Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, quite the contrary to my good friend from Virginia, what this amendment does is protects the process of the NRC to fully review the potential impacts of terrorism on Federal construction projects involving nuclear facilities and chemical facilities as well. In addition, I think when we hear the names Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island, we understand the vast and devastating impact of such an incident that may be caused or driven by terrorism. I would not want to limit the NRC, which has been given court authority by law to investigate and provide an investigation, thorough investigation, on the impact on chemical and nuclear plants, and we have it restricted. It takes more than 4 years to build a nuclear facility. So are you suggesting that the facility, then, can go on and be built for 10, 20 years, and we shut off the NEPA that has the responsibilities for the American people? I don't think that is appropriate. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the American people from the Alaska Wilderness League, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Western Environmental Law Center are against this bill. I will place this into the Record. Mr. Chairman, the Executive Office of the President, Council on Environmental Quality is opposed to this bill, and I will insert this into the Record. I just want to mention that, of course, the President has issued a veto threat. Where this bill is going, I do not know. But the main thing I would like to say to my colleagues is: Can't we stand together united around the question of national security? My amendment specifically indicates that this issue of terrorism should be a simple carve-out, and I would ask you to do so. Let me also bring in the comments of the Pope as indicated yesterday: If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one in order to build, as one, the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, and its social life. The interest of the American people is to accept the Jackson Lee amendment--to carve out an exception in this bill that is opposed by the President and all other aspects of goodwill people here dealing with the environment--to deal with this issue. Might I remind you, Mr. Chairman, of the Volkswagen scandal. If a more robust process had been in mind, 11 million owners of Volkswagens--and 400,000 in the United States--might be in a better place. This is a good amendment dealing with the safety and security of the American people. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is listed in the Rule as Jackson Lee 9. Many of us wear a number of hats with dual committee assignments; I am a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. This perspective and these responsibilities have given me a special appreciation for the difficult and challenging times we live in and the importance of not taking precipitous actions that could put the security of our homeland at risk. Mr. Chair, if H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, were to become law in its present form, a permit or license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days. The Jackson Lee Amendment improves the bill and helps to protect the homeland by carving a limited exception for construction projects that could be potential targets for terrorist attacks such as chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure. In particular, I think it is important to note that the FBI Director Comey recently indicated that there are ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist cells operating in all of the 50 states. All federal agencies are subject to the environmental decision making requirements under NEPA. This includes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which the Circuit of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held ``shall account for the potential environmental impacts of acts of terrorism in its environmental review process.'' The NRC has also imposed stringent anti-terrorism requirements on its licenses pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 73, which outlines security requirements for the physical protection of nuclear plants and materials. A nuclear power plant is, a chemical facility covered by the Jackson Lee Amendment. Mr. Chair, we should not limit the ability of the NRC to fully review the potential impacts of terrorism on Federal construction projects involving nuclear facilities and chemical facilities, as would be the case were H.R. 348 to become law. Worse still, H.R. 348 would automatically deem construction projects approved even where the NRC needs more time to complete its review of the environmental risk and/or the potential vulnerability of a critical infrastructure facility to terrorist attack. The Jackson Lee Amendment ensures the rushed and dangerous approach to the NEPA approval process embodied in H.R. 348 does not adversely impact the security of the homeland from the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities or other critical infrastructure construction projects. In short, the Jackson Lee Amendment provided added protection to keep Americans safe. I urge support for the Jackson Lee Amendment. September 17, 2015. Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members and activists, we are writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 348, the misleadingly named ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act of 2015.'' Instead of improving the permitting process, the bill will severely undermine the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, consequently, the quality and integrity of federal agency decisions. The National Environmental Policy Act plays a critical role in ensuring that projects are carried out in a transparent, collaborative, and responsible manner. NEPA simply requires federal agencies to assess the environmental, economic, and public health impacts of proposals, solicit the input of all affected stakeholders, and disclose their findings publicly before undertaking projects that may significantly affect the environment. Critically, NEPA recognizes that the public-- which includes industry, citizens, local and state governments, and business owners--can make important contributions by providing unique expertise. NEPA also gives a voice to the most impacted and underrepresented, especially to the most vulnerable communities who usually have to bear the most burden of where federal projects are proposed in the first place. However, H.R. 348 strikes at these core purposes of NEPA by systematically prioritizing speed of decisions and project approval over the public interest. Studies on the causes of delay in the permitting process reveal that the primary cause of delay is not the NEPA process. Rather, as multiple studies by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have pointed out, the principal causes of delay in permitting rest outside the NEPA process entirely and are attributable to other factors such as lack of funding, project complexity, and local opposition to the project. The RAPID Act ignores the true causes of delay, and instead, focuses on institutionalizing dangerous ``reforms'' that restrict public input, limit review of the environmental and economic impacts of projects, and that create more, not less, bureaucracy. Provisions in the RAPID Act, such as the following, will create more delays in permitting, result in less flexibility in the process, and tilt the entire permitting process towards shareholder interest, not the public interest. For example, the bill: Places Arbitrary Limitations on Environmental Reviews-- Section 560(i) of the bill threatens to undermine NEPA's goal of informed decision-making and the agency's role of acting in the public interest. It sets arbitrary deadlines on environmental reviews of permits, licenses, or other applications--regardless of the possible economic, health, or environmental impacts. Consequently, it puts communities at risk by promoting rushed and faulty decisions. Limits Consideration of Alternatives--Section 560(g) strikes at what CEQ regulations describe as ``the heart of the NEPA process'' by restricting the range of reasonable alternatives to be considered by an agency. Creates Serious Conflicts of Interests--Section 560(c) blurs the distinct roles of private entities and agencies in agency decisions by allowing private project sponsors with stakes in the decision to prepare environmental review documents which creates inherent conflicts of interest and thus jeopardizes the integrity of the decision-making process. Leading to Unanticipated Delays--The bill forces stakeholders into court preemptively simply to preserve their right to judicial review. The bill also limits the public's judicial access to challenge and address faulty environmental reviews which in turn is likely to increase the controversy and the amount of litigation derived from the permitting process which in turn could add to project delays. Denies the Impacts of Climate Change--Section 560(k) of the bill prohibits any considerations of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), which the EPA and other federal agencies use to estimate the economic damages associated with specific projects and their related carbon dioxide emissions. The tool is critical for the public to understand the true benefits and costs of a project. Ignoring climate change puts critical infrastructure, tax payer dollars, and local communities at risk. Provisions such as these and many more in the RAPID Act will only serve to increase delay and confusion around the environmental review process. We believe compromising the quality of environmental review and limiting the role of the public is the wrong approach. Far from being broken, the National Environmental Policy Act has proven its worth as an invaluable tool. It ensures that the public, developers, and agencies have a reliable template for consistent and fair proposal assessment for major projects that may impact federal resources. The RAPID Act contradicts and jeopardizes decades of experience gained from enacting this critical environmental law. Further, it tips the balance away from informed decisions and public oversight, jeopardizing the public's ability to participate in how public resources will be managed. Please oppose this unnecessary and overreaching piece of legislation and vote ``no'' on the RAPID Act. Alaska Wilderness League, American Rivers, Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens for Global Solution, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Conservation Colorado, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, EDF Action, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Epic--Environmental Protection Information Center, Energy Action Coalition, Friends of the Earth, Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy, Green Latinos, Kentucky Heartwood, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center, League of Conservation Voters, Los Padres ForestWatch, Marine Conservation Institute, Montana Environmental Information Center, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Energy Economy, New Jersey Sierra Club, Oceana, Ocean Conservation Research, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Safe Climate Campaign, Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, SustainUS, Union of Concerned Scientists, Western Environmental Law Center, The Wilderness Society.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Maybe we can work together on this amendment because it is a simple carve-out. It should be narrow. It clarifies that the bill's provision does not apply to environmental reviews or permitting on other agencies' decisions that could deal with potential terrorist attack targets, such as chemical facilities and other critical infrastructure. I don't think that that is something that the gentleman and myself would disagree with and, particularly, the nuclear plants, which take a longer period of time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, Members will leave this week behind physically but not mentally and not without a sense of joy and, certainly, questions. Many things have happened this week, and more will come in terms of further explanations about our leadership and about our direction, but one thing we know that occurred is a mighty statement of balanced injustice. I will paraphrase the words of Pope Francis, when he said to us that politics requires more than divisiveness; and he said ``the greatest common good: that of a community which sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests, its social life''--an instruction on the goodness of our Members, no matter what their party. So in these next couple of weeks, I would ask that we look collectively together about working to pass a budget that is fair and just and that helps the needy: comprehensive immigration reform, helping the homeless, and helping veterans who have suffered, Mr. Speaker, some hundreds of thousands who died waiting for hospital services. I think we can do better. Get rid of sequester. Pass a budget for America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate National Voter Registration Day, which, since 2012, has been observed annually on September 22 and is intended to increase awareness of voter registration opportunities, promote civic engagement, and celebrate democracy. National Voter Registration Day, which started in 2012 was designed to create an annual moment when the entire nation focuses on registering Americans to exercise their most basic right--the right to vote. In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson said: Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. But only the individual . . ., and others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfillment. In other words, political empowerment-- and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right. And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to vote in every election, state and local as well as federal. But before one can exercise the right to vote, he or she must first register. Mr. Speaker, everyday approximately 12,000 Americans turn 18 and by 2016, more than 8 million young people will be eligible to vote. This cohort, better known as the Millennial Generation, comprises approximately one-third of the voting age population. The 93 million member Millennial Generation is the largest in the history of the United States, surpassing the post-World War II Baby Boomers. The Millennial Generation also is the most diverse because nearly half of all Millennials (43%) come from communities of color. Mr. Speaker, next year, in 2016, and for the first time ever, persons of color and young people have the potential of comprising more than half of the electorate, which means that we could have the most diverse national electorate in history. Young people are the future of the nation so it is only right that they become more active and engaged in the process of electing the leaders who will make the decisions that shape the nation's future. And that means taking the first step of registering to vote. And that is why we observe National Voter Registration Day; to increase awareness among all Americans, but especially young people, of the importance and mechanics of registering to vote. In every Presidential election since the 1964, the voter turnout rate for persons aged 18-29 has lagged behind all other age groups. For example, in 2012 almost half (42%) of such persons were not registered to vote and 2014, a whopping 51% were unregistered. And only 23% of eligible voters 18-29 actually voted in 2014. Although these registration and turnout rates are low, we should not assume that the millennial generation is apathetic or disinterested in the public affairs of the nation. It is significant that in 2014, 87 percent of Millennials made a local, national, or global difference by donating money or volunteering time with a charitable or social change organization. But Millennials are facing challenges unknown to the Baby Boomers; they are the first generation in modern history to face higher levels of unemployment and lower levels of wealth and personal income at the same stage of their lives. Yet, this generation has also observed that positive change can result from sound public policy and that it makes a difference which officials are elected to make those policy decisions. For example, economic policy decisions made during the past six years has led to a reduction in unemployment rates from a high of 9.8% in 2009 to a low of 5.1%, and the creation of more than 8.3 million private sector jobs. Additionally, during the last six years we have witnessed policies and actions promoting and enhancing equality, diversity, tolerance, and inclusion advocated, championed, and implemented by persons elected by voters. But it must be remembered that progress and positive change happens by choice, not by chance. In a democratic form of government, participation is rewarded in the form of responsiveness from elected representatives; conversely, the interests of non-participators sadly are all too often neglected or ignored. And it is important that we observe National Voter Registration Day so that everyone is educated and empowered with the tools to make their preferences known, their interests considered, and their voices count. As President Johnson said: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. In 2008, 6 million Americans did not exercise that power because they missed a registration deadline or did not know how to register to vote. Mr. Speaker, our nation works best when all voices and all interests are fairly considered and that can only happen if all, or nearly all, eligible persons register and vote in elections. The purpose of National Voter Registration Day is help make that happen and that is why I urge my colleagues to join in commemorating National Voter Registration Day.