Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Breast Cancer Awareness Month. As a breast cancer survivor, I want to add to my sisters and brothers my appreciation for their strength and determination and my respect to those families whose loved ones did not survive the battle. I am very grateful that, out of this awareness, we have begun to focus on more research for breast cancer remedies and solutions. I introduced a bill dealing with triple-negative breast cancer, which is the most deadly breast cancer and impacts women and minority women to the extent that their lifespan is shortened. I rise today to indicate and to ask for renewed commitment by this Congress to focus on more research to bring an end to the forms of breast cancer that have been so deadly, in particular, to women. I want to thank the U.S. Department of Defense for working with me on providing and supporting legislation that I offered and introduced to provide the research, but also the care for military women who have had breast cancer during their service in the United States military. It is also Domestic Violence Month, and I acknowledge again the privilege I had to serve on the Committee on the Judiciary and to work with Chairman Hyde in the early stages of introducing and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. So many strides have been made. In particular, I want to acknowledge the many agencies in Houston that have helped women--and, in some instances, men--who have been victims of domestic violence and abuse, in particular, the Houston Area Women's Center that has provided service. I served on the board previously, and I appreciate their service. We want to say to those women--and maybe men--do not suffer alone. Seek help and seek help now. Mr. Speaker, today we will be looking at the culmination of discussions that have presented themselves as a budget that would end some form of sequester and would raise the debt limit until March 15, 2017. As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, I am committed to certain principles that I believe help all of America, and those are: the end to sequestration; the saving of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare; not eliminating any executive orders or toxic riders undermining, for example, the issues of dealing with our broken immigration system; and the evenness of defense and non-defense sequester relief. We have begun that journey. I also made a commitment to my seniors that we would fight against the horrific increases that were about to take place under Medicare part D. Those numbers were going to be onerous and burdensome on our seniors, and I will offer them in just a moment. In addition, let me say that the compromise generates $80 billion of sequester increases over 2 years, with the increase split evenly between defense and non-defense programs, and an additional $16 billion in discretionary funding over a 2-year period. I am hoping that this will help many. As I indicated, I am supporting breast cancer research. It will help the National Institutes of Health. It will help fill the seats for so many parents who need Head Start resources for their children. Having traveled with my congressional colleagues, I know that diplomatic security is a vital component to protecting our Foreign Service officers. And then it will improve, if you will, the day-to-day functions of this government. I am glad, as I indicated, with respect to the Medicare part B premiums, that we will not see the 54 percent increase that I think was the number, and that the increase will be somewhere around 18 to 20 percent. We want it to be zero. I want my seniors to know that we are continuing to fight as your increases in prescription drugs and service under Medicare part D continue to go down. And, might I just add, that I believe it is important, in addition, that we negotiate the decreasing price of prescription drugs. If you talk to any individual, what they will say is their highest cost, part of their highest cost, whether it is seniors or families, is the cost of prescription drugs. So I think it is very important. I think I want to look more into, Mr. Speaker, the Social Security disability fix that is in this budget to ensure that no one sees any loss and cuts in their benefits. We just can't stand for that. Social Security recipients, as much as people want to clarify them as some having perpetrated fraud, they do not, Mr. Speaker. As I close, let me say I want to protect those who are disabled. We are going to continue to look at this, even down to the moment of voting, to make sure that the budget brings about success and help and not harm. I ask my colleagues to be deliberative in this debate.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Ranking Member, let me thank you. And to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, let me thank you as well. This was a tough call. And I do want to thank the leadership, Speaker Boehner, and our leadership, Leader Pelosi, Whip Hoyer, and, of course, our ranking member of the Budget Committee, and the Ways and Means leadership as well. This is an important step forward because I can say to my constituents: We fixed some of your pain and your anguish. Madam Speaker, this bill quickly provides $80 billion, but I am so grateful that part of that deals with the plussing up of non-defense discretionary funding: child care, National Institutes of Health, and other very important issues. My seniors, I think it is very important to note that your Medicare premium part B will not go up in a 50 percent increase in 2016 and there will be less deep cuts in Social Security, more jobs being created, and as well we will have the opportunities, as I indicated, to increase NIH funding.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What we must be careful of is that we do not increase any mandatory minimums and some of the penalties that are in place, and we must be careful that we do protect Social Security and Medicare. We will continue to monitor this for a budget that will lift the debt ceiling until 2017 and have this country stand on its feet and pay its bills. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I rise to speak on the rule and the underlying legislation, which is the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1314, the ``Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2015.'' The bill before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class. I have reviewed the agreement carefully and have concluded that on balance the good outweighs the bad for the following reasons: 1. The agreement provides $80 billion of significant sequester relief over the next two years for both defense and non-defense priorities, which is nearly 90 percent of the relief requested by the President in his 2016 budget; 2. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement prevents a roughly 50 percent increase in the Medicare Part B premium in 2016, protecting thousands of seniors in my congressional district, and millions more across the country, from cost increases; 3. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement avoids deep cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) benefits that would occur at the end of next year; 4. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs will be created over the next two years due to the avoidance of manufactured budget crises; 5. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement provides additional resources and the funding stability needed to protect our homeland, counter future threats, and take care of our troops while preventing deep cuts that would result from locking in sequestration; 6. The agreement is paid for in a balanced way that avoids harmful cuts to Medicare or Social Security beneficiaries; and 7. Prevents a catastrophic default and protects the full faith and credit of the United States and by suspending the national debt limit until March 15, 2017. But as with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I do not. For example, while providing $80 billion in relief over two years, instead of abolishing sequestration, as I would prefer, the agreement retains the sequestration principle and extends its applicability for two additional years, until 2025. Of this $80 billion, $50 billion will be available in FY 2016 and $30 billion in FY 2017, to be equally divided and allocated by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees among the various federal agencies and programs. This modest increase in discretionary domestic funding holds open the promise of increased investments in critical areas such as basic research in health and science, education, veterans' medical care, and job training. And these investments are desperately needed if we are to position our nation to prevail in an increasingly interconnected economy. Madam Speaker, in the absence of this agreement, we would have to rely upon a full-year continuing resolution which would result in $1 billion less in NIH funding and nearly 1,000 fewer NSF grants than under the President's budget. Were we to operate under a continuing resolution through the end of FY 2016, per-pupil education funding would fall to the lowest levels since 2000, and Head Start would be flat-funded, which would mean roughly 17,000 fewer children served than in 2014. Madam Speaker, a full-year CR at sequestration levels would mean $1 billion less than the President requested for veterans' medical care relative even though all of us here agree that our veterans deserve more, much more, support than they have received. The Bipartisan Budget Agreement will allow us to provide funding for job training for two million more workers than would be possible if we continued to operate through the end of FY 2016 under a continuing resolution subject to sequestration. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the provision in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement that prevents an increase of nearly 50 percent in the Medicare Part B premium for 2016 and 2017 by spreading out the cost of replenishing the Medicare Supplemental Medical Insurance Trust Fund over a number of years. Without Congressional action, the monthly 2015 Part B premium of $104.90 would increase by $54.40 in 2016 to $159.30 for beneficiaries not held harmless (i.e., those who did not receive an increase in their Social Security benefits). The Bipartisan Budget Agreement maintains the hold harmless provision in current law and prevents a dramatic premium increase on beneficiaries not held harmless by setting a new 2016 basic Part B premium for the beneficiaries not held harmless at $120, which is the amount the Part B premium would otherwise be for all beneficiaries in 2016 if the hold harmless provision in current law did not apply. To replenish the Medicare Trust Fund, in 2016 there would be a loan of general revenue from the Federal Treasury, which will be repaid beginning in 2016 by an additional $3 surcharge in the monthly Part B premium of beneficiaries not subject to the hold harmless. Madam Speaker, it is worth noting that a functioning, effective federal government is critical to people with disabilities who disproportionately rely on government services to live, learn and work in their communities. That is why I also strongly support the provision in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement that avoids deep cuts to Social Security Disability Insurance. Specifically, the agreement ensures that the Social Security Disability Insurance program will continue to provide the full benefits that workers have earned, preventing a 20 percent cut that would have been applied to workers and their families at the end of 2016. Madam Speaker, another reason I support the Bipartisan Budget Agreement is that it eliminates the temptation of House Republicans to once again resort to the brinksmanship politics of defaulting on the national debt. The full faith and credit of the United States is too valuable a national asset to be trifled with, as Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood. In 1789, in the dawn of the nation's birth, Hamilton recognized and acted upon the belief that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. According to Hamilton, the nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.'' But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton warned that it was necessary that ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.'' In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills. Defaulting on the national debt would vitiate the full faith and credit of the United States, cost American jobs, hurt businesses of all sizes, and do irreparable damage to the economy. On the other hand, suspending the national debt until March 15, 2017, is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to create 340,000 additional American jobs in 2016 alone and more than 500,000 job-years in 2017. Additionally, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors forecasts that the indirect effect of increased certainty and confidence could further boost job creation and economic growth above these estimates. What is more, increased long-term growth and rising middle-class incomes can be expected to result from the greater investments in human capital and infrastructure made possible by the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. Madam Speaker, perhaps the most immediate benefit of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement is that