of the main leaders in the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Indeed, under President Obama's leadership, our country's military aid to Israel has increased remarkably with the eye towards deepening and expanding U.S./Israeli relations--an important aspect of our nation's foreign policy and geopolitical efforts to promote peace in the region. Not to mention historical deals on the environment vis a vis Cop 21, organizing over 200 nations on strategies to protect the environment and proposed trade deals that will organize and facilitate the United States stamp on the Asian economy. This president's foreign policy achievements in promoting the security of our nation are irrefutable. Any serious legislation addressing Iran should be done as it has been done up until now, in a bipartisan way. H.R. 3662 is an entirely partisan bill that excluded the participation of all Democratic Members in drafting this measure or supporting it. This bill is fundamentally flawed and I urge all Members to vote against it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness in my heart that I rise to acknowledge the death of a great leader in our community, Dr. J.S. Stone, a graduate of Talladega College and a graduate of Meharry Medical School, who leaves his beloved wife, Gertrude, a dear friend, and three children. This was a great leader and a great medical professional, committed to service in our community, serving on many, many boards and sharing his great brilliance with all of us. He had a residency at Texas MD Anderson and hospitals in Philadelphia and became one of the first African Americans to participate in the Harris County Medical Society and to practice in hospitals that, for the first time, saw an African American doctor, such as St. Joseph, a community hospital that has remained historic in our community. Again, I want to pay tribute to him for his service in the United States military as captain. This is the kind of African American leader and a kind of American leader that stood tall, being born in 1930 in the face of segregation, but he never let the ills of the world overcome him. He became a servant of the people--not elected--but he became a servant in medicine and serving them. I honor him today and express my deepest sympathy to his family, his wife, his children, and to the entire community in Houston, for we have lost a fallen hero. He is a hero. I say well done, good and faithful servant. May you rest in peace, Dr. J.S. Stone.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is an exciting day as the President presents to us his vision for the Nation. In addition, over the weekend, Speaker Ryan indicated his vision and the opportunity for Members of Congress to pass serious legislation, which includes criminal justice reform. How exciting it is to be the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and to work with my colleagues Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Conyers and all of my colleagues on that committee to talk about important issues. Just today, we passed a bill dealing with mental health programs. A DOJ report found that 64 percent of those in jail, 54 percent of State prisoners, and 45 percent of Federal prisoners have some form of mental illness. Jails and prisons now house more than three times the number of mentally ill individuals than do mental health facilities and hospitals. It is clear that part of criminal justice reform deals with mental health, but it also deals with rehabilitation and reentry, which we are discussing in the Committee on the Judiciary. In addition, we are working on reforming the juvenile justice system. My message, Mr. Speaker, is, as the President speaks, as the Speaker has spoken, it is time now that we come collaboratively, Republicans and Democrats, and truly end mass incarceration and find a way to solve the criminal justice problem both by reducing gun violence, reducing crime, and helping the people who need the help.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, over the Christmas 2015 break, 50 people were murdered and 114 others wounded in the northeastern Nigerian cities of Maiduguri and Madagali, Borno State, which is the birthplace of Boko Haram. Today also marks 633 days since 276 Chibok girls were kidnapped from their dormitories in the middle of night. Violence on the citizens of the world in sacred places such as our homes, places of worship, educational institutions and recreational venues is unacceptable and detestable. To keep the Chibok girls on our minds, all of us here in Congress have worn red every Wednesday to signal the urgency of rescuing, recovering and reintegrating these young women back into the arms of their parents. Sadly, while we grapple with the sore of the kidnapping of the Chibok girls, with horror, we watched on the news, violence wreaked by Boko Haram during the holidays. As we all know, Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for the massacres. I have met with the Nigerian President and was part of a delegation to Nigeria to engage local leaders, activists, businesses and families of victims of Boko Haram on strategies for recovering and reintegrating the Chibok girls and many others who have been kidnapped or suffered violence. These senseless killings and kidnappings by Boko Haram must stop. The Chibok girls are not throwaways and the world cannot and should not forget them. Those who lost their lives during the Christmastime massacres have families and loved ones whose hearts have been broken because of the pain and anguish they must now feel. We must continue to press on in our concerted efforts to assure victims that Boko Haram will be combatted and assure our Chibok daughters that we still care and that we are committed to bringing them back home and will work to protect them and reintegrate them back into our community with open arms. As founder and Co-Chair of the Caucus on Nigeria and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, the rescue, return and reintegration of the kidnapped Chibok girls continue to be my top priority. I believe that with our commitment, just as the Aboke girls were recovered after being kidnapped in Northern Uganda by the Lord's Resistance Army, the Chibok girls will be rescued, returned home and reintegrated back into the human family. I am committed to the protection of the Nigerian people and it is my view that the people of Nigeria and others in the Lake Chad Basin in Africa should be afforded the protection they deserve and the opportunity to live their lives free of terrorism and fear. This is why I introduced H. Res. 528, legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support of my colleagues including Representatives Chu of California, Lee of California, Dold of Illinois, Hahn of California, Kelly of Illinois, Fudge of Ohio, Watson-Coleman of New Jersey, Sewell of Alabama, Brown of Florida, Thompson of Mississippi and my good friend Ms. Wilson of Florida. My resolution seeks to create a Victims of Terror Protection Fund for the protection of the Chibok girls when they return home as well as provision of much needed support for them and other displaced refugees, migrants and the victims of Boko Haram's terror such as those of the Christmastime 2015 massacres. All persons of the world from Syria to Nigeria to Colombia and everywhere in between possess the inalienable fundamental human right to freedom of movement and full realization of their human potential without fear of violence upon their person. Last month, in our celebrations of the United Nations Human Rights Day, the global community rededicated itself to the key International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Covenants that serve as the bedrock of the International Bill of Rights: protecting the right of all human beings. Indeed, we must continue to fight for the freedoms of our neighbors whether those for whom we fight are out of sight such as the murdered and wounded in northeastern Nigeria or the kidnapped Chibok teenage girls or educated medical doctors fleeing violent extremism in Syria. The bottom line is that our obligations in the human family must revolve around and be grounded in our conviction and commitment to the rights to freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and the freedom from fear or terrorism, among others. We must remain steadfast in guaranteeing these fundamental freedoms and protect the human rights of all to achieve peace and prosperity in our world. Mr. Speaker, those murdered and wounded during the Christmastime massacres included a lot of youth. When they were kidnapped, the Chibok youth were 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 year olds who are now turning 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18--living out the formative years of their lives in captivity in the claws of thugs. Our silence is a waste of time and this is why we must keep speaking, keep tweeting, keep seeking to recover our daughters and denouncing the atrocious actions of Boko Haram. This cannot be the fate or the end of the story of the lives of the victims of Boko Haram. We must not and cannot forget Blessing Abana, Deborah Abari, Rebecca Mallum, Naomi Luka, Esther Markus, Zara Ishaku, Ruth Joshua, Grace Paul, Rebecca Luka and the others. To the families of the Christmastime massacre, you are in our thoughts and prayers. To the Chibok girls, notwithstanding your captivity, let me assure you that your spirits, souls and bodies are sacred to us, no matter what attacks the enemies of peace may have perpetrated upon you. Like your sister from Pakistan, Malala, who was shot in the head for seeking her education and who continues to fight for your recovery, your best days are ahead because we know that when your girls thrive our world thrives. So let me assure you that you remain in our prayers and thoughts. To President Buhari of Nigeria, you have our support and you have my support in all your efforts to destroy and dismantle Boko Haram. To the people of Nigeria, we are counting on you to keep holding on, keep your faith strong and be assured that you are on the right side of history and that the arc of the moral universe always tips on the right side of justice. Today, let me offer that it is important to denounce the actions of Boko Haram and recommit ourselves to the protection of the Nigerian people and the recovery of the Chibok girls.