Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I address the House to discuss a number of concerns that I believe we need to confront as quickly as possible. Yesterday and today commemorate, sadly, the snatching of over 200 girls from northern Nigeria--the area in which the girls lost their innocence and their right to a good quality of life. It was in the dark of night when heinous thugs, armed with horrific weapons, burst into the dorm rooms of sleeping girls who were preparing to take exams to improve their lives. Their parents had worked hard. They were like any other parents here in the United States or around the world, loving their children; and these heinous thugs with their vile leader, Boko Haram, stole them--stole their innocence and, in a certain sense, their virginity. Now we are struggling to find them. For over a year, many of us pressed the Nigerian Government to find and bring back the girls. In the spring of 2014, I traveled to the northern state with my colleague Ms. Wilson and with my colleague from Texas, and we met with broken families and with the girls who had escaped. We saw the northern state. We were not welcomed by the words that we were saying, which was ``bring the girls back.'' We met with generals in our military. We saw our military's compassion under the Africa Command, and we saw that they were ready to be of assistance. Those generals, I must say, said that they were ready. In the course, Boko Haram has killed 15,000 people. There are thousands who are displaced--1.5 million, I believe the number is--and these girls are still missing. They are said to have been married off, but some girls are worth rescuing. All girls are worth rescuing. All children are worth saving. Today, we will stand on the steps of the Capitol, begging for help from the international community. I must make mention that the African Union, through the auspices of the United Nations, has developed a strategy and a military effort, led by Chad, Niger, Cameroon, and Nigeria, but they are still not found-- they are still not caught--and Boko Haram continues to be the heinous, vile organization that should not exist in attacking the innocent people of Nigeria. Boko Haram has declared itself part of the family of ISIL. That alone stands to promote them as a heinous terrorist group, and they should draw the attention of the world just like ISIL has drawn the attention of the world. Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon the United States, who I believe has a deep commitment to find these girls, to be able to engage in an intensified effort to find them and a collaborative effort with our expertise, continued, to be able to assure that these girls are brought home, but that Boko Haram does not continue to flaunt itself. Let me add al-Shabaab, that did the heinous killings of students in Kenya. We must be concerned about a continent that is our friend, a continent that desires to do trade and business with us, a continent that looks to America--Africa, who loves America. You can see the array of Africans who are here in the United States. I have the largest population of Nigerians--wonderful, good people, doctors and teachers, lawyers, public servants. But we must stand with them to bring these girls back. Let me show you the mutilating and destroying of Christian artifacts, the destruction of towns left in their midst. They don't care, and I am outraged that they are standing. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, as I ask for them to be rescued, as I go to express this in an open forum to our community, our Nation. Let me add that part of the work of the Department of Justice deals with issues of human trafficking, and sometimes it takes it internationally. So I conclude my remarks by saying that we must--we must--confirm as General, Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General nominee of the United States of America. This is an African American woman that has been held without conscience. She is qualified; she is ready to serve; and I would ask my colleagues to show to the world what kind of country America is--that we follow process, and that this individual be allowed to serve her nation as she desires to do.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Rockefellers were most notorious, positively, for giving money back because they realized that they had gained money through the system here in the United States, their hard work--I am not denying that--but, in the overall system that we have, allowed their money to grow. I would just make the argument that we can do well together in doing a comprehensive system. I certainly will not ignore the fact that the equalizing of taxes through the sales tax deduction is an important step, but I would like to take many steps. I would like my colleagues to join me in relieving the sequester but also not voting for the previous question so that pay equity can come to the floor. Vote for the women.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman from Colorado for his very lucid explanation of where we are today. Let me say that I hope my colleagues will join me in eliminating sequester. We can put that on the floor today that would in actuality provide more funding for education, for military pay, and for the infrastructure. We need to be doing serious work here. Let me join my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, in opposing the rule and the previous question in order to be able to assure that we pass pay equity. Today, in 2015, whether we have the death tax or the sales tax, we have women who are making 75 cents on a dollar and cannot make ends meet. We are having women who are not in the body of this august House and Senate working every day and getting 75 cents on the dollar. It is time for pay equity now. Let's hear the voices raised up to be able to support the working women of America who over almost a century ago--not yet--were fighting for the right to vote. We have gained the right to vote, but we are still in an unequal economic circumstance. I want my colleagues to be as energetic about providing for pay equity. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say something that is sort of bifurcated. I will say to you that, on the death tax, there is an equity in that. There is an equity in that because the ability to build that estate has been through the gracious laws and hard work of the people, a combination that you are in the capitalistic system that is here in America and, therefore, the death tax is simply the transfer tax that goes on the basis of all of this money that you have made to be able to help run this government. I don't really think that that is offensive at all because there are many tax breaks that have come to the individuals with these huge estates through their lifetime: capital gains tax; many different taxes that they have; R&D taxes, research tax that gives them a benefit. It is not like we are taking money. It is an investment in America. Let me also add that I do come from Texas, and I do think equalizing of taxes is very important. I really do. What I would like to say to my friends is let us have a comprehensive tax reform. Let's get rid of sequester. Let's pass pay equity. Let's address the tax problems of people who make $50,000 a year, and that does impact those who pay sales tax. That is a reasonable approach. Let's look at everybody in the circle of life, if you will, and make sure that, when we leave this floor tomorrow, we have addressed the concerns of all. Let us look closely at the death tax and the fact that they are not being punished; it is a transfer based upon the bounty of wealth that has been gained over the years and invested because of a capitalistic system that allows that wealth to grow. I don't think anybody can challenge that when you have become a Rockefeller.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what you have seen today is the powerful impact of the women of the United States Congress. Earlier today, we joined on the steps of the United States Capitol; and in that area that we joined with the young girls who had escaped from Boko Haram, women of faith, and many other advocates, we stood there, arm-in-arm, listening to the stories of those young girls who jumped out of trucks and escaped the violence of Boko Haram and their very thuggish leader. The Boko Haram are terrorists. A year ago, they stole the ``world's girls.'' I led a delegation, joined by my colleagues, to Nigeria. In that effort, we saw the families who were crying and broken. We protested at the Nigerian Embassy and made a direct call to the then President to ask him to denounce Boko Haram. Today, we have been on the floor. Working with my colleagues, we have continuously said: bring the girls back. Mr. Speaker, in Nigeria, 15,000 have been killed because of Boko Haram. Also, 1.5 million are displaced persons, 800,000 of which are children. I end my remarks by saying: bring the girls back. I am delighted to have been with Congresswoman Maloney and Congresswoman Wilson. We will never give up on bringing the girls back. They are the world's girls. They are our girls.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have taken to this floor many times to mourn the tragic deaths caused by senseless death acts of gun violence that have too frequently plagued our communities in recent years. I rise today to remember Michael Wartell of Houston, Texas, a constituent of mine who died last Thursday, March 26, 2015, when he was caught in the crossfire of a gun fight and struck by a stray bullet. Mr. Speaker, Michael Wartell lost his life doing what he lived for, helping others. The reason he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on that fateful day is because he was there to do the right thing for the right reason. As the Houston Chronicle reported, ``the 62-year-old Army veteran made a habit of going out of his way to protect the people he cared about, to make sure they were safe[, including] out for the owners of a tiny laundromat less than half a block from his Fifth Ward home.'' After a robbery there, Michael Wartell often would go to the laundromat to see to it that the owners made it safely to their cars at the end of the day; once he broke up a fight at the laundromat, persuading a gunman to put away his weapon. Born and raised in Houston, after high school Michael Wartell enlisted in the United States Army, serving two tours of duty. After his service in the military, he worked as a truck driver driving across the country in his 18-wheeler for over twenty years, before retiring to move back home so he could care for his aging mother, Earline. Michael Wartell loved to read, particularly books about history and cooking and he loved to cook, spend time with his dog, and lend a helping hand to people in his neighborhood. Unfortunately, last Thursday Wartell was caught in the crossfire, struck by a stray bullet as he tried to run to safety. Mr. Speaker, this terrible tragedy is simply the latest reminder that action is needed, and needed now, to prevent gun violence. As a member of the House Democratic Task Force on Gun Violence Prevention and the Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I understand that changing the pervasive culture of gun violence will not happen overnight. This tragedy is another powerful reminder of the urgent need to enact sensible policies to reduce the incidence of gun violence, beginning with the adoption of universal background checks which are supported by nearly 90% of the American people. Mr. Speaker, the death of Michael Wartell is a tragedy for his family and loved ones, for the Houston community, and for the nation he served with honor and distinction as a member of the Armed Forces. He will be deeply missed and I ask that a moment of silence be observed in his memory.