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of the Eighteenth Congressional District, I rise to express joy and appreciation on the occasion of the historic visit to the United States by His Holiness, Pope Francis. I am deeply honored to have participated in the historic arrival ceremony at the White House welcoming His Holiness, the spiritual leader of 70 million Catholic Americans and 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. I wish to thank President Obama for his gracious welcoming remarks on behalf of the American people which conveyed to Pope Francis and the world what is best about our nation. I especially appreciate Pope Francis's message of hope, healing, and reconciliation which inspires us all to do more ``to care for the least of these,'' to be good stewards of the earth, and to work for peace. Mr. Speaker, the messages of President Obama and Pope Francis affirm the value and good works performed daily by Catholic organizations and charities in the United States, including those in my congressional district represented by the many advocates for social justice who accepted by invitation and made the pilgrimage from Houston to Washington, D.C. to bear witness to this historic and joyful occasion. I am pleased that my office was able to extend invitations to many organizations and Galveston-Houston Archdiocese churches from my congressional district to come to Washington, D.C. to salute His Holiness. Among them are the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, St. Francis Assisi Catholic Church, St. Monica Catholic Church, Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church, Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic Church, and a number of Houston's Wounded Warriors. I am also pleased that Deacon Sam Dunning, the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston's Director of the Office of Justice and Peace, was able to join me in celebrating the pontiff's visit, as were students and staff from St. Pius X High School, members of the Idbo Catholic Community, and World Harvest Outreach. In his moving remarks today, Pope Francis reminded us that ``the Creator does not abandon us'' and that we ``still have time to make the change needed to bring about a sustainable and integral development.'' Mr. Speaker, every day in communities across America and around the world, Catholic organizations and agencies can be found doing the Lord's work of caring for the poor, the sick, the needy, the aged, the helpless, the lost and hopeless. We see the fruits of this work in the sanctuary found by women fleeing from domestic violence, in the reunification of families separated by natural disasters, in the shelter found by a homeless wounded warrior suffering from PTSD, and the love and support given the child of undocumented immigrants who seek only the chance to make a better life for themselves and their family in a land that has always been the most welcoming nation on earth. Mr. Speaker, the good works of the Catholic Church are on display daily in my congressional district where agencies and organizations supported by Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston/Houston take to heart the biblical injunction that we are our brother's keeper. Ten years ago, for example, Hurricane Katrina forced thousands of people to flee New Orleans and relocate to Houston. Among these persons were an adoption specialist for Catholic Charities in New Orleans, one of the birthmothers she was working with, and the adoptive family the birthmothers had just chosen for her baby. With phone lines down and no communication between them, the adoption was sure to fall through, but somehow they found each other in Houston and the adoption was put back on track. The Lord works in mysterious ways indeed. The day following the flood that struck the Houston area this past Memorial Day, staff members of Catholic Charities of the Galveston- Houston Archdiocese were out in the field assessing the needs of their senior citizen clients, one of whom was 74-year old Minthia Terry. Ms. Terry survived the flood but her house was severely damaged; thanks to Catholic Charities her damaged house was restored and she is able to live safe and secure in the home she worked so hard to acquire. The Lotus Project is a program of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston that helps homeless female veterans rebuild their lives. I am thankful for the Lotus Project, and so is a woman named Yolanda. Yolanda served her country honorably in the Armed Forces but her three-year tour of duty left her with emotional scars that still affect her today. She was a victim of verbal abuse by an officer, which escalated to physical violence, and then to sexual assault. After reporting the abuse, violence and assault she had suffered, she underwent psychological counseling and was subsequently honorably discharged. But the emotional and psychic scars resulting from her traumatic experience did not disappear after her separation from the military. To combat them and cope with the pressure of caring for her two young sons, Yolanda turned to drugs and alcohol, and committed offenses that landed her in prison. During her third stint in prison, Yolanda renewed her relationship with God and dedicated herself to a new life, but she needed help to get there. When the Lotus Project helped her get an apartment under her own name, she cried; then with the help and support of the Lotus Project she went about the business of furthering her education so she can support her family and be a positive role model for her children. Mr. Speaker, a woman named Esmerelda was living in a rapidly deteriorating situation. When she became a victim of domestic violence, she knew she had to leave. But because her immigration paperwork was not in order, she did not believe it would be safe to turn to law enforcement authorities for help. Thankfully, she was able to turn to Catholic Charities who helped her secure safe housing, assisted her in applying for an adjustment of her immigration status, and helped her secure employment at a full-time job that support her and her daughter. These are but a few of the countless miracles of hope and healing that Catholic organizations and agencies work every day and which demonstrate, as the Talmud teaches, that ``whosoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.'' Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that Members of Congress will receive the hopeful message of the first pontiff to address a joint session of the Congress of the United States with open hearts and in a spirit of goodwill. If we do this, I am confident we will be able to come together and find the common ground necessary to address the real problems and concerns of the American people such as fixing our broken immigration system, making college affordable, reducing the economic disparities, and reforming the criminal justice system. In the hopeful message of Pope Francis, we are shown the way to grace. Mr. Speaker, all Americans are honored by the visit to the United States of Pope Francis, an amazing servant of humanity and an inspiration to people the world over.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this Nation has a great history, and I would ask the question: What would Franklin Delano Roosevelt do, President Eisenhower, or Ronald Reagan, or John F. Kennedy, when a question from someone in the room attacked and presented a negative attitude about Muslims or Catholics or those in the Jewish faith or Protestant? Well, it happened in a townhall meeting of a Presidential candidate. This person thought that they were maligning and deriding the President of the United States when they called him Muslim and that he was not a citizen; yet no voice rang out in this townhall meeting to oppose that heinous and horrific attitude toward individuals of the Muslim faith, who actually have fought on behalf of the flag of the United States of America. We malign no people for a general issue that all of us know we are all against, the world family is against. Now, I ask this Congress to likewise fund this government because the last time, when the Republicans shut the government down in 2013, we lost $24 billion. Because you are denying women health care, you now want to defund the government and, at the same time, keep jobs away from the American people by not reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank. Not only were 300 jobs lost, but 400 jobs may be lost by a businessman in Kenya who was waiting for the Export-Import Bank. He is an American, and he had 400 jobs. I say, Mr. Speaker, stop the foolishness. Act like the history of this Nation, and stand up for what is right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would not be here on the floor to lend suspicion to the faithfulness of anyone, but as evidenced by what we have been hearing from our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is nothing but a politically charged debate and an undermining of women's health care. We made it very clear in the Committee on the Judiciary that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. We know that because the Texas Supreme Court, in 2014 and 2015, rolled back the Texas law that was going to close a number of clinics evidencing and providing for women's health care. Planned Parenthood provides for 378,000 pap tests and 487,000 breast exams. 87,000 women found out they had cancer through Planned Parenthood. As it relates to the fetal tissue, we know that there are laws in place that do not allow the sale of such, but we also know the fetal tissue research has generated spinal cord, neurological research and cures. Therefore, let me say to my colleagues, the law of the land is Roe v. Wade. This is a protracted political fight, and I would only say, ask the person who filmed these particular videos. He stole the identity of his high school classmate to do this underhanded work. That shows you that this is a political effort. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying bills. I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to defund Planned Parenthood and undermine women's right to make their own choices regarding their reproductive healthcare. Instead of spending time fueling a politically-charged attack on America's leading provider of reproductive health care services for women, and attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems. We are brought here today to examine the practices and procedures of Planned Parenthood. Yet, tellingly, the Majority has failed to reach out or obtain any direct information or witnesses from Planned Parenthood. The bills before us are offered not for the purpose of exposing any wrongdoing of Planned Parenthood, but simply to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government. The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion. Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. 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 struck down as 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 that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Texas has 268,580 square miles, only second in size to the state of California. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. 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. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms. And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of medical care provided by Planned Parenthood. But we know that's not really the case. If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion. That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics. Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question of ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance. Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not. A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue. Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement. In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers. The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement. It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades. Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases. One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year. The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue. When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided. Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country. It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country. Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia. Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety. Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered. All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing service to minors. Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country. To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year. They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood. Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly. The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood. It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board. At the same time, national media is reporting about a major coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this country. The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital role in defending women's health and rights. Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation. My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health services. I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bills.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and a strong defender of the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 758, the ``Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015,'' which can more accurately be described as the ``Denial of Access to Civil Justice Act.'' This ill-considered and misguided legislation would rescind the current version of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which has been in effect since 1993, and reinstate the disastrous 1983 version of the rule. I strongly oppose H.R. 758 because it hampers the ability of federal district courts to deter frivolous litigation--while preserving access to the courts--by limiting the ability of judges to exercise discretion in imposing sanctions for Rule 11 violations. Under H.R. 758, federal district judges would be required to impose sanctions for all violations of Rule 11, even in cases in which it would be manifestly inappropriate to do so. Mr. Speaker, the reason the version of Rule 11(c) in effect from 1983-1993 was rescinded is because the results of its 10-year experiment proved conclusively that it did not work. Instead of reducing frivolous litigation, mandatory imposition of sanction actually had the opposite effect of increasing litigation. Indeed, according to the American Bar Association, ``during the decade of that the 1983 version of the Rule requiring mandatory sanctions was in effect, an entire industry of litigation revolving around Rule 11 claims inundated the legal system and wasted valuable court resources and time.'' Studies by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the administrative arm of the federal judiciary, found that the 1983 version of Rule ii(c) quickly became a tool of abuse. Aggressive filings of Rule 11 sanctions motions required expenditure of tremendous resources on Rule 11 battles having nothing to do with the merits of the case and everything to do with strategic gamesmanship. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 758 would undermine civil rights cases. During the decade between 1983 and 1993, mandatory sanctions under Rule 11 were disproportionately imposed in civil rights cases. A leading study on this issue showed that although civil rights cases made up 11.4% of federal cases filed during this period, 22.7% of the cases in which sanctions had been imposed were civil rights cases. If this bill were to be enacted, once again, as happened between 1983 and 1993, defendants in civil rights cases could wield Rule 11 as a weapon against legitimate plaintiffs, tying up civil rights cases in long and costly satellite litigation on Rule 11 and preventing legitimate civil rights cases from moving forward. For these reasons, I urge all Members to vote against H.R. 758.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 720, The Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015, which improves intergovernmental planning and communication during security incidents at domestic airports. As a former chair and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee Transportation Security Subcommittee, I understand how important this bill will be in enhancing safety and protection in the air transit industry, not just for our citizens but for our Transportation Security Officers working in the line of duty. This legislation, which requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to devote more resources for planning and communication during and in case of threats or emergencies, is prompted by the tragic death of Gerardo I. Hernandez, a Transportation Security Officer who was killed in the line of duty at Los Angeles International Airport on November 1, 2013. In a senseless act of violence, the love and care TSA Officer Gerardo Ismael Hernandez gave to his wife, Ana Machuca, his 14-year-old son and 12-year-old daughter, and the community he served, ended entirely too soon. Mr. Speaker, Gerardo Hernandez was what we want in an American, he is in spirit and deed the type of person we want in our Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). At just 39 years old, Gerardo Hernandez was the first TSA officer to lose his life in the line of duty in the 12-year history of the agency. He died from several gunshot wounds inflicted by an assailant while on duty at the Los Angeles International Airport. Gerardo Hernandez was among those thousands of TSA employees carrying out their mission to keep the airways safe for traveling citizens, and their work across the nation cannot be understated. On average, TSA officers screen 1.7 million air passengers at more than 450 airports across the nation, which averaged over 637.5 million passengers in 2012. In 2014, the TSA screened more than 653 million passengers, or nearly 1.8 million persons per day. The Bush International and the William P. Hobby Airports that serve the Houston metropolitan area are essential hubs for domestic and international air travel for Houston and the region: Nearly 40 million passengers traveled through Bush International Airport (IAH) and an additional 10 million traveled through William P. Hobby (HOU). More than 650 daily departures occur at IAH. IAH is the 11th busiest airport in the U.S. for total passenger traffic. IAH has 12 all-cargo airlines handling more than 419,205 metric tons of cargo in 2012. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the implementation of H.R. 720 would cost about $2.5 million in 2015. Of the $2.5 million, an estimated $1.5 million would serve to provide additional technical assistance to airports, and the remaining $1 million would be used to evaluate the interoperability of communication systems used by emergency response teams. Mr. Speaker, this month marked the 14th anniversary of the tragedy of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We will never forget how that day changed our lives, and the lives of every American generation to follow. Security measures in airports across the country have been enhanced dramatically, and the resulting inconvenience is a small price to pay for the protective measures needed to keep the travelling public safe. It is people like Gerardo Hernandez who do their best to make the necessary screening as least intrusive and burdensome as possible, consistent with the mission of ensuring the security of all members of the flying public. TSA officers willingly risk their lives to make sure the job gets done, and for that we owe these men and women a debt of gratitude. In honor of Gerardo Hernandez's contribution to his country, I strongly support this bill and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the good news of this place is a congratulations offered by my colleague just a few minutes ago to a 90- year-old lady who served in World War II and had never received a thank you. Wouldn't it be a positive step to reflect on America and to be able to hold in this body positive things that shows the Congress working together? Yet, as has been mentioned, our colleagues want to defund Planned Parenthood and shut down the government. I wonder whether or not, in this debate coming up, that any of the moderators will ask whether any of those debating will stand in shutting down the government. I wonder whether they will ask them whether they support voting rights and will support the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, like the Americans who walked 1,000 miles for justice. I wonder whether or not, in fact, they would ask them whether they care anything about criminal justice reform and decriminalizing, if you will, this system where it has mass incarceration, children in jail, where it doesn't believe in rehabilitation for those who have served. I wonder whether these individuals that have been making a lot of noise in front of the public who will be in the public eye all over America, Mr. Speaker, whether they will answer the real questions about America and bring us together. Voting rights, health care for women, and making sure that we fix the criminal justice system, those are the questions that should be asked tonight.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in recognizing and commemorating the 14th anniversary of the attacks on our homeland on September 11, 2001. The years that have passed since that day have not dimmed my memory or diminished my resolve to see an end to terrorism not only in the United States, but around the world. As a Member of Congress and a senior Member of the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, both of which deal with national security issues, I have long been committed and engaged in efforts to develop policies that anticipate and respond to new and emerging challenges to the security of our nation and the peace and safety of the world. On Tuesday of this week the House Committee on Homeland Security held a full committee hearing in New York City at ``Ground Zero,'' which is now the home of the National September 11 Memorial and Museum. I will never forget that day. Today, September 11, 2015 is the 14th anniversary of the attacks that killed 2,977 men, women and children. I stood on the East Front steps of the Capitol on September 11, 2001, along with 150 members of the House of Representatives and sang ``God Bless America.'' September 11, 2001 remains a tragedy that defines our nation's history, but the final chapter will be written by those who are charged with keeping our nation and its people safe while preserving the way of life that terrorists seek to change. I visited the site of the World Trade Center Towers in the aftermath of the attacks and grieved over the deaths of so many of our men, women, and children. I want to thank and commend the work of our first responder community on that day and every day since September 11 for their efforts to protect their communities and our nation from acts of terrorism. I watched as thousands of first responders, construction workers, and volunteers worked to recover the remains of the dead, and removed the tons of debris, while placing their own lives and health at risk. The men and women who worked at ``Ground Zero'' were called by a sense of duty to help in our nation's greatest time of need since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. There is unfinished work for those first responders who were injured or suffered illnesses during and after the September 11, 2001 attacks. September 11 will forever remain a part of our national memory and for those who serve in Congress a clarion call to be vigilant against those who would do our nation harm. To respond to the medical needs of the thousands of people who became ill from exposure to the toxic environment at Ground Zero, Congress passed the James Zadroga September 11 Care Act (9/11 Care Act), which provides rescue and recover workers with health care to treat the conditions that resulted from their exposure to toxic dust after the terror attack. The 9/11 Care Act will expire in October 2016. I urge my Colleagues on the Committee to join me in seeking reauthorization of the 9/11 Care Act this year. Under the leadership of President Obama, Bin Laden was found and killed. President Obama was given a daunting task--after the reckless decision to invade Iraq without provocation. This single decision to engage in a war of choice and not necessity resulted in the situation that we see in the Middle East with ISIL and the massive displacement of people seeking safety from a war zone that covers Syria and Iraq's borders. Today, this nation faces new threats from terrorists. We also have the benefit of first responder professionals who guard us, protect us, and watch over us against those who would seek to do us harm. The men and women who serve our communities as law enforcement officers, firefighters, EMT's, nurses, doctors, and dozens of other professionals that train to be ready to detect, deter, and defend against another September 11. I have introduced the ``Families of Responders Identification of Emergency Needs in Designated Situations'' called the ``FRIENDS Act,'' to bring a measure of peace to those who will be called to the front lines in our nation's fight against terrorism and terrorists acts at home. I thank the staff of the Homeland Security Committee and the first responder organizations for their assistance in improving the bill. The FRIENDS Act would result in the first report ever produced on the state of family support planning for the families of first responders. Federal family support planning is important to homeland security because this area of continuity of operations planning addresses the health and safety needs of first responder families during terrorist attacks or incidents as well as other emergencies. When first responders are called to duty--whether it is September 11, 2001 or to protect and serve during Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, or Sandy or other emergencies--they should not be concerned about the safety needs of their families. I look forward to the opportunity for each member of the House to cast a vote in favor of first responder families by supporting passage of the FRIENDS Act. But today let us remember those who perished on this awful day 14 years ago, and rededicate ourselves to honoring their sacrifice by doing all we can to protect our homeland and all who dwell peaceably therein. First Responders Killed in the Line of Duty on September 11, 2001 Of the 2,977 victims killed in the September 11 attacks, 411 were emergency workers in New York City who responded to the World Trade Center. This included: Fire Department of New York (FDNY): Chief Peter J. Ganci, Jr., 54, the highest ranking uniformed fire officer in the department; First Deputy Fire Commissioner William M. Feehan, 72; Marshal Ronald Paul Bucca, 47; Chaplain Mychal Judge, 68. Battalion 1: Chief Matthew Lancelot Ryan, 54; Lt. Paul Thomas Mitchell, 46. Battalion 2: Chief William McGovern, 49; Chief Richard Prunty, 57; Faustino Apostol, Jr., 55. Battalion 4: Lt. Thomas O'Hagan, 43. Battalion 6: Chief John P. Williamson, 46. Battalion 7: Chief Orio Palmer, 45; Lt. Stephen G. Harrell, 44; Lt. Philip Scott Petti, 43. Battalion 8: Chief Thomas Patrick DeAngelis, 51; Thomas McCann, 45. Battalion 9: Chief Dennis Lawrence Devlin, 51; Chief Edward F. Geraghty, 45; Lt. Charles William Garbarini, 44; Carl Asaro, 39; Alan D. Feinberg, 48. Battalion 11: Chief John M. Paolillo, 51. Battalion 12: Chief Frederick Claude Scheffold, Jr., 57. Battalion 22: Lt. Charles Joseph Margiotta, 44. Battalion 43: Lt. Geoffrey E. Guja, 49. Battalion 47: Lt. Anthony Jovic, 39. Battalion 48: Chief Joseph Grzelak, 52; Michael Leopoldo Bocchino, 45. Battalion 49: Chief John Moran, 42. Battalion 50: Chief Lawrence T. Stack, 58. Battalion 57: Chief Dennis Cross, 60; Chief Joseph Ross Marchbanks, Jr., 47. Division 1: Capt. Joseph D. Farrelly, 47; Capt. Thomas Moody, 45. Division 11: Capt. Timothy M. Stackpole, 42. Division 15: Chief Thomas Theodore Haskell, Jr., 37; Capt. Martin J. Egan, Jr., 36; Capt. William O'Keefe, 48. Engine 1: Lt. Andrew Desperito, 43; Michael T. Weinberg, 34. Engine 4: Calixto Anaya, Jr., 35; James C. Riches, 29; Thomas G. Schoales, 27; Paul A. Tegtmeier, 41. Engine 5: Manuel Del Valle, Jr., 32. Engine 6: Paul Beyer, 37; Thomas Holohan, 36; William R. Johnston, 31. Engine 8: Robert Parro, 35. Engine 10: Lt. Gregg Arthur Atlas, 44; Jeffrey James Olsen, 31. Engine 21: Capt. William Francis Burke, Jr., 46. Engine 22: Thomas Anthony Casoria, 29; Michael J. Elferis, 27; Vincent D. Kane, 37; Martin E. McWilliams, 35. Engine 23: Robert McPadden, 30; James Nicholas Pappageorge, 29; Hector Luis Tirado, Jr., 30; Mark P. Whitford, 31. Engine 26: Capt. Thomas Farino, 37; Dana R Hannon, 29. Engine 29: Michael Ragusa, 29. Engine 33: Lt. Kevin Pfeifer, 42; David Arce, 36; Michael Boyle, 37; Robert Evans, 36; Keithroy Marcellus Maynard, 30. Engine 37: John Giordano, 47. Engine 40: Lt. John F. Ginley, 37; Kevin Bracken, 37; Michael D. D'Auria, 25; Bruce Gary, 51; Steven Mercado, 38. Engine 50: Robert W. Spear, Jr., 30. Engine 54: Paul John Gill, 34; Jose Guadalupe, 37; Christopher Santora, 23. Engine 55: Lt. Peter L. Freund, 45; Robert Lane, 28; Christopher Mozzillo, 27; Stephen P. Russell, 40. Engine 58: Lt. Robert B. Nagel, 55. Engine 74: Ruben D. Correa, 44. Engine 201: Lt. Paul Richard Martini, 37; Gregory Joseph Buck, 37; Christopher Pickford, 32; John Albert Schardt, 34. Engine 205: Lt. Robert Francis Wallace, 43. Engine 207: Karl Henry Joseph, 25; Shawn Edward Powell, 32; Kevin O. Reilly, 28. Engine 214: Lt. Carl John Bedigian, 35; John Joseph Florio, 33; Michael Edward Roberts, 31; Kenneth Thomas Watson, 39. Engine 216: Daniel Suhr, 37. Engine 217: Lt. Kenneth Phelan, 41; Steven Coakley, 36; Philip T. Hayes, 67; Neil Joseph Leavy, 34. Engine 219: John Chipura, 39. Engine 226: Brian McAleese, 36; David Paul De Rubbio, 38; Stanley S. Smagala, Jr., 36. Engine 230: Lt. Brian G. Ahearn, 43; Frank Bonomo, 42; Michael Scott Carlo, 34; Jeffrey Stark, 30; Eugene Whelan, 31; Edward James White III, 30. Engine 235: Lt. Steven Bates, 42; Nicholas Paul Chiofalo, 39; Francis Esposito, 32; Lee S. Fehling, 28; Lawrence G. Veling, 44. Engine 238: Lt. Glenn E. Wilkinson, 46. Engine 279: Ronnie Lee Henderson, 52; Anthony Rodriguez, 36. Engine 285: Raymond R. York, 45. Engine 320: Capt. James J. Corrigan, 60. Haz-Mat 1: Lt. John A. Crisci, 48; Dennis M. Carey, 51; Martin N. DeMeo, 47; Thomas Gardner, 39; Jonathan R. Hohmann, 48; Dennis Scauso, 46; Kevin Joseph Smith, 47. Ladder 2: Capt. Frederick Ill, Jr, 49; Michael J. Clarke, 27; George DiPasquale, 33; Denis P. Germain, 33; Daniel Edward Harlin, 41; Carl Molinaro, 32; Dennis Michael Mulligan, 32. Ladder 3: Capt. Patrick J. Brown, 48; Lt. Kevin W. Donnelly, 43; Michael Carroll, 39; James Raymond Coyle, 26; Gerard Dewan, 35; Jeffrey John Giordano, 45; Joseph Maloney, 45; John Kevin McAvoy, 47; Timothy Patrick McSweeney, 37; Joseph J. Ogren, 30; Steven John Olson, 38. Ladder 4: Capt. David Terence Wooley, 54; Lt. Daniel O'Callaghan, 42; Joseph Angelini, Jr, 38; Peter Brennan, 30; Michael E. Brennan, 27; Michael Haub, 34; Michael F. Lynch, 