Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to really speak to the American people. First, let me say that I join my colleagues in standing, again, on Wednesday to ask to bring the girls back and to ask that the dastardly group of Boko Haram be brought to justice immediately and that they cease their violence in Nigeria. I also stand today to ask the incredible question: How can we put on the floor of the House H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which is merely a disregard, disrespect for the Constitution and a woman's right to choice. I look forward to a vigorous debate, standing on the side of the Constitution. But as I look today, I also realize that more of Congress' work is not done. While we are dealing with violating women's rights, we are not dealing with the highway trust fund bill. In my own county of Harris, there are 3,616 bridges, and 1,559 of them are deficient. Our citizens are driving over bridges that are destroying the economy, destroying their cars, and stopping them from moving about the community in the way that they should. Mothers and fathers and car-poolers and workers are trying to get to work. The total deficiency is 43 percent. When are we going to get a long-term infrastructure bill? When are we going to stand up as Americans and not Republicans and Democrats? Democrats want to stand up with Americans to pass a long-term infrastructure bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for the underlying H.R. 36, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, because it would allow politicians, not women or medical experts to decide women's personal medical decisions. If it becomes law, H.R. 36 would ban abortion care after 20 weeks. This is a blatant attempt to deny all women their constitutional rights and it will pose an extremely serious threat to the health of many women in the most desperate of circumstances. To ban abortion care would block a woman's access to safe health care and deny her ability to make decisions according to her physician's advice. Supreme Court precedent establishes that a woman has the unequivocal right to choose abortion care until the point of fetal viability. This twenty-week abortion ban brazenly challenges the Supreme Court's standards and deliberately attempts to push the law earlier and earlier into a woman's pregnancy. This ban would cause a hardship for women in need of safe, legal, later abortion care for a variety of reasons including menopausal women not expecting to become pregnant and who may not discover it for many weeks. H.R. 36 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship, the sanctity of which is a cornerstone of medical care in our country. 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape here in the U.S. every year. Approximately 30 percent of rapes involves women under age 18. According to the Department of Justice, only 35 percent of women who are raped or sexually assaulted reported the assault to police. This ban requires women rape victims to report their ordeal before they can terminate pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Our vote today on this legislation will have real life consequences. Take for example the case of Tiffany Campbell. When she was 19 weeks pregnant, Tiffany and her husband Chris learned her pregnancy was afflicted with a severe case of twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, a condition where the two fetuses unequally share blood circulation. This news was devastating to the Campbells. The diagnosis was that one of the fetuses had a strained heart and acute risk of heart failure while the other had a blood supply that was insufficient to sustain normal development. The Campbells were told that without a selective termination, they risked the loss of both fetuses. At 22 weeks, in consultation with their doctors, they made the difficult decision to abort one fetus in order to save the other. Today, the lifesaving procedure for one of the fetuses would be illegal under the new 20-week ban mode. Then there is the ordeal that Vikki Stella faced. Vikki is a diabetic who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. As a result of her diabetic medical condition, Vikki's doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. The procedure not only protected Vikki from immediate medical risks, but also ensured that she would be able to have children in the future. As you see from each woman's story, every pregnancy is different. In fact, none of us here is in the position to decide what is best for a woman and her family in their unique circumstances. H.R. 36 would deprive women the ability to make very difficult and extremely personal medical decisions. A woman's health, not politics should drive important medical decisions and ignoring a woman's individual circumstances threatens her health and takes an extremely personal medical decision away from a woman and her health care provider. The Administration urges Congress in its Statement of Administration Policy to oppose H.R. 36 because it would unacceptably restrict women's health and reproductive right to choose. Women, regardless of their status in life should be able to make choices about their bodies and their healthcare, and we as elected officials should not inject ourselves into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee. As my colleagues have done, let me also acknowledge the chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, on which I serve as the ranking member. As many have noted, let me acknowledge the work of Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Conyers and their leadership on a very important statement on behalf of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the USA FREEDOM Act is the House's unified response to the unauthorized disclosures and subsequent publication in the media in June 2013 regarding the National Security Agency's collection from Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers which were authorized by the FISA court pursuant to section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the public was not happy. There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and by a large percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of the NSA data collection bundling, which, by orders of magnitude, exceeded anything previously authorized or contemplated, may have constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy and a threat to the civil liberties of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I have been a decade-plus-long member of the Homeland Security Committee. I do not in any way want to infringe upon the security of this Nation, but if we allow the terrorists to terrorize us, then we are in very bad shape, and I am glad the voices of opposition were raised. To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National Intelligence declassified and released limited information about the program, but it did not, by any means, satisfy the concern raised by Americans. The DNI stated that the only type of information acquired under the court's order was telephone metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls. That did not satisfy our concern. I am very pleased that we are here on the floor of the House putting forward something that addresses the concerns but that does not undermine the security of America. For example, I introduced the FISA court in the Sunshine Act of 2013 in response to this. Without compromising national security, it was bipartisan legislation that gave much-needed transparency to the decision orders and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA. My bill would require the Attorney General to disclose each decision. I am glad that, in this bill, we have positions and points where the Attorney General is conducting declassification review. I am also pleased that the bill before us contains an explicit prohibition and a restraint, pursuant to section 215, on the bulk collection of tangible things. We are making a difference with the USA FREEDOM Act, and it is interesting that groups as different as the R Street Institute and the Human Rights Watch are, in essence, supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can do what we need to do by passing this legislation and by then going to an amendment on section 702, which I will support. Security goes along with protection, and I believe this particular legislation does it. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee and an original co-sponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2048, the ``USA Freedom Act,'' which is stands for ``Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection, and Online Monitoring Act.'' I support the USA Freedom Act for several reasons: 1. The bill ends all bulk collection of business records under Section 215 and prohibits bulk collection under the FISA Pen Register/ Trap and Trace Device authority and National Security Letter authorities. 2. The USA Freedom Act strengthens the definition of ``specific selection term,'' the mechanism used to prohibit bulk collection, which prevents large-scale, indiscriminate data collection while at the same time ensuring the government can collect the information it needs to further a national security investigation. 3. The USA Freedom Act strengthens protections for civil liberties by creating a panel of experts to advise the FISA Court on matters of privacy and civil liberties, communications technology, and other technical or legal matters and also codifies important procedures for recipients of National Security Letters. 4. The bill increases transparency by requiring declassification of all significant opinions of the FISA Court and provides procedures for certified questions of law to the FISA Court of Review and the Supreme Court. 5. The USA Freedom Act requires the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to provide the public with detailed guidance about how they can use these national security authorities, and provides even more reporting by America's technology companies. 