it paves the way for the House and Senate to reach agreement on the FY2016 spending bills needed to keep the federal government open and avoid another disastrous shutdown like the one House Republicans inflicted on the nation in October 2013. That shutdown lasted 16 days, cost the economy $24 billion, and inflicted untold harm on federal employees and the people they serve. Madam Speaker, the past several years have been an extraordinary time in America. We have seen the Legislative and Executive Branches of our government and the constitutional balance that the framers of the Constitution intended regarding matters related to public purse tested. It is extraordinary when a matter that should be dealt with in the regular order of the business of the House and Senate becomes a matter so grave that a broad and diverse coalition call on Members of this body to do what we were elected to do: manage the business of the people through cooperation and compromise. That is why we have heard from a broad and diverse range of American voices, including the AARP, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Education Association, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, calling for the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. By supporting the Bipartisan Budget Agreement we can show the American people that we understand that we were sent here to address their problems and concerns by working together to reach agreement that responsibly makes the investments needed to keep our nation competitive in a global economy and enables all of our people to reach their potential and realize their dreams. Updated II: Some of the Key Groups Supporting the Bipartisan Budget Agreement (October 28, 2015) AARP: ``On behalf of our 38 million members and as the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing the interests of Americans age 50 and older and their families, AARP strongly supports the bipartisan agreement you have reached to avert deep reductions in Social Security Disability Insurance benefits in 2016, and to address the imminent spike in Medicare Part B premiums which many older Americans would otherwise experience. . . . By finding a sensible solution to keep premiums manageable for over 16 million beneficiaries, Congress is helping to prevent financial hardship for many beneficiaries at a time when there is no Social Security cost of living adjustment. . . . Finally, AARP appreciates that the agreement modifies sequestration for discretionary programs for fiscal year 2016. The higher discretionary cap may prevent unwise cuts to countless programs serving older Americans. Sequestration relief for many health care, nutrition and supportive service programs is critically important to seniors as funding for them has declined over the past decade despite substantial increases in population requiring this assistance.'' Center for Medicare Advocacy: ``Congress is considering the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. This proposed budget agreement would reduce an expected spike in the Medicare Part B deductible and premiums for 2016. . . . We are glad people who rely on Medicare can breathe a bit easier--knowing that premiums and deductibles will not skyrocket next year.'' Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities' (CCD) Fiscal Policy Task Force commends the House and Senate leadership for negotiating the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). . . . We commend the negotiators for reaching a deal that provides relief from sequestration and raises the budget caps for discretionary programs in Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017. The package provides welcome stability in the appropriations process and avoids a devastating 20% benefit cut in 2016 for Social Security Disability beneficiaries and their families.'' Federation of American Hospitals: ``The Federation of American Hospitals acknowledges that it is incumbent upon Congress to act on the debt ceiling and establish a federal budget. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 agreement, which accomplishes these goals, includes Medicare cuts as offsets. . . . The FAH understands that Congressional leaders did their best to minimize the effects of these cuts on the hospitals that care for the nation's seniors. By extending without increasing the overall effect of the Medicare sequester and focusing a limited payment change on certain physician-hospital arrangements, the bill is carefully crafted to meet its objectives.'' American College of Physicians: ``The American College of Physicians is pleased that today's proposed bipartisan budget agreement will provide two years of relief from existing `sequestration' level spending caps that could result in cuts to programs that are vital to the nation's healthcare, including the National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Primary Care Training Programs authorized by Section 747 of Title VII of the Public Health Service Act. . . . We [also] strongly support the proposal to ensure all new hospital acquisitions of private physician practices would only be eligible for Medicare payments equal to those for the same care services provided in the freestanding, community-based setting.'' American Academy of Family Physicians: ``On behalf of the Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), which represents 120,900 family physicians and medical students across the country, I write in support of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. . . . The AAFP notes that the bill will make two important reforms to Medicare. First, the bill will mitigate an anticipated spike in 2016 in premiums and deductibles for America's Medicare Part B enrollees, which will help avoid disruption in access to physicians' services to seniors. Second, the bill removes an incentive in the Medicare hospital outpatient payment system that has driven health systems to purchase Physician practices, in turn increasing healthcare costs without any corresponding benefit to patient care.'' Chamber of Commerce: ``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce . . . urges Congress to pass the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA2015) to bring certainty to next year's appropriations process, raise the debt limit through March 15, 2017, strengthen America's national security, and constructively resolve a handful of other outstanding issues.'' NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby: ``NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby is encouraged to hear that a budget deal has been reached that will surpass sequester budget caps for the next two years and raise the debt ceiling to prevent a default on our nation's financial obligations. . . . We are encouraged by the White House and Congressional leaderships' work on the proposed budget deal that lifts the caps on non-defense spending. Unaddressed, sequester would have caused hardship for many hardworking and vulnerable people in our nation.'' The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: ``We applaud the White House and congressional leaders who negotiated the budget deal introduced late last night for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan, two-year bill that will raise the caps on spending for both defense and non- defense discretionary spending and provided needed relief for underfunded programs that serve our communities. Robert Greenstein, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities: ``If approved by Congress, the new budget deal from the White House and congressional leaders will mark a significant achievement by an otherwise polarized Washington. . . . The package would effectively eliminate about 90 percent of the sequestration budget cuts for non-defense discretionary programs in fiscal year 2016, and about 60 percent of them in 2017 . . . extend the solvency of Social Security Disability Insurance through 2022, thereby avoiding across-the-board cuts of nearly 20 percent in disability benefits starting in late 2016, which will otherwise occur, and avoid, for Medicare, an estimated 52 percent increase in deductibles for physician and other outpatient services in 2016, and a 52 percent increase in Part B premiums that roughly 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries otherwise would face. . . . The deal is a major, multi-faceted package that addresses a number of contentious issues. . . . Overall, the deal is a significant achievement that includes an array of sound policies and policy reforms and accomplishes important goals.'' National Education Association: ``On behalf of the three million members of the National Education Association (NEA) and the students they serve, we urge you to Vote Yes on the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 which could be voted on as early as Wednesday. We applaud the bipartisan leadership exhibited to craft a bill that takes needed steps toward ending harmful sequester level funding so that necessary investments can be made in programs that will grow our economy and our future. Votes associated with this issue may be included in the NEA Legislative Report Card for the 114th Congress. Committee for Education Funding: ``The Committee for Education Funding (CEF), a coalition of 122 national education associations and institutions spanning early learning to postgraduate education, writes to express our support for the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) of 2015. The bill will eliminate most of the harmful sequester spending caps for nondefense discretionary (NDD) programs for Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 and FY 2017, thereby providing room for critically important investments in education programs through appropriations.'' League of Conservation Voters: ``We comment Leader Pelosi, Leader Reid, and President Obama for negotiating a deal free of ideological attacks on our environment that finally ends the cuts that hamper investment in our economy and the priorities of our families. We urge Congress to pass this budget deal and then pass a clean spending bill free of anti- environmental riders that fund all federal agencies at a level that allows them to continue protecting our air, water, lands and wildlife.'' Easter Seals: ``Easter Seals is encouraged by the framework presented in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). This compromise is designed to restore order to the federal budget and appropriations process, and will allow for much needed investments in people with disabilities. A functioning, effective federal government is critical to people with disabilities who disproportionately rely on government services to live, learn and work in their communities. We commend the negotiators for reaching a deal that provides partial relief from sequestration and raises the budget caps for discretionary programs in Fiscal Year 2016 and 2017 and provides stability.'' NDD United: ``NDD United--an alliance of more than 2,500 national, state, and local organizations working to protect investments in core government functions--strongly supports and urges you to support the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA). This deal, brokered by all four corners of Congressional leadership and the President, restores critical funding equally to both defense and nondefense spending that keeps Americans healthy, safe and secure and ensures that we do not risk the full faith and credit of the United States by suspending the debt ceiling through March 2017.'' AAUW: ``On behalf of the over 170,000 members and supports of the American Association of University Women (AAUW), I urge Rep. Pelosi to support the Balanced Budget Act of 2015 (H.R. 1314). The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 lifts sequestration in a fair and responsible manner that ensures communities are healthy, safe, and secure. Cuts as a result of sequestration take a direct toll on our communities. . . . We . . . saw cuts to . . . important programs such as food assistance programs for women and children, cancer screenings, services for domestic violence survivors, and federal funding for low-income schools.'' American Public Health Association: ``The deal will allow Congress to provide much needed additional funding for nondefense discretionary programs in 2016, including public health, which continues to be woefully underfunded. The proposal would also reduce a pending premium increase for many Medicare Part B beneficiaries and extend the solvency of the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund.'' Alliance for Retired Americans: ``The Alliance for Retired Americans is relieved that this budget deal would protect millions of seniors from significant increases to their Medicare Part B deductibles while preventing a 20% cut to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits in 2016. The reallocation between the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and SSDI trust funds would prevent a massive cut in benefits for the disabled. The transfer would not impact the long-term solvency of Social Security.'' AFL-CIO: ``Congressional leaders and the President successfully eluded the traps set by a conservative faction in Congress who have tried to hold our economy hostage to achieve their radical agenda. The full faith and credit of the United States will be preserved as we pay our bills on time--preventing brinksmanship over the debt until 2017. . . . It reduces the spike in [Medicare] deductibles for everyone and avoids a sharp increase in premiums for many. It ensures that 11 million Americans on Social Security Disability Insurance continue to receive full benefits through 2022.'' SEIU: ``This deal makes significant progress in eliminating some of the extraordinary hardship and uncertainty associated with the sequester--as well as helps to head off a catastrophic government shutdown. . .''