33; Samuel Oitice, 45; John James Tipping II, 33. Ladder 5: Lt. Vincent Francis Giammona, 40; Lt. Michael Warchola, 51; Louis Arena, 32; Andrew Brunn, 28; Thomas Hannafin, 36; Paul Hanlon Keating, 38; John A. Santore, 49; Gregory Thomas Saucedo, 31. Ladder 7: Capt. Vernon Allan Richard, 53; George Cain, 35; Robert Joseph Foti, 42; Richard Muldowney Jr, 40; Charles Mendez, 38; Vincent Princiotta, 39. Ladder 8: Lt. Vincent Gerard Halloran, 43. Ladder 9: Gerard Baptiste, 35; John P. Tierney, 27; Jeffrey P. Walz, 37. Ladder 10: Sean Patrick Tallon, 26. Ladder 11: Lt. Michael Quilty, 42; Michael F. Cammarata, 22; Edward James Day, 45; John F. Heffernan, 37; Richard John Kelly, Jr, 50; Robert King, Jr, 36; Matthew Rogan, 37. Ladder 12: Angel L. Juarbe, Jr, 35; Michael D. Mullan, 34. Ladder 13: Capt. Walter G. Hynes, 46; Thomas Hetzel, 33; Dennis McHugh, 34; Thomas E. Sabella, 44; Gregory Stajk, 46. Ladder 15: Lt. Joseph Gerard Leavey, 45; Richard Lanard Allen, 30; Arthur Thaddeus Barry, 35; Thomas W. Kelly, 50; Scott Kopytko, 32; Scott Larsen, 35; Douglas E. Oelschlager, 36; Eric T. Olsen, 41. Ladder 16: Lt. Raymond E. Murphy, 46; Robert Curatolo, 31. Ladder 20: Capt. John R. Fischer, 46; John Patrick Burnside, 36; James Michael Gray, 34; Sean S. Hanley, 35; David Laforge, 50; Robert Thomas Linnane, 33; Robert D. McMahon, 35. Ladder 21: Gerald T. Atwood, 38; Gerard Duffy, 53; Keith Glascoe, 38; Joseph Henry, 25; William E. Krukowski, 36; Benjamin Suarez, 34. Ladder 24: Capt. Daniel J. Brethel, 43; Stephen Elliot Belson, 51. Ladder 25: Lt. Glenn C. Perry, 41; Matthew Barnes, 37; John Michael Collins, 42; Kenneth Kumpel, 42; Robert Minara, 54; Joseph Rivelli, 43; Paul G. Ruback, 50. Ladder 27: John Marshall, 35. Ladder 35: Capt. Frank Callahan, 51; James Andrew Giberson, 43; Vincent S. Morello, 34; Michael Otten, 42; Michael Roberts, 30. Ladder 38: Joseph Spor, Jr., 35. Ladder 42: Peter Alexander Bielfeld, 44. Ladder 101: Lt. Joseph Gullickson, 37; Patrick Byrne, 39; Salvatore B. Calabro, 38; Brian Cannizzaro, 30; Thomas J. Kennedy, 36; Joseph Maffeo, 31; Terence A. McShane, 37. Ladder 105: Capt. Vincent Brunton, 43; Thomas Richard Kelly, 39; Henry Alfred Miller, Jr, 51; Dennis O'Berg, 28; Frank Anthony Palombo, 46. Ladder 111: Lt. Christopher P. Sullivan, 39. Ladder 118: Lt. Robert M. Regan, 48; Joseph Agnello, 35; Vernon Paul Cherry, 49; Scott Matthew Davidson, 33; Leon Smith, Jr., 48; Peter Anthony Vega, 36. Ladder 131: Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, 28. Ladder 132: Andrew Jordan, 36; Michael Kiefer, 25; Thomas Mingione, 34; John T. Vigiano II, 36; Sergio Villanueva, 33. Ladder 136: Michael Joseph Cawley, 32. Ladder 166: William X. Wren, 61. Rescue 1: Capt. Terence S. Hatton, 41; Lt. Dennis Mojica, 50; Joseph Angelini, Sr., 63; Gary Geidel, 44; William Henry, 49; Kenneth Joseph Marino, 40; Michael Montesi, 39; Gerard Terence Nevins, 46; Patrick J. O'Keefe, 44; Brian Edward Sweeney, 29; David M. Weiss, 41. Rescue 2: Lt. Peter C. Martin, 43; William David Lake, 44; Daniel F. Libretti, 43; John Napolitano, 32; Kevin O'Rourke, 44; Lincoln Quappe, 38; Edward Rall, 44. Rescue 3: Christopher Joseph Blackwell, 42; Thomas Foley, 32; Thomas Gambino, Jr., 48; Raymond Meisenheimer, 46; Donald J. Regan, 47; Gerard Patrick Schrang, 45. Rescue 4: Capt. Brian Hickey, 47; Lt. Kevin Dowdell, 46; Terrence Patrick Farrell, 45; William J. Mahoney, 37; Peter Allen Nelson, 42; Durrell V. Pearsall, 34. Rescue 5: Capt. Louis Joseph Modafferi, 45; Lt. Harvey Harrell, 49; John P. Bergin, 39; Carl Vincent Bini, 44; Michael Curtis Fiore, 46; Andre G. Fletcher, 37; Douglas Charles Miller, 34; Jeffrey Matthew Palazzo, 33; Nicholas P. Rossomando, 35; Allan Tarasiewicz, 45. Special Operations: Chief Raymond Mathew Downey, 63; Capt. Patrick J. Waters, 44; Lt. Timothy Higgins, 43; Lt. Michael Thomas Russo, Sr, 44. Squad 1: Capt. James M. Amato, 43; Lt. Edward A. D'Atri, 38; Lt. Michael Esposito, 41; Lt. Michael N. Fodor, 53; Brian Bilcher, 37; Gary Box, 37; Thomas M. Butler, 37; Peter Carroll, 42; Robert Cordice, 28; David J. Fontana, 37; Matthew David Garvey, 37; Stephen Gerard Siller, 34. Squad 18: Lt. William E. McGinn, 43; Eric Allen, 44; Andrew Fredricks, 40; David Halderman, 40; Timothy Haskell, 34; Manuel Mojica, 37; Lawrence Virgilio, 38. Squad 41: Lt. Michael K. Healey, 42; Thomas Patrick Cullen III, 31; Robert Hamilton, 43; Michael J. Lyons, 32; Gregory Sikorsky, 34; R. Bruce Van Hine, 48. Squad 252: Tarel Coleman, 32; Thomas Kuveikis, 48; Peter J. Langone, 41; Patrick Lyons, 34; Kevin Prior, 28. Squad 288: Lt. Ronald T. Kerwin, 42; Ronnie E. Gies, 43; Joseph Hunter, 31; Jonathan Lee Ielpi, 29; Adam David Rand, 30; Timothy Matthew Welty, 34. EMS Battalion 49: Paramedic Carlos R. Lillo, 37. EMS Battalion 57: Paramedic Ricardo J. Quinn, 40. Port Authority Police Department: Supt. Ferdinand V. Morrone, 63; Chief James A. Romito, 51; Lt. Robert D. Cirri; Insp. Anthony P. Infante, Jr., 47; Capt. Kathy Nancy Mazza, 46; Sgt. Robert M. Kaulfers, 49; Donald James McIntyre, 38; Walter Arthur McNeil, 53; Joseph Michael Navas, 44; James Nelson, 40; Alfonse J. Niedermeyer, 40; James Wendell Parham, 32; Dominick A. Pezzulo, 36; Antonio J. Rodrigues, 35; Richard Rodriguez, 31; Bruce Albert Reynolds, 41; Christopher C. Amoroso, 29; Maurice V. Barry, 48; Clinton Davis, Sr., 38; Donald A. Foreman, 53; Gregg J. Froehner, 46; Uhuru Gonga Houston, 32; George G. Howard, 44; Thomas E. Gorman; Stephen Huczko, Jr., 44; Paul William Jurgens, 47; Liam Callahan, 44; Paul Laszczynski, 49; David Prudencio Lemagne, 27; John Joseph Lennon, Jr., 44; John Dennis Levi, 50; James Francis Lynch, 47; John P. Skala, 31; Walwyn W. Stuart, Jr., 28; Kenneth F. Tietjen, 31; Nathaniel Webb; Michael T. Wholey; Sirius, K-9. New York City Police Department: Sgt. Timothy A. Roy, Sr., 36; Sgt. John Gerard Coughlin, 43; Sgt. Rodney C. Gillis, 33; Sgt. Michael S. Curtin, 45; Det. Joseph V. Vigiano, 34; Det. Claude Daniel Richards, 46; Moira Ann Smith, 38; Ramon Suarez, 45; Paul Talty, 40; Santos Valentin, Jr., 39; Walter E. Weaver, 30; Ronald Philip Kloepfer, 39; Thomas M. Langone, 39; James Patrick Leahy, 38; Brian Grady McDonnell, 38; John William Perry, 38; Glen Kerrin Pettit, 30; John D'Allara, 47; Vincent Danz, 38; Jerome M. P. Dominguez, 37; Stephen P. Driscoll, 38; Mark Joseph Ellis, 26; Robert Fazio, Jr., 41. Private emergency medical services: Keith Fairben, 24--a paramedic who worked for the New York Presbyterian Hospital; Richard Pearlman, 18--an EMT who worked for the Forest Hills Volunteer Ambulance; Mario Santoro, 28--a paramedic who worked for the New York Presbyterian Medical Center; Yamel Merino, 24--an EMT for Metrocare/Montefiore Medical Center for three years; Mohammad Salman Hamdani, 23--a part-time FDNY Certified EMT and also a member of the New York City Police Department Cadet Corps for three years; Marc Sullins, 30--an EMT who worked with Cabrini Medical Center; Mark Schwartz, 50--an EMT who worked for Hunter Ambulance; Jeff Simpson, 38--an EMT who worked for the Dumfries-Triangle Rescue Squad, and also an employee for Oracle Corporation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what a weighty responsibility to stand on this floor on September 11. For those of us who were here in this body on that day, there is no more solemn responsibility than the national security of this Nation. For that reason, I am gratified to my ranking member for being able to serve with him through those very difficult times and to be one of the original members of the new Homeland Security Committee. I have stayed on both of those committees, who hold in their hands the constitutional privileges and rights, but, also, the national security. So I rise today with a heavy burden to speak to this very difficult decision. So I start by saying I stand here as a mother, and I will choose to speak to that child in Israel and the child in urban and rural America and the children around the world. I would ask my colleagues the question: What is our burden and responsibility to those children, that, if we have an opportunity not for peace, but an opportunity to stop a potential nuclear rogue, would we not take that opportunity or would we find all kinds of obstacles? I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, and I rise today in support of this Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I thank the President and Secretary Kerry, but I thank, more importantly, Republicans and Democrats and Independents. I thank the negotiators. Mr. Speaker, what we have is the statement and the agreement signed by Iran that it will never, never become a nuclear power. This agreement creates an enforceable roadmap for dismantling Iran's nuclear program. Before the interim joint agreement in 2013, Iran went from operating approximately 164 centrifuges to 10,000, and then they went to 19,000. But this agreement brings them down to 6,000. Is that not a standing in the gap against a known actor of terrorism? And then, of course, we have them at 300-kg enriched uranium, and they are only allowed to enrich 3.67. We have a roadmap for the various entities that contributed to their ability to make a nuclear bomb. Make no mistake about it. You cannot take away knowledge. Even if you bomb Iran through war, you cannot take away the knowledge. And they will ultimately have the ability to come back again. Now we have an agreement with the P5+1. This is not Munich, for Munich was a capitulation. No one in this agreement is capitulating to Iran. We are demanding that Iran cease and desist. Tell American people the truth. This is the best pathway to ensuring the scientist in all. And for those who say that it is a reckless regime or scheme, rather, of inspection, they are wrong. Because the only 24-day process deals with the undeclared and even that has an ultimatum that the sanctions will snap back. The IAEA inspectors are trained by the United States. The United States will be present on site at the IAEA. Many Members traveled there and got a direct briefing of the intenseness of their inspection process. America will be on site when they come back with their inspection materials, and we will be at the table. We will also be engaged in the redesign of some of those facilities in Iran for more civilian uses. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, that, if we have the opportunity to save a child from a speeding train, would we not take that opportunity to save a child from a speeding train? I think we would. We need to save the children of this world. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3461, and in strong opposition to H. Res. 412 and H.R. 3460. I support H.R. 3461 and oppose H.R. 3460 and H. Res. 412 because I support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (``JCPOA'') as the best and most realistically attainable means of preventing Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. Mr. Speaker, more than twenty-five years ago, as a young mother, I first visited Israel and the Holy Land. I have returned many times since then to the region that gave birth to three of the world's great religions, civilizations, and cultures. And I have been a passionate supporter of the Mickey Leland Kibbutzim Internship program, which for over 20 years has enabled inner-city high school students who live or study in the 18th Congressional District the opportunity to spend a summer in Israel. As a Member of Congress and a senior Member of the Committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary, both of which deal with national security issues, I have had the opportunity to visit many countries in the Middle East. I have long been committed and engaged in efforts to develop policies that anticipate and respond to new and emerging challenges to the security of our nation and the peace and safety of the world. The threat to regional stability, world peace, and America's security posed by Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon is one of the greatest challenges now facing the international community. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the P5+1, led by the United States is a response to that challenge. I have consulted with policy professionals, scientists and other experts, and have reviewed many publications supporting and opposing the agreement. I have met with and listened intently to supporters and opponents of the JCPOA in my congressional district whose commitment to peace and security is unquestioned and whose counsel on issues relating to Israel's security and America's policies regarding the Middle East I have always valued and will continue to seek. After this lengthy period of review, consultation, and reflection, I have concluded that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represents the best and surest means of achieving the goal of preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, the most rigorous and intrusive in the history of nuclear nonproliferation agreements. Under the JCPOA, the IAEA will have access to all elements of Iran's nuclear program, including those that have never been subject to inspection. The JCPOA, for example, requires Iran to permit IAEA inspectors to monitor the entire uranium supply chain which will enable them to detect any diversion of nuclear material. And, to enhance the number of IAEA eyes and ears on the ground, the JCPOA provides that about 130-150 IAEA inspectors will be deployed. Additionally, the JCPOA makes applicable to Iran the ``Additional Protocol'' (AP) to its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, which is one of the verification agreements the IAEA uses to investigate allegations of any clandestine nuclear activities in Iran, and which requires Iran to detail all of its nuclear activities, including mining and milling and research and development activities. I take seriously the concern that has been expressed regarding the 24-day period for resolving disputes over IAEA's requests for access to certain locations. However, it should be noted that this 24-day period applies only to locations not covered by the comprehensive agreement or the Additional Protocol. Moreover, I am persuaded by experts, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, a Nobel laureate in physics, that the trace evidence created by activities involving nuclear material remains detectable for months, even years. Finally, under the JCPOA, intransigence by Iran in permitting IAEA's inspectors access to requested locations can in itself be deemed an act of non-compliance subjecting Iran to the threat of re-imposition of sanctions. Additionally, the IAEA must be satisfied with this inspection regime with Iran and there must be a major reduction in the stockpile before funds held in escrow are released to Iran. Critics of the JCPOA are correct in pointing out that the agreement does not condition sanctions relief on Iran's renunciation of its past and present support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah. That is why I take seriously the concern that Iran may use some of the proceeds of sanction relief, approximately $56 billion, to support terrorist groups, especially those that are hostile to Israel. But the best way to respond to this threat is not to reject the JCPOA but to work with our allies and the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The JCPOA makes it easier to confront, deter, and defeat terrorist groups supported by Iran. Nothing in the JCPOA limits the ability of the United States to exercise all of its authority to sanction Iranian entities for their support for terrorism. President Obama has made clear that he intends to exercise that authority: ``With very limited exceptions, Iran will continue to be denied access to our market--the world's largest--and we will maintain powerful sanctions targeting Iran's support for groups such as Hizballah, its destabilizing role in Yemen, its backing of the Assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. ``The United States reserves its right to maintain and enforce existing sanctions and even to deploy new sanctions to address those continuing concerns, which we fully intend to do when circumstances warrant.'' After discussions with Administration and outside experts, I believe that between the IAEA's inspections (the results of which the United States will continue to have immediate and ongoing access) and our intelligence community's oversight, the necessary verification measures are in place to ensure we can detect any illicit nuclear activity that Iran might attempt to undertake. Finally, I believe it is important to acknowledge that by preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, the JCPOA contributes substantially to making the region and the world safer. But an increase in safety should not be confused with an absence of danger, especially for Israel. Even with the JCPOA, there will remain actors who are intent on doing harm to Israel. That is why I strongly support a substantial increase in assistance to Israel to make plain to any of its adversaries that Israel's security is sacrosanct to the United States. Specifically, I strongly support a new 10-year Memorandum of Understanding with Israel that enhances our strong security relationship. I also support an increase in missile defense funding so that the United States and Israel can accelerate the co-development of the Arrow-3 and David's Sling defense systems. And to ensure that Israel retains its qualitative military edge (QME), I support further military enhancements that are now underway. Mr. Speaker, since its entrance into World War II in 1941, the United States has been the leading force for good, for human dignity, and for peace in every region of the world. From the establishment of the United Nations, the creation of NATO, the recognition of Israel, the United States has been the world's indispensable nation. In the words of former President Lyndon Johnson, we support Israel ``Because it is right.'' And as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Israel's right to exist as a state in security is incontestable.'' Dr. King believed in the dignity of all humanity and my best hopes are that a non-nuclear Iran, ceasing to foment terrorism, will be the catalyst for a Middle East in which all faiths and all peoples are respected, and which enjoys economic prosperity and cultural diversity. Simply put, I want peace and security for the people of the United States and its allies, the Middle East, including Israel, and the world. Mr. Speaker, the JCPOA negotiated by the P5+1, led by the United States, is in keeping with its tradition of global leadership and desire for peace and security for all persons in all nations. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the P5+1 and led by the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 3461, which is a vote for a world in which Iran does not and will not possess any nuclear weapons with which it could threaten neighboring countries in the region, especially our steadfast ally, Israel. The Iran Deal Benefits U.S. National Security An Open Letter from Retired Generals and Admirals On July 14, 2015, after two years of intense international negotiations, an agreement was announced by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China and Russia to contain Iran's nuclear program. We, the undersigned retired military officers, support the agreement as the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The international deal blocks the potential pathways to a nuclear bomb, provides for intrusive verification, and strengthens American national security. America and our allies, in the Middle East and around the world, will be safer when this agreement is fully implemented. It is not based on trust; the deal requires verification and tough sanctions for failure to comply. There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table. And if the deal is rejected by America, the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark. We agree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who said on July 29, 2015, ``[r]elieving the risk of a nuclear conflict with Iran diplomatically is superior than trying to do that militarily.'' If at some point it becomes necessary to consider military action against Iran, gathering sufficient international support for such an effort would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance. We must exhaust diplomatic options before moving to military ones. For these reasons, for the security of our Nation, we call upon Congress and the American people to support this agreement. GEN James ``Hoss'' Cartwright, U.S. Marine Corps; GEN Joseph P. Hoar, U.S. Marine Corps; GEN Merrill ``Tony'' McPeak, U.S. Air Force; GEN Lloyd W. ``Fig'' Newton, U.S. Air Force; LGEN Robert G. Gard, Jr., U.S. Army; LGEN Arlen D. Jameson, U.S. Air Force; LGEN Frank Kearney, U.S. Army; LGEN Claudia J. Kennedy, U.S. Army; LGEN Donald L. Kerrick, U.S. Army; LGEN Charles P. Otstott, U.S. Army; LGEN Norman R. Seip, U.S. Air Force; LGEN James M. Thompson, U.S. Army; VADM Kevin P. Green, U.S. Navy; VADM Lee F. Gunn, U.S. Navy; MGEN George Buskirk, US Army; MGEN Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army; MGEN Marcelite J. Harris, U.S. Air Force; MGEN Frederick H. Lawson, U.S. Army. GEN William L. Nash, U.S. Army; MGEN Tony Taguba, U.S. Army; RADM John Hutson, U.S. Navy; RADM Malcolm MacKinnon III, U.S. Navy; RADM Edward ``Sonny'' Masso, U.S. Navy; RADM Joseph Sestak, U.S. Navy; RADM Garland ``Gar'' P. Wright, U.S. Navy; BGEN John Adams, U.S. Air Force; BGEN Stephen A. Cheney, U.S. Marine Corps; BGEN Patricia ``Pat'' Foote, U.S. Army; BGEN Lawrence E. Gillespie, U.S. Army; BGEN John Johns, U.S. Army; BGEN David McGinnis, U.S. Army; BGEN Stephen Xenakis, U.S. Army; RDML James Arden ``Jamie'' Barnett, Jr., U.S. Navy; RDML Jay A. DeLoach, U.S. Navy; RDML Harold L. Robinson, U.S. Navy; RDML Alan Steinman, U.S. Coast Guard.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Deputy Darren H. Goforth, 47 years old, who lost his life more than 10 days ago in Houston, Texas, in an execution-style killing, doing his job and serving his community. Deputy Goforth was a Harris County Sheriff's Deputy and a man who loved his job. He loved his family, his daughter and his son, and he loved his beautiful wife. Might I share with you her words, Kathleen Goforth's: ``My husband was an incredibly intricate blend of toughness and gentility,'' she said in a statement following his tragic death. He was fueling his vehicle at about 8:30 on a Friday night, and someone came behind him--the individual now in custody--and, in execution style, killed him. ``There are no words for this,'' his wife said. ``He was always loyal--fiercely so. He was ethical. The right thing to do is what guided his internal compass.'' Of course, she wanted us to know, ``If people want to know what kind of man he was, this is it. He was who you wanted for a friend, a colleague, and a neighbor,'' Goforth said in a statement. She went on to say, ``However, I am who was blessed so richly that I had the privilege of calling him my husband and my best friend.'' To Kathleen and her family, Deputy Goforth was the best friends of all of us. He was the best friend of the community. He was the best friend of children whom he stopped and talked to or of young people whom he sought to inspire. He was the best friend of his friends and neighbors, as was evidenced by the 11,000 people who attended his funeral. He was the best friend of law enforcement officers. He was the best friend of the integrity of what law enforcement and first responders are all about. He was a young man, as we came to know during the eulogy and the various statements of friends and officers, who desired to be just a helper to anyone. We were told that, even as he worked, his father had a business and, when he had his time off, he would go to that business and help his father. We have come to understand that it was his mode of law enforcement to, again, protect and serve but to reach out even to talk to those who weren't even looking his way. It was our understanding that he was gentle and kind and had a great sense of humor and, yes, looked like he did a little baby-sitting as well. So I rise today to speak to this Nation about this officer and to claim the time for ending senseless violence and to recognize that his life--Deputy Goforth's life--is a testament to the goodness of the American people and our citizens in Houston and Harris County. Certainly, all of our State and local and congressional officials were there to acknowledge our deepest sense of loss. I want to thank the people of Harris County, when we see officers, for distributing 30,000 wristbands to pray for police. I went out to the gas pump where he was so heinously and tragically shot, and all of the flowers and notes and people raising money touched all of our hearts. Everyone stopped to pray and talk and hug. I remember someone saying, ``I am a conservative male, but I am so glad to see you here.'' And I said, ``My brother, I am glad to see you here. Can I hug you?'' And we hugged because tragedy brings us together, but purpose should have us going forward. There should be a purpose as we lost this wonderful father and husband and law enforcement officer. As the ranking member on the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee, that is the very purpose that I am so excited about: this opportunity to talk about walking together, finding ways for solutions, and making sure that the life of a gentle, strong law enforcement person continues to have a presence in our lives through the way we handle our legislation and our coming together. Foremost among these dangers, of course, are those who come upon officers in the line of duty. Just a week ago, an officer in Illinois faced an enormous tragedy and lost his life, but we realize that they understand that as they go to serve their communities. We must all work together--law enforcement, community residents, public officials, the Nation--to make our communities places where we trust one another and cooperate to achieve our mutual goal of safety and security for all persons. It reminds us how much work we have to do and how much we are interwoven with our first responders and our law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, I was at the 9/11 commemoration, the memorial, and it reminded me of the strength of Deputy Goforth. So I would simply say we honor them. At this time, I will ask for a moment of silence in honor of Deputy Goforth. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow but an abiding admiration that I rise today to acknowledge the life and service of Deputy Darren Goforth of Houston, Texas. Deputy Darren Goforth, a ten year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff's office, died on Friday, August 28, 2015, while refueling his patrol car. He was shot fifteen times by a man who, by all accounts, never knew Darren Goforth and the light he brought into this world. In a senseless act of violence, the love and care Darren Goforth gave to his wife, Kathleen and two young children, and the community he served, ended entirely too soon. According to Kathleen Goforth her husband was an ``intricate blend of toughness and gentility,'' a man who was fiercely loyal and always strived to do the right thing; a person ``who you wanted for a friend, a colleague, and a neighbor.'' May I add, Mr. Speaker, Darren Goforth was what we want in an American. Mr. Speaker, Darren Goforth's life is a testament to the goodness in the American people, but his death is a reminder of many difficult and painful truths. Foremost among these are the dangers the men and women of our nation's law enforcement departments face every time they walk their beats and patrol their communities. Their families, the persons who know them best and love them most, deserve to welcome them home at the end of each shift, safe and sound. Mr. Speaker, we must confront the reality that police departments and the communities they protect are all too often adversarial. We must all work together--law enforcement, community residents, public officials--to make our communities places where we trust one another and cooperate to achieve our mutual goal of safety and security of for all persons. The murder of Deputy Goforth also reminds us that we must do more to stem the tide of gun violence that tears through this country. Neither our country nor our hearts can afford to lose people of such quality as Darren Goforth to gun violence in the staggering quantities that we do. Mr. Speaker, over 32,000 Americans die from gun violence each year. So, while Darren Goforth's death is most certainly a tragedy, death by gun violence happens all too often in our country. This normalcy of gun violence is inexcusable. Mr. Speaker, according to media reports, the person who ended Deputy Goforth's wonderful life, struggled with mental illness for quite some time. We absolutely have to do more to ensure that society's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of the most mentally or emotionally unstable persons. It is important that we do this because it is estimated that 61.5 million Americans experience mental illness in a given year. This is why we must, as a nation, attach as much importance and provide the same level of resources for mental health as we do for physical health. We can no longer afford to ignore the struggles of nearly 20 percent of the population and fail to provide adequate treatment and services that could alleviate some of that struggle and prevent horrific events like the one that claimed the life of Deputy Darren Goforth. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today mourning the loss of Deputy Darren Goforth but I have hope. I have hope that out of this tragedy we will be moved to act to make this country safer for the men and women who risk their lives to keep their communities safe. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of Deputy Darren Goforth, an extraordinary human being and a shining example of what is meant when we remember him and say: ``he was one of Houston's finest.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes rose from the local housing projects to serve 30 years in the U.S. House, becoming a potent symbol for his Cleveland-based majority-black district. Reluctant to enter the political arena, Stokes was persuaded to run for office by his prominent brother and by community members he had served for decades as a civil rights lawyer. His accomplishments were substantive and of historic proportions. The first Black to represent Ohio, Stokes chaired several congressional committees (including the Permanent Select Intelligence Committee) and was the first African American to win a seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. He used his success to try to increase opportunities for millions of African Americans, saying, ``I'm going to keep on denouncing the inequities of this system, but I'm going to work within it. To go outside the system would be to deny myself--to deny my own existence. I've beaten the system. I've proved it can be done--so have a lot of others.'' Stokes continued, ``But the problem is that a black man has to be extra special to win in this system. Why should you have to be a super black to get someplace? That's what's wrong in the society. The ordinary black man doesn't have the same chance as the ordinary white man does.'' Louis Stokes was born on February 23, 1925, in Cleveland, Ohio, to Charles and Louise Cinthy (Stone) Stokes. His father worked in a laundromat and died when Louis was young. Stokes and his younger brother, Carl, were raised by their widowed mother, whose salary as a domestic was supplemented by welfare payments. Louis Stokes supplemented the family income by shining shoes around the Cleveland projects and clerking at an Army/Navy store. He attended Cleveland's public schools and served as a personnel specialist in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946. He returned home with an honorable discharge, taking jobs in the Veterans Administration and Treasury Department offices in Cleveland while attending college at night with the help of the GI Bill. He attended the Cleveland College of Western Reserve University from 1946 to 1948. Stokes eventually earned a J.D. from the Cleveland Marshall School of Law in 1953 and, with his brother, opened the law firm Stokes and Stokes. On August 21, 1960, Louis Stokes married Jeanette (Jay) Francis, and they raised four children: Shelly, Louis C., Angela, and Lorene. He devoted himself to his law practice, where he became involved in a number of civil rights--related cases--often working pro bono on behalf of poor clients and activists. He was an active participant in civic affairs. Working on behalf of the Cleveland NAACP, Stokes helped challenge the Ohio legislature's redistricting in 1965 that followed the Supreme Court's ``one man, one vote'' decision. The state legislature had fragmented the congressional districts that overlay