6. The USA Freedom Act contains several important national security enhancements, including closing loopholes that make it difficult for the government to track foreign terrorists and spies as they enter or leave the country. The USA Freedom Act is the House's unified response to the unauthorized disclosures and subsequent publication in the media in June 2013 regarding the National Security Agency's collection from Verizon of the phone records of all of its American customers, which was authorized by the FISA Court pursuant to Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Public reaction to the news of this massive and secret data gathering operation was swift and negative. There was justifiable concern on the part of the public and a large percentage of the Members of this body that the extent and scale of this NSA data collection operation, which exceeded by orders of magnitude anything previously authorized or contemplated, may constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy and threat to the civil liberties of American citizens. To quell the growing controversy, the Director of National Intelligence declassified and released limited information about this program. According to the DNI, the information acquired under this program did not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber. The DNI stated that ``the only type of information acquired under the Court's order is telephony metadata, such as telephone numbers dialed and length of calls.'' The assurance given by the DNI, to put it mildly, was not very reassuring. In response, many Members of Congress, including the Ranking Member Conyers, and Mr. Sensenbrenner, and myself, introduced legislation in response to the disclosures to ensure that the law and the practices of the executive branch reflect the intent of Congress in passing the USA Patriot Act and subsequent amendments. For example, I introduced H.R. 2440, the ``FISA Court in the Sunshine Act of 2013,'' bipartisan legislation, that provided much needed transparency without compromising national security to the decisions, orders, and opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or ``FISA Court.'' Specifically, my bill required the Attorney General to disclose each decision, order, or opinion of a Foreign Intelligence Survellance Court (FISC), allowing Americans to know how broad of a legal authority the government is claiming under the PATRIOT ACT and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to conduct the surveillance needed to keep Americans safe. I am pleased that these requirements are incorporated in substantial part in the USA Freedom Act, which requires the Attorney General to conduct a declassification review of each decision, order, or opinion of the FISA court that includes a significant construction or interpretation of law and to submit a report to Congress within 45 days. As I indicated, perhaps the most important reasons for supporting passage of H.R. 2048 is the bill's prohibition on domestic bulk collection, as well as its criteria for specifying the information to be collected, applies not only to Section 215 surveillance activities but also to other law enforcement communications interception authorities, such as national security letters. Finally, I strongly support the USA Freedom Act because Section 301 of the bill continues to contain protections agains ``reverse targeting,'' which became law when an earlier Jackson Lee Amendment was included in H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act of 2007. ``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. One of the main concerns of libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, in giving expanded authority to the executive branch was the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it. The Jackson Lee Amendment, preserved in Section 301 of the USA Freedom Act, reduces even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by making any information concerning a United States person obtained improperly inadmissible in any federal, state, or local judicial, legal, executive, or administrative proceeding. Mr. Speaker, I noted in an op-ed published way back in October 2007, that as Alexis DeTocqueville, the most astute student of American democracy, observed nearly two centuries ago, the reason democracies invariably prevail in any military conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to success: initiative, innovation, courage, and a love of justice. I support the USA Freedom Act because it will help keep us true to the Bill of Rights and strikes the proper balance between cherished liberties and smart security. I urge my colleagues to support the USA Freedom Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have had more than a momentous time to be in this body. I was moved by the conviction of my friend and colleague and the Speaker, Mr. Franks and Mr. Boehner, because I know that they speak from their hearts. But faith cannot be distributed on one side of the aisle. My faith, my God is no less than the Republicans'. I speak for those who cannot be here today. I speak for mothers who suffer in corners, trying to provide for their children, but love their children and gave birth to them. I speak for those whom I sat in a room called the Judiciary Committee some years ago and listened to the pain of mothers who said: I want this child, but my doctor has advised me that my life would not have survived to take care of my other children had I not had the ability to be able to follow my doctor and my faith, praying with my husband, my faith leader, my extended family to make the decisions that would, in fact, provide for not only future children, but for my sanctity and ability to be the woman that I need to be. Just outside this Chamber, I met the author of the song ``Glory.'' Many of us heard it in the movie ``Selma.'' In the opening line, it says: ``One day when the glory comes, it will be ours. It will be ours.'' Everybody's glory is different. But H.R. 36--besides being unconstitutional--speaks against 25,000 women in the United States who became pregnant as a result of rape. Madam Speaker, 30 percent of rapes involve women under 18. It speaks against those women because it requires a woman rape victim to report her ordeal before she can terminate a pregnancy, to go to a law enforcement officer. It challenges their faith and their love of God. I am incensed that we challenge someone's faith. I speak for those women who cannot be here today, who love children, who love life, who are good mothers. And I take no less in the conviction of those who have spoken for my conviction and the conviction of those women. Tiffany Campbell, when she was 19 weeks pregnant, Tiffany and her husband, Chris, learned her pregnancy was afflicted with a severe case of twin-to-twin transfusion.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome is a condition where the two fetuses unequally share blood circulation. The news was devastating, but they had to make a decision that was guided by the doctor and their faith. The Campbells were told that without selective termination, they risked the loss of both fetuses. They would not have any. At 22 weeks, in consultation with their doctors--and I know their faith--they made the difficult decision to abort one fetus in order to save the other. Today the lifesaving procedure for one of the fetuses would be illegal under the new 20-week ban. Madam Speaker, I beg of my colleagues. I know there will be those who will vote, but as I stand here today, I do not condemn the conviction of my friends. But right now I am welled up with tears because I have hugged those who had nowhere else to go. And no man can stand and tell a woman what rape is and how it feels and what the results of that is. That is why the Constitution in the Ninth Amendment and the Supreme Court interpreted Roe v. Wade as it did.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. I will come to a close. But I am welled with emotion, not for killing, but for saving; not for condemnation, but for appreciation; not for judging, but for letting people know that I have constituents who are huddled in places right now in Houston, Texas, in fear, huddled because laws have prevented them from good counseling, counseling before such tragedy would happen, laws that have prevented them from having facilities in their area. They fall victim to shysters because of laws that we pass here. I cannot see that anymore, and H.R. 36 now makes it a Federal offense and offends doctors and people of faith. So I close by simply saying that I love that song ``Glory.'' It says: ``One day when the glory comes, it will be ours. It will be ours.'' But glory has to be tolerance and acceptance of people's condition. Prayerfully we must do the right thing in this Congress and vote against H.R. 36. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation the last time it was brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules and fell well short of the two thirds majority needed to pass. I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing American people. A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2015.'' Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration. Madam Speaker, we could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty. Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. The one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto. Madam Speaker, H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy that in 2013 was directed at the District of Columbia and make it the law of the land. In so doing, the bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks. Women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that he fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetic, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her ability to have children in the future was preserved. Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, their God, Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 36 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post- fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 36 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule. Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. I strongly oppose H.R. 36 and urge all members to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at risk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Reichert for his belief in this bill and for his statement of the preciousness of life of our law enforcement officers and our families who depend upon them. This bill, of course, in particular, would work with States to ensure the regional coordination of various elements of the network, which speaks directly to the heinous crime committed against the two New York police officers and someone who traveled from Maryland to New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a gentleman who lives in the region and who we have had the privilege of working with, from COPS on the Beat to the Blue Alert and many other bills dealing with our first responders, and a cosponsor of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), another distinguished gentleman who has worked on these issues and is now the ranking member of the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee for this timely presentation and the offering of this legislation on the floor this week, which is a time to commemorate and mourn and to uphold the Nation's law enforcement. It is a very important statement that we make today on the floor of the House. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and yes, as a Member of Congress from Houston, which has one of the Nation's most effective police departments, and as a cosponsor of the House companion measure, I rise in strong support of S. 665, the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015. I, too, thank Senator Cardin, Congressman Reichert, and my colleague and friend, Congressman Pascrell. I am also a cosponsor. I thank them for their particular leadership on this bill. Every day, more than 900,000 officers protect and serve the people of the United States. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 58 hours. Each year, there is an average of 58,930 assaults on our law enforcement officers, resulting in 15,404 injuries. Just yesterday, in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, the community held a memorial for two dedicated public servants fatally shot during a traffic stop on Saturday night. Married and the father of two, Benjamin Deen, a 34-year-old canine officer, was recognized in 2012 as the Hattiesburg Officer of the Year. Liquori Tate, just 25 years old, fulfilled a childhood dream when he graduated from the police academy and joined the police force less than 1 year ago. Many of us heard the sympathetic and emotional outpouring by his family of his love of being a law enforcement officer. For the community of Hattiesburg, the senseless deaths of on-duty officers are the first in three decades. Hattiesburg is not alone, however, in these tragic developments. Law enforcement fatalities in the U.S. rose 24 percent in 2014, reversing 2 years of significant decline. The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty rose from 102 in 2013 to 126 in 2014. Statistics released yesterday by the FBI show that 51 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2014. This is an increase of almost 89 percent when compared to the 27 killed in 2013. Of those 51 felonious deaths, offenders used firearms in 46 of them. Just 1 day before this tragedy in Mississippi, Officer Brian Moore was laid to rest thousands of miles away in Long Island, New York. After 6 p.m. on a Saturday, Moore and his partner came upon the gunman. After identifying himself as a police officer and asking the gunman about the object in his waistband, the gunman fatally shot Moore in the face. Moore was 20 years old when he joined the New York Police Department. After over 5 years of service, he earned two Meritorious Police Duty medals and two Excellent Police Duty medals. He died several days after he was shot. The killing of Officer Moore in New York City comes on the heels of the December killings of New York Police Department Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, for whom this legislation before us memorializes. These officers were killed on a Saturday afternoon while sitting in their parked patrol car by a man who shared his intent to kill police officers on social media. This man traveled from Maryland to New York to execute his plan; and, unfortunately, at the same time Maryland authorities were warning the NYPD of this threat, Officers Ramos and Liu were being assassinated. Benjamin Deen, Liquori Tate, Brian Moore, Rafael Ramos, and Wenjian Liu and other fallen heroes join the more than 20,000 U.S. law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice since the first known line-of-duty death in 1791, nearly 1,700 of whom hail from my home State of Texas and 121 from the Houston Police Department. The brave men and women who risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe are too often taken by the violence they are working to prevent. When a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed, rapid dissemination of information about the suspected criminal is critical to ensuring justice for that officer and keeping the public safe. Here lies the opportunity for this important legislation. The Blue Alert System is modeled after the AMBER Alert and the Silver Alert. Currently, 22 States, including my home State of Texas, have local Blue Alert programs in operation. The gist of this legislation is to provide for the coordination and the provisions for other States to participate and to help other States participate in a Blue Alert plan. This Blue Alert plan, I hope, will save lives or will, in essence, save and protect law enforcement officers or bring their perpetrator, tragically, of their death, to justice. This is an important statement this week as we mourn those who have fallen in the service of their country as law enforcement officers. This is an important action, if you will, to tell the families of these officers that we care. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was moved by all of the presentations that have been made here today, statements on the floor, by passionate Members of Congress. It reminded me of my time as a municipal court judge, seeing officers in clothing that would not be recognizable because they were undercover officers, seeking what we call probable cause warrants and trying to save communities. I think this legislation is extremely important in this week because what it says is that we can all get along, that we can pass legislation that deals with the pain of our law enforcement officers and commits us to the statement that we want them to go home to their families. At the same time, we can use the words ``criminal justice reform'' and not offend by saying it is to help everyone: our law enforcement officers and our civilians. I am also grateful that next week we will have the opportunity to hear a myriad of issues on this particular point. But as we come together this week, officers of the law will be coming to Washington, D.C., from all parts of the Nation. This legislation will make the statement that we want to coordinate, we want to establish advisory groups, we want to establish guidelines for States, and we want to provide assistance to have the Blue Alert plans. As we have saved children through the AMBER Alerts and helped find senior citizens through the Silver Alerts, I want to make sure that we bring more officers home to their families by ensuring that heinous criminals who are out to do them harm are caught before they do more harm. I also want to say that I look forward to working on legislation that deals with bringing us together and making sure that we address all of the concerns. So I join today with the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Sheriffs' Association in supporting this legislation, S. 665. But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, I stand today mourning those who have been lost and joining our officers as they converge upon the United States Capitol, standing shoulder-to-shoulder. I want to say to them that America cares. We honor you; we mourn you; and we stand in assistance to you. I would like to introduce into the Record a list of officers killed in the line of duty in my own hometown of Houston, Texas, from the Houston Police Department. Houston Police Department Officers Killed in the Line of Duty Line of Duty Deaths: 112 Assault: 1 Automobile accident: 10 Fire: 1 Gunfire: 69 Gunfire (Accidental): 2 Heart attack: 2 Motorcycle accident: 9 Stabbed: 2 Struck by vehicle: 5 Vehicle pursuit: 1 Vehicular assault: 10 By Month January: 12 February: 7 March: 12 April: 10 May: 7 June: 15 July: 5 August: 14 September: 9 October: 6 November: 6 December: 9 By Gender Male: 109 Female: 3 Police Officer Kevin Scott Will, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, May 29, 2011, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer Eydelmen Mani, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, May 19, 2010, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer Henry Canales, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Timothy Scott Abernethy, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, December 7, 2008, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Gary Allen Gryder, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, June 29, 2008, Cause: Vehicular assault. Officer Rodney Joseph Johnson, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, September 21, 2006, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Reuben Becerra DeLeon, Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, October 26, 2005, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Frank Manuel Cantu, Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, March 25, 2004, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer Charles Roy Clark, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, April 3, 2003, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Keith Alan Dees, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, March 7, 2002, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Police Officer Alberto ``Albert'' Vasquez, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, May 22, 2001, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Dennis E. Holmes, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, January 10, 2001, Cause: Heart attack. Police Officer Jerry Keith Stowe, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, September 20, 2000, Cause: Assault. Police Officer Troy Alan Blando, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, May 19, 1999, Cause: Gunfire. Sergeant Kent Dean Kincaid, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, May 23, 1998, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Cuong Huy ``Tony'' Trinh, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, April 6, 1997, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Dawn Suzanne Erickson, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, December 24, 1995, Cause: Struck by vehicle. Police Officer David Michael Healy, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, November 12, 1994, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer Guy P. Gaddis, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, January 31, 1994, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Michael P. Roman, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, January 6, 1994, Cause: Vehicle pursuit. Sergeant Bruno David Soboleski, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, April 12, 1991, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer John Anthony Salvaggio, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, November 25, 1990, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer James Bruce Irby, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, June 27, 1990, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer James Charles Boswell, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, December 9, 1989, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Fiorentino M. Garcia, Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, November 10, 1989, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Officer Elston Morris Howard, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, July 20, 1988, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Andrew Winzer, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, February 18, 1988, Cause: Automobile accident. Officer Maria Michelle Groves, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, April 10, 1987, Cause: Vehicular assault. Officer William Moss, Houston Airport Police Department, EOW: Monday, September 12, 1983, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer Charles Robert Coates, II, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, February 23, 1983, Cause: Struck by vehicle. Police Officer Kathleen C. Schaefer, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, August 