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Vela), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) for their great leadership. Mr. Speaker, the good news is that we on the Committee on Homeland Security work together very well on many of these issues. I rise to support the Northern Border Security Review Act, H.R. 455. My colleague from Texas (Mr. Vela) is the ranking member. I am delighted to be able to support a bill that captures all of what we have been speaking of over the years. As a member of Homeland Security, there are two borders. There is the southern border, for which I certainly have concern, as a Representative from Texas, but there is also the northern border. I am glad to say I have been to the northern border, walked along the northern border. Let me say thank you for the aspects of this bill. H.R. 455 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a classified northern border threat analysis on terrorism threats posed by individuals seeking to enter the United States, improvements needed at ports of entry, gaps in law, policy, international agreements, illegal cross- border activity, and the scope of the border security challenges. This is a complete picture of the Nation's border, including whether additional preclearance and preinspection by CBP at ports of entry along the northern border could help prevent terrorists and their instruments from entering the United States. Canada has been a longstanding friend. I believe anytime that we can enhance both the relationship and the security of the U.S.-Canadian border, the northern border, it is a very positive step forward for the Nation's security. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 455, the Northern Border Security Review Act. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security, a former ranking member of its Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, and a co-sponsor, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 455, the ``Northern Border Security Review Act.'' I would like to thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Vela of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee for their work on this vital legislation. Their leadership, coupled with input from members of the Homeland Security Committee and the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, have helped make this common sense legislation a reality. I very much appreciate the bipartisan spirit Chairman Miller has displayed as we worked together on many border security initiatives over the past several years. The security of the Northern Border is an important area of concern in the effort to secure our homeland and keep it safe from those who would do us harm. Bill Overview H.R. 455 directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a classified northern border threat analysis, which shall include analyses of: 1. terrorism threats posed by individuals seeking to enter the United States through the northern border; 2. improvements needed at ports of entry along the northern border to prevent terrorists and instruments of terror from entering the United States; 3. gaps in law, policy, international agreements, or tribal agreements that hinder the border security and counterterrorism efforts along the northern border; 4. illegal cross border activity between ports of entry, including the maritime borders of the Great Lakes; 5. the scope of border security challenges that shall include the terrain, population density, and climate along the northern border; and 6. whether additional preclearance and pre-inspection by the CBP at ports of entry along the northern border could help prevent terrorists and their instruments from entering the United States. Canada-U.S. Border Mr. Speaker, at 5,524 miles, the border separating Canada and United States is the longest contiguous international border in the world. In contrast, the border separating the United States and Mexico is only Mexico border is only 1,951 miles long. The border with Canada is significantly easier to cross, due to less Border Patrol personnel. The United States has approximately 1,000 Border Patrol agents assigned to the northern border but more than 11,000 patrolling its southern border with Mexico. Travel between Canada and U.S. In 2009, there were 39,254,000 trips by Canadians to the United States. In 2010, 20,213,500 Americans traveled to Canada from the United States. Over 15,700,000 people flew on commercial flights between Canada and the U.S. in 2010. Canadian Illegal Immigrants in U S. Current estimates show there to be around 600,000 undocumented Canadian immigrants working in the United States. Canadian citizens are not required to obtain visas; instead as Canadian citizens they are eligible for visa waivers which do not expire for six months. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, the security of homeland requires that we have increased situational awareness and resources to respond to threats on the nation's northern, as well as southern border. H.R. 455 makes a positive contribution in this effort and I urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of President Obama's Clean Power Plan, and I would like to applaud the 10,000 men and women, African American faith leaders, who are engaged, involved, and committed to clean air. These faith leaders represent 13 million African American churchgoers who remain steadfast and unmovable in their cause to combat the negative impact of climate change. Mr. Speaker, members of the Congressional Black Caucus tomorrow will receive the signatures and public statements of those demanding that this body fully support President Obama's Clean Power Plan. Nearly 40 percent of the 6 million Americans living close to coal-fired power plants are people of color and disproportionately African Americans. Pollution and damaging toxins from these plants are responsible for thousands of premature deaths, higher risk of asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and hundreds of thousands missed workdays. I believe this Congress can hear the Black church and work together. The Black church and their fearless leaders for generations have stood united on critical social, economic, and moral imperatives that are meant to strengthen the communities they represent. They have been in the forefront, like Dr. Martin Luther King, who walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge with our colleague, John Lewis, for voting rights. Climate change and their support for the Clean Power Plan is no different. They are in the forefront. As they state in their letter to us, ``The Bible speaks passionately about the importance of stewardship for God's creation,'' and they believe that Obama's Power Plan calls them to action. Mr. Speaker, I join with these ladies and gentlemen in their dedication to saving lives. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of President Obama's ``Clean Power Plan.'' I would like to applaud the more than 10,000 men and women African American faith leaders. These faith leaders represent 13 million African American church- goers who remain steadfast and unmovable in their cause to combat the negative impact of climate change. Tomorrow, Members of the Congressional Black Caucus to receive the signatures and public statements of those demanding that this body fully support President Obama's Clean Power Plan. Nearly 40 percent of the six million Americans living close to coal- fired power plants are people of color and disproportionately African American. Pollution and damaging toxins from these plants are responsible for thousands of premature deaths, higher risks of asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and hundreds of thousands of missed workdays. The Black Church and their fearless leaders, for generations, have stood united on critical social and economic moral imperatives that are meant to strengthen the communities they represent. Climate change and their support for the Clean Power Plan are no different. As they state in their letter to us: ``The Bible speaks passionately about the importance of stewardship for God's creation. And President Obama's Clean Power Plan echoes God's call.'' Once again, I salute these dedicated men and women of God and for the vital work they are doing on this important issue.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise to speak on H.R. 597, which reauthorizes the Export-Import Bank for four years. It is unfortunate that it has taken this body so long to get to this point and it was inexcusable that the House Republican leadership allowed the Ex-Im Bank authorization to expire on June 30, 2015 before. That intransigence made it necessary for a bipartisan majority of this House to resort to a discharge petition as the vehicle to bring this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies, large and small, to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. For more than 80 years the Ex-Im Bank has helped Texas businesses generate over $29 billion in exports, $4.3 billion of which originated from businesses in the 18th Congressional District of Texas. In May of this year I hosted Export-Import Bank President Fred. P. Hochberg for a historic tour of vital and thriving small businesses in the 18th Congressional District. We toured Frenchy's Sausage Manufacturing which is a company that currently services over 200 businesses. Frenchy's Sausage recently completed an expansion of plant facilities to accommodate the tremendous growth the company has experienced. We also toured Tejas Tubular, a company that built and opened their casing facility in 2005 to process larger diameter API casings and, which in 2011 opened the ERW tubing plant in Stephenville, Texas, and has processed more than 14 million joints of tubing and casing. Mr. Speaker, when operating on a level playing field, American exporters can compete against anyone. The Ex-Im Bank partners with American exporters, such as Tejas Tubular and Frenchy's Sausage Manufacturing in Houston, so they can close more deals abroad and support more middle class jobs here at home. The Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency that supports and maintains U.S. jobs by filling gaps in private export financing at no cost to American taxpayers. The Ex-Im Bank provides a variety of financing mechanisms, including working capital guarantees and export credit insurance, to promote the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad, 90 percent of which directly serve American small businesses. ``In fiscal year 2014, the Ex-Im Bank approved $20.5 billion in total authorizations. These authorizations supported an estimated $27.5 billion in U.S. export sales, as well as approximately 164,000 American jobs in communities across the country. Recently Diversitybusiness.com announced the selection of Ex-Im Bank as one of the top agencies providing opportunities for small and minority businesses to expand export business operations. Since 2009, the Ex-Im Bank has authorized more financing to support the growth of minority- and women-owned businesses than it did over the previous sixteen years combined. In FY 2014, the Ex-Im Bank financed U.S. exports from minority- and women-owned businesses valued at more than $2 billion. Mr. Speaker, the Ex-Im is dedicated to pursuing equality of opportunity and supporting economic growth and jobs here in Houston and across America. I strongly support H.R. 597, which reauthorizes the vital agency that does so much to help American business create and maintain high-paying jobs for American families.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today we will have an opportunity to support the Export-Import Bank opening so that constituents across America, including Houston, Texas, will have the opportunity to grow jobs and to compete internationally. That is a good thing, Mr. Speaker. Soon I hope we will be able to reopen Riverside Hospital in my congressional district with the collaboration and work with Health and Human Services and State authorities to open the doors for those who need health care. That is a good thing. Mr. Speaker, the showing of a video of a student being dragged out of a classroom violently while educators stand by and watch is a bad thing. It calls upon the Justice Department of that State, the Attorney General, and the local district attorney to stand up and be counted. It also calls upon the U.S. Department of Justice to determine whether the civil rights of that student were violated. Not one American should be able to tolerate the heinous, horrific, violent actions of throwing a young girl student on the floor, up against the door, dragged as if she were a bag of potatoes. No one should tolerate that. Mr. Speaker, I call upon everyone to address the conditions in schools and violence along with those who are perpetrating these acts against students.