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Dale Leon Bumpers, a great American, a man who embodied civility and bipartisanship; one of the most passionate advocates for civil rights, social justice, and nuclear non-proliferation; a man who served his country honorably in the Armed Forces, the Arkansas Statehouse, and the United States Senate. Dale Bumpers died at his home in Little Rock, Arkansas, on January 1, 2016 at the age of 90. Dale Bumpers was born August 12, 1925, in Charleston, Arkansas, to Lattie (Jones) and William Rufus Bumpers, who had served a term in the Arkansas House of Representatives of Arkansas, encouraged his son to attend all local political events telling him that there was, ``nothing as exhilarating as a political victory and nothing as rewarding or as honorable as being a dedicated, honest politician who actually makes things better and more just.'' Dale Bumpers came of age during the lean years of the Great Depression, which instilled in him an ethic of hard work and a compassion for those in need, what the great biographer Robert Caro quotes Sam Early Johnson as being caught in the ``tentacles of circumstance.'' In 1943, Dale Bumpers put his studies at the University of Arkansas on hold to enlist in the United States Marines, serving in the Pacific Theater during World War II. After his honorable discharge from the Marines, Dale Bumpers earned his baccalaureate degree from the University of Arkansas and then moved to Evanston, Illinois to attend Northwestern University School of Law, from which he graduated in 1951. In 1949, two fateful events occurred: tragically his beloved parents were killed in an automobile accident; but happily, he married his high school sweetheart and the love of his life, Betty Lou Flanagan, and together they raised their three children in Charleston, Arkansas. Upon graduation from law school and his admission to the Arkansas State Bar in 1952, Dale Bumpers entered the private practice of law, a field in which his natural charm, quick wit, and folksy manner, allowed him to excel. Between 1952 and 1970, he won every case he handled except three, which validated the title of his memoir which was, The Best Lawyer in a One-Lawyer Town. After the Supreme Court's Landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, the Charleston School Board asked his advice on how to best respond to the Court's decision. Dale Bumpers's response was quick and direct: compliance rather than defiance was his advice, which was heeded by the School Board. In 1962, Dale Bumpers ran for the House seat that his father once held and although he handily carried his home city of Charleston, he narrowly lost the election. But the loss neither discouraged nor deterred Dale Bumpers from seeking elective office so he could continue to serve others. Opportunity presented itself in the 1970 Arkansas gubernatorial race. The Democratic primary field included racist former Governor Orval Faubus, who had served six terms from 1954 to 1966, Attorney General Joe Edward Purcell, and Arkansas House Speaker Hayes McClerkin. An early poll showed Dale Bumpers with about one percent of the vote but compelling television ads showcasing his integrity, winning personality, progressivism attracted broad and enthusiastic public support, especially in western Arkansas, and earned him a spot in the run-off election with Orval Faubus, which he won with 62% of the vote. In the general election, Dale Bumpers soundly defeated the incumbent Republican governor, Winthrop Rockefeller, who was seeking a third term. During his first term as Arkansas Governor, Dale Bumpers guided to passage laws that gave more powers to the cities, created a consumer protection division in the Attorney General's office, repealed the ``fair trade'' liquor law, expanded the state park system, improved social services for elderly, disabled, and developmentally challenged citizens. During his second term Dale Bumpers continued to pursue a progressive reform agenda and won passage of legislation creating state-supported kindergarten, providing for free textbooks for high school students, authorizing a major construction program at the state's colleges, eliminating the prison ``trusty'' system, and increased support of the community college system through increased state payments of operational costs. Despite the fact Dale Bumpers governorship was widely viewed as a success, by friends and critics alike, he did not enjoy the position, writing in his autobiography that he, ``intensely disliked most of my time as governor'' because ``I spent more time trying to make sure bad things didn't happen than I spent trying to make good things happen.'' In 1974, as he was completing his second term as governor, Dale Bumpers decided to challenge the incumbent U.S. senator, the legendary J. William Fulbright, in the Democratic senatorial primary. Because of his admiration, support, and friendship, Dale Bumpers was reluctant to enter the race against the politically vulnerable Senator Fulbright, writing in his memoir: I didn't want to oppose him; on the other hand, I would never forgive myself if he was defeated by someone whose views were an anathema to me. Dale Bumpers won the Democratic primary with 65% percent of the vote and went on to win the general election against John Harris Jones with 85% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in a statewide election in 30 years. Dale Bumpers was sworn in as United States Senator in January 1975; he was easily reelected in 1980, 1986, and 1992. In the course of his 28 year career, Dale Bumpers, nicknamed ``the giant killer'' by the New York Times, would defeat former or future Arkansas governors: Orval Faubus, Winthrop Rockefeller, Asa Hutchinson, and Mike Huckabee. During his twenty-four-year career in the United States Senate, Dale Bumpers served as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee and was a senior member of the Committees on Appropriations and on Energy and Natural Resources from which perch he championed environmental legislation and efforts to expand and fund the National Park System. Though as a fiscal conservative, Senator Bumpers was an early supporter of efforts to reduce the national debt and was often a critic of excessive military spending. Dale Bumpers retired from the Senate in 1998 but one of the greatest orators ever to serve in the Senate returned to the chamber the following year to deliver the speech for which he is perhaps best known, the powerful, persuasive, compelling, and widely praised closing argument leading to acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. Mr. Speaker, Dale Leon Bumpers was a legislator's legislator and our prayers and condolences go out to his widow, Betty Lou Flanagan, his children, Brent, Bill, and Brooke. Dale Leon Bumpers touched so many lives in so many helpful ways that he will always be remembered as one of the finest public servants of the 20th century. I ask that the House observe a moment of silence in memory of the distinguished United States Senator from Arkansas, the late Dale Leon Bumpers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to S. 142, the ``Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act,'' which requires any nicotine provided in a liquid nicotine container sold, offered for sale, manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce must be in special packaging that is difficult for children under five years of age to open or access harmful contents. As the founding member and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am in support of this bill because it places the safety of children first. Today, small children are at risk of injury and death from easily accessed liquid nicotine used to refill electronic cigarettes. Nicotine liquids used in e-cigarettes are sold without child proof packaging. Further, these nicotine products are attractive to children because they come in a wide range of candy flavors such as gummy bear, cotton candy and chocolate. Liquid nicotine is highly toxic and sold in a highly concentrated form. Many liquid nicotine products contain nearly 36 mg of nicotine per milliliter of liquid. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids the concentrated form of nicotine in liquid form intended for use in smokeless cigarettes would only take a small 15 milliliter dose to kill four toddlers. According to the Centers for Disease Control the number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014. Data from the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC) showed nearly 4,000 adverse incidents related to e-cigarette exposures in 2014, a 145 percent increase from 2013 and a 14-fold increase since 2011. In 2015, there were 1,499 calls to Poison Control Centers through May 31, 2015 that were liquid nicotine related. This bill would save children's lives by allowing the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) the authority to require the use of child-resistant packaging on liquid nicotine containers sold to consumers. The CPSC currently requires such packaging on many common toxic household substances like bleach, as well as FDA-regulated products like prescription drugs. S. 142 is needed to save children from unnecessary poisonings from liquid nicotine. The most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey showed e-cigarette use is growing fast, and now this report shows e-cigarette related poisonings are also increasing rapidly,'' said Tim McAfee, M.D., M.P.H., Director of CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. We all must do our part to reduce liquid nicotine poisoning of children. It will take the efforts of members of the House in voting to pass this bill, health care providers, e-cigarette companies and distributors, and the public need to join efforts to keep our children safe from potential health risk from e-cigarettes. Strategies to monitor and prevent future poisonings are critical given the rapid increase in e-cigarette related poisonings and the first step is voting for S. 142. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of S. 142, ``Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, recent news of North Korea's claim that it successfully conducted an H-bomb test for the first time, in defiance of United Nations' resolutions ups the ante on why we must remain steadfast in expediently addressing insecurity in our nation and across the globe, as anticipated in this bill by Representative Royce of California, entitled the North Korean Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2,315 which has enjoyed bi-partisan support. Our world today is faced with resurgent and evolving threats from weapons of mass destruction to destructive nuclear ambitions. Indeed, news events inform us of the far-ranging spectrum we must contend with, ranging from persistent nation state-based dangerous nuclear ambitions in North Korea, to continued chemical weapons used in Syria, to terrorist organizations such as Daesh ramping up their destructive capabilities through vitriolic recruitment strategies, that pose an existential threat beyond the borders from which ISIS is operating. I am confident that these are issues that President Obama will be addressing and proposing durable solutions to during his last state of the Union Address as our nation's Commander In Chief. Under his leadership, our nation has achieved foreign policy feats that have worked to maintain our security, promote our geopolitical objectives and advance our diplomatic relationships with key allies. Let's just take a quick look back at some of the President's foreign policy achievements: The capture and neutralization of Osama Bin Laden which brought an end to a nearly decade long manhunt. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq which helped to bring an end to a costly war, helping our country save billions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds. The current Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which has been instrumental in deterring and stemming Iran's nuclear ambitions and enabling security in the global society. The repealing of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, an aspersion on the personal private matters of those who have dedicated their lives to protect our nation. Signing into law the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), an important treaty that showcases how the U.S. leads by example by signing a treaty that requires both the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear warhead arsenals to 1,550 each, a 30 percent reduction from the 2002 Treaty of Moscow and a 74 percent reduction from the 1991 START treaty. Neutralization of al Qaeda propagandist and foreign fighter recruiter Anwar Al Awlaki, one of the main leaders in the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Indeed, under President Obama's leadership, our country's military aid to Israel has increased remarkably with the eye towards deepening and expanding U.S./Israeli relations-an important aspect of our nation's foreign policy and geopolitical efforts to promote peace in the region. This president's foreign policy achievements in promoting the security of our nation are irrefutable and this is why I support the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act of 2015 because it will empower him to continue his impressive work in this arena. Much like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) championed by this Administration, this bill encourages our President to investigate any credible information of sanctionable activities involving North Korea. Furthermore, this bill will designate and implement sanctions against persons and entities who knowingly engage in or contribute to activities in North Korea whether it is through their exporting or importing of weapons of mass destruction, significant arms, significant luxury goods, money laundering, censorship, or engage in human rights abuses. Pursuant to the bill, the President is empowered to exercise authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as it relates to persons, entities and the government of North Korea. This bill empowers our President with discretionary authority to designate and apply sanctions to persons involved in certain other kinds of conduct. This bill will facilitate civil forfeiture of assets, real or personal, if said properties inure from any attempted or actual violation of this Act, or which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to such a violation. Other core provisions of the bill is the empowerment of our Treasury Secretary to: determine whether reasonable grounds exist for concluding that North Korea is a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern; and In the event our Treasury Secretary makes this determination, he is empowered to impose one or more special measures with respect to the jurisdiction of North Korea. Finally, our sense of Congress in this bill is in comity with and ensures the consistent enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions and financial restrictions on North Korea. Through this bill, our president will be empowered to withhold assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to any country that provides lethal military equipment to, or receives it from the government of North Korea. This bill is also important because it will put into place an enhanced screening procedure whereby our Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) will be able to determine if physical inspections are warranted of any cargo bound for or landed in the United States that has been transported through a foreign seaport or airport whose inspections are deficient if there are reasonable grounds to believe that such cargo contains goods prohibited under this Act. This will facilitate expedient seizure of vessels or aircraft used to facilitate sanctionable activities. The President will also be supported in his efforts to produce progress reports on significant activities undermining cyber security conflicted, or otherwise ordered or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the government of North Korea. Our Secretary of State will be supported in his human rights efforts of reporting on each political prison camp in North Korea, which will include a detailed description of those abuses or censorship. Again, I thank Chairman Royce for championing this bill and look forward to working with him and other members of this House in promoting our national security and supporting our President's objective of establishing us as a credible and trusted leader in the global landscape.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of concern, of sadness, and, also, of relief regarding the heinous shooting of the Philadelphia police officer. I am grateful that he managed to survive, that he is in the hospital, and that he is healing. We wish him and his family well and that he, as well, will heal. I think it is important to note that we need to look at the rage of gun violence from a sensible and logical perspective. Yes, the President's proposals would have had an impact on this crazed, allegedly ISIL-inspired individual who had no direct contact with ISIL, who had not been to the caliphate to fight, and who, unfortunately, had a previous criminal record. How would the proposals do so? First of all, it was a stolen gun. The President has suggested there be 200 more ATF officers to enforce the law. He has provided $500 million for mental health resources, and this individual suffered from that. In addition, he has provided for data collection, for the FBI to redo and to make more certain the inspection or the review of someone who is trying to get a gun. Mr. Speaker, let's look logically at what the President has offered, and let's not get in the way. Let's try to help stem the tide of gun violence so that our officers, as well, are not in the line of fire.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Obviously we share a compassion and passion for these wonderful women. We also serve on the Committee on Homeland Security together. First of all, let me thank you for your service and thank you so very much for bringing this very important issue, this bipartisan issue to the floor of the House and certainly to your colleagues. I am looking forward to working with you on this issue. I just want to say that one of my greatest joys in the United States Congress was the military war zones that I had the chance to go to, starting with the Bosnian war. I came in in that timeframe and traveled to that area, Kosovo and Albania, and then, of course, Iraq and Afghanistan and certainly a number of other sites where issues of conflict were going on. There I saw a myriad of women who stood on the shoulders of these women, who are now in a variety of the branches, not just aviators or in the Air Force in particular, but they stood on the shoulders of these women. It gave me a sense of pride and duty to say to them, ``Thank you.'' Women are unique. Many of them are mothers or sisters and daughters who are in the service, or they take care of children, or they are nurturers for someone else. We have a particular role, but yet they are in the military leaving their families. Just coming in today, I read an article about the ranger who is from my constituency who just came out of ranger school and is from Houston. I simply want to say, this is the right thing to do. Every year--and I think you have joined us now as you have come to Congress--we go on Memorial Day week to Arlington and lay a wreath for women who died in the line of duty or in the service of their country. Does anyone realize the numbers of women? We have been doing this now for more than a decade, and the women of the House join us. They do that because this is a valuable part of America's history. To the lady, the aviator that now, I wouldn't say languished, but is with her granddaughter, her ashes are with her granddaughter, I want to make a public commitment joining you to say that her ashes should be in a place where she can rest in peace. We should move this quickly. If it requires an independent action by the Army, a reconsideration, I am sure none of us would be offended by the Army rescinding this particular--how should I say it?--action. I just wanted to come and thank you. I want to thank my colleague Susan Davis and all of my colleagues who have been on the floor. I did not want to miss this opportunity. Coming from Texas, I think, as I walk down the streets of Houston or travel throughout the State of Texas, I see veterans and Active Duty everywhere. We are proud of that. In urban centers like Houston, you would think not, but they are dominant there. Just this past Christmas, we had what we call Toys for Kids and honored veterans' families. This is an important mission, and I want to join you in this mission. We have gotten our assignment. We really need to work. I think the American people need to know that all of us will join together to honor either our veterans, our fallen soldiers, or those who were the pioneers who I know the story of, who stood when they were called and did not step away from duty, did not step away from the danger, did not step away from possible death as they pursued the cause of this country and to protect this country. I thank you for yielding to me. I am ready to roll up my sleeves. Let's get busy. Let's help find a resting place for this dear sister and servant of the Nation. Let's find a resting place going forward for all of those who have served this wonderful and great country. They deserve it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from New York for yielding. As has been stated by my colleagues, I want to add my applause as well for the thoughtfulness of the gentleman's leadership on a number of issues, but certainly on his pronounced leadership on criminal justice reform and on the Judiciary Committee; and then to be joined by former leader of the Ohio