18, 1982, Cause: Gunfire (Accidental). Officer James D. Harris, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, July 13, 1982, Cause: Gunfire. Detective Daryl W. Shirley, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, April 28, 1982, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Winston J. Rawlins, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, March 29, 1982, Cause: Fire. Police Officer William Edwin DeLeon, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, March 29, 1982, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer Jose A. Zamarron, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, April 18, 1981, Cause: Vehicular assault. Detective Victor R. Wells, III, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, October 2, 1980, Cause: Gunfire. Deputy City Marshal Charles H. Baker, Houston City Marshal's Office, EOW: Thursday, August 16, 1979, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Timothy Lowe Hearn, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, June 8, 1978, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer James F. Kilty, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, April 8, 1976, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer George G. Rojas, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, January 28, 1976, Cause: Stabbed. Police Officer Richard H. Calhoun, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, October to, 1975, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Francis Eddie Wright, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, August 2, 1975, Cause: Struck by vehicle. Police Officer Johnny Terrell Bamsch, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, January 30, 1975, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Jerry Lawrence Riley, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, June 18, 1974, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer David Huerta, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, September 19, 1973, Cause: Gunfire. Patrolman Antonio Guzman Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, January 9, 1973, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Jerry L. Spruill, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, October 26, 1972, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer David Franklin Noel, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, June 17, 1972, Cause: Stabbed. Police Officer Claude R. Beck, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, December 10, 1971, Cause: Struck by vehicle. Police Officer Robert Wayne Lee, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, January 31, 1971, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Leon Griggs, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, January 31, 1970, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Kenneth L. Moody, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, November 26, 1969, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Bobby L. James, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, June 26, 1968, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer Ben Eddie Gerhart, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, June 26, 1968, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Louis R. Kuba, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, May 17, 1967, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Louis L. Sander, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, January 21, 1967, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Floyd T. DeLoach Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, June 30, 1965, Cause: Gunfire . Police Officer Herbert N. Planer, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, February 18, 1965, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer James Franklin Willis, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, July 1, 1964, Cause: Automobile accident. Sergeant Charles R. McDaniel, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, August 4, 1963, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer James T. Walker, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, March 8, 1963, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Police Officer Gonzalo Q. Gonzalez, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, February 28, 1960, Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer John W. Suttle, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, August 3, 1959, Cause: Struck by vehicle. Police Officer C.E. Branon, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, March 20, 1959, Cause: Vehicular assault. Police Officer Noel R. Miller, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, June 6, 1958, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Robert Schultea, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, August 25, 1956, Cause: Gunfire. Auxiliary Officer Frank L. Kellogg, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, November 30, 1955, Cause: Gunfire. Captain Charles R. Gougenheim, Houston Police Department EOW: Saturday, April 30, 1955, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Jack B. Beets, Houston Police Department EOW: Saturday, April 30, 1955 Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Fred Maddox Jr., Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, February 24, 1954, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Smith Anderson ``Buster'' Kent, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, January 12, 1954, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Police Officer Howard B. Hammond, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, August 18, 1946, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer George D. Edwards, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, June 30, 1939, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer M.E. Palmer, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, March 24, 1938, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer A.P. Martial, Houston Police Department EOW: Monday, November 8, 1937 Cause: Automobile accident. Police Officer James T. Gambill, Houston Police Department EOW: Tuesday, December 1, 1936 Cause: Heart attack. Detective Rempsey H. Sullivan, Houston Police Department EOW: Saturday, March 9, 1935 Cause: Gunfire. Officer Harry T. Mereness, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, October 18, 1933, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Officer J.D. Landry, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, December 3, 1930, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Officer Willie Bonner Phares, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, September 30, 1930, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Edward D. Fitzgerald, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, September 20, 1930, Cause: Gunfire. Motorcycle Officer C.F. Thomas, Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, December 17, 1929, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Detective Ed Jones, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, September 13, 1929, Cause. Gunfire. Detective Oscar Hope, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, June 22, 1929, Cause: Gunfire. Detective A. Worth Davis, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, June 17, 1928 Cause: Gunfire. Detective Carl Greene, Houston Police Department, EOW: Wednesday, March 14, 1928, Cause: Gunfire. Officer R. Q. Wells, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, July 30, 1927, Cause: Automobile accident. Officer Perry P. Jones, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, January 30, 1927, Cause: Gunfire. Detective E. C. Chavez, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, September 17, 1925 Cause: Gunfire. Detective Pete Corrales, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, January 25, 1925, Cause: Gunfire. Officer J. Clark Etheridge, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, August 23, 1924, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Police Officer George Benard Crawford, Magnolia Park Police Department, EOW: Saturday, September 17, 1921, Cause: Motorcycle accident. Police Officer Dave Murdock, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, June 27, 1921, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Jeter Young, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, June 19, 1921, Cause: Vehicular assault. Detective Johnnie Davidson, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, February 19, 1921, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Ira Raney, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 23, 1917, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Ross Patton, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 23, 1917, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Horace Moody, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 23, 1917, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer E. G. Meinke, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 23, 1917, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Rufus E. Daniels, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 23, 1917, Cause: Gunfire. Detective Isaac Parson, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, May 24, 1914, Cause: Gunfire (Accidental). Detective Joseph Robert Free, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, October 18, 1912, Cause: Gunfire. Officer John M. Cain, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, August 3, 1911, Cause: Gunfire. Deputy Chief William E. Murphy, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, April 1, 1910, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer John C. James, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, December 12, 1901, Cause: Gunfire. Police Officer Herman Youngst, Houston Police Department, EOW: Thursday, December 12, 1901, Cause: Gunfire. Officer William F. Weiss Houston Police Department, EOW: Tuesday, July 30, 1901, Cause: Gunfire. Officer James E. Fenn, Houston Police Department, EOW: Sunday, March 15, 1891, Cause: Gunfire. Officer Henry Williams, Houston Police Department, EOW: Monday, February 8, 1886, Cause: Gunfire. Patrolman Richard Snow, Houston Police Department, EOW: Friday, March 17, 1882, Cause: Gunfire. Officer C. Edward Foley, Houston Police Department, EOW: Saturday, March 10, 1860 Cause: Gunfire.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will close with a prayer that those who are already lost will know that we pray for their eternal rest, and for those who live, that we pray for their continued service to this Nation. Mr. Speaker, as a senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee; as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; as the representative from Houston, which has one of the Nation's most effective police departments; and as a co- sponsor of the House companion measure, I rise in strong support of S. 665, the ``Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015.'' Every day, more than 900,000 officers protect and serve the people of the United States. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty every 58 hours. And, each year, there is an average of 58,930 assaults on our law enforcement officers, resulting in 15,404 injuries. Just yesterday, in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, a community held a memorial for two dedicated public servants fatally shot during a traffic stop on Saturday night. Married and the father of two, Benjamin Deen, a 34-year-old K-9 officer, was recognized in 2012 as the Hattiesburg ``Officer of the Year.'' Liquori Tate, just 25 years old, fulfilled a childhood dream when he graduated the police academy and joined the police force less than one year ago. For the community of Hattiesburg, these senseless deaths of on duty officers are the first in three decades. Hattiesburg is not alone in these tragic developments. Law enforcement fatalities in the U.S. rose 24 percent in 2014, reversing two years of significant decline. The number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty rose from 102 in 2013 to 126 in 2014. Preliminary statistics released yesterday by the FBI show that 51 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2014. This is an increase of almost 89 percent when compared to the 27 killed in 2013. And, of those 51 felonious deaths, offenders used firearms in 46. Just one day before this tragedy in Mississippi, Officer Brian Moore was laid to rest thousands of miles away in Long Island, New York. Around 6 p.m. on a Saturday, Moore and his partner came upon the gunman. After identifying himself as a police officer, and asking the gunman about the object in his waistband, the gunman fatally shot Moore in the face. Moore was just 20 years old when he joined the New York Police Department and, over five years of service, he earned two medals for meritorious police duty and two for excellent police duty. The killing of Officer Moore in New York City comes on the heels of the December killings of NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, for whom the legislation before us memorializes. These officers were killed on a Saturday afternoon, while sitting in their parked patrol car, by a man who had shared his intent to kill police officers on social media. This man traveled from Maryland to New York to execute his plan. Unfortunately, at the same time Maryland authorities were warning the NYPD of this threat, Officers Ramos and Liu were being assassinated. Benjamin Dean, Liquori Tate, Brian Moore, Rafael Ramos, and Wenjian Liu--these fallen heroes join the more than 20,000 U.S. law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice since the first known line-of-duty death in 1791, nearly 1,700 of whom hail from my home state of Texas and 121 from the Houston Police Department. The brave men and women who risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe are too often taken by the violence they are working to prevent. So when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed, rapid dissemination of information about the suspected criminal is critical to ensuring justice for that officer and keeping the public safe. These officers deserve more than just a response after violence, they deserve an effective, nationwide system that can widely disseminate advance warnings when an imminent and credible threat is made against them. Having in place such a system could be the difference between life and death. And, for Officers Ramos and Liu, having such a system in place may have given them a fighting chance. The measure before us seeks to meet these safety challenges by putting in place such a system. The Blue Alert system is modeled after the Amber Alert and the Silver Alert programs, which have been very successful in finding abducted children and missing seniors. Currently 22 states, including my home state of Texas, have local Blue Alert programs in operation. There is no national system, however, to coordinate alerts across multiple state lines. This legislation addresses this gap by directing the Attorney General to establish a national communications network within the Department of Justice to disseminate information when an officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of duty, or the target of an imminent, credible threat to do the same, and assign a Department of Justice officer to act as the national coordinator of the Blue Alert Network. The National Blue Alert Coordinator will-- (1) provide assistance to states and local governments using Blue Alert plans; (2) establish voluntary guidelines for states and local governments for developing these plans; develop protocols for efforts to apprehend suspects; (3) work with states to ensure regional coordination of various elements of the network; and (4) establish advisory groups, to assist states, local governments, law enforcement agencies and other entities in initiating, facilitating, and promoting Blue Alerts through the network. The Coordinator will also determine what procedures and practices to use in notifying law enforcement and the public when a law enforcement officer is killed or seriously injured in the line of duty, or is the target of an imminent, credible threat to do the same, and which procedures and practices are the most cost effective to implement. Mr. Speaker, it is time to expand this excellent program nationwide. Passage of S. 665 will not prevent the loss of all brave law enforcement officials in the future, but it can help. Even if it saves one life, and enables one officer to return safely home to his or her loved ones, this legislation will have proven its value. It is particularly timely that we consider this measure during National Police Week. This week is a special occasion during which we recognize our law enforcement officers and honor those who lost their lives in the line of duty. But it would be careless not to also reflect on the events that are unfolding across the Nation in response to tragic incidents involving the use of lethal force against unarmed citizens. The measure before us will enhance officer safety, which should always be one of our major concerns, but the issuance of alerts alone is not enough. The safety of law enforcement officers and community members are undeniably intertwined, but recent events have made it clear that the mutual trust and respect necessary for this relationship needs to be strengthened. If we are to succeed in the vital mission of building trust and mutual respect between law enforcement and the communities they serve, we must work to really see each other. We must also work to understand each other's reality. Citizens need to see the risks and dangers the men and women of law enforcement experience when they put on their badge. Law enforcement needs to see the same risks and dangers men and women in their communities experience when they walk down the street or drive their cars. We must see that we are not enemies and we must commit to addressing these problems in a productive and nonviolent manner. In order to fully see each other, we need to gain a clear picture of what is happening in our communities. The lack of comprehensive and reliable data feeds into this distrust and is an obstacle to moving us forward. As stated by FBI Director Comey, we cannot effectively address concerns about ``use of force'' policies and officer-involved shootings if we do not have a firm grasp on the demographics and circumstances of such incidents. That is why I have introduced H.R. 1810, the CADET Act, which would mandate the data collection and analysis necessary to properly educate and train law enforcement. We simply cannot have an informed discussion about sound policy if we do not improve the way we collect and analyze data. But it does not stop there. If we are to truly succeed in this mission, we in Congress must have a frank conversation about the policies we have enacted that have caused and exacerbated this distrust. We must recognize the role that our actions have played in constructing a criminal justice system that creates more criminals and victims than justice. And, we must do our part by taking up the task of reforming our criminal justice system so that it is fairer and delivers equal justice to all persons. Mr. Speaker, I support this bipartisan legislation because it increases safety for us all and it is an important step towards repairing the relationship between law enforcement and the communities that they serve. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join me, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the National Sheriffs Association in supporting S. 665. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Jewish American Heritage Month. Nearly 360 years have passed since the establishment of the first Jewish community in North America. Since that time, Jewish Americans have contributed to the cultural richness and diversity of our nation in every field of community life, including business, government, medicine, law, the natural and social sciences, the arts and humanities, academia, religion, and the military. There are approximately 5 million Jewish Americans and more than 100,000 of them live in Texas, nearly half of those, about 45,000, live in the Houston metropolitan area. Although their numbers may be small in a state with a general population over 20 million, the impact of Jewish Americans in Texas and in Houston has been great indeed. Jewish Americans were there during the fight for Texas' independence from Spain and Mexico. Adolphus Sterne, an East Texas merchant, became a principal source of financial backing for the Texas Revolution and a close friend of Sam Houston. Albert Moses Levy was surgeon-in-chief in the revolutionary army. The De Cordova family helped develop the city of Waco and Henri Castro settled immigrants in several Texas towns. In 1859 the first synagogue in Texas was established in Houston. Business and trade, especially the merchandising of food, clothing, jewelry with style, elegance, and distinction are the arenas in which many Jewish-Texan families made their most visual marks on the state of Texas. There is hardly a city in the Lone Star State whose history is without landmark stores founded and developed by Jewish entrepreneurs: Neiman, Marcus, Sanger in Dallas; Battelstein and Sakowitz in Houston; and Joske in San Antonio. These cities and towns reaped the benefits not only in availability of goods, but also in owners' generous patronage of the fine arts and in contributions to civic life such as the historic Levy Opera House in Hillsboro and the Brin Opera House in Terrell. Other early Jewish Americans who contributed mightily to civic life include Anna Hertzberg, who served as president of the original San Antonio Symphony Orchestra before World War I, and Olga Bernstein Kohlberg of El Paso, who started Texas' first free public kindergarten in 1892. That tradition continues today with the Dell Children's Hospital in Austin established by Dell Computers founder and CEO, Michael Dell. Mr. Speaker, it was 67 years ago this month that President Truman recognized the free, independent, and