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise to speak on H.R. 3819, ``Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2015,'' which reauthorizes federal-aid highway and transit programs for three weeks through November 20, 2015. The bill also extends by three years the December 31, 2015 deadline for railroads to install positive train control systems but, within 90 days of enactment, all affected railroads must submit to the U.S. Department of Transportation a revised PTC compliance plan. Mr. Speaker, instead of this 22-day temporary extension, I would have strongly preferred that we were debating a comprehensive, fair, equitable, and long-term transportation reauthorization bill the nation desperately needs. We have had two years to do so. Democrats want such a bill as does the President, but apparently our friends across the aisle do not since they have spent the last two years wasting time on advocating policies wanted by no one except for the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party. But I reluctantly support this emergency but temporary measure because as the Department of Transportation has reported, if we do not act now highway trust fund balances will reach dangerously low levels by November 20 and result in a reduction of payments to states by an average of 28 percent. Many states have already begun to cancel or delay planned construction projects, threatening 700,000 jobs, including 106,100 jobs in my home state of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 during the Eisenhower Administration to help finance construction of the Interstate Highway System, which modernized the nation's transportation infrastructure and was instrumental in making the United States the world's dominant economic power for two generations. Our national leaders then understood that investing in our roads and bridges strengthened our economy, created millions of good-paying jobs, and improved the quality of life for all Americans. It is currently composed of two accounts that fund federal-aid highway and transit projects built by states. Federal funding from the trust fund accounts for a major portion of state transportation spending. The Highway Trust Fund is financed by gasoline and diesel taxes, which until the last decade produced a steady increase in revenues sufficient to accommodate increased levels of spending on highway and transit projects. However, those tax rates--18.4 cents/gallon federal tax on gasoline and a 24.4 cents/gallon tax on diesel fuel--have remained unchanged since 1993 and were not indexed to inflation so the value of those revenues has eroded over the years, and, combined with the fact that vehicles have been getting increasingly better mileage, the revenues deposited into the Highway Trust Fund beginning last decade have not kept pace with highway and transit spending from the trust fund. Consequently, since 2008, Congress has periodically had to transfer at the 11th hour general Treasury revenues into the trust fund to pay for authorized highway and transit spending levels and avoid a funding shortfall. The total amount to date is more than $62 billion. Obviously, this practice is economically inefficient and injects uncertainty in the highway construction plans, projects, and schedules of state and local transportation agencies, not to mention the anxiety it causes to workers and businesses whose economic livelihood is dependent on those projects. Mr. Speaker, the last transportation authorized by Congress for 4 years or more, SAFETEA-LU, expired on September 30, 2009, at the end of FY 2009. Because Congress and the Administration could not agree to a new reauthorization, it was necessary to resort to stop-gap temporary extensions on no less than eight occasions spanning a period of 910 days before Congress finally enacted the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21 Act) on July 6, 2012, which reauthorized highway and transportation programs through Fiscal Year 2014, a little more than two years, or until September 30, 2014. MAP-21 was intended as a short-term measure to give Congress and the Administration breathing room to reach agreement on a long-term reauthorization bill. Yet, as Mr. Levin, the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, has often pointed out, since gaining the majority in 2010, our Republican colleagues have failed to take any action to sustain the Highway Trust Fund over the long-term and shore up vital infrastructure projects and has not held even a single hearing on financing options for the Highway Trust Fund. Instead, House Republicans have wasted the nation's time voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act more than 60 times, waging a War on Women, pursuing partisan investigations into the Benghazi tragedy, the IRS, defunding Planned Parenthood, and trying to overturn President Obama's executive actions that make our immigration enforcement laws less inhumane. Instead of doing their job, House Republicans big new idea is to attack the President for doing his job. Mr. Speaker, it is long past time for this Congress, and especially the House majority, to focus on the real problems and challenges facing the American people. And one of the biggest of those challenges is ensuring that America has a transportation policy and the infrastructure needed to compete and win in the global economy of the 21st Century. To do that we have to extend the reauthorization of current transportation programs and to authorize the transfer of the funds to the Highway Trust Fund needed to fund authorized construction projects and keep 700,000 workers, including 106,100 in Texas on the job. But that is only a start and just a part of our job. The real work that needs to be done in the remaining days of this Congress is to reach an agreement on a long-term highway and transportation bill that is fair, equitable, fiscally responsible, creates jobs and leads to sustained economic growth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are comments on this floor that said we had to listen to those who came. I want to stand and listen to the hardworking Americans who ultimately will retire. I am tired of blocking good measures that protect them, such as the Labor Department's efforts to strengthen protections for working families and retirees by requiring their financial professionals who provide retirement investment advice be treated as fiduciaries under ERISA laws. It is important to note that this is a simple requirement. It does not undermine the responsibilities or the profits of broker-dealers and others. It just simply says that they must be held to a standard to protect those retirees who have worked so very hard. I oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 1090. I am also glad to stand on the floor and support, however, H.R. 597, the Export-Import Bank Reform Reauthorization Act, finally to open the Bank and create jobs and opportunities for so many. Again, let me say that I am standing with those workers who are not here, retirees who have worked, hardworking Americans who will have their investments protected, by making sure that those who give them advice are regulated and held to very high standards. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1090, the Retail Investor Protection Act. I oppose this bill, because it would undermine efforts to curb conflicts of interest in the marketing and development of retirement investments, particularly for retail investors. I support the efforts of individuals and businesses to succeed in the American economy. Unfortunately for too long the success of some is coming at the total disregard for the rights of workers and their families. Investments in a home, savings placed in retirement accounts or into 401ks are ways for working people to ensure that they will not live in poverty when they retire. This bill would prevent the Department of Labor from addressing disparities in how the rights of investors are protected. Broker-dealers trade securities for themselves or on behalf of their customers, and they typically charge a commission fee for each transaction and may also be compensated with a commission from the company whose securities they trade. In making recommendations to clients and conducting transactions, they must adhere to ``suitability'' standards that ensure that their recommendations are suitable to the client's financial situation and objectives. Investment advisers, meanwhile, who manage the employee retirement and benefit plans for private companies, must under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA; PL 93-406) adhere to higher ``fiduciary'' standards and take actions that are in the best interests of the participants. Among other things, such investment advisers must act solely for the interests of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses. They also must act prudently and avoid conflicts of interest. Investment advisers are paid through an annual flat fee for managing the investments, which is based on the size of the plan. Broker-dealers are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) under the suitability standard, while investment advisers are regulated more directly by the SEC under the higher fiduciary standard. While employee retirement benefit plans are managed by investment advisers, individuals also invest on their own for retirement and other purposes and often use either investment advisers or broker-dealers to help them decide on investments and to perform the trades in stock or investment instruments. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act required the SEC in Section 913 of the act to report on the standards of care applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers, and it authorized the SEC to issue rules to extend the fiduciary standard now applicable to investment advisers to broker- dealers when providing any advice about securities to retail customers. According to the Financial Services Committee, in 2011 the SEC released a staff study recommending that both broker-dealers and investment advisers be held to a fiduciary standard ``no less stringent than currently applied to investment advisers.'' This past April, the Labor Department, acting under ERISA, proposed new rules regarding who is covered by ERISA's fiduciary standard and how that standard would be applied, saying that more needed to be done to protect individuals who are trying to invest and save for retirement. The proposed rule would treat all financial advisers who provide retirement investment recommendations and make trades on behalf of clients--including broker-dealers dealing with individual IRAs, 401(k)'plan and other retirement investments--as fiduciaries under ERISA. Under the proposal, financial advisers would be required to provide investment advice that is in the best interest of the retirement investor ``without regard to the financial or other interests'' of the financial institution, adviser or other party. The SEC Rule allows retirement advisers to be paid in various ways as long as they are willing to put the interests of their customers first, in certain cases allowing advisers to receive common types of fees that fiduciaries otherwise can't receive under the law, such as commissions and revenue sharing. The Labor Department is currently reviewing public comments received on its proposed rule and has not indicated when the final rule will be issued. Supporters of the bill argue that it is needed to prevent a potentially harmful rule from going into effect. The proposed Labor Department rule would be very costly to broker- dealers, requiring them to meet two separate standards when advising clients: the fiduciary standard when advising on retirement issues and the suitability standard for other investment matters. The resulting high compliance and potential liability costs, they say, could drive many smaller broker-dealers out of the market for providing retirement advice or lead them to service only larger dollar accounts, thereby limiting access to professional retirement planning and guidance for those retail investors who need it most and likely resulting in a reduction in the overall level of retirement savings for American workers. They note that the United Kingdom in 2013 implemented a similar rule, which has created an ``advice gap'' for 60,000 investors with smaller accounts. The Dodd-Frank law, they say, gave the SEC the lead role in setting the fiduciary standards, and they argue that the SEC, not the Labor Department, is the better choice for developing those rules because it is much more familiar with investment markets. In fact, they contend that the proposed Labor rule is confusing and actually conflicts with existing rules and securities market trading practices, and that it could disrupt the carefully considered regulatory regime applicable to broker-dealers and investment advisers that is administered by the SEC and FINRA. Broker-dealers and others operating under the lower ``suitability'' standard often have a direct conflict of interest, directing their customers to higher-cost investments that have hidden fees or from which the advisers get backdoor payments. We say this behavior in the predatory lending activity that led to the economic collapse in 2008. Home purchasers who could qualify for lower fixed rates for new home purchases were only shown loans that had high interest triggers that would double or triple mortgages a few years after they were purchased. The conflicts of interests in investment programs, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates, result in annual losses for affected U.S. investors of about 1 percentage point, or about $17 billion per year in total. The Labor Department's proposed