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in remembrance of one of the greatest Americans produced by our beloved country, Cesar Estrada Chavez who died on April 23, 1993 at the age of 66. Cesar Chavez was a civil rights activist, labor leader, and champion of social and economic justice. Throughout his life Cesar Chavez fought for justice for the poor, the young, the vulnerable, and those living on the margins and in the shadows of the richest and most powerful nation on earth. Because of Cesar Chavez, migrant farmworkers and their families now enjoy more humane living and working conditions. Cesar Chavez knew firsthand how hard the life of migrant farm workers was because he lived it himself, beginning with his work in the fields of the Central Valley at the age of ten to help support his family. In 1945, Chavez served his country as a member of the U.S. Navy as he fought in the latter part of World War II. Cesar Chavez began his consequential career as a field organizer for the Community Service Organization in 1952 and steadily rose through the ranks until he became CSO National Director. In 1965, Cesar Chavez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association with Dolores Huerta which evolved into the United Farm Workers union. The National Farm Workers Association was successful in securing fair wages and safe working conditions for farm workers. The UFW also led a worldwide grape boycott that helped ensure farm workers had a voice in contract negotiations. In 1972 Cesar Chavez fasted in response to Arizona's passage of legislation that prohibited boycotts and strikes by farm workers during the harvest season. With his death also came a great sense of pride for all the progress that Cesar Chavez brought as a direct result of his unwavering commitment to farm workers' rights. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the honor of being the Grand Marshal for the 16th annual Cesar Chavez Day Parade in Houston. The parade serves as a great opportunity not only to remember a great man, but to remind us of our responsibilities to each other and to fight for equal justice for all persons. Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Commonwealth Club in 1984, Cesar Chavez said: Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot un-educate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. Mr. Speaker, Cesar Chavez was an agent of change. He educated his people and instilled in them a sense of pride. He taught them to be unafraid to fight for justice and human dignity. Cesar Chavez made a difference, and he made our country better. I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Cesar Estrada Chavez.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Equal Pay Day, a day in which President John F. Kennedy, on June 10th, 1963, proposed the simple principle that women deserve equal pay for equal work. The symbolism of this day is expressed in that, as we are more than three months into the year, women's wages are only now beginning to catch up to what men were paid the previous year. Today, women on average make 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, amounting to an annual disparity of more than $10,876 dollars between full-time working men and women. It is important to understand what 78 cents to ever dollar means to a family: $10,876 could purchase 86 more weeks of food; $10,876 could afford more than 3,200 additional gallons of gasoline; $10,876 could support families in incredible ways, and yet, even today, $10,876 annually is exactly what women currently do without simply because of being women. For African American women and Latina women, the wage gap is even higher. African American women on average earn only 64 cents, while Latina women earn 54 cents to every dollar earned by white, non- Hispanic men. In my home state of Texas, however, the average wage gap for African American women is 59 cents to the dollar. For Latina women, it is an abysmal 45 cents to the dollar. This is why I support H.R. 1619, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which addresses loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act. H.R. 1619 would protect employees who voluntarily share their own salary information at work from retaliation by an employer and remove obstacles in the Equal Pay Act to facilitate plaintiffs' participation in class action lawsuits that challenge discrimination. H.R. 1619 would also better align key Equal Pay Act defenses with those in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, requiring employers to prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons. On this Equal Pay Day, I call upon House Republicans, all of whom have so far refused to co-sponsor the Paycheck Fairness Act, to answer this simple question: why are you opposed to woman earning the same amount as men? I ask House Republicans to stop wasting the time of this Congress with attempts to defund the Department of Homeland Security and focus your energies on legislation that would actually help the American people. Let us call this opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act, and opposition to all acts of Congress dating back to the 1960's that have attempted to ameliorate the glaring disparities in wages between women and men, for what it is: deliberately and blatantly sexist. I ask all my colleagues to come help make the Paycheck Fairness Act a reality. We should remember: equal pay is not simply a women's issue--it is a family issue. It is time now to update antiquated pay equality laws and to eliminate the wage gap entirely between men and women. It is time for equal pay for equal work.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just as the President does, the United States Congress has the bully pulpit. In doing so, I believe that America cries out for a response. Over the past 6 months to a year, we have seen a number of tragic incidences occurring between civilians and police. In particular, we cite the tragedy of the shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina. All lives matter. To those who have been petitioning and protesting--young people indicating that black lives matter--it is a reflection of the high number of African Americans who find themselves at the wrong end of the gun of someone engaged in law enforcement. We know that there are good people who serve this Nation, and we are a law-abiding nation. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important that we begin an open discussion in the Congress that deals with the issues of lethal force, excessive force, police training, statistics. I intend to introduce and to ask my colleagues to join me on the Cadet bill, which reaches a wide-ranging perspective of the statistics of shootings in America--civilian shootings on police and law enforcement shootings on civilians--because that is the science of criminal justice reform. I draw upon this to say that we cannot be silent anymore. People are hurting. My sympathy to those who have lost lives, including law enforcement and our civilians.