Cleveland, diluting black voting strength. Stokes joined forces with Charles Lucas, a black Republican, to challenge that action. They lost their case in U.S. District Court, but based on Stokes's written appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the brief in 1967. From that decision followed the creation of Ohio's first majority-black district. Later that year, in December 1967, Stokes made an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, a precedent-setting case that defined the legality of police search and seizure procedures. At his brother Carl's behest Louis Stokes made his first run for elective office in 1968. He sought to win the seat in the newly created congressional district that encompassed much of the east side of Cleveland. Stokes was hardly a typical newcomer to the political campaign. First, his brother, Mayor Stokes, put the services of his political network at Louis's disposal. Stokes won by a landslide. He won his subsequent 14 general elections by lopsided margins in the heavily Democratic district taking as much as 88 percent of the vote. As a freshman Representative, Stokes received assignments on the Education and Labor Committee and the Internal Security Committee (formerly the House Un-American Activities Committee). He enthusiastically accepted the former assignment, believing Education and Labor would be a prime platform from which he could push the agenda for his urban district: job training, economic opportunity, and educational interests. But Stokes was less pleased with the Internal Security panel, which had lapsed into an increasingly irrelevant entity since its heyday investigating communists in the 1940s and 1950s. (House leaders disbanded it entirely in the mid-1970s.) During his second term in the House, Stokes earned a seat on the Appropriations Committee. During more than two decades on the committee, Stokes steered hundreds of millions of federal dollars into projects in his home state. He eventually became an Appropriations subcommittee chair, or ``cardinal,'' for Veterans, HUD, and Independent Agencies. Stokes was the second African-American ``cardinal'' ever (the first, Julian Dixon of California, chaired the DC Subcommittee). Years later, Stokes said of the Appropriations Committee, ``It's the only committee to be on. All the rest is window dressing.'' In addition to chairing an Appropriations subcommittee, Stokes is one of fewer than two dozen African Americans ever to chair a House committee and one of just a handful to wield the gavel on multiple panels: the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (100th Congress), the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (97th-98th Congresses, 102nd Congress), and the Select Committee on Assassinations (95th Congress). The growing ranks of black Members sought to create a power base, realizing--in the words of Representative William (Bill) Clay, Sr. of Missouri they ``had to parlay massive voting potential into concrete economic results.'', As freshman House Members, Stokes and Clay quickly developed an enduring friendship and became strong supporters of the formation of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), to promote economic, educational, and social issues that were important to African Americans. This strategy dovetailed with Stokes's perception of his role as an advocate for the ``black community'' in his district. Stokes served as chairman of the CBC for two consecutive terms beginning in 1972, after Chairman Charles Diggs, Jr., of Michigan resigned from the post. A centrist, Stokes was widely credited with shepherding the group away from the polarizing politics of various black factions toward a more stable and organized policy agenda. Using his position as CBC chairman and his increasing influence on the Appropriations Committee, Representative Stokes pushed a legislative agenda that mirrored the needs of his majority-black district. He earned a reputation as a congenial but determined activist for minority issues, consistently scoring as one of the most liberal Members of the House in the Americans for Democratic Action and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations vote tallies. He advocated more funding for education (particularly for minority colleges), affirmative action programs to employ more blacks, housing and urban development projects, and initiatives to improve access to health care for working-class Americans. In the 1980s, Stokes vocalized black concerns that the Ronald W. Reagan administration was intent on rolling back minority gains made in the 1960s and 1970s. He described conservative efforts to scale back school desegregation efforts and affirmative action programs--as well as massive spending on military programs--as a ``full scale attack'' on the priorities of the black community. He also was an early advocate of federal government intervention in the fight against HIV/AIDS. From his seat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Stokes was a particularly forceful critic of the Reagan administration's foreign policy. He gained national prominence as a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran when he grilled Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North in 1987 about his role in funding anticommunist Nicaraguan Contras through weapons sales to Tehran. At one juncture he reminded North, ``I wore [the uniform] as proudly as you do, even when our government required black and white soldiers in the same Army to live, sleep, eat and travel separate and apart, while fighting and dying for our country.'' House leaders repeatedly sought to capitalize on Stokes's image as a stable, trustworthy, and competent adjudicator--turning to him to lead high-profile committees and handle controversial national issues, as well as the occasional ethics scandals in the House. When Representative Henry Gonzalez of Texas resigned as chairman of the Select Committee on Assassinations, Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill of Massachusetts tapped Stokes to lead the panel, which was investigating the circumstances surrounding the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1978, Stokes's committee filed 27 volumes of hearings and a final report that recommended administrative and legislative reforms. While the panel found that the King and the Kennedy murders may have involved multiple assassins (James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald have traditionally been described as lone killers), it concluded there was no evidence to support assertions of a broad conspiracy involving domestic groups or foreign governments--an assessment that has been upheld for the past three decades. The committee did suggest that Oswald may have had an accomplice on Dealey Plaza, where Kennedy was killed in November 1963. Stokes's chairmanship of the Select Committee on Assassinations led to his appointment by Speaker O'Neill in 1981 as chairman of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (often called the Ethics Committee). Stokes steered the panel through a turbulent period that included investigations of Members implicated in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ABSCAM sting and a sex scandal that involved two House Members and current and former House Pages. During the 1990s, Stokes's seniority made him an influential voice on the Appropriations Committee. In 1993, at the start of the 103rd Congress, he assumed the chairman's gavel of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, which controlled one of the largest chunks of discretionary spending in the federal budget. Stokes prodded federal agencies to hire and serve more minorities. Republicans praised him for his nonpartisan leadership of the subcommittee, but when the GOP won control of the House in the 1994 elections, and Stokes became the Ranking Member of the panel, he often found himself fighting Republican efforts to trim federal spending that involved cutting welfare programs, including public housing. In January 1998, Stokes announced his retirement from the House, noting that he wanted to leave ``without ever losing an election.'' Moreover, a new generation of rising black politicians Cleveland was displacing those of Stokes's generation. Among his proudest accomplishments as a Representative, Stokes cited his ability to bring Appropriations Committee money to his district to address needs in housing and urban development and the opportunities that allowed him to set ``historic precedents'' as an African American in the House. ``When I started this journey, I realized that I was the first black American ever to hold this position in this state,'' Stokes told a newspaper reporter. ``I had to write the book . . . I was going to set a standard of excellence that would give any successor something to shoot for.'' After his congressional career, Louis Stokes resumed his work as a lawyer. He was a great American Hero--to be admired and remembered by us all.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in praise of Julian Bond, one of the leading lights of the Civil Rights Movement, who died on Saturday, August 15, 2015, at the age of 75. While Julian lost his battle to the illness that claimed his life, it is the struggle for civil rights and human dignity he helped to win that he will forever remembered and revered. Horace Julian Bond was born January 14, 1940 in Nashville, Tennessee to Julia Agnes and Horace Mann Bond. Julian's father was the first African-American President of Lincoln University of Pennsylvania, the same institution attended by Thurgood Marshall and Langston Hughes who would both go on to make substantial contributions to the Civil Rights Movement and the advancement of African-Americans. Julian's father later became president of Atlanta University and Julian decided to attend Morehouse College, one of the leading black colleges in the nation. Julian Bond, who came from a long line of educators, determined at an early age to put his journalistic and organizing talents in service of the cause of civil rights and racial equality. While a student at Morehouse College, Julian helped found The Pegasus, a literary magazine, and led nonviolent student protests against segregation in Atlanta parks, restaurants, and movie theaters. Mr. Speaker, today it is difficult to imagine there once was a time in our country when blacks and whites could not eat together in public restaurants, use the same public restrooms, stay at the same hotels, or attend the same schools. Julian Bond answered the call to action and put his studies on hold to devote all of his energies and efforts to ending segregation and racial discrimination. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual these days for us to think of a champion as someone who receives the highest accolades in sports. Julian Bond was a champion of the people. His success is measured not in the numbers of trophies, medals, ribbons, and championship banners, but in the number of doors and opportunities he helped to open for those who had been neglected, marginalized, and disenfranchised. Julian Bond knew that to bring about non-violent social change it was necessary to organize so he co-founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC, which organized and mobilized the participation of students and young people in the Civil Rights Movement, conceived the Freedom Rides that challenged the practice of racial segregation in interstate transportation and the Mississippi Freedom Summer project that undertook the dangerous work of helping African Americans register to vote in the state most committed to maintaining White supremacy by any means necessary. SNCC was not the first leadership role history and circumstance would call upon Julian Bond to assume; nor would it be the last. In 1965, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Julian Bond was elected to represent the residents of the 32nd district in Georgia House of Representatives. But on January 10, 1966, his white colleagues in the Georgia House voted 184-12 not to seat him because he had publicly expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War. Julian Bond challenged the refusal of the Georgia House to seat him and took his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in the unanimous decision of Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), that expressing opposition to the Vietnam War was speech protected by the First Amendment and directed that he be seated as a duly elected member of the state legislature. Julian Bond would go on to serve three more terms in the Georgia House, where he co-founded the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, and six terms in the Georgia State Senate. In 1971, Julian Bond co-founded and served as president of the Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks the actions of hate groups to better inform and prepare communities about the dangers these groups pose. Julian Bond consistently identified issues of civil inequality and provided solutions by gathering groups of community leaders, professionals, and educators to protect what the laws and policies would not, our basic civil rights. In 1998, Julian Bond's commitment to justice and equality led him to answer the call to serve and accept the position of Chairman of the NAACP, a post he held until 2010. Julian Bond was able to bring the earnest fight to achieve equality into the modern era as he watched African-Americans achieve the highest awards in their professions and continued to break down barriers. In November 2008, Julian Bond witnessed the election of the first African American President of the United States, a feat thought impossible just a decade earlier. Mr. Speaker, because of trailblazers like Julian Bond millions of Americans gained access to opportunities previously denied to members of their communities. Julian Bond spent 5 years with SNCC, 8 years as president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, 12 years as the president of NAACP, 20 years as a state representative, and 75 years an unwavering champion of civil rights for all people, including the LGBT community. My thoughts and prayers are with Julian's beloved wife Pamela, his children and grandchildren; and the untold millions of persons whose lives were touched by one of America's greatest sons. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Julian Bond, a tireless and eloquent voice for justice, equality, and human dignity who did so much to close the gap between the promise of America's founding ideals and the reality of people's lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sorrow but an abiding admiration that I rise today to acknowledge the life and service of Deputy Darren Goforth of Houston, Texas. Deputy Darren Goforth, a ten year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff's office, died on Friday, August 28, 2015, while refueling his patrol car. He was shot fifteen times by a man who, by all accounts, never knew Darren Goforth and the light he brought into this world. In a senseless act of violence, the love and care Darren Goforth gave to his wife, Kathleen and two young children, and the community he served, ended entirely too soon. According to Kathleen Goforth her husband was an ``intricate blend of toughness and gentility,'' a man who was fiercely loyal and always strived to do the right thing; a person ``who you wanted for a friend, a colleague, and a neighbor.'' May I add, Mr. Speaker, Darren Goforth was what we want in an American. Mr. Speaker, Darren Goforth's life is a testament to the goodness in the American people, but his death is a reminder of many difficult and painful truths. Foremost among these are the dangers the men and women of our nation's law enforcement departments face every time they walk their beats and patrol their communities. Their families, the persons who know them best and love them most, deserve to welcome them home at the end of each shift, safe and sound. Mr. Speaker, we must confront the reality that police departments and the communities they protect are all too often adversarial. We must all work together--law enforcement, community residents, public officials--to make our communities places where we trust one another and cooperate to achieve our mutual goal of safety and security for all persons. The murder of Deputy Goforth also reminds us that we must do more to stem the tide of gun violence that tears through this country. Neither our country nor our hearts can afford to lose people of such quality as Darren Goforth to gun violence in the staggering quantities that we do. Mr. Speaker, over 32,000 Americans die from gun violence each year. So, while Darren Goforth's death is most certainly a tragedy, death by gun violence happens all too often in our country. This normalcy of gun violence is inexcusable. Mr. Speaker, according to media reports, the person who ended Deputy Goforth's wonderful life, struggled with mental illness for quite some time. We absolutely have to do more to ensure that society's most dangerous weapons stay out of the hands of the most mentally or emotionally unstable persons. It is important that we do this because it is estimated that 61.5 million Americans experience mental illness in a given year. This is why we must, as a nation, attach as much importance and provide the same level of resources for mental health as we do for physical health. We can no longer afford to ignore the struggles of nearly 20 percent of the population and fail to provide adequate treatment and services that could alleviate some of that struggle and prevent horrific events like the one that claimed the life of Deputy Darren Goforth. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today mourning the loss of Deputy Darren Goforth but I have hope. I have hope that out of this tragedy we will be moved to act to make this country safer for the men and women who risk their lives to keep their communities safe. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in honor of Deputy Darren Goforth, an extraordinary human being and a shining example of what is meant when we remember him and say: ``He was one of Houston's finest.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker on this joyful day 50 years ago, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and because of that law, I stand before you as Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, the first African American woman Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just to commemorate the landmark achievement of 50 years ago but to inform our colleagues and the nation of the need to redouble and rededicate our efforts to the work that remains to be done to protect the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and the injustices that prevent them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol and in the presence of such luminaries as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rev. Ralph Abernathy of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Roy Wilkins of the NAACP; Whitney Young of the National Urban League; James Foreman of the Congress of Racial Equality; A. Philip Randolph of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; John Lewis of the Student Non- Violent Coordinating Committee; Senators Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, and Everett Dirksen; President Johnson addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act: The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3% of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. The crown jewel of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is Section 5, which requires that states and localities with a chronic record of discrimination in voting practices secure federal approval before making any changes to voting processes. Section 5 protects minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes right here in Texas. And it is a source of eternal pride to all of us in Houston that in pursuit of extending the full measure of citizenship to all Americans, in 1975 Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, who also represented this historic 18th Congressional District of Texas, introduced, and the Congress adopted, what are now Sections 4(f)(3) and 4(f)(4) of the Voting Rights Act, which extended the protections of Section 4(a) and Section 5 to language minorities. During the floor debate on the 1975 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, Congresswoman Jordan explained why this reform was needed: There are Mexican-American people in the State of Texas who have been denied the right to vote; who have been impeded in their efforts to register and vote; who have not had encouragement from those election officials because they are brown people. So, the state of Texas, if we approve this measure, would be brought within the coverage of this Act for the first time. When it comes to extending and protecting the precious right to vote, the Lone Star State--the home state of Lyndon Johnson and Barbara Jordan--can be the leading state in the Union, one that sets the example for the nation. But to realize that future, we must turn from and not return to the dark days of the past. We must remain ever vigilant and oppose all schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to remind the nation that the right to vote--that ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice''--is facing grave threats. The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b) was that ``times change.'' Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymieing the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did eliminate them entirely. The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic. However, officials in some states, notably Texas and North Carolina, seemed to regard the Shelby decision as a green light and rushed to implement election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. My constituents remember very well the Voter ID law passed in Texas in 2011, which required every registered voter to present a valid government-issued photo ID on the day of polling in order to vote. The Justice Department blocked the law in March of 2012, and it was Section 5 that prohibited it from going into effect. At least it did until the Shelby decision, because on the very same day that Shelby was decided officials in Texas announced they would immediately implement the Photo ID law, and other election laws, policies, and practices that could never pass muster under the Section 5 preclearance regime. The Texas Photo ID law was challenged in federal court and thankfully, just yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that Texas' strict voter identification law discriminated against blacks and Hispanics and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Speaker, protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy. Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of millions silenced. Those of us who cherish the right to vote justifiably are skeptical of Voter ID laws because we understand how these laws, like poll taxes and literacy tests, can be used to impede or negate the ability of seniors, racial and language minorities, and young people to cast their votes. Consider the demographic groups who lack a government issued ID: 1. African Americans: 25% 2. Asian Americans: 20% 3. Hispanic Americans: 19% 4. Young people, aged 18-24: 18% 5. Persons with incomes less than $35,000: 15% And there are other ways abridging or suppressing the right to vote, including: 1. Curtailing or eliminating early voting 2. Ending same-day registration 3. Not counting provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct on Election Day will not count. 4. Eliminating adolescent pre-registration 5. Shortening poll hours 6. Lessening the standards governing voter challenges thus allowing self-proclaimed ``ballot security vigilantes'' like the King Street Patriots to cause trouble at the polls. Mr. Speaker, on the 50th anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on August 6, 1965, I called upon House Speaker Boehner to bring legislation intended to protect the right to vote of all Americans to the floor for debate and vote. Specifically, I call for the passage of the bipartisan Voting Rights Amendments Act (H.R. 885), of which I am an original co-sponsor, which repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court's Shelby decision. This legislation replaces the old `static' coverage formula with a new dynamic coverage formula, or `rolling trigger,' which effectively gives the legislation nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite number of violations are found to have been committed. Alternatively, I call upon the Speaker to let the House debate and vote on the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2015 (H.R. 2867), a bill that provides even greater federal oversight of jurisdictions which have a history of voter suppression and protects vulnerable communities from discriminatory voting practices. Second, I call for the passage of H.R. 12, the Voter Empowerment Act of 2015, legislation I have co-sponsored that protects voters from suppression, deception, and other forms of disenfranchisement by modernizing voter registration, promoting access to voting for individuals with disabilities, and protecting the ability of individuals to exercise the right to vote in elections for federal office. Mr. Speaker, before concluding there is one other point I would like to stress. In his address to the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, President Johnson said: Presidents and Congresses, laws and lawsuits can open the doors to the polling places and open the doors to the wondrous rewards which await the wise use of the ballot. But only the individual Negro, and all others who have been denied the right to vote, can really walk through those doors, and can use that right, and can transform the vote into an instrument of justice and fulfillment. In other words, political power--and the justice, opportunity, inclusion, and fulfillment it provides--comes not from the right to vote but in the exercise of that right. And that means it is the civic obligation of every citizen to both register and vote in every election, state and local as well as federal. Because if we can register and vote, but fail to do so, we are guilty of voluntary voter suppression, the most effective method of disenfranchisement ever devised. And in recent years, Americans have not been doing a very good job of exercising our civic responsibility to register, vote, and make their voices heard. Mr. Speaker, for millions of Americans, the right to vote protected by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. So on this 50th anniversary of that landmark law, let us rededicate ourselves to honoring those who won for us this precious right by remaining vigilant and fighting against both the efforts of others to abridge or suppress the right to vote and our own apathy in exercising this sacred right.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in praise of Louis Stokes, one of the greatest and most respected Members ever to serve in this body, who died on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at his home near Cleveland, Ohio at the age of 90. It is not unusual in these days for commentators and politicians to talk of something called ``American Exceptionalism.'' But what is meant by the term? Mr. Speaker, one way to understand the term: America is exceptional because it produces and finds persons like Louis Stokes and affords them the opportunity to utilize their talents to the fullest in the service of their community and their country. Think about it: in what other nation does a little African American boy born in 1925 on the east side of Cleveland and raised in the Outhwaite Homes housing project by a mother who worked as a domestic go on to become a lawyer who argues and wins a landmark criminal justice reform case (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) in the United States Supreme Court; become the first African American elected to Congress; is selected to chair the powerful Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Select Committee on Assassinations, and an Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for more than $90 billion annually in federal outlays? Yes, America is an exceptional nation and Louis Stokes was an exceptional human being. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes was born on February 23, 1925, in Cleveland, Ohio, to Charles and Louise Cinthy (nee Stone) Stokes. When he was three years old, his father, who worked in a laundromat, died leaving young Louis and his younger brother, Carl, to be raised by their mother, who worked as a domestic for affluent families in the wealthy Cleveland suburbs. Louis Stokes' maternal grandmother played a critical role in his life because she took care of the Stokes boys while their mother was at work and instilled in them ``the idea that work with your hands is the hard way of doing things'' and encouraged them over and over ``to learn to use their heads.'' Louis Stokes took the advice to heart so after attending Cleveland's Central High School and serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, he returned home to attend what is now Case Western Reserve University on the G.I. Bill at night while working during the day for the Veterans Administration and the Department of the Treasury. After graduating from college in two years where he excelled as a student, Louis Stokes was accepted for admission to Cleveland Marshall School of Law, from which he graduated in 1953; three years later, his brother Carl would also graduate from Cleveland Marshall School of Law and the two of them would go on to form the law firm of Stokes & Stokes specializing in the areas of civil rights and criminal law. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), which established the principle of ``one person, one vote'' governing the reapportionment of legislative boundaries. The following year, working on behalf of the local branch of the NAACP, Louis Stokes led the legal challenge to the Ohio legislature's congressional redistricting, which had the effect of diluting African American voting strength in Cleveland. The challenge was unsuccessful in the federal district court but undeterred, Louis Stokes, joined by Charles Lucas, an African American Republican, successfully appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in an order handed down in 1967 ruled the redistricting plan unconstitutional and ordered it redrawn, resulting in the creation of Ohio's first majority-black district, the 21st Congressional District of Ohio. Ironically, Louis Stokes would defeat his one-time ally Charles Lucas to win that seat in November 1968, capturing 75% of the vote, the closest of his 15 successful elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. For the next 30 years, from 1969 to 1999, Congressman Stokes tirelessly fought for his constituents in Cleveland and for the best interests of the people of Ohio and the United States. Louis Stokes, a founding member and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus from 1972-74, was the epitome of a public servant. In his second term in Congress, he won appointment to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, where he served for 28 years, later becoming the second African American ``Cardinal'' in history when he was selected to chair the VA, HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. Because of the esteem in which he was held by his colleagues and the leadership, Louis Stokes would also later be selected to chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee charged with investigating the assassinations of President Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Chairman of the House Ethics Committee and a person of unquestioned integrity, Louis Stokes oversaw the committee's investigation of the corruption scandal known as ABSCAM in 1979-80, which eventually led to convictions of a senator and six House members. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes perhaps is best known for the national attention he attracted in 1987 as a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (``Iran- Contra''), the scandal involving the illegal sale of military weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran to generate money to fund the illegal contra war in Nicaragua. In response to the claim by Colonel Oliver North that he acted out of patriotism in engineering the illegal weapons sales and diverting the proceeds to fund the contras, a stern Louis Stokes lectured the misguided Colonel North on the rule of law, the true meaning of patriotism, and, in the process American exceptionalism: I suppose that what has been most disturbing to me about your testimony is the ugly part. In fact, it has been more than ugly. It has been chilling, and, in fact, frightening. I'm not just talking about your part in this, but the entire scenario, about government officials who plotted and conspired, who set up a straw man, a fall guy. Officials who lied, misrepresented and deceived. Officials who planned to superimpose upon our government a layer outside of our government, shrouded in secrecy and only accountable to the conspirators. Colonel, as I sit here this morning looking at you in your uniform, I cannot help but remember that I wore the uniform of this country in World War II in a segregated Army. I wore it as proudly as you do, even though our government required black and white soldiers in the same Army to live, sleep, eat and travel separate and apart, while fighting and dying for our country. But because of the rule of law, today's servicemen in America suffer no such indignity. My mother, a widow, raised two boys. She had an eighth- grade education. She was a domestic worker who scrubbed floors. One son became the first black mayor of a major American city. The other sits today as chairman of a House intelligence committee. Only in America, Col. North. Only in America. And while I admire your love for America, I hope that you will never forget that others too love America just as much as you do and that others will die for America, just as quick as you will. Louis Stokes never wavered in his belief that America could fulfill the promise of its Founders or his dedication to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, stating: I'm going to keep on denouncing the inequities of this system, but I'm going to work within it. To go outside the system would be to deny myself--to deny my own existence. I've beaten the system. I've proved it can be done--so have a lot of others. But the problem is that a black man has to be extra special to win in this system. Why should you have to be a super black to get someplace? That's what's wrong in the society. The ordinary black man doesn't have the same chance as the ordinary white man does. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes' commitment to fairness and equal treatment started long before he was elected to Congress. As a lawyer for the NAACP, he brought anti-discrimination lawsuits, represented demonstrators arrested in anti-discrimination marches and sit-ins, and took the cases of poor persons charged with crimes. One of those criminal cases he took is known to every lawyer in America and appreciated by every person who cherishes the protections guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I am speaking of the famous case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) won by Louis Stokes in which the Supreme Court held that a police officer could ``stop and frisk'' an individual only where he could articulate a reasonable basis that the person was, or was about to be, engaged in criminal activity. As a result of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer has the right to stop, frisk, and question an individual he reasonably suspects to be engaged in criminal activity, but cannot seize items from that person if the pat down of the suspect's outer clothing does not reveal any weapons posing a threat to the officer's safety. Because of Louis Stokes' exceptional advocacy in Terry v. Ohio, the right of every individual to secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was preserved while at the same not impeding the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties safely. Mr. Speaker, every citizen benefits from this ruling and communities that have a history of being harassed by law enforcement protected by the Constitution from arbitrary and abusive treatment by law enforcement. But the fight for a criminal justice system that respects the rights of all persons is not over. That is why I am proud to be the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and a leader in the effort to reform the criminal justice system so that all persons receive fair and equal treatment regardless of their race, gender, religion, or national origin. Louis Stokes fought tirelessly to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment that ``no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' It is a fight I am proud to continue today. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes will be mourned by friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle who had the privilege to serve alongside him. He was a mentor to me and I will always remember his commanding presence and cherish the assistance he provided me and the example he set for new Members to follow. My thoughts and prayers are with his Jay, Louis' beloved wife of 55 years; to his children, Shelly, Louis, Angela, and Lorene; his grandchildren; and the untold thousands of persons who touched and whose lives were touched by one of Cleveland's greatest sons. Mr. Speaker I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Louis Stokes, an exceptional American, and the gentleman from Ohio who served in this chamber for three decades with honor, integrity, and distinction.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the passage of Medicaid and Medicare, two of the most beneficial and consequential government programs ever launched. On July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law as part of the Social Security Act and in the process made good on the commitments made by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy to provide health security to Americans in their old age. Medicare is a promise kept to those who have contributed a lifetime to our nation to enjoy their golden years with peace of mind and the security of reliable, affordable, and high quality healthcare. Likewise, Medicaid created a crucial partnership between the government and the people to provide a basic health care safety net for the most vulnerable Americans: children of adults with low incomes, persons with disabilities, and the poor. Mr. Speaker, half a century later, the legacy of these programs have proven how effective and critical government action can be to the life and well-being of our nation's most vulnerable. In 1965, almost half of all Americans aged 65 and older had no health coverage, living in fear that the colossal healthcare costs would drive them and their families into poverty. Today, because of Medicare, over 98% of seniors have health insurance, which has led to a five-year increase in life expectancy for those over 65. Today, 55 million Americans rely on Medicare for health care, ranging from preventive services, hospital visits, lab tests, to critical medical supplies, and prescription drugs. It is difficult for some to imagine what 1965 was really like, when today affordable, accessible and available health insurance is a reality for so many people living with disabilities. Before Medicaid was enacted children from poor families, pregnant women, and low-income working Americans were not able to afford even the most basic medical care they needed to remain healthy and productive. When the legislation was first passed, many claimed that Medicaid would not live up to its promise; but today, because of expansion of Medicaid through passage of the Affordable Care Act the program provides comprehensive coverage for over 70 million children, pregnant women, low-income adults, and people living with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, it cannot be seriously disputed that Medicare and Medicaid have changed our country and made it better. In my home state of Texas and in communities across the country, both programs have significantly changed the lives and improved health outcomes of many Americans over the past century and represent the best of American values. Unfortunately, Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured (27.6%) in the nation, 4% more than Louisiana the next state on the list and Texas' refusal to participate in the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care act puts the poor residents in my state in jeopardy. So the 50th anniversary of Medicaid is bittersweet for Texans because while we celebrate a program that has saved lives, helped people live longer, expanded care to marginalized communities, and reduced disparities in access to healthcare, thousands of low income Texans still do not have the peace of mind that comes with access to affordable, quality health care enjoyed by low-income residents of states that have expanded their Medicaid program with funds made possible by the Affordable Care Act. In the 18th Congressional District of Texas there are 195,400 persons with Medicaid and 74,704 with medical care provided by Medicare. Mr. Speaker, my constituents favor the Affordable Care Act because they understand the insecurity and feeling of helplessness of being uninsured or underinsured. Like Medicare and Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, or ``Obamacare,'' was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse. Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the G.I. Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong. The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success. This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and has helped to bring peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach. The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security. Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly one-third, or roughly 16 million people. These Americans come from all walks of life. They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be force to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex. There are nine million seniors and persons with disabilities, who have saved an average of $1,600 on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication. And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling to make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 27 states and the District of Columbia. These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in my home state of Texas: 1. 10.7 million individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history; 2. 4.9 million uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the ACA Marketplace; and 3. 5.2 million persons on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the ACA has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade, and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance. Contrary to the claims of the law's critics, private insurance companies have leaped at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed. Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remain obsessed with destroying this law, and with unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans. Medicare and Medicaid also continue to drive innovation and set the standard for coverage, quality, and innovation in American healthcare. Mr. Speaker, Medicare and Medicaid continue to play crucial roles in providing equitable and affordable healthcare, leading innovation in payment and delivery reform, carrying out outreach to the most vulnerable communities, and reshaping the delivery of care for the future. Because of these programs, more Americans have access to affordable, equitable health care today than at any point in our history. And I am committed to making sure that number will continue to grow. On this 50th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, we should remember that a healthy America is a prosperous America. And as we look ahead to the next half century, we can celebrate that what was put in place in 1965 has given us the foundation for a healthy and prosperous future for all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love. By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to eight extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Christopher Lange from the University of California at Berkeley and the United States Air Force; Earl King from North Carolina Central School of Law; BerThaddaeus Bailey from the University of Oklahoma; Jesse Guadiana from the University of Texas; Ashley Melero from Texas Tech University; Cassie Gianni from the University of Houston and the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas; Aisha Yaqoob of the University of Georgia; Aaron Richards of St. John's University; and Asad Moten from Harvard University and the F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to retired Senior Police Officer Edward Alfred Thomas of Houston, Texas, one of the first African American police officers to integrate the Houston Police Department and the longest serving in the Department's history. So well, so ably, and so honorably did Officer Thomas serve the citizens of Houston that last month the Houston City Council voted unanimously to rename the Houston Police Department headquarters building as the ``Edward A. Thomas Houston Police Department Headquarters Building.'' This honor is well deserved because, as Houston Police Chief Charles McClelland has said, Officer Edward Alfred Thomas ``is the epitome of what every police officer should be'' and that it is both fitting and proper that ``a man of his stature, character and outstanding ethics and morals be given this honor. Mr. Speaker, Edward Alfred Thomas was born near Shreveport, Louisiana, in 1920 and went on to attend Southern University in Baton Rouge, where he played football before being drafted to the military during World War II, where he saw action with the U.S. Army at Normandy, in northern Africa, and during the Battle of the Bulge. After the war and his honorable discharge from the Army, Edward Thomas became one of the first African American police officers in the city of Houston when he joined the Houston Police Department on January 12, 1948 and where he remained for the next 63 years until his retirement on July 23, 2011. Mr. Speaker, Officer Thomas' more than six decades of hard work and courage paved the way for the hundreds of additional African American and officers of color who followed, including the current Houston Police Chief, Charles McClelland. Although Officer Thomas enjoyed a long and distinguished career, this is not to say it was easy or without challenges, especially given the fact that Officer Thomas joined the Houston Police Department in 1948, more than 15 years before the height of the Civil Rights Movement. When he began his career Officer Thomas was assigned to foot patrol at night patrolling the African American neighborhoods of Houston, the Third, Fourth and Fifth Wards. Because of his race, Officer Thomas was not allowed to drive a squad car or to arrest White suspects without obtaining permission from his supervisor and at one point in his career, he was disciplined for speaking to a White meter maid who asked him to walk with her in order to avoid the unwanted attention and advances of nearby construction workers. In those early years, Officer Thomas was not allowed to congregate with his white counterparts, he could not attend roll calls with white officers, and he could not eat in the cafeteria. But Officer Thomas persevered and helped pave the way for many other African American police officers, like Chief McClelland and the more than 1,000 African American police officers who today comprise about 20 percent of the Houston Police Department. Mr. Speaker, naming the 26-story headquarters building of the Houston Police Department after Officer Edward Alfred Thomas is a fitting tribute to a man who is, unarguably, one of the greatest police officers in the history of the Houston Police Department and remains one of the most revered and respected. During his years of service to the city of Houston, Officer Thomas was named The 100 Club's ``Officer of the Year;'' awarded a Chief of Police Commendation by former Chief of Police Lee P. Brown; and recognized twice by The 100 Club with a Lifetime Achievement Award in 1998 and 2011, respectively; and has received many letters of appreciation from citizens and supervisors. Mr. Speaker, the renaming of the Houston Police Department headquarters building in honor of Officer Thomas was supported by the Houston Police Officer's Union (HPOU), the African American Police Officer League (AAPOL), Houston Police Organization of Spanish Speaking Officers (OSSO), and the Houston Organization of Public Employees (HOPE). Chief McClelland is absolutely correct in noting that there could be no finer tribute to any patrol officer than to name the headquarters building in honor of ``a patrol officer for 65 years who underwent intense, systemic discrimination,'' and to have his name on the building as an inspiration and example for others to follow.