fiduciary rule would require all retirement investors to instead put their clients' best interests before their own profits. Blocking the Labor Department from issuing its rule until the SEC acts on a standard-of-conduct rule for broker-dealers could effectively kill the critical consumer protections that would be provided by the Labor rule, since the bill does not require the SEC to ever issue its rule. While the SEC should similarly update its rules governing investment advice related to securities, they argue that Congress should not hinge the Labor Department's efforts on the SEC's ability to do so. Labor's rule was thoughtfully developed and would not cause disruptions in the market, they say, noting that the department worked with the SEC in developing the rule and that it has taken into account the concerns of stakeholders. This bill prohibits the Labor Department from implementing a final rule on fiduciary standards for retirement investment advisers until after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conducts a study and issues a final rule setting standards of conduct for broker-dealers. Specifically, the Labor Department could not exercise its authority under ERISA to define the circumstances under which an individual is considered a fiduciary until 60 days after the SEC issues a final rule regarding standards of conduct for broker-dealers pursuant to Section 913 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The bill would not, however, require the SEC to issue a rule. Prior to issuing a rule, the SEC must complete a study and report to Congress on whether retail investors are being harmed by the lower standard of care under which brokers and dealers operate, and offer alternate remedies to reduce confusion or harm to retail investors due to that different standard. It also must investigate whether the adoption of a uniform fiduciary standard would adversely affect the commissions of brokers and dealers, the availability of proprietary products and the ability of brokers and dealers to engage with customers, as well as whether a uniform fiduciary standard would adversely affect access by retail investors to investment advice. The conclusions in the report must be supported by economic analysis. In developing a rule, the SEC would be required to consider differences in the registration, supervision and examination requirements applicable to brokers, dealers and investment advisers and publish formal findings that the rule would reduce confusion or harm to retail customers caused by the different standards of conduct. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this bill and protect the little that workers have from their shrinking wages to protect against falling into poverty once their work years have been spent in increasing the profits of employers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we are here this morning; I guess out of desperation. After 11 hours of trying to attack the former Secretary of State, now we come this morning to continue our attack on women and again to have Republicans address the Affordable Care Act that has, in my State, put a dent in some 25,000-plus who did not have health care. Today we stand here with a bill that repeals the individual responsibility requirements that people must have their own health care; repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which focuses on making Medicare solvent for our seniors; and the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports evidence-based programs designed to keep Americans healthy, prevent chronic infectious diseases, and reduce future healthcare costs. Two days ago I was standing out in front of the United States Capitol calling out my State, the State of Texas, that about 3 days ago declared war on Planned Parenthood to close 39 different clinics.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Closing the clinics would cut into the very essence of service to vulnerable women. It would cut into their mammogram services, their cervical cancer examinations. The Supreme Court just a year or a couple of months ago said this kind of pointed, targeted attack was unconstitutional. This bill just adds to it. Whether or not you add other clinics, the clinics in Texas, Planned Parenthood, have been there for years for the minorities, for young people, and others. Mr. Speaker, this is not a reconciliation bill. This is another attack bill. We need to be able to stand for our women and women's health care. Vote against this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition of H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, because this bill does not restore healthcare Freedom. This bill is not a serious effort to address this nation's budgetary needs and its details reveal that it is another opportunity for the majority to hide behind a legislative gimmick in an attempt to kill the Affordable Care Act. This is a waste of taxpayer money and this body's legislative calendar, which has too few days left for wasting any of our lime voting on bills that the President has communicated in writing that he will veto. This bill is bad for the Affordable Care Act because it: continues the majority's relentless crusade to put barriers between women and their right to have the healthcare provider and services that they want and need; repeals individual responsibility requirements that people must have their own health insurance; repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which works to keep Medicare solvent; and repeals the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports evidence-based programs designed to keep Americans healthy, prevent chronic and infectious diseases and reduce future healthcare cost. The news from across the nation regarding the healthcare freedom and choice created by the Affordable Care Act for first time health insurance consumers is overwhelmingly positive. Unfortunately, today the majority has targeted a women's right to control her own healthcare by attempting to defund Planned Parenthood. In my state of Texas, a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court made unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. New attacks on women are now being couched with renewed attacks against the Affordable Care Act, which the majority has attempted to overturn with over 50 votes since its enactment. The attacks against Planned Parenthood is a social and econo statement that if you are a woman with money you have the right to think for yourself regarding your healthcare choices, but if you are poor or lack healthcare options you do not have that same right. Millions of women now have free coverage for comprehensive women's preventive medical services, and they rely upon Planned Parenthood for healthcare. The reality is women who face difficult health care decisions do not do so lightly. Women in this nation have a right to self-determination. It is a fundamental human right and one that should be cherished. The most important right is the ability of each person to determine their destiny and this right has to be freely exercised. Healthcare has become a fundamental right for our nation's citizens with the best possible outcomes for the millions of people who had no healthcare due to pre-existing illnesses or were penalized with higher premiums for pre-existing conditions. A documentary produced by the Harvard School of Public Health reported that between 2007 and 2010, overall deaths among Massachusetts residents between the age of 20 to 64 declined by 2.9%. The decline in deaths was 4.5% for persons with illnesses that could be successfully treated though healthcare intervention such as those who have: tuberculosis; cancer; cardiac disease; Leukemia; Diabetes; Epilepsy; High blood pressure; All respiratory illnesses; and Pregnancy and childbirth. Because of the Affordable Healthcare Act: 100 million Americans no longer have a life-time limit on healthcare coverage. 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers. 6.6 million young-adults up to age 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance plans. 6.3 million Seniors in the ``donut hole'' have saved $6.1 billion on their prescription drugs. 3.2 million Seniors have access to free annual wellness visits under Medicare, and 360,000 Small Businesses are using the Health Care Tax Credit to help them provide health insurance to their workers. Statistics on Texas and the Affordable Care Act reveal that: 3.8 million Texas residents receive preventative care services. 7 million Texans no longer have lifetime limits on their healthcare insurance. 300,731 young adults can remain on their parents' health insurance until age 26. 5 million Texas residents can receive a rebate check from their insurance company if it does not spend 80 percent of premium dollars on healthcare. 4,029 people with pre-existing conditions now have health insurance. This year for the first time insurance companies are banned from: discriminating against anyone with a preexisting condition; charging higher rates based on gender or health status; enforcing lifetime dollar limits; and enforcing annual-dollar limits on health benefits. Few people knew that health insurers viewed pregnancy as a pre- existing condition. Because of the Affordable Care Act women can no longer be charge higher rate just because they are women. Attempts to weaken or end the ACA are wrong. A January 2015, Gallup poll revealed that nationally the uninsured rate in the United States was reduced to 12.9%. The uninsured rate nationally dropped 4.2% points since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. We are becoming a nation of equals when it comes to access to affordable healthcare insurance. I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating another effort to turn the clock back on women's rights and the healthcare safety-net that is assuring longer and healthier lives for millions of Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I request that this article from White House Blog entitled, ``The Faces of Health Care: Joanne W.'' regarding the benefits of the Affordable Healthcare Act be submitted. Joanne was able to sign up for Medicare at 66. Her doctor told her there was an advancement to Medicare through ACA. After being on disability with no other health insurance, Joanne went in for a free annual wellness check once she had Medicare. At that very check they detected early caratoid artery stenosis--a condition that has no early symptoms, but if not treated can lead to a stroke or cardiac arrest. Because it was detected early she was immediately given medication and advice on diet and exercise. ``Who would have thought after all my support for the ACA, my life would be saved by it,'' she wrote in a letter to the President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, some of the good news this week is my introduction, with 16 original cosponsors, of H. Res. 489, congratulating Texas Southern University for 88 years. TSU is celebrating their 88 years at their homecoming this weekend. TSU is a school that has graduated not only Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland, but tens upon tens of great NFL football players. Tonight we will honor TSU. I pay tribute to Texas Southern University by introducing H. Res. 489. Unfortunately, there are some bad things that have happened. Let me cite H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act, that cuts $278.2 billion in discretionary funding that would help many of our children and education and the environment and health care and, as well, providing, if you will, the cuts in the Affordable Care Act. I like the idea of the Cadillac tax provision, but that is not the basis of the bill. H.R. 3762 is a bad bill. Then, of course, there were 11 hours of testimony. What did we find in the Benghazi hearing? We found that Secretary Clinton could, in fact, present the facts to the American people and be transparent as we knew; but we found no new facts, no smoking gun. It is time to end the Benghazi hearings and committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3493, the ``Securing the Cities Act of 2015,'' which will require the Director for Domestic Nuclear Detection to create a Securing the Cities program. The codification of the Securing the Cities Program under H.R. 3493, will: 1. Assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments in creating and implementing, or perfecting existing structures for coordinated and integrated detection and interdiction of nuclear or other radiological materials that are out of regulatory control; 2. Support the creation of a region-wide operating capability to identify and report on nuclear and other radioactive materials out of operational control; 3. Provide resources to improve detection, analysis, communication, and organization to better integrate state, local, tribal, and territorial property into federal operations; 4. Facilitate the establishment of protocol and processes to effectively respond to threats posed by nuclear or radiological materials being acquired or used by terrorists; and 5. Designate participating jurisdictions from among high-risk urban areas and other cities and regions, as appropriate, and notify Congress at least three days before designating or changing such jurisdictions. H.R. 3493 would also require the Comptroller General to investigate and assess the effectiveness of the ``Securing the Cities Program.'' The potential for a terrorist attack using nuclear or