democratic State of Israel, making the United States the first country to welcome Israel into the family of nations. And for 65 years Israel and the United States have remained the best of friends and the strongest of allies. One reason for the enduring strength of this relationship is the enduring contributions made by Jewish Americans in enriching American life and culture. Mr. Speaker, as a representative of the state of Texas which has welcomed Jews for more than three centuries, I join with my colleagues and President Obama in calling upon all Americans to learn more about the heritage and contributions of Jewish Americans and to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Throughout the history of the United States, Asian American and Pacific Islanders have contributed to our greatest undertakings and our vibrant cultural diversity. They have become leaders in business, in the community, and in politics, overcoming adversity and prejudice in pursuit of the American Dream. Today, there are more than 20 million Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and more than 1 million of them live in Texas. A majority of them are concentrated in the cities, particularly Houston. At 80,049, the Vietnamese American community in the City of Houston has the third largest in the country. Houston is also home to sizable populations of Chinese Americans, Indian Americans, and Filipino Americans These communities have transformed the city, bringing their cultures, religions, and businesses and creating a new home. The first recorded Asian Americans in Texas were 250 Chinese laborers, who came to Houston to work on the railroad in 1870. It was thankless, dangerous work, but they helped to build the backbone of our state's economy. Although many of them would leave soon after the work was done, several stayed behind in Houston, and in the early 1900s the first Chinese business districts were opened. The Asian American population in Houston remained quite low until the 1970s, when a new wave of immigration brought tens of thousands of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to the city. Many of these early immigrants were Vietnamese refugees fleeing the country with the aid of the Indochinese Assistance and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. Others were Chinese, drawn by the growth of the Chinese Merchants' Association throughout the decade. Today, there are more than 100,000 Asian American and Pacific Islanders living in Houston. As of 2007, they operate 16,000 businesses, and there are multiple temples dedicated to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism. The city offers official documents in Vietnamese, Chinese, and Urdu. Neighborhoods from Little Saigon to Chinatown to the Mahatma Gandhi District are vibrant community centers for Asian Americans and other residents alike. But for all their contributions to our state and our country, there are still unacceptable challenges facing Asian American Pacific Islander communities. There is an urgent need to fix our broken immigration system by passing legislation that will support families, strengthen small businesses, protect workers and grow our nation's economy. These communities have also had historically low enrollment in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which would otherwise help them to achieve stability and security. Mr. Speaker, as a representative for tens of thousands of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, I join with my colleagues in recognizing the contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to not just our history, but our economy and our future. I call on all Americans to celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage month by deepening their understanding about these contributions, and pledge to support and serve Asian American and Pacific Islander families.

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 and that is why today I rise to pay tribute to six extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Kenya Metters, Chelsea Ukoha, Ryan Wallace, Gregory Butchello, Fabian Rubio, and Danielle Konerth. 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 today to recognize the holiday of Cinco de Mayo commemorating the victory of the Mexican Army 1862 over France at the Battle of Puebla during the Franco-Mexican War. Certain of Victory, 6,000 French troops led by General Charles Latrille de Lorencez attacked the city of Puebla de Los Angeles, but the 2,000 Mexican soldiers led by the Texas-born General Zaragoza defeated the French with 100 casualties as opposed to the 500 soldiers lost by the French. Cinco de Mayo has evolved in the United States into a celebration of Mexican culture and heritage. Different traditions surrounding Cinco de Mayo include parades, mariachi music performances, and street festivals and the serving of foods such as tacos and mole poblano; specifically in areas with a large Mexican-American population. Houston, Texas, along with Los Angeles, and Chicago are home to the largest Cinco de Mayo celebrations in the nation. As of March 2014, Latinos made up 38.2% of the Texas population, so it is very important to recognize and celebrate their culture. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in the recognition of Cinco de Mayo and celebrate Mexican culture as well as the victory at the Battle of Pueblo.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, Congressman Barbara Lee, for her courtesy. I join today in standing with my chair, Congressman Butterfield of the Congressional Black Caucus. I, as well, am overwhelmed with the pain that we have seen not only in Baltimore, which we have seen most recently, but in cities like Ferguson, in North Charleston, in New York, where we have seen the convergence of poverty and the need for criminal justice reform converge. I too want to offer my sympathy to the family of Freddie Gray. We have watched them over the past couple of days. In the midst of their mourning to be able to stand up and call for peace, nonviolence, nonviolent protests, they should be honored. And to those in Baltimore, and particularly my colleague from Maryland--I will call him Congressman Cummings with the bullhorn politics, the bullhorn leadership--he should be commended for the stunning and outstanding engagement, that he touched the hearts and minds of his constituents, walked those streets, to be able to acknowledge the pain, the poverty, but that there is a better way, that there is a way toward the stars that we all want our children to have. And, yes, to Ms. Graham, who wanted better for her son Michael. I want him not to be embarrassed but to be proud that he had a mother with such deep love that she wanted to take him away from doing it wrongly--not against protests, not against the quiet marching of the spirit of Dr. King, but to know that engaging in violence is intolerable and will not allow him to reach the very high heights that he can reach. Today I stand here to acknowledge the convergence of the need for criminal justice reform and the deep and abiding poverty in the African American community. One in every six Americans is living in poverty, totaling 46.2 million people. This is the highest number in 17 years. Children represent a disproportionate amount of the United States poor population. It falls heavily on the African American community. In my district, there are 190,000-plus living in poverty. It falls heavily on the African American community. Mr. Speaker, this is not a standing invitation for the door to open and say, let's blame President Obama. President Obama has been a stellar leader on the questions of realizing the investment in people. From the stimulus that brought us out of the depths of collapse of the markets and a complete imploding of the capitalistic system, he provided the stimulus that moved us toward an economy where we were creating jobs. But here we have in Congress this dastardly sequester that is cutting Head Start seats, not investing in infrastructure, not creating jobs or providing opportunities for our young people. So today I say that there needs to be a call for action. That call for action is that this Congress must get rid of sequester and must look at the Baltimores and must look at the Fergusons and Houstons and L.A.s and New Yorks and cities across America and realize that we are coming upon a summertime. And if we don't act to invest in our children and to begin to give an agenda to release ourselves from poverty, we will have doomed ourselves. And I would offer to say that the inertia of moving toward criminal justice reform in this Congress is unacceptable. I call upon Members to come together collectively to be able to pass legislation, the Cadet bill that I have introduced, the Build TRUST bill. But, more importantly, I am calling upon our government to invest in our youth, to get rid of the poverty, to prepare them as they go into higher education, as they go into upper grades. We must have a program of summer jobs this summer, and we must have a collaborative effort with corporate America. Wake up, corporate America. Wake up, corporate Baltimore. Wake up, corporate New York. Wake up, corporate Houston. There must be an investment in summer jobs, collaborating with the Federal Government to make a difference to lift families out of poverty. We do know that summer jobs with young people elevate families' ability to pay their bills and to provide resources for their families. So if the story of Baltimore is any, it is one, don't jump to conclusions. Don't jump to conclusions that Freddie Gray tried to hurt himself. Don't jump to conclusions that these young people don't mean well. Don't jump to conclusions that they shouldn't have done what they have done. Jump to the conclusions that these are young people who are hungry and looking for leadership and are in pain, as Congressman Cummings said. Look for the opportunity for them. Help rebuild Baltimore. Help give them jobs. Help tell them that the improved relationships between police and community are going to be moved forward as a number one agenda for the United States Congress and this government that they call the United States of America. Let us have a call to action--not of condemnation, but of action. I want to thank the young people who nonviolently marched all over America, indicating Black lives matter and all lives matter. The Congressional Black Caucus stands to stamp out poverty, and we stand, Mr. Speaker, to bring opportunities to young people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank again the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their courtesy and, as well, for the work that they have done on this legislation. This amendment was in this bill in the 113th in the FY 2013 Energy and Water Resources. It is a continuing effort to ensure that we focus on the need for science, technology, engineering, and math among minority populations in the United States. The amendment prohibits the use of funds made available for science in title III of the Department of Energy programs to be used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act, and addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering, and math. Some almost 20 years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton, in an executive order, directed Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including minorities, Native Americans, and women. Mr. Chairman, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college students but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders. This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of STEM professionals. As the Nation's demographics are shifting, as more and more of our children come of age, it is important that we continue to focus on improving the numbers of minorities who seek STEM opportunities. It is good for the country. I applaud Energy Secretary Moniz' commitment, which will increase the Nation's economic competitiveness and enable our people to realize their full potential. Mr. Chairman, there are still a great many scientific riddles to be solved, and the more people we have trained in the sciences, the more competitive our Nation will be; and the more we invest in underserved communities, the more competitive our Nation will be. The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for them. So I ask my colleagues to ensure that we continue this very important focus and emphasize the continued investment improving access to science, technology, engineering, and math to, in essence, solve, or help solve, the scientific riddles that continue to be before us to improve the quality of life of all Americans. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which invests in STEM in America for those who are underserved and whose lives could be enhanced by these programs. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to describe my amendment, which simply provides that: ``None of the funds made available by this Act for `Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science' may be used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).'' This amendment was approved and adopted in identical form on June 5, 2012, during the 112th Congress as an amendment to H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Resources Appropriations Act of 2013. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their stewardship in bringing this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come. Mr. Chair, twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including minorities, Native Americans, and women. Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders. This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of STEM professionals. As the nation's demographics are shifting and now most children under the age of one are minorities, it is critical that we close the gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM opportunities. I applaud the Energy Secretary Moniz's commitment which will increase the nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to realize their full potential. Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist will come-up with some of the solutions. The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for them. The energy and science education programs funded in part by this bill will help ensure that members of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environmental sustainability, preservation, and health. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings. Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, and other related subjects. The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find employment. With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater public awareness. But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they may engage in related commercial activities. My amendment will help ensure that underrepresented communities are able to participate and contribute equitably in the energy and scientific future. I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, let me begin by thanking Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for the work that they have done, a very challenging and popular appropriations when it comes to energy and water and also the issues of the environment. I have a very simple amendment that reinforces our commitment to communities from rural America to urban America, from hamlets and villages to large urban centers. And it simply emphasizes a quality of life: for all Americans to have a good, clean environment; to reduce asthma in children; to help senior citizens; and to have a good quality of life in their sunset years, in their older homes, in older communities, of which I represent, is an important funding necessity for this Nation. I want to emphasize the work that has been done and remind my colleagues--for those of us who had the privilege of being here--that President Clinton issued an executive order directing Federal agencies to address the disproportionately high and adverse human health environmental impacts on minority and low-income populations, which covered rural America, which oftentimes experienced the impact of the environment. We have worked over the years to improve their quality of life, and today I ask that we continue to do so. In particular, I want to refer to a project in Houston, Texas, called the CAS site. That site was attempted to be cleaned up. It is in an older neighborhood, Madam Chair. Senior citizens own their homes. They have been there for a long time. There have been a lot of machinations about this entity that is espousing chemicals, leaking chemicals because it is old and closed down and abandoned. And we had to call upon the environmental justice sector in the Federal Government to provide the leverage to help these senior citizens, people who did not want to move from their homes. I walked those streets, went into the backyards of senior citizens and saw the seepage coming out of the ground and, as well, coming in from the property on the back side. Environmental justice is a good thing, and it is through those efforts that we are working with the EPA to give hope to these citizens that they can stay in their homes. I live in the energy capital of the world. It is a job-creator. But on occasions, in the midst of our wetlands and our areas of pristine, if you will, environmental assets, we have some ups and downs. Just recently, I flew over the Houston port at the time of a spillage that was impacting some of our most environmentally important areas, including wetlands and areas that are protected or are important to the environment and to the quality of life. So I am asking that the Jackson Lee amendment be accepted for the importance of providing for the continued support of environmental justice and equality for areas that are both urban and rural. Let me finish by making this statement, Madam Chair. This is an important cause because, as we look at the funds that are dealing with environmental justice, they increase youth involvement through science, technology, engineering, and math. They also help to promote clean energy, weatherization, cleanup, asset revitalization, and they help my constituents and the constituents of so many in this body whose older neighborhoods are sometimes impacted by older entities that are left behind in the neighborhood where seniors continue to live. I want to be able to walk those neighborhoods and make sure that my seniors can stay in their homes--small frame homes--and make sure that as they stay in their frame homes, that they will have the quality of life that all of us would like. Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member. This is a tough job to do. And I would like to emphasize the importance of the funding for environmental justice and helping to continue, if you will, to put focus and emphasis on quality of life for homeowners, seniors, and people living in rural America and urban America. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to come. My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by $1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's Environmental Justice Program activities. Madam Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in the effort to improve the lives of low-income and minority communities as well as the environment at large. Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which fosters personal and economic growth. Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Minority-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting sustainability and growth of the community and environment. The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued preservation of their homes. Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can improve their surroundings.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her outstanding service and leadership on behalf of the District of Columbia and the people of the District of Columbia. As well, let me acknowledge the chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for his kind words of deliberation, and certainly the ranking member for his leadership, Mr. Cummings, who, as we all know, is addressing some of the very heavy concerns in his own city. Let me give all the facts, Madam Speaker. I happen to believe in statehood for the District of Columbia. I think that is important to state on the record. But I realize that the Constitution has a framework for the Congress to address the issues of the laws here in the District of Columbia. I realize, as well, that home rule has been given under that authority, and this Congress, in the right thinking, has allowed basically for the District of Columbia to rule its city on the basis of good governance of the citizens of this particular community. That is the right thing to do. They are taxpaying Americans. So I am disturbed by H.J. Res. 43 because it seeks to cause confusion where there is no need for confusion. Let me first start by saying that the Ninth Amendment gives a right to privacy to all Americans, and Washingtonians are Americans. The right to privacy has indicated, through the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade, the right to choose, is the law. Yes, the First Amendment gives the freedom of religion, but our gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has indicated that the District of Columbia clarified that this law does not violate and will not force someone to go against their political views or their religious views. Why are we here tonight when this resolution that the District of Columbia passed simply prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive health decisions, protects the reproductive health decisions of the spouses and dependents, and prohibits an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady. So, in essence, Madam Speaker, this resolution is not in order. If I might make another analogy, what is not given to the Federal Government is left to the States in the Tenth Amendment. I know that D.C. is not a State, but what I would say is that this law has been clarified in the District of Columbia. We are intruding. The rights are protected under the Ninth Amendment, and this resolution is out of order. I ask my colleagues to vote against it. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res. 43 disapproving the District of Columbia government's approval of the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act also known as RHNDA. As I have before, I maintain that the right of a woman to privacy must remain sacrosanct because the well being and protection of women is the nucleus of a healthy America and a healthy world. Indeed, in most parts of our country, the woman is the constant that keeps all the variables of family together, organized and on track. Thus, for three key reasons I oppose H.J. Res. 43. First, it is in derogation of DC's local autonomy, an autonomy that we enjoy in our respective states, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In relevant part, the Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I find it ironic, as duly elected officials that some of us seek to trample upon the rights that we enjoy vis a vis the separation of the federal and state powers, as delineated in our Constitution. To add insult to injury, some of us are even able to look the congressional representative from Washington, DC in the eye, while we take adverse decisions that affect the livelihood of her constituents. Second, the District of Columbia government's action does good without infringing on the First Amendment and religious freedoms of American citizens. Third, this recent iteration of the war on the rights of women underscores our misplaced priorities where we have numerous pressing issues. Among others, we continue to have unemployment, national security concerns with the continued proliferation of terrorist organizations across the globe. We continue to grapple with how we need to work in a bipartisan manner on the issues of education, healthcare and infrastructure building to protect children, our elderly, veterans and other groups. Our focus ought to be on bettering the quality of life for everyday American people. Let us zoom in on one of what should be our major priority areas: jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that over 8 million Americans are unemployed. Specifically, among the major worker groups affected by the current unemployment rates are adult men who account for 5.1 percent, adult women who account for 4.9 percent and teenagers who account for 17.5 percent. Whites make up 4.7 percent, African Americans 10.1 percent, Asians 3.2 percent and Hispanics make up 6.8 percent. Should we really be focusing our attention on a measure that blocks the District of Columbia's effort to make laws that protects the privacy rights of women and their spouses when we have more pressing priorities? But back to H.J. Res. 43. What does this legislation do to undermine DC's autonomy, attack women's rights and waste precious tax payer resources? H.J. Res. 43 seeks to undermine an underlying Bill: the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act considered, voted upon by the duly elected officials of the District of Columbia and signed into law by Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, DC in January of this year. The underlying bill signed into law in Washington, DC would do the following: Prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their reproductive health decisions. Protect the reproductive health decisions of spouses and dependents. Prohibit an employer from firing an employee for using in vitro fertilization or birth control. Contrary to assertions by my colleagues across the aisle, let us look at what RHNDA does not do: First, it does not impose any new requirements on employers to provide health insurance coverage; In fact, the D.C. Council considered this issue and clarified that RHNDA's protections do not reach insurance coverage by passing a temporary clarification; Second, the RHNDA does not infringe on First Amendment rights; Indeed, the RHNDA does not impact an organization or church's ability to make hiring decisions based on religious or political views. Opponents may claim that the bill might require churches or religious organizations to hire pro-choice candidates. This can hold no water because it is simply not within the scope of RHNDA. The RHNDA strikes the balance of protecting personal decisions a woman makes regarding her reproductive health while not overreaching related to personal religious beliefs as it relates to a woman's reproductive health. In my view, H.J. Res. 43 is another jab at the voice of women, their rights to self-determination and reproductive freedoms articulated in our nation's highest court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. My friends, this week, 100 years ago, over 1000 women activists congregated at the Hague to ask for peace, protesting World War I and asserted their right to self-determination. Dr. Aletta Jacobs, Jane Addams and sociologist Emily G. Balch were some of the champions of women's rights a century ago at the Hague. Similar to their counterparts a century ago, today, in our era, we are blessed with women who are champions of a woman's right to self- determination and privacy. Wendy Davis, Sandra Fluke and Lilly Ledbetter, just to name a few. Notwithstanding the sacrifices made by all these women of courage, women and girls continue to be at the mercy of people who fail to try to show empathy towards their mothers, their sisters, their daughters, and loved ones. Take for example the case of Emily Herx, a married woman who was terminated for using in vitro to become pregnant. With her husband by her side, fortunately she was awarded a $1.9 million judgment against her employer. Then there's the case of Jennifer Maudlin, a single unmarried mother working to support her children, who worked for an employer hostile towards unmarried women who became pregnant. Maudlin was terminated as well, but was able to enter a settlement with her employer after she fought her illegal termination. Then there is the case of Apryl Kellam, who was threatened with termination for being a single mother. And the stories go on and on. Clearly, as these real life stories reflect, H.J. Res. 43 affects all: significant others, spouses and daughters. If passed, Republicans seek to empower employers to fire a woman because she has an abortion after experiencing the violent act of rape. That is immoral. Republicans seek to empower employers to demote a woman or pay her less if she chooses to take birth control pills. That is unfair. Indeed, Republicans seek to empower employers to fire a male worker because he uses condoms and because his wife uses birth control pills. That makes no sense. Republicans seek to empower employers to terminate a male employee because his teenage daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock. That is irrational. In other words, Madam Speaker, H.J. Res. 43 is immoral, unfair and irrational. It is also in derogation of women's privacy rights, violative of family rights and economic empowerment-issues affecting the livelihood of millions of families across our nation. Thus, I stand in solidarity with my colleagues in opposing this Bill. I also stand in solidarity with the Administration which has urged Congress in this Statement of Administration Policy to adopt the President's FY 2016 Budget proposal allowing the District to enact local laws and spend local funds in the same way as other cities and States. For these reasons, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 43.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reclaiming my time, let me thank the chairman. With that, I thank my colleagues and ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to end homelessness for our veterans here in America. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, none of the funds made available by this Act for the Department of Veteran Affairs--Benefits for Homeless Veterans and Training and Outreach Programs may be used in contravention of the title 38, Part II, Chapter 20, Subchapter II and III of the U.S. Code This amendment will help ensure that the rate of homelessness among veterans in the United States does not increase. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Dent and Ranking Member Bishop for their hard work in shepherding this important legislation to the floor. I offer the Jackson Lee Amendment because I believe reducing and eliminating homelessness among veterans, those who risked their lives to protect our freedom, should also be one of the nation's highest priorities. Homelessness among the American veteran population is on the rise in the United States and we must be proactive in giving back to those who have given so much to us. My amendment will help remind us of our obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid homelessness, which includes adequately funding for programs Veterans Administration Supportive Housing VASH) that provide case-management services, adequate housing facilities, mental health support, and address other areas that contribute to veteran homelessness. VASH is a jointly-administered permanent supportive housing program for disabled Veterans experiencing homelessness in which VA medical Centers provide referrals and case management while Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) administer the Section 8 housing vouchers. Mr. Chair, our veterans deserve the best services available, and I believe that we could be doing much more for them. Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female) who are homeless on any given night. And perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing. While significant progress has been made, ending homelessness among veterans remains a big challenge. In my hometown of Houston for example, between the years 2010 and 2012, the number of homeless veterans increased from 771 to 1,162. We must remain vigilant and continue to fight for those who put on the uniform and fought for us. Providing a home for veterans to come home to every night is the very least we can do. Mr. Chair, programs like VASH have succeeded in changing lives. In 2012 alone, 35,905 veterans lived in the public housing provided by VASH. I have seen the impact of such grants in my home state of Texas, and within my congressional district in Houston, and I am sure that this funding has positively impacted many communities across this country. In Texas, there are committed groups in Houston, working to eradicate the issue of homelessness. For example, the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center has been involved in changing veterans' lives in a mighty way by providing Veterans and their families with access to affordable housing and medical services that will help them get back on their feet. Mr. Chair, we cannot let this issue of homelessness continue. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment and commit ourselves to the hard but necessary work of ending veteran homelessness in America.

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