State Legislature--and she has not forgotten her talents of leadership--and that is Congresswoman Joyce Beatty who joins us, if I might put words in both your mouths, with a sense of outrage about where we are today. I say that because I would like to stand here with an enormous amount of outrage for where we are and why we are here. I want to add my appreciation to the Congressional Black Caucus, the chairman, Mr. Butterfield, and, of course, Congresswoman Dr. Kelly, who has been a great leader on the issues dealing with health care. I just want to cite to her, a lady that came to this Congress more than a decade ago, Deborah Prothrow-Stith. You may have read her writings. She pronounced during that time that gun violence was a health crisis. That was so many years ago. Unfortunately, with all of her expert writings, we still couldn't get movement. I am going to take a slightly different perspective. If I could just take these few moments to give you an anecdotal story, which many of you might find absolutely with a great deal of shock, if you will. That is the limit to which gun rights advocates mislead the American people on any ideas for gun safety or gun regulation as taking guns away. I was in a meeting where someone was trying to understand why President Obama in his excellent presentation about securing America and protecting our children from gun violence was being associated with the idea of taking over 345 million guns. This is what is represented to be President Obama's message. He will confiscate, through his process of gun testing or making sure that there are background checks for everyone, that he wants to confiscate 345 million guns, which has been determined to be located in 65 million places here in the United States. Can I, in a public forum on this august floor of the House, say that we, as Members of Congress--and I think Republicans will admit this-- have no evidence, no documentation, that the White House intends to confiscate guns--no manner of level of increased ATF officers could ever do that--why this mischaracterization is here. But listen to this. Gun rights advocates have made a lot of claims over the years that the Second Amendment they interpret means that they can buy any gun they want and take it pretty much anywhere. Well, basically, that does exist, except for the basic constraint of background checks, which now the President has expanded to ensure that if you are in a gun show--this is a gun show loophole--and you are sitting next to the stall of a licensed gun person and you are in the business of selling guns, why shouldn't you be either licensed or require, basically, background checks? But listen to this. In an ongoing legal battle in Florida, they lay claim to a newfangled Second Amendment right: the right not to have anyone talk to gun owners about their guns. Specifically, gun advocates don't want doctors discussing guns or the potential harms that guns may cause with their patients. While mere talk about guns might seem to have nothing to do with the right to keep or bear arms, the advocates contend that the Constitution is on their side. Last month, for the third time in the same suit, a Federal court of appeals agreed. This is very bizarre. The case is filed under the name of Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida, although First and Second Amendment buffs may recognize it under the cutesy nickname Docs v. Glocks. It started when some gun owners and the National Rifle Association told Florida legislators that their doctors were harassing them by asking about gun safety--by asking about gun safety. The legislators responded by passing a law that bars healthcare workers from discussing or recording anything about their patients' gun ownership or safety practices that could be deemed in bad faith, irrelevant, or harassing. Twelve other States are thinking about it, and now we have the Privacy of Firearm Owners Act. This is in the face of a number of homicides in this country. Let me cite to my colleagues that America is the number one country out of Western nations that has the highest number of cases of homicide by firearm per 100,000. The closest that comes to them is 0.7 by Italy. Then Taiwan, Canada, and Spain, 0.2; Germany, 0.2. All the news stories that we see on violent disruptions in various places and protests, their numbers of gun violence, of homicides, is miniscule: Australia, 0.1; UK, 0.1; France, 0.1; South Korea, 0.03; and finally Japan, 0.01. If that doesn't get our attention, I don't know what does. Then look at this map; 353 mass shootings in America in 2015. My colleague can see, is this anything to be proud of? Mass shootings not by knives, not by throwing stones, but by guns. This is what America is to the world: a sea of red of mass shootings, so much so that you can't even see background in some of the parts of this Nation. Yet there are laws that are being passed to stop health professionals from asking whether you have guns that might, in fact, endanger your children or yourselves. On average, more than 100,000 people in the United States are shot in murders, assaults, and other crimes. More than 32,000 people die from gun violence, including 2,677 children under the age of 18. Gun deaths, justified versus criminal: studies also found that for every 1 justified homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides. In all of our communities, we see young Black men being felled by gun violence, young people in our communities being felled by gun violence, or innocent storekeepers being felled by gun violence, or in the instance of the Philadelphia police officer. All of us respect the dangers of law enforcement, recognizing that we can work together by building prepared and trained law enforcement officers to avoid the violence with guns. But in the instance of this individual, who point-blank shot at an officer with a gun, who has now been determined possibly to have heard voices, though he said he was inspired by ISIS, again, someone wanted to suggest that it wasn't anything that Obama could have done. It was a stolen police gun and it is out on the streets. Obviously, we don't have enough people enforcing against the trafficking of stolen guns. Mass shootings. The U.S. has a far higher number of mass shootings than any others I have indicated. Mental health. Approximately one in four American adults have a mental illness. Every time we hear of these mass shootings, the defense comes, which they have a right, to talk about this person's severe criminal mental illness condition. Guns in suicide is the leading cause of related deaths in America. More than 60 percent of deaths by guns in the country are the result of individuals using these weapons intending to commit suicide--not knives, not stones, not even poison or an overdose on drugs--guns. Guns and domestic violence provide a deadly outcome. Law enforcement killed by guns: each year hundreds of law enforcement officers lose their lives in gun violence having been shot to death while protecting their communities. Of course, we know that we have experienced tragic incidences under the authority of law where people have been killed, and the community is over the top in frustration. Background checks save lives. The tragedy at Mother Emanuel is the individual went to buy guns and the store owner said it is taking too long. I support President Obama's very astute and thoughtful approach. Out of that, I am very glad to have introduced two initiatives. One, H.R. 4315, Mental Health Access and Gun Violence Prevention Act, which is a capture of President Obama's, along with Karen Bass. I urge my colleagues to sign on to H.R. 4315, which authorizes $500 million for health treatment access and to assist in the reporting of relevant disqualifying mental health information to the FBI background check system, NICS--not to violate the privacy, but to give more information to the database, because that certainly would be part of saving lives. As I conclude, H.R. 4316, that I am pleased to have Congresswoman Kelly join me in this, the Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act, authorizes the hiring of 200 additional ATF agents, the very point of which my Republican friends are saying, but yet they are condemning what the President has offered. I would say to my colleagues in closing, if we don't do this for any other reason, to take and codify the President's initiatives on NICS or data collection, on research regarding safer guns, on background checks or closing the gun show loophole, if we don't do it, we should do it for the children. From December 2012 to December 2013, at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings, almost two every week, 61 percent higher than Federal data reflect. About two-thirds of these unintended deaths, at 65 percent, took place in the home or vehicle that belonged to the victim's family, most often with the guns that were legally owned but not secured. I remind you of that Supreme Court challenge or that law in Florida where doctors can't secure information to protect the patients or the children of these families. More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them. I have introduced legislation on gun storage--I call it safety and responsibility--but yet, unfortunately, it is perceived as attacking the Second Amendment. My good friend from New York (Mr. Jeffries), let me thank you for yielding. Allow me to just leave us with the point that, as the Congressional Black Caucus stands on the floor, we need partners in doing the right thing. I hope before the President leaves office, he will have the opportunity to reasonably and rationally sign bills that will save lives. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressman Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D-OH) who are anchoring this Special Order on Ending Gun Violence in America. Gun violence in America can no longer be swept under the rug, ignored or irrationally justified. We are in a state of national crisis and it is time to act. Upon taking office, every Member of Congress makes a solemn pledge: to protect and defend the American people. This is the most important oath we take as elected officials--and, to honor this promise, we must do everything in our power to stem gun violence in our nation. Yet, after another mass shooting and countless acts of gun violence in communities across our country every day, House Republicans are still unwilling to act to stop gun violence and save lives in American communities. The Democrats have been calling for an immediate vote on the bipartisan King-Thompson Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act to strengthen the life-saving background checks that keep guns out of the wrong hands. This Congress has a moral obligation to do our part to end the gun violence epidemic. Now is the time for Republicans to join Democrats in protecting the lives of Americans by taking common sense steps to save lives. The Administration has announced two new executive actions that will help strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the wrong hands. I have introduced two bills that will hopefully enhance these executive actions and support the President's recently announced action on gun violence. H.R. 4315--Mental Health Access and Gun Violence Prevention Act-- authorizes $500 million for mental health treatment access and to assist in the reporting of relevant disqualifying mental health information to the FBI's background check system NICS. H.R. 4316--Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act--authorizes the hiring of 200 additional ATF agents and investigators for enforcement of existing gun laws. The President included these specific requests in yesterday's announcements and these bills respond to those requests. Additionally, the Department of justice (DOJ) is proposing a regulation to clarify who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law for reasons related to mental health. And the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposed regulation to address barriers preventing states from submitting limited information on those persons to the federal background check system. Ending gun violence in America requires a comprehensive approach--we must come together and work towards this common goal. Too many Americans have been severely injured or lost their lives as a result of gun violence. While the vast majority of Americans who experience a mental illness are not violent. However, in some cases when persons with a mental illness does not receive the treatment they need, the result can be tragedies such as homicide or suicide. We must continue to address mental health issues by: Supporting expanded coverage of mental health services and enhanced training and hiring of mental health professionals; and Continuing the national conversation on mental health to reduce stigma associated with having a mental illness and getting help; and We must also continue to do everything we can to making sure that anyone who may pose a danger to themselves or others does not have access to a gun. The federal background check system is one of the most effective ways of assuring that such individuals are not able to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. To date, background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands. The Administration's two new executive actions will help ensure that better and more reliable information makes its way into the background check system. The Administration, however, has acknowledged the need for collective action and continues to call upon Members of Congress to pass common- sense gun safety legislation and to expand funding to increase access to mental health services. I too call upon my colleagues to come together and pass legislation that will help stop the loss of innocent lives. While we have made some progress in strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used to run background checks on those who buy guns from federally licensed gun dealers to make sure they are not prohibited by law from owning a firearm, we must do more. I am a strong supporter of a right of privacy and I am particularly sensitive and protective of patient privacy rights. I support the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act that was passed by Congress in 1996, and includes privacy protection for medical records, which includes mental healthcare information. However, there are specific areas under federal law that allow the disclosure of medical information to authorities, and in these instances there should be an agreement that when a person poses a threat to themselves or others (as determined by a court or adjudicative authority with the medical and legal knowledge and authority to make a determination that a person poses a threat to themselves or to others) should not be allowed to purchase a fire arm. Technology that could be deployed to access court records and arrest records as they relate to mental health and violent behavior should not rely upon a list that may become out dated or could be used in ways that are not consistent with the intent of enhancing gun safety. The ability to access information that is accurate and available for the limited purpose of affirming or rejecting a request to purchase a firearm without indicating the source of the decision or the reason for the rejection would still protect privacy rights while also protecting the public. The president's proposal on mental health and gun violence is to enforce the laws already in place. Under a federal law enacted in 1968, an individual is prohibited from buying or possessing firearms for life if he/she has been ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' or ``committed to a mental institution.'' A person is ``adjudicated as a mental defective'' if a court--or other entity having legal authority to make adjudications--has made a determination that an individual, as a result of mental illness: 1) Is a danger to himself or to others; 2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; 3) Is found insane by a court in a criminal case, or incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A person is ``committed to a mental institution'' if that person has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution by a court or other lawful authority. This expressly excludes voluntary commitment. It should be noted, however, that federal law currently allows states to establish procedures for mentally ill individuals to restore their right to possess and purchase firearms (many states have done so at the behest of the National Rifle Association, with questionable results). It is undoubtedly true that people who are a danger to self and/or others because of mental illness should be prohibited from owning firearms. It is less clear, however, how to tailor new policies to better protect the American public while at the same time avoiding the stigmatization of Americans with mental illness. Any strategy to address the lethal intersection between guns and mental illness should focus on the key facts: On average, more than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, and other crimes. More than 32,000 people die from gun violence annually, including 2,677 children under the age of eighteen years old. Suicide is the leading cause of gun related deaths in America. 60 percent of deaths by guns in America are the result of individuals using these weapons as a means to commit suicide. Some of these deaths might have been prevented if there were adequate background checks. Each year hundreds of law enforcement officers lose their lives to gun violence been shot to death protecting their communities. Millions of guns are sold every year in ``no questions asked'' transactions and experts estimate that 40 percent of guns now sold in America are done so without a background check. National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was created in 1998 to require potential gun buyers to pass an instant screening at the point of purchase. Ensures that purchasers are not felons, domestic abusers, mentally ill, etc. NICS has blocked sales to more than 2 million prohibited people. NICS stops 170 felons and 53 domestic abusers from purchasing guns every day. The most serious issue facing NICS is the ``private sale loophole''. This allows anyone who is not a federally-licensed dealer to sell guns without a background check. An estimated 40% of gun transfers--6.6 million transfers--are conducted without a background check. Armslist.com is the largest online seller of firearms. 66,000 gun ads are posted by private sellers on a given day, 750,000 per year. Nearly 1/3rd of gun ads on Armslist.com are posted by high-volume unlicensed sellers (approx. 4,218 people). High-volume sellers posted 29% of the gun ads. High-volume sellers posted 36,069 gun ads over 2 months. This would equate to around 243,800 guns each year by unlicensed sellers. 50% were familiar with federal laws but decided they didn't apply to them. 1/3rd of ``want-to-buy'' ads are posted by people with a criminal record. More than 4 times the rate at which prohibited gun buyers try to buy guns in stores. Approximately 25,000 guns are in illegal hands. [From Slate, Jan. 8, 2016] The Absurd Logic Behind Florida's Docs vs. Glocks Law The Second Amendment trumps all other amendments (By Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West) Gun-rights advocates have made a lot of claims over the years about the broad scope of their constitutional rights. They say, in effect, that the Second Amendment means they can buy virtually any gun they want and take it pretty much anywhere. But in an ongoing legal battle in Florida, they lay claim to a newfangled Second Amendment right--the right not to have anyone talk to gun owners about their guns. Specifically, gun advocates don't want doctors discussing guns, or the potential harms those guns may cause, with their patients. And while mere talk about guns might seem to have nothing to do with the right to keep or bear arms, the advocates contend that the Constitution is on their side. Last month, for the third time in the same suit, a federal court of appeals agreed. This very bizarre case is filed under the name of Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida, although First and Second amendment buffs may recognize it under the cutesy nickname Docs vs. Glocks. It started when some gun owners (and the National Rifle Association) told Florida legislators that their doctors were harassing them by asking about gun safety. The legislators responded by passing a law that bars health care workers from discussing or recording anything about their patients' gun ownership or safety practices that could be deemed in bad faith, irrelevant, or harassing. (Twelve other states have considered enacting similar legislation, but only Florida has actually passed such a law.) The result was the Firearms Owners' Privacy Act. The law provides that licensed health care practitioners and facilities: ``may not intentionally enter'' information concerning a patient's ownership of firearms into the patient's medical record that the practitioner knows is ``not relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others,'' and ``shall respect a patient's right to privacy and should refrain'' from inquiring as to whether a patient or their family owns firearms, unless the practitioner or facility believes in good faith that the ``information is relevant to the patient's medical care or safety, or the safety of others.'' Violations of the