radiological material is low, but should it occur the consequences would be catastrophic, and for this reason we cannot be lax in our efforts to deter, detect and defeat attempts by terrorists to perpetrate such a heinous act of terrorism. I represent the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which is located in the Houston area, which is the 4th largest city in the United States and home to over 2 million residents. Earlier this year the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that the city of Houston would receive $30 million dollars over 5 years under the Securing the Cities Program. The funding, came from DHS's Domestic Nuclear Office and, will be used to work with partners in the Houston area to build a robust, regional nuclear detection capability for law enforcement and first responder organizations. This is an important federal effort to increase the ability of major urban cities to detect and protect against radiological and nuclear threats. The Securing Cities Program began in 2006 as a pilot project for the New York City region. The cities and regions that are participating include Washington DC/ National Capital Region, New York City, Los Angeles/Long Beach area, and now Houston Texas. The DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office provides equipment and assistance to regional partners in conducting training and exercises to further their nuclear detection capabilities and coordinate with federal operations. Unfortunately, the age of terrorism makes this a more dangerous and uncertain time than the decades following World War II when nation/ state nuclear arsenals were being created. I am pleased that Houston is at the forefront of nuclear safety in our country, and it is time to make the Securing the Cities Program vital for all of our major cities to catch up. Nuclear threats are more perilous than what our nation faced during the Cold War because these threats come from non-state actors who often do not have the same level of concern for the wellbeing of their people who may face the consequences of a nuclear attack against the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the ranking member. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose H.R. 692, for we should pay our debts. This bill is called the Pay China First Act. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to speak on H.R. 692, the so-called 'Default Prevention Act of 2015,'' which would result in the Congress refusing to pay the financial obligations it has already incurred. This bill, which ought to be called the ``Pay China First Act,'' is virtually-identical to the one House Republicans brought to the floor in May 2013, which House Democrats unanimously opposed and which wasted time and taxpayer money on its consideration before pushing the nation to the brink of default just a few months later. American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history. In 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth. The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.'' But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.'' In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills. H.R. 692 threatens the full faith and credit of the United States, costs American jobs, hurt businesses of all sizes, and does irreparable damage to the economy. It is important to note that under the economic stewardship of the Obama Administration, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 17,000 for the first time ever, and unemployment has fallen to 5.1 percent, the lowest since the Clinton Administration. Madam Speaker, obligations not guaranteed by H.R. 692, and therefore in danger of not being paid on a daily basis, include pay for active- duty military, veterans benefits, Medicare and Medicaid payments, and payments to small businesses. In short, H.R. 692 is simply default by another name. Americans want a clean debt limit increase, which Congress has been done numerous times and was the normal process until 2011 when the House Republicans hijacked the process in a futile and quixotic effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. H.R. 692 reflects a House Republican governing philosophy that puts ideology over progress and partisan showmanship over common-sense legislating. Madam Speaker, we cannot continue to hold our nation hostage, punishing the recipients of Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare who depend upon their benefits for economic survival. That is why I support a long-term increase in the debt limit that would provide economic stability to consumers, businesses, and financial organizations and certainty to capital markets. In contrast, the bill before us, H.R. 692, is merely a short-term measure with unnecessary complications, needlessly perpetuating uncertainty in the nation's fiscal system, and favors the Chinese government over Americans. My colleagues want to buy time so that they can figure out how to squeeze the American taxpayer even more by devising bone-crunching cuts and slashes to entitlement programs as opposed to sitting down and working with Democrats to come up with reasonable budget reforms which do not hurt seniors or the , disadvantaged. Madam Speaker, Social Security is currently the only source of income for nearly two-thirds of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one-third of those households depend on Social Security for nearly all of their income. Half of those 65 and older have annual incomes below $18,500, and many older Americans have experienced recent and significant losses in retirement savings, pensions, and home values. Today, every dollar of the average Social Security retirement benefit of about $14,800 is absolutely critical to the typical beneficiary. Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing. Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level supported by the program's own revenues. Instead of short-term management of self-inflicted fiscal crises, it is incumbent upon us on both sides of the aisle to find the common ground needed to put the nation on a sounder fiscal path. If President Obama has made clear that he remains willing to work with both parties in Congress to budget responsibly and to achieve additional deficit reduction consistent with the principles of balance, shared growth, and shared opportunity. But, as of today Madam Speaker, Congress has only two options--raise the debt ceiling to allow the Treasury to pay the nation's bills, or refuse to do so and have the nation default for the first time in history. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against H.R. 692.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan H.R. 1428, the ``Judicial Redress Act of 2015.'' H.R. 1428 is important bill that will help conclude longstanding negotiations to improve the framework for data transfers between law enforcement agencies in United States and Europe. European nations have long provided privacy protections to U.S. citizens and this legislation would reciprocate that practice. If enacted, the Judicial Redress Act would extend the legal rights granted to American citizens under the 1974 Privacy Act to citizens of select foreign nations. Specifically, those individuals would be given the ability to seek access to records private entities turn over to U.S. government officials as part of criminal investigations and they would be able to correct those records if they contain false information, as well as get redress from the government if those records were turned over illegally. Under the current law, U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are able to sue the United States for intentional and willful public disclosures of law enforcement information that injures those citizens. The same rights should be afforded to our closest allies and those we entrust with our privacy protection and hold accountable for reciprocal offenses. Let me express my appreciation to Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, Mr. Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership and commitment to privacy protection and accountability to our foreign allies. As a nation that aims to uphold the principles of justice and fairness, it is time that we ensure that all those engaged with our nation are afforded these core protections. The Judicial Redress Act upholds these principles by providing critical remedies to citizens of designated U.S. allies who have been unfairly targeted by American surveillance and law enforcement activities. By extending legal rights afforded under the 1974 Privacy Act to citizens of select foreign nations, we all benefit. Citizens of the United States benefit from privacy protections in other countries, and the Judicial Redress Act provides reciprocal trust and assurances that our closest allies will be treated fairly and justly. Strengthening international relationships and building trust backed by our government is essential to our national security and economic growth. Passing the Judicial Redress Act simply is the right thing to do. H.R. 1428 will ensure greater cooperation among international law enforcement agencies, and encourage these nations to share critical law enforcement information with one another. H.R. 1428 will also mend critical relationships between American businesses and international consumers by restoring trust that transnational data will be kept secure and protected. International consumers will feel more comfortable sharing their information allowing for the free-flow of data and commerce. This legislation is endorsed by the Department of Justice and federal law enforcement agencies and broadly supported by tech companies and businesses, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Trans-Atlantic Business Council, the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, and other groups. The Judicial Redress Act is a step in the right direction to ensure continued advancement in the technology industry, international corporate competitiveness, and demonstrated leadership in privacy protection and upholding foundational legal rights. For all of these reasons, I support H.R. 1428 and urge my colleagues to join me.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in support of H.R. 3572, the ``Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Reform and Improvement Act of 2015.'' This bill will establish DHS-wide strategic priorities for international engagement, mechanisms for monitoring resource deployment abroad, and strategic priorities and cost data for DHS programs and activities abroad. H.R. 3572 provides support for DHS's ``Unity of Effort'' campaign and addresses redundancy among departmental programs. The bill clarifies and streamlines the offices that constitute DHS Headquarters and better outlines their respective responsibilities. Specifically, H.R. 3572 achieves these goals by: 1. Establishing an undersecretary for management and makes him or her the chief acquisition officer in the Homeland Security Department; and 2. Establishing two new offices within the department and updates the department's acquisition procedures. Finally, the bill empowers the Inspector General to review the Department's suspension and debarment program and assess whether disparities exist in the criteria applied. The bill addresses the need for DHS to develop strategic priorities for international engagement, establish mechanisms for monitoring resource deployment abroad, and developing strategic priorities, and collecting cost data for its programs and activities abroad. I am pleased that H.R. 3572 incorporates several amendments that I offered during the full committee markup which improve the bill. Jackson Lee Amendment Number 1 requires the Assistant Security for International Affairs to advise the Secretary of Homeland Security on strategic priorities for overseas deployment, establish a mechanism for monitoring alignment between assets, including personnel, with said priorities, and develop a standardized framework to collect and maintain cost data for overseas personnel. Jackson Lee Amendment Number 2 made technical changes to H.R. 3572 regarding the conversion of contractor positions to Federal employee positions and requiring congressional authorization for adding any new office within the Office of Policy. Since its creation in 2002, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has been, and must continue to be, ever vigilant in its activities to protect the homeland and the lives and property of Americans. DHS faces a number of challenges, including the need for more resources, better training, better use of technology, and a constantly changing environment of homeland security threats. H.R. 3572 is a positive step forward in this effort and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the ``Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Reform and Improvement Act of 2015.