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, National Minority Health Month is a very important time to bring awareness to the many health concerns facing minority communities. My colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and I understand the very difficult challenges facing us in the form of huge health disparities among our community and other minority communities. We will continue to seek solutions to those challenges. It is imperative for us to improve the prospects for living long and healthy lives and fostering an ethic of wellness in African-American and other minority communities. Certainly, the Affordable Care Act, which I co- sponsored and worked on has brought a new quality of life and access to healthcare for millions of Americans including minorities. I thank all of my CBC colleagues who been toiling in the vineyards for years developing effective public policies and securing the resources needed to eradicate racial and gender disparities in health and wellness. Let me focus these brief remarks on what I believe are some of the greatest impediments to the health and wellness of the African-American community and other minority communities. The first challenge is reversing the dangerous trend of increasing obesity in juveniles and young adults. Cancer, diabetes and hepatitis are of great importance as well as combating the scourge of HIV/AIDS. Finally, we must confront the leading cause of death of young African-American males between the ages of 15-24; that cause is not disease or accidental death, but homicide.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan and my friend from Texas, and what a celebration of Members coming together, Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I stand on this floor to ensure and insist that I am here to protect seniors and to ensure that the vote taken today does not undermine the protection of Medicaid and Medicare, in particular Medicare for our seniors, and that any vote does not in any way hinder those and provide a burden for those who cannot pay. This provides a pathway for providing for our medical providers with the SGR fix; it provides seniors with quality healthcare services so they can go to the doctor they want; and, yes, it provides quality funding for our children and for our low-income families. It supports our federally qualified health clinics, and coming from the city of Houston with the Texas Medical Center, there are a lot of doctors. Those doctors serve the poor and they serve seniors, and I want to make sure they are able to do so. The CHIP program will be protected that has been a vital program to provide for those families for our children to be healthy. Let me agree with my colleague, brother Pascrell, this is good for America. I am delighted to support this, and we are going to help physician-owned hospitals and look forward to a better day. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the ``Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' and the underlying bill. H.R. 2 repeals and replaces the Medicare Physician Payment System and incentivizes quality care for seniors, children and low income- families. I thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member Levin for their work in shepherding this legislation, which enjoys bipartisan support to the floor. I support the bill before us because it protects our seniors, our children, low-income families, and equitably compensates physicians who provide critically needed health services. This bipartisan legislation represents a significant achievement because it reforms Medicare's payment system and maintains critical funding for health care for millions of seniors, low-income children, and families. Compensating our medical providers adequately to enable them to continue providing much needed services to our seniors is a moral imperative. Assuring that our seniors receive quality health services is a moral imperative. Providing critical healthcare funding for children and low income families is also a moral imperative. Physicians from my congressional district in Texas, and others across the country, serve and provide remarkable healthcare to our seniors, children, and low income families. The 70,000 seniors in my congressional district are entitled to the security that comes from knowing that healthcare will be available to them when they need it the most. The 4.4 million low income families and children in the state of Texas and the 130,000 children in Harris County will benefit from this bill because it provides the resources needed to improve their quality of health. It is important that physicians who are willing to serve our seniors, children, and low income families not have to go broke doing so. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly list several of the more important aspects of this bill which I wholeheartedly support: For our seniors, the bill repeals the sustainable growth rate (also known as SGR) formula and phases in a value based payment system for physicians serving Medicare patients for the quality of care they provide. For our seniors, children and low-income families, the new payment incentives in the bill encourage physicians to move towards alternative payment models such as bundled payment and shared savings which foster alignment of high-quality and cost effective healthcare. This bill extends the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, for two years. Over 928,000 children are in CHIP in Texas, and 130,000 in Harris County, will benefit from this bill. For our children, ``clean'' extensions in the bill maintain policies and funding that does not include detrimental policies or cuts. This funding supports evidence-based programs that have been proven to reduce health care costs, improve school readiness, and increase family self-sufficiency and economic security. This bill extends the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program for two years. This bill extends funding for 