act could lead to disciplinary action including fines and suspension, or revocation of a medical license. Proponents of such laws say these doctor-patient dialogues violate the patients' Second Amendment rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, thank you for managing this legislation; and thank you, Mr. Conyers, for yielding the time. Many of us in cases dealing with making sure our cities work, sometimes we have a one-way street, and we gravitate toward the one-way street because we might be able to move faster down that one-way street. That is traffic flow. But when we talk about justice for people, a one-way street doesn't work because that means only one group of people can find justice at the courthouse--and that is what this legislation does. It is a one-way street. Only one group gets victory and justice because only one group is not required to be transparent. The other group has to be transparent. They can't get on the one-way street. I oppose this legislation because it requires the Federal class action to have each class member suffer the same type and same scope of injury as the named class. I heard it on the floor by one of our distinguished Members saying that it is the broken arm group. If you have got a broken arm, you are in the class; if you have a broken leg, you aren't, but it came about through the same incident. That is an unfair and impractical way of getting justice for the American people. The second reason I oppose this legislation is because it would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos illness. Thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, suffered, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease. It is particularly outrageous that many of the major asbestos producers refuse to accept responsibility. I would make the argument that many of us knew a very dear friend, Congressman Bruce Vento. I understand his wife may be in the gallery. I think it is important that we think of the asbestos victims and their families who suffered from mesothelioma, as Congressman Vento did, and died. His wife requested an opportunity to testify so that the voices of their family members could be heard on this bill, but she was turned down. I will include that letter in the Record. In the last Congress, she and two other asbestos victims repeatedly requested to testify on the FACT Act, but they were turned down. January 5, 2016. Re Asbestos Patients and Their Families Say ``Listen to Us''--Oppose Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the So-Called ``FACT Act'' Dear Representative: We write to express our strong opposition to the misnamed ``Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act'' (the FACT Act), which has been incorporated as Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.'' Sponsors of the FACT Act claim that the legislation will ``increase relief for victims of asbestos.'' We are asbestos patients and family members of loved ones who have died or presently suffer from the wrongful and deceitful conduct of asbestos companies. We are from states and districts across the United States. We are Republicans and Democrats. We represent current and former workers, veterans, police officers, firefighters, homemakers and children. We have come together to express our unquestioned opposition to this legislation and our utter outrage that the House may pass it without even giving us-- the ``Real People,'' not of Washington, but the actual victims of asbestos exposures a chance to testify on the record about the bill--even though supporters claim it is in our interest! The fact is the so-called FACT Act is not in the interest of asbestos victims. The bill, as it is designed to do, will make it harder for victims to seek justice for their injuries and suffering. It is in the interest of the companies that are lobbying for it--the companies that used asbestos, knowing that it was a deadly toxin, exposed their workers and the public, and are now seeking to use Congress to shield them from legal liability for their behavior. We are horrified by this reality and we are going to do our best to let all Americans know what is going on here. Many of us traveled to Washington, DC in February to watch the hearing on the FACT Act. Our group's spokesperson, Susan Vento, the widow of the late Congressman Bruce Vento who passed away from mesothelioma in 2000, had requested an opportunity to testify so that the voices of the people who are most affected by this bill would be heard. But she was turned down. In the last Congress, Sue and two other asbestos victims repeatedly requested to testify on the FACT Act, but they, too, were turned down each time. Tragically, one of those victims passed away from asbestos disease. To date, not one person who has been directly affected by the ravages of asbestos disease has been permitted to testify about this legislation. The bill's supporters claim to care about victims, yet we have been treated with disrespect and neglect every step of the way. There is really no mystery why supporters of the legislation don't want to hear from us--it's because they know that this legislation was never intended to benefit victims. This legislation is being advanced at the request of the companies that used asbestos and concealed the dangers from their workers, employees and consumers, many of whom are paying with their very lives due to these deadly exposures. Now these companies are seeking to shield themselves from responsibility under the guise of imposing ``transparency'' on asbestos victims. Congress should not favor asbestos wrongdoers over the interests of patients and families. The FACT Act would force victims seeking any compensation from a private asbestos trust fund to reveal on a public web site private information including the last four digits of our Social Security numbers, and personal information about our families and kids. This is offensive. The information on this public registry could be used to deny employment, credit, and health, life, and disability insurance. We are also extremely concerned that victims would be more vulnerable to cybercriminals, such as identity thieves, con artists, and other types of predators. Glen Kopp, a partner with the law firm of Bracewell & Giuliani and a leading authority in the area of privacy law, recently reviewed the FACT Act and concluded that it presents significant privacy concerns. (See ``Analysis: Identity Theft Threatens Asbestos Victims Under Congressional Proposal,'' Asbestos Nation, EWG Action Fund, http:// www.asbestosnation.org/analysis-identity-theft-for-asbestos- victims-looms-under- congressional-proposal/) Mr. Kopp noted that the personal information of asbestos patients and families that the FACT Act would make public is precisely the type of information that is typically used by identity thieves. That is why federal and state law enforcement authorities recommend this type of information be kept away from any form of public disclosure. And yet, the FACT Act would require it to be placed on a public web site! While the legislation invades the privacy of asbestos patients and families, it contains no requirements for transparency from the asbestos industry, which concealed the dangers of asbestos exposure for decades, causing one of the worst public health crises in U.S. history, affecting not just our families, but millions of American families, and that still continues to this day. The FACT Act is completely one-sided. It requires so-called transparency from asbestos victims but it allows asbestos companies to continue to demand confidentiality of their settlements and hide information about how and when they exposed the public and their workers to asbestos. How can asbestos companies claim they want transparency, after they spent decades covering up the dangers of asbestos while we and our family members were unknowingly exposed? We have heard that the FACT Act is needed because of an epidemic of fraud against the asbestos trusts. But the evidence doesn't support this claim. This bill treats us and other asbestos victims like criminals rather than innocent victims of corporate deceit. The signatories on this letter represent thousands of people across the country who are suffering because of asbestos exposure. We would like to be in Washington in person to object to this mean-spirited and dangerous legislation. But most of us can't travel because of our illnesses. Others don't have the resources or the time to come all the way to Washington. But each and every one of us opposes any legislation that would make life more difficult for asbestos victims. Asbestos victims and our families don't have time on our side. Every day counts for us. Mesothelioma victims are typically racing against the clock to ensure their families aren't burdened with huge medical bills and that they are taken care of. It's astonishing to us that, of all the issues Congress could be addressing relating to asbestos, you have chosen one that does nothing for victims, but rather one that gives additional tools to the asbestos industry to drag out these cases and escape accountability. We are the real people who matter in this debate, and yet the supporters of the FACT Act would not allow any of us to testify. We may have been shut out of the hearings, but we will not be silenced. We are determined to stop any legislation that places the interests of the asbestos industry above the rights of innocent victims. The U.S. Congress should honor all veterans and hard-working Americans. Please vote no. Sincerely, Susan Vento, Widow of Rep. Bruce Vento (D-MN), Mesothelioma Victim, Maplewood, Minnesota; Judy Van Ness, Widow of Richard Van Ness, Veteran and Mesothelioma Victim, Richmond, Virginia; Kim Beattie, Niece of Jerry Fisher, beloved Uncle and Mesothelioma Victim, West Branch, Iowa; Pam Wilson, Neice of Jerry Fisher, beloved Uncle and Mesothelioma Victim, Johnston, Iowa; Michael and Sharon Valach, Son and Daughter-in-law of George Valach, Mesothelioma Victim, Hiwassee, Virginia; Loring and Mary Jane Williams; Mary Jane Williams is a Mesothelioma Patient, Springfield, Ohio; Ginger and Jaffod Horton; Ginger Horton is a Mesothelioma Patient, Fairview, North Carolina; Jill Waite, Daughter of Bruce Waite, Deceased Mesothelioma Victim, Ontario, Ohio; Latonyta Manuel, Widow of Andrew Manuel Jr., Mesothelioma Victim, Canton, Michigan; Courtney Davis, Daughter of Larry Davis, deceased, because Congress never eliminated asbestos use, Durham, North Carolina; Rachel Alice Shaneyfelt, Rachel is a Mesothelioma Patient, Trussville, Alabama.