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 348 in support of the people of Ukraine in their exercise of their self determination to free, fair and uninterrupted elections. As the country with the oldest and most powerful democracy in the world, the United States has supported democracy, the rule of law and human rights all over the globe from Nigeria to Pakistan to China, to name a few. The outcome of the October 25 elections in Ukraine is at the backdrop of the forcible and illegal occupation of Crimea, ordered by President Vladimir Putin of Russia. The rights of the people of Ukraine to free, fair and transparent elections is especially critical, with Crimea currently under siege of Russian-led separatists who continue their attacks on Ukraine's forces set in place to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine. Here in Congress, we have worked tirelessly to support free and fair elections in Ukraine through our support of its May 2014 elections, ensuring that international standards were upheld just as we have assisted in many elections in countries in transition or fighting insecurity from Nigeria to Pakistan. In Nigeria and Pakistan, the elections occurred at the background of terrorism from Boko Haram, Al Qaida and other terrorist networks, who acted so viciously and caused thousands of Nigerians and Pakistanis to lose their lives and livelihoods. Similarly, the citizens of Ukraine are at risk of being disenfranchised because of separatist controlled areas. To this end the United States has worked to broker peace in Ukraine so that the people of Ukraine can exercise their right to self determination though our support of the cease-fire agreement brokered between Ukraine, Russia and the Russian-led separatists which was not fully implemented and the subsequent Minsk Implementation Agreement. But I say to the people of the Ukraine, remain strong, we stand with you in exercising your Constitutional and human right to choose who will represent you. The upcoming October 25, 2015 elections are critical for sustainable legislative and constitutional reform in Ukraine which will help promote democracy, the rule of law, upholding of human rights, the creation of security, all of which will catalyze the economic, social, cultural and political enfranchisement of the people of Ukraine, securing a bright future for the capable and exciting youth of Ukraine. Indeed, here in Congress, we have taken numerous actions to uphold the sanctity of the right to economic, political and social enfranchisement of the people of Ukraine by passing the following legislation: The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014, authorizing the United States President to provide Ukraine's government with support necessary to set up infrastructure for reforms that will facilitate restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity including lethal defense services and articles, such as anti-tank, anti-armor and counter-artillery radar (worth $100 million in FY 2015 and $125 million in each of fiscal years 2016 and 2017 for such weapons); and Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014, which authorized loan guarantees for the Government of Ukraine. Due to its geographical location, the Central European nation of Ukraine historically has been pushed and pulled between its neighbors with Europe to its west and Russia to its east. This push pull from interested parties has caused conflict over the direction Ukraine would take after its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991. For example, in November of 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych suspended negotiations with the European Union over an agreement to integrate Ukraine into various European economic and political associations and instead accepted $15 billion and other inducements to enter into closer ties with Moscow. The decisions taken by President Yanukovych triggered demonstrations by thousands of Ukrainian citizens in the capital city of Kiev and throughout the country which led to numerous arrests, detentions and violent clashes, which led to the deaths of close to 100 protesters in February 2014. In a cowardly act, President Yanukovych fled to the predominantly ethnic Russian region of Crimea in southeastern Ukraine, and then to Russia because of the chaos caused by his suspension of negotiations with the EU and the subsequent unrest that ensued, which also caused his unpopularity within his own party. After President Yanukovych deserted his own people, an opportunistic Russian military force took up positions throughout Crimea, where, under a series of treaties that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia had continued to maintain a series of military bases, notably at Sevastopol, where the Russian Black Sea naval fleet is based. Indeed, Crimea itself was technically transferred from the Soviet republic of Russia to the Soviet republic of Ukraine in 1954. Subsequently, in March 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed legislation formally incorporating Crimea into Russia. The United States and the European Union have opined that Russia's action is illegal and we have imposed a series of economic sanctions on Russia. Russia continues to provide military equipment, training and other assistance to separatists and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, resulting in an ongoing conflict with an estimated 6,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands of refugees and widespread destruction. The Russian-led separatists in eastern Ukraine continue to refuse to implement Ukrainian law and stand in the way of the Ukrainian authorities to conduct elections in areas controlled by the separatists and hence are a stumbling block to free and fair elections in those areas. Yet under all this stress, Ukraine continues to strive for its self determination. I commend all anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. The state Anti-Corruption Strategy Program Implementation for 2014- 2017, which delineates anti-corruption reforms, persons, deadlines and infrastructure; The creation of a National Agency for Prevention of Corruption; The Ukrainian Law on Prevention of corruption, a new system which outlines financial control with electronic asset declaration of public servants; The specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office; Corruption Offender Registry; and Many more efforts to combat corruption and enhance the rule of law and financial integrity in Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution protecting the rights of the people of Ukraine to freely elect their government and determine their future. Mr. Speaker, I also urge the Administration to expedite assistance to Ukraine to facilitate the political, economic and social reforms necessary for free and fair elections that meet international standards. The Russian government, Russian-led separatists, its agents and supporters should not interfere in Ukraine's elections, through intimidation, violence or coercion. The current relentless political, economic and military aggression on the people of Ukraine geared at subverting the independence, self determination and the territorial integrity of Ukraine must stop. I urge the people of Ukraine to help facilitate free and fair elections in Ukraine.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3350, the ``Know the CBRN Terrorism Threats to Transportation Act,'' which requires the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis to conduct a terrorism threat assessment regarding the ground transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological (CBRN) materials. As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I appreciate the significance of this bill. On September 11, 2001, 2,977 people were killed after terrorists hijacked four commercial aircraft and used three of them as guided missiles to destroy much of the complex that made up the New York City Twin Towers as well as a wing of the Pentagon. The fourth plane was crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania as passengers heroically attempted to retake the plane from the control of hijackers. Since September 11, 2001, security experts have warned of vulnerabilities that exist should terrorists plan to attack a chemical facility located within the United States or worse yet, gain unlawful access to a facility, pipelines, or transit routes and steal chemicals for a mass attack against civilians. Transportation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) materials across our borders and within the United States may become targets for terrorists who seek to do us harm. The 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I serve, is home to some of the world's largest petrochemical producers, which employ thousands of Houston area residents. Chemicals are a vital and common presence in the lives of our nation's citizens, but we often forget how dangerous they can be under the wrong conditions. On April 17, 2013, the small town of West, Texas felt the power and destructive force of ammonium nitrate when an accidental fire ignited what is believed to have been between 140 to 160 tons of the chemical. This was no terrorist attack, but a very tragic accident. The accident in the town of West, Texas reminded all of us who represent districts that count chemical plants or their owners and operators as constituents--how important it is to protect the transport of these products from theft or misuse by terrorists. Ports, railways, pipelines, and trucks are critical to the domestic transport of chemical products. U.S. seaports, like the Port of Houston, are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Ports serve as America's gateway to the global economy since the nation's economic prosperity rests on the ability of containerized and bulk cargo arriving unimpeded at U.S. ports to support the rapid delivery system that underpins the manufacturing and retail sectors. A central component of national security is the ability of our international ports to move goods into and out of the country. According to the Department of Commerce in 2012, Texas exports totaled $265 billion. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of diversified public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. In 2012, ship channel-related businesses contributed 1,026,820 jobs and generated more than $178.5 billion in statewide economic activity. In 2014, the Port of Houston was ranked among U.S. ports: 1. 1st in foreign tonnage; 2. 1st among Texas ports with 46% of market share by tonnage and 95% market share in containers by total TEUS in 2014; 3. 1st among Gulf Coast container ports, handling 67% of U.S. Gulf Coast container traffic in 2014; and 4. 2nd in U.S. port in terms of total foreign cargo value (based on U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census) The Government Accountability Office (GAO), reports that the Port of Houston and its waterways and vessels, are part of an economic engine handling more than $700 billion in cargo annually. The Port of Houston houses approximately 100 steamship lines offering services that link Houston with 1,053 ports in 203 countries. The Port of Houston is home to a $15 billion petrochemical complex, the largest in the nation and second largest in the world. With the nation's largest petrochemical complex supplying over 40 percent of the nation's base petrochemical manufacturing capacity, what happens at the Port of Houston affects the entire nation. In 2004, nearly 155 million tons of chemicals were transported by rail in North America, which constitutes 1.75 million rail cars of hazardous materials. The volume of hazardous materials moving by rail more than doubled since 1980 indicates that rail has become an integral part of the tremendous increase in the transport of hazardous materials. According to the Texas Department of Transportation approximately 2,200 trains per week travel within the Houston regional rail network, which is comprised of more than 800 miles of mainline tracks and 21 miles of railroad bridges. I support this bill because we must protect the American people against potential terrorism through the unconventional use of biological, chemical or radiological materials that have a beneficial commercial or industrial purpose. Without the proper precautions and security measures major U.S. cities such as Houston, Texas may be vulnerable to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks by terrorist. H.R. 3350 addresses many problems by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a terrorism threat assessment of the transportation of chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological materials through the United States land borders and within the United States. In order to enforce the required threat assessment the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis shall consult with the Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border protection, and the heads of other Federal departments and agencies, as deemed appropriate to ensure that such terrorism threat assessment is informed by current information about homeland security threats. Congress must take forward action as threats of chemical and biological terrorism rise and terrorist groups actively seeking hazardous chemicals in order to inflict harm against American citizens. I urge my colleagues to support me on H.R. 3350 in order to assess threats to our transportation infrastructure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the Rule and the underlying bill H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. H.R. 10 would reauthorize the District of Columbia private school voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five years through 2021. In 2004, Congress established OSP, the first and only federally created or funded elementary and secondary private school voucher program in the United States. In 2011, Congress reauthorized OSP through fiscal year 2016 in the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act (SOAR Act). Under the SOAR Act, DC households with incomes that do not exceed 185 percent of the poverty line may receive an annual maximum voucher payment per student of $8,000 for grades K-8 and $12,000 for grades 9- 12. In addition, H.R. 10 makes a significant change to the evaluation of OSP's effectiveness. The bill prohibits a control study group in making evaluations of the OSP and requires a less rigorous ``quasi-experimental research design'' than under the SOAR Act. Since 2004, almost $190 million has been spent on DC voucher schools. That is money that could have been spent on District public schools, which serve all students. Instead of working on longer term solutions, such as reauthorizing ESEA, or working on job creation, the Majority is pushing its own education priorities on a local jurisdiction through this misguided legislation. This bill pursues the wrong course by doing the following: The voucher program is the latest Republican attack on the District of Columbia's right to self-government. The local District government did not request this reauthorization nor did its only member of Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton. If the District wants to establish a voucher program, it has the authority to do so. Republicans have already tried to overturn DC's gun, marijuana, abortion, needle exchange, and non-discrimination laws. They have also threatened DC's mayor with jail time over the city's marijuana law. Now they want to write education law in DC. The bill would authorize the use of federal funds to pay for private school tuition in the District of Columbia, despite overwhelming evidence that the program, first authorized in 2004, has failed to improve student academic achievement, as measured by math and reading scores--including among the students the program was designed to most benefit, those from low-performing public schools. Despite having numerous states vote down efforts to implement private school voucher programs; Republicans continue to use the District of Columbia as a testing ground for their own agenda. The bill does not recognize that 44 percent of DC public school students attend charter schools, and 75 percent of DC public school students attend out-of-boundary public schools. Unlike private schools, traditional public and charter schools are publicly accountable and subject to all civil rights laws. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 10, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Reauthorization Act. H.R. 10 would reauthorize the District of Columbia private school voucher program, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), for five years through 2021. H.R. 10 would reauthorize the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, which provides Federal support for improving traditional public schools in the District of Columbia (D.C.), expanding and improving high-quality D.C. public charter schools, and offering private school vouchers to a limited number of students. The Obama Administration continues to strongly oppose the private school vouchers program within this legislation, known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Members of the House should respect the self determination of the residents of DC by not forcing education policy onto children or their families at taxpayer expense. Rigorous evaluation over several years demonstrates that D.C. vouchers have not yielded statistically significant improvements in student achievement by scholarship recipients compared to other students not receiving vouchers. In addition, H.R. 10 would extend this voucher program to a new population of students previously attending private schools. Instead of using Federal resources to support a handful of students in private schools, the Federal Government should focus its attention and available resources on improving the quality of public schools for all students. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are just 9 more legislative days to act fully to protect the full faith and credit of the United States before November 3 in order to prevent the risk of a first ever U.S. default. We know that a default is not what the American people want. It could shatter retirement savings and send interest rates for mortgages, student loans, credit cards, and car payments soaring. We know that even a threat of default has serious consequences. We have experienced a downgrading in our credit before because our friends on the other side of the aisle--Republicans--took us to the catastrophic brink. And then, of course, we realized that what we did today, Pay China First Act, does not help the American people. If we continue on this pathway, we will impact 1.4 million Active- Duty troops by not paying our debt, 4.1 million disabled veterans who served their country with honor by not paying our debt, 2.3 million veterans who receive home purchasing assistance by not paying our debt, American small businesses that sell goods and services to the government and most doctors and hospitals that treat the 53.8 million Medicare patients around the country by not paying our debt. We cannot hold the United States hostage or our credit hostage. It is time to address in a fair and reasonable manner the debt of the United States, which is the people of the United States. Get rid of sequester, follow our responsibilities, and pay our bills so that we can help those veterans who need help. Mr. Speaker, once again House Republicans are putting the narrow partisan interests of their right-wing base ahead of addressing the real challenges and problems facing the American people. Congress has only 10 legislative days to act to fully protect the full faith and credit of the United States before November 3, in order to prevent the risk of a first-ever U.S. default. A default would shatter retirement savings and send interest rates for mortgages, student loans, credit cards and car payments soaring. We know that even the threat of default has serious consequences: plummeting consumer confidence, and drastic slowdowns in job creation and economic growth. Instead of taking the threat of catastrophic default off the table, this week, Republicans are bringing forward a bill that would give priority to bondholders from China and other foreign nations would be paid first. This bill, more accurately described as the ``Pay China First Act,'' puts payments to Americans at risk, including those to: 1. 1.4 million active duty troops; 2. 4.1 million disabled veterans who served their country with honor; 3. 2.3 million veterans who receive home purchasing assistance; 4. American small businesses that sell goods and services to the government; 5. Doctors and hospitals that treat the 53.8 million Medicare patients around the country. The credit rating of the United States is not a hostage to serve Republicans' toxic special interest ideology. Republicans should bring forward a clean bill to honor the full faith and credit of the United States immediately. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have wasted enormous amount of time on irresponsible, futile, and reckless diversions such as trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, defund Planned Parenthood, and use the Benghazi Select Committee as an adjunct of the Republican National Committee to engage in partisan attacks on the leading candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Because so much time has been wasted on these frivolous issues, we now have the following critical deadlines staring us in the face: 1. October 29: Highway & Transit Trust Fund expires, endangering good paying jobs and critical construction projects throughout America; 2. November 3: Deadline to raise debt ceiling to protect full faith and credit of the United States. 3. December 11: Deadline to pass a funding bill that keeps the government open. Americans are already paying a heavy price for House Republicans' legislative mismanagement. Earlier this summer, Republicans shut down the Export-Import Bank for the first time in its 81-year history. The Bank provides critical financing assistance--at no cost to taxpayers--to small, medium, and large-sized U.S. businesses that helps them create jobs here at home and sell their products overseas. Just two months after the Bank shut down, companies across the country are already feeling negative impacts on their ability to compete in the global marketplace. House Republicans also let the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) expire on September 30. Created in 1965, it is one of the nation's most successful conservation programs. The LWCF uses a small percentage of revenue from offshore oil and gas drilling to invest in public lands and local recreation projects, and helps to support more than 6 million U.S. jobs connected with outdoor recreation. Mr. Speaker, I renew my call that all Members of the House and Senate work together and address the real problems and challenges facing the American people and to work with the President to reach agreement on an appropriate budget framework that ends sequestration but does not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am very excited today to congratulate the researchers from the Baylor College of Medicine and Rice University in my hometown of Houston. On Monday, they announced an important discovery about the structure of human genetic material, an advance that one day could enable scientists to fix genetic defects that lead to disease. This was in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The authors included experts from Stanford, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, who brought about this particular research, described the process through which a 6-foot-long string of human DNA folds and organizes itself. The main excitement about this is that to the many children, to the many young people, to the many families who suffer the loss of a child through a deadly disease, we now have research that may alter that process and impact, if you will, the DNA that results in diseases that cause the death of our children. Let me congratulate Baylor and Rice University for this great success, and we look forward to saving lives from Houston, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Mr. Pallone and Mr. Barton for their courtesies and as well the Rules Committee. Let me first of all say there has been a lot of discussion on the floor of the House regarding this bill and different opinions. Might I add that this is an important and vigorous discussion. I think this is the best of what this Congress is all about. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take note of H.R. 702, which many of us know came about because of the gas prices in the 1970s. This bill simply repeals that portion of the legislation that responded to that crisis. What I like in the bill is, of course, we have in the bill that we, as a Congress, will get a report some 120 days after dealing with the maintenance and the strength of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That is a very important national security item. A savings clause indicates, of course, that the President has all of his powers in the light of crisis and other issues to implement any necessary changes or any necessary restrictions on this legislation. My amendment tracks giving more information. Not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this act, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Commerce shall jointly transmit to Congress a report that reviews the impact of lifting the oil import ban under this act as relates to promoting, supporting, and providing for the United States energy and national security policy. Our number one responsibility is the American people--I understand that--both environmentally, which reflects to their own energy resources, and certainly with national security. This amendment allows for that report to be on the front side of 10 years. It could be 2 years from now, 3 years from now, and the Congress can dictate that. U.S. crude production bottomed in 2008 at about 7 million barrels a day. It is now more than 11 million barrels a day, and it is now possible to go up to 18 million barrels a day in 2040 under the strictest environmental concerns. But right now in my district--right now in my district--they are laying off thousands of people because there is no work. So I would argue to my colleagues that this amendment provides the insight on what is going on. This bill could provide the GDP would rise by 550 billion to 1.8 trillion between 2015 and 2039. It is estimated in my own congressional job lifting the ban would generate an additional 500 hundred jobs, an additional 270 million in the local economy, and increase government revenues in 227 million. This 10-year period under that--by the way, it is up to 10 years--is giving long enough time to provide a probative, intelligent assessment of whether there is irreversible damage. Amendment No. 9 operates as a safety valve and reassures that those who may be skeptical of lifting the export ban get reasonable opportunities to oppose it or get the right information. The same thing with those who may support it. It gives us a basis of empirical data rigorously analyzed. Mr. Chairman, my amendment can be summed up as follows: For those who are confident in the future, my amendment offers vindication. For those who are skeptical of the new change, my amendment will provide the evidence they need to prove their case. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.