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to listen to the families. I oppose this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 982, the so-called ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015.'' I oppose this intrusive and burdensome legislation for two reasons. First, I oppose H.R. 1927 because it would prohibit a federal court from certifying a federal class action unless each class member has suffered the same type and same scope of injury as the named class representative. The practical effect of this requirement, if enacted, would be the effective immunization of corporate misconduct and fraud such as the Volkswagen ``cheat device'' scandal on CleanDiesel vehicles. For example, if H.R. 1927 were to become law, two families who were defrauded by Volkswagen would not be able to join together to bring a class action because they bought their cars at slightly different times or drove the cars in slightly different ways. This makes no sense unless the objective is to discourage ordinary Americans from obtaining relief for the injuries caused by the misconduct of large national corporations. The second reason I oppose this legislation is because it would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by requiring the posting of personal exposure and medical information online and erect new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their asbestos illnesses they contracted through no fault of their own and for which asbestos producers were legally responsible. We have witnessed decades of uncontrolled use of asbestos, and, even after its hazards became widely known, the consequences of this dangerous product are visiting death, disease, and heartbreak on innocent victims and their families. Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have been exposed to, suffered from, or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease. And sadly, the toll continues to the present day. It is estimated that each year 10,000 people in the United States are expected to die from asbestos related diseases. This is an outrage--and to add to their misery--they have to deal with the onerous provisions of H.R. 1927. Time and time again, asbestos victims have faced huge obstacles, inconvenient barriers, and veiled but persistent resistance in receiving compensation for their injuries. It is important to note that asbestos litigation is the longest- running mass tort litigation in the history of the United States. It is particularly outrageous that many of the major asbestos producers refused to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. In 1994 Congress passed reasonably balanced legislation that allowed the asbestos companies to set up bankruptcy trusts to compensate asbestos victims and reorganize under the bankruptcy law. But these trusts lack adequate funding to provide just compensation; according to a 2010 RAND study, the median payment across the trusts is sufficient to compensate only 25% of the damages suffered by the claimant. With compensation from these trusts so limited, asbestos victims have sought redress from the manufacturers of other asbestos products to which they were exposed--the original tortfeasors. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, better known as OSHA, noted two decades ago that: ``It was aware of no instance in which exposure to a toxic substance has more clearly demonstrated detrimental health effects on human than has asbestos exposure.'' We see the harm that asbestos causes when it afflicts its victims-- ordinary Americans who simply went to work every day to support their families. And although the proponents of this legislation assert that it is intended to protect asbestos victims, it is interesting to note that not a single asbestos victim has come forth to express support for this legislation. As the widow of one of our former colleagues, the beloved Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, who passed away from mesothelioma, has stated, this legislation ``does not do a single thing'' to help asbestos victims and their families. H.R. 1927 does not help and actually disturbs a reasonably well- functioning asbestos victim compensation process. Entities facing overwhelming mass tort liability for causing asbestos injuries may, under certain circumstances, shed these liabilities and financially regain their stability in exchange for funding trusts established under Chapter II of the Bankruptcy Code to pay the claims of their victims, under certain circumstances. H.R. 1927, however, interferes with this longstanding process in two ways. First, the legislation would require these trusts to file a publicly available quarterly report with the bankruptcy court that includes personally identifiable information about claimants, including their names, exposure history, and basis for any payment made to them. Second, the bill requires the trusts to provide any information related to payment and demands for payment to any party to any action in law or equity concerning liability for asbestos exposure. It is particularly galling that many of the major asbestos producers refuse to accept responsibility and that most declared bankruptcy in an attempt to limit their future liability. How much more can we put on these poor victims? If you want information, go to their counsel, go to the courthouse. With more than 10,000 Americans suffocating every year from horrific asbestos diseases like mesothelioma, this House should be focused on ensuring justice for the victims and protecting the public health and safety instead of debating legislation designed to delay compensation and deny justice for dying asbestos victims. I urge my colleagues to vote against this utterly intrusive legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I think most of all that we have had a vigorous discussion on behalf of the American people. I hope they are listening. I hope my colleagues are listening because, as I listened to the debate myself, I heard a continuing theme: Let's bash the plaintiffs and those seeking justice and make sure we make our friends who want to eliminate costs, eliminate the road to justice, provide them with an opportunity to reconfigure the road that has the Lady Justice balanced scales as a symbol of this system. When I heard my colleague from Texas, a good friend, talk about costs and making sure that the individuals in the class are spread out so that they are limited in the ability to press their case, I got the answer. Again, I say that a one-way street to justice is unacceptable. There are too many people who died that I cannot stand on this floor and deny those who are sick and ailing or those who had in the 1950s thalidomide where babies were born with malformations because women took medicine that had not been tested. The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a balanced approach to the bill's disclosure requirements by applying transparency rules in the bill equally to the asbestos industry defendants. Specifically, this amendment will require that an asbestos defendant seeking information from the trusts about a plaintiff to first make available to the plaintiff and trust information about the median settlement amount paid by that defendant for claims settled or paid within 5 years of the date of the request for the State in which the plaintiff's actions were filed. The American Bar Association understands my point. Frankly, in their comments, they made the following statement that I think is important: ``We oppose legislation such as H.R. 1927, because it would unnecessarily circumvent the Rules Enabling Act, make it more difficult for large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seek redress in court''--again, a one-way street--``and could place added burdens on the already overloaded court system.'' The ABA goes on to relate how this bill is a poor bill. I include their letter for the Record. American Bar Association, Washington, DC, January 6, 2016. Hon. Paul Ryan, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of the American Bar Association and its over 400,000 members, I write to offer our views as the House considers class action reform. I understand that you intend to bring up H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015,'' as early as this week. The ABA has long recognized that we must continue to improve our judicial system; however, we oppose legislation such as H.R. 1927, because it would unnecessarily circumvent the Rules Enabling Act, make it more difficult for large numbers of injured parties to efficiently seek redress in court, and could place added burdens on an already overloaded court system. This legislation would circumvent the time-proven process for amending the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure established by Congress in the Rules Enabling Act. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs determinations whether class certification is appropriate. This rule was adopted in 1966 and has been amended several times utilizing the procedure established by Congress. The Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the courts, is currently considering changes to Rule 23, and we recommend allowing this process to continue. In addition, the Supreme Court is poised to rule on cases where there are questions surrounding class certification. For example, the Court recently heard arguments in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo where it will determine whether a class can be certified when it contains some members who have not been injured. We respectfully urge you to allow these processes for examining and reshaping procedural and evidentiary rules to work as Congress intended. Currently, to proceed with a class action case, plaintiffs must meet rigorous threshold standards. A 2008 study by the Federal Judicial Center found that only 25 percent of diversity actions filed as class actions resulted in class certification motions, nine percent settled, and none went to trial. These data show that current screening practices are working. However, if the proponents of this legislation are concerned about frivolous class action cases and believe that screening can be even more effective through rule changes, those changes should be proposed and considered utilizing the current process set forth by Congress in the Rules Enabling Act. In addition to circumventing the traditional judicial rulemaking process, the legislation would severely limit the ability of victims who have suffered a legitimate harm to seek justice collectively in a class action lawsuit. The legislation mandates that no Federal court shall certify any proposed class seeking monetary relief for personal injury or economic loss unless the party affirmatively demonstrates that each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of injury as the named class representative(s). This requirement leaves a severe burden for people who have suffered personal injury or economic loss at the hands of large institutions with vast resources, effectively barring them from forming class actions. For example, in a class action against the Veterans Administration, several veterans sued for a variety of grievances centered on delayed claims. The requirement in this legislation that plaintiffs suffer the same type of injuries might have barred these litigants from forming a class because each plaintiff suffered harms that were not the same. We were pleased that a manager's amendment offered in Committee removed the requirement that the alleged harm to the plaintiff involved bodily injury or property damage. This improved the bill, but the remaining requirement leaves too high a burden. Class actions have been an efficient means of resolving disputes. Many of the legitimate complaints about lawsuit abuses through class-action litigation have been addressed through the evolution of class-action standards by the courts themselves; others are currently being considered by the Judicial Conference as part of the Rules Enabling Act process. Making it harder for victims to utilize class actions could add to the burden of our court system by forcing aggrieved parties to file suit in smaller groups, or individually. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our input and urge you to keep these concerns in mind as you continue to debate class-action reform legislation. If the ABA can provide you or your staff with any additional information regarding the ABA's views, or if we can be of further assistance, please contact me or ABA Governmental Affairs Legislative Counsel, David Eppstein. Sincerely, Thomas M. Susman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, my friends, this speaks to the idea that we are not focusing on the plaintiff. So the injured party is at a disadvantage. Let me say to my colleagues that this bill is unnecessary because, in a class action, you do not get the same amount of money. It just allows you to put together your resources to press forward your case. So if you are a poor farmer or if you are a poor waitress or you are someone driving a 1989 car and you are in a circumstance that puts you in a category where that car, even as old as it is, had some defect and you have no ability to press your case, you have the ability to press your case along with others. I am outraged to think that they would deny that. So my amendment says to the defendant: You need to put forward all the information that you are demanding of those individuals who are singularly unable to provide the kind of legal representation that they need. If transparency was the true goal of this bill, then, why doesn't the bill require settling defendants to reveal information important to public safety? The asbestos health crisis is the result of a massive corporate coverup. Trust information is already public. So let's make it a two-way street. Let me also include for the Record a letter and these words: ``Far from being even-handed, this bill allows defendants--and only defendants--to do an end-run around state rules of discovery that place limits on information-gathering. The bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of asbestos defendants.'' January 6, 2016. Re Opposition to Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015 Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: The undersigned groups strongly oppose Section 3 of H.R. 1927, the ``Fairness in Class Action Litigation and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2015,'' formerly H.R. 526, the ``Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act'' (FACT Act). This bill will interfere with state legal systems without justification, severely invade the privacy of asbestos victims and their families, and delay and deny justice to people suffering from lethal asbestos-related diseases. While it may seem like an opportune time to legislate in the area of asbestos litigation, this bill is extremely misguided. It will do little more than harm dying victims (including many former Navy shipyard workers), while advantaging the big corporations responsible for compensating them. For decades, secrecy and deceit have been a way of business for the asbestos industry, and this bill does absolutely nothing to change that. This wholly unnecessary and one-sided legislation is an affront to states' rights and unfair to victims. Section 3 of H.R. 1927 has two primary provisions: 1) requires asbestos trusts to disclose on public websites the private, confidential information about every asbestos claimant and their families, including past, current and future claimants. The legislation does nothing to stop asbestos defendants from continuing to demand secrecy when they settle cases (as they routinely do), or force companies to disclose any information to help a claimant with his or her case. To this day, these companies refuse to make public information about where asbestos is present, where it was used, and where it is imported. This bill is an unfair and unwarranted imposition on people who are likely to die because the asbestos industry covered up the dangers of asbestos for over 50 years and still insists on confidentiality today. Moreover, the information that will go on these public sites includes victims' names, addresses, medical information, how much they received in compensation, and the last four digits of their social security numbers. This extreme invasion of privacy will make victims and their families vulnerable to predators, con artists, and unscrupulous businesses who will scour these sites for information. 2) It gives any defendant in any asbestos lawsuit the right to demand any information about any asbestos victim from any asbestos trust at any time for any reason. The trusts themselves have already told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law that such a provision would place substantial burdens on them, requiring them to spend tens of thousands of additional hours per year trying to comply with this requirement. And because the provision is unlimited, the costs of compliance for trusts would be very high as well. Trusts are already underfunded. A RAND study found that the median payment from asbestos trusts to victims is 25 percent of the value of the claim, and some payments are as low as 1.1 percent of the claim's value. In addition to cost burdens, severe delays will result. As explained by Caplin & Drysdale attorney Elihu Inselbuch in his ``Responses to Questions for the Record'' following his 2013 subcommittee testimony: because trusts will be buried in otherwise unnecessary paperwork seeking claimant information, ``The bill would slow down or stop the process by which the trusts review and pay claims, such that many victims would die before receiving compensation, since victims of mesothelioma typically only live for 4 to 18 months after their diagnosis.'' In many cases, ``the delays in trust payment will force dying plaintiffs, who are in desperate need of funds, to settle for lower amounts with solvent defendants . . . Delay is a weapon for asbestos defendants.'' Finally, Mr. Inselbuch explained that, because this bill does not require that the information demanded by defendants be relevant to, or admissible in, any lawsuit, it is an unwarranted and ``heavy-handed piece of federal interference with the states' legal systems.'' Far from being even-handed, this bill allows defendants-- and only defendants--to do an end-run around state rules of discovery that place limits on information-gathering. The bill would tip the scales of justice in favor of asbestos defendants by giving defendants access to information about victims' settlements with asbestos trusts while allowing defendants to continue hiding information about their settlements with other victims. To level the playing field, victims should be entitled to information from defendants regarding previous settlement amounts and true transparency about where the defendants' asbestos was used, manufactured, and stored. As to the claim that this bill will ``prevent fraud,'' this bill places new, burdensome requirements on regularly-audited trusts. No one can find evidence of significant fraud in the trust process. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) studied the problem and did not identify one fraudulent claim. As Mr. Inselbuch noted, ``[b]ecause the injured victim was typically exposed to multiple asbestos products at multiple job sites over a period of many years, he or she must file different claims, with different trusts, with different forms that request different information. The fact that the exposure information submitted to one trust differs from the exposure information submitted to another does not mean it is `inconsistent'--and certainly not specious or fraudulent.'' Similarly, with regard to charges that victims ``double-dip,'' he explains, ``when an asbestos victim recovers from each defendant whose product contributed to their disease, that victim is in no way `double-dipping'; rather they are recovering a portion of their damages from each of the corporations who harmed them. In fact, each trust is responsible for and pays for only its own share of the damages.'' And as noted above, each trust usually can pay only pennies on the dollar. Since at least the 1930s, asbestos companies and their insurers have been denying responsibility for the millions of deaths and illnesses caused by this deadly product. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that roughly 3,000 people continue to die from mesothelioma and asbestosis every year. Other experts estimate the death toll is as high as 15,000 people per year when other types of asbestos-linked diseases and cancers are included. The companies hid the dangers posed by asbestos exposure, lied about what they knew, fought against liability for the harms caused, tried to change the laws that held them responsible and, to this day, fight against banning asbestos in the U.S. The asbestos industry is not interested in transparency. This legislation is nothing but another industry attempt to avoid responsibility for the grave harms they have caused. We are asking you to stand with veterans and other cancer victims of the asbestos industry's wrongdoing and oppose H.R. 1927. Thank you for your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Alliance for Justice, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, Center for Effective Government, Center for Justice & Democracy, Connecticut Center for Patient Safety, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Watchdog, EWG Action Fund, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumers League, OpenTheGovernment.org, Protect All Children's Environment, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How much time do I have remaining?