1,300 federally funded community health centers located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and six U.S. territories, distributed evenly between urban and rural areas, that serve 28 million patients. A third of those patients are children, and 93 percent of patients served have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. The vast majority of the 90 million patient visits to community health centers were for primary medical care. Without the funding, 7.4 million low-income patients--including 4.3 million women provided by this bill would lose access to health care. This bill extends the Qualifying Individual Program--which subsidizes Medicare premiums for low-income beneficiaries--permanently. This bill permanently corrects Medicare payments to physicians an provides much-needed certainty and stability to the Medicare program. Importantly, the bill provides financial incentives to reinforce the country's path toward a health care system that rewards value and quality of care. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan legislation is a step in the right direction in Medicare payment reform and ensures continued funding that improves the health and welfare of millions of seniors, children, and families. H.R. 2 is important because it reforms our flawed Medicare physician payment system; incentivizes quality and value for our seniors; and extends coverage for our children and low income families. For all these reasons, I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to likewise.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we just witnessed an opportunity that should not be singular, and that is the coming together of Members of the United States Congress to address some very important issues. I have already spoken on the importance of providing for the Children's Health Insurance Program that this legislation, H.R. 2, has provided for and securing Medicare for our seniors and ensuring funding for our federally qualified health clinics, the very clinics that I advocated for so many years ago. And we have seen a growth in them. The ones that are in my congressional district, they opened their doors to low-income and those without insurance in years past. We are trying to get in front of the issue and the crisis of health care in America. But I want to make sure that as we pass this legislation, we do not forget physician-owned hospitals, which are prevalent in the State of Texas, and there are many in my neighborhood. These are doctors who have sacrificed to open the doors of hospitals in low-income areas. It is important for CMS to make sure that their applications are expeditiously and efficiently reviewed and that they have the opportunity to expand. This is language that we have put into the Affordable Care Act so the doors of these hospitals can remain open to the sick and those who are in neighborhoods where access to health care is not strong. I ask my colleagues to continue to push forward on good health care in America and to help physician-owned hospitals in the way that they should be under the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional Progressive Caucus to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2016.'' I support the CPC's ANS, ``The People's Budget'' because it fixes an economy that, for too long, has failed to provide the opportunities American families need to get ahead. Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not Right'' Budget with its discredited and unworkable economic gimmicks and unrealistic projections and adopt the CPC's People's Budget, here is what we can expect: 1. 8.4 million good paying jobs by 2018; 2. $1.9 trillion investment in America's future; and 3. $820 billion investment in infrastructure and transportation improvements. The People's Budget will usher in a new era of broad-based and shared prosperity by: 1. repealing the draconian sequester and all Budget Control Act spending caps; 2. increasing discretionary funding to invest in working families; 3. reversing harmful cuts to social safety net; and 4. investing in veterans, women, and working families. Under the People's Budget, millions of working families will see an increase in their purchasing power because the budget: 1. creates more than 8 million good jobs by 2018; 2. includes a four percent raise for federal workers; 3. provides for paid leave and child care; 4. supports an increase in the minimum wage increase and collective bargaining; and 5. fully funds programs to make housing affordable and accessible for all Americans. Mr. Chair, Americans cannot reach their full potential if they lack educational opportunities, health security, or are saddled with crushing educational debts. That is why the CPC's People's Budget invests in K-12 and provides free pre-school, and provides debt-free college to every student and refinancing of student loans on terms favorable to students trying to get ahead, not banks. The CPC's People's Budget repeals the excise tax on high-priced workers plans, removes the prohibition barring CMS to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients, and reauthorizes the Children's Health Insurance Program. Mr. Chair, because the People's Budget is for all persons in our country, it adopts comprehensive immigration reform and welcomes the substantial economic benefits it will generate. Everyone knows that our current outdated immigration laws have failed workers, families, businesses and increasingly, our nation's immigrants. Employers are unable to hire the workers they need. Immigrant workers are exploited. Families trying to reunite legally are separated for many years, and millions of individuals are forced to live in the shadows. The People's Budget helps immigrants integrate into American society and participate in the economy by becoming entrepreneurs, small business owners, innovators and future job creators. With comprehensive immigration reform, the federal budget deficit will be reduced by $197 billion over the next decade and $700 billion over the next 20 years according to a report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Chair, I could go on at length explaining why the CPC's People's Budget is superior to the House Republican's ``Worker Harder, Get Less'' budget. But let me conclude by noting that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.'' The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards; the CPC's People's Budget does not. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the CPC's People's Budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to offer my appreciation to Ranking Member Scott both for his service on the Education Committee as a ranking member, but also for his continuing efforts and work on a very, very positive step, great step, toward changing America. There is a premise in the Republican budget, two premises or underlying thoughts that I vigorously disagree with. As I stand in explaining or supporting the Congressional Black Caucus budget, let me also say that I rise in support of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget--and I will provide a statement into the Record--for its efforts in improving America. But the premise of the budget of our friends on the other side of the aisle is that if you are poor, if you are in need of help, then it is either your fault or you are taking advantage of the government's charity and largess. Walk a mile in the district that I represent--and many districts across America--and you will find parents who get up at 4 and 6 in the morning to jobs that are less than the minimum wage in some instances, or are the minimum wage, working very hard to support their families. Those individuals deserve an equal opportunity. I am grateful that this budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, talks about a comprehensive jobs program totaling some $500 billion--a mere $500 billion--over 3 years. We understand that people want to work. This involves a national direct job creation program, a program to assist local government in hiring and retaining teachers and law enforcement, investing to rebuild our Nation's crumbling infrastructure, rebuilding neighborhoods, and, as well, understanding that you can't work harder and get less. Mr. Chairman, one of the issues that I am very supportive of in this budget, one that others would not think of, is ending the Cradle to Prison Pipeline.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that limiting the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences on nonviolent drug offenders would have an overall net savings of $3 billion over 10 years. This is a budget that goes to the heart of the concerns of Americans who may not have the right start in life but deserve an opportunity. I want to be able to support a budget that, in essence, reduces the deficit and takes away sequestration, not piles taxes on persons who cannot afford them and creates very little jobs and undermines the social network that is necessary for those of us who believe we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keeper. I ask you to support the Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is smart, it is strong, and it leads America forward. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) offered by the Congressional Black Caucus to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2016.'' I support the CBC Budget for four principal reasons: 1. It ends the threat of sequestration; 2. It will accelerate our economic recovery; 3. It will help eradicate poverty in America; and 4. It will reduce the deficit by approximately $1.9 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Chair, if we reject the House Republicans' ``Price Is Not Right'' and ``Work Harder to Get Less'' Budget with its discredited economic gimmicks and unrealistic projections and adopt the CBC Budget, we will get instead a comprehensive jobs program totaling $500 billion over three years. The jobs created will accelerate our economic recovery and ensure that it reaches every community in America, while also making the necessary investments to ensure America's longterm economic competitiveness. Specifically, the CBC Budget will create jobs by providing: 1. $100 billion to fund a National Direct Job Creation Program; 2. $50 billion for school Modernization; 3. $50 billion to assist local government hire and retain teachers, law enforcement and first responder Jobs; 4. $230 billion in immediate investment to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure; 5. $50 billion to rebuilding neighborhoods and communities not fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2008; 6. $13 billion for job training programs; and 7. $7 billion for summer jobs so young persons can save money to attend college and plan for their futures. Mr. Chair, when it comes to addressing the poverty that is still too prevalent in our country, the CBC Budget is clearly superior to the Republican's ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget. The CBC Budget provides for $300 billion for programs that have proven instrumental in lifting millions of Americans out of poverty. The funding provided will be used to restore cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, extend emergency unemployment insurance, expand access to affordable housing, increase access to quality and affordable education, and increase funding for job training and trade adjustment assistance programs. Additionally, Mr. Chair, to ensure that federal resources are targeted more efficiently towards eradicating poverty and are actually reaching communities most in need, the CBC budget proposes the codification of the ``10-20-30'' policy for federal spending. Under the ``10-20-30'' policy at least 10 percent of the federal funds in certain accounts are to be directed to areas that have had a poverty rate of 20 percent for the last 30 years. Finally, I support the CBC Budget because it puts an end to the draconian sequester burdening the economy and our people for the last several years. In addition, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit by approximately $1.9 trillion over 10 years. Mr. Chair, it is said often, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said: The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. The Republican budget resolution fails this moral test; the CBC Budget does not. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the House Republicans' budget and voting for a better alternative, the CBC Budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my good friend from Maryland for his leadership consistently that really speaks to the hearts and minds of Americans because we know what Americans want: just a simple opportunity to live, thrive, and to create the values that we have built this country on. If you work hard, you are successful. Mr. Chairman, the budgeteers on the majority side have a very poor track record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections. Let me also acknowledge the chairman of this committee for the work that he has done. We just happen to disagree. Ever since the Affordable Care Act was passed, it has been the challenge of Republicans to suggest that it wasn't working. We have close to 11 million people insured. Some populations who were never insured now have high numbers--citizens who were uninsured. And so the idea of the Affordable Care being a failure, you are just dead wrong. I am very glad to support the Democratic alternative because it is the opposite of the Republican budget, which says work harder for less when we know what Americans need and what they want for their families. They want to be able to buy a home; they want to be able to send their kids to college, and they want a secure retirement. Under the GOP budget, it is harder to buy a home, absolutely almost impossible to send your children to college, and certainly harder to enjoy a secure retirement. House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that it costs jobs. Wrong again. For every increase in the minimum wage, it has been accompanied by an expanding economy. House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform, wrong again. Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO indicate that the gross domestic product will grow $1.5 trillion over 10 years. This is a sorry track record of economic forecasting, and therefore, this budget is one that I have to oppose because it favors the wealthy over working class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class. I oppose the Republican budget because it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet and fundamentally alters the social contract by turning Medicaid and the SNAP program into a block program and Medicare into a voucher.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is clearly not a working road map for success. If the House Republican's ``work harder to get less'' budget were adopted, here is a sample of the pain and misery that will be visited on working families: an end to higher education tax credits, an end to needed increases in the child tax credit, the loss of access to tax credits for the Affordable Care Act, a reduction in tax rates for the wealthy, yielding average tax cuts of $200,000 for millionaires financed by a $2,000 tax increase on the typical working class family. Mr. Chairman, this ``Price is not right'' budget will make it harder to get to the middle and working class parents to send their kids to college, ending these higher education tax credits and cutting student loan programs and Pell grants.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As I close, let me thank the gentleman for his courtesy. Mr. Van Hollen is right. I have served on the Judiciary Committee. It is there that we deal with the problems, particularly on the Crime Subcommittee, at the end of someone's detour in life. Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? Those detours in life that wind up with 75,000 persons in the Federal prison system on mandatory minimums has been because people cannot read, do not have opportunities, and do not have jobs. I want to invest in a budget that lifts the boats of all people; if you work hard, you get a home; if you work hard, you can send your kids to school; if you work hard, you can retire. That is the budget I want to support, not this no-success budget that is being proposed by our Republican friends. I ask my colleagues to support the alternative budget along with the CPC and the CBC budget. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 27, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2016'' because it continues the reckless and irresponsible approach to fiscal policy that the House majority has championed for years, with disastrous results. Mr. Chair, the budgeteers on the majority side have a very poor track record when it comes to economic forecasts and projections. For years, they have based their entire legislative agenda and strategy on their belief that the Affordable Care Act or ``Obamacare'' would be a failure. The wish was father to the thought. But they were wrong. Because of Obamacare more than 16.4 million Americans now know the peace of mind that comes from affordable, quality health insurance that is there when you need it. House Republicans oppose increasing the minimum wage, claiming that it costs jobs. Wrong again. Every increase in the minimum wage has been accompanied by an expanding economy, especially during the Clinton Administration. House Republicans opposing comprehensive immigration reform claim that it will lead to lower incomes and lost jobs. Wrong again. Studies conducted by groups as far apart as the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO consistently show that comprehensive immigration reform will grow the Gross Domestic Product by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Given this sorry track record of economic forecasting, I strongly oppose the Republican budget because it favors the wealthy over middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class. I oppose this Republican budget because it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract by turning Medicaid and SNAP programs into a block grant and Medicare into a voucher. I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance the budget on the backs of working families, seniors, children, the poor, or mortgages the future by failing to make the investments needed to sustain economic growth and opportunity for all Americans. Mr. Chair, the GOP ``Work Harder, Get Less'' Budget squeezes hard- working Americans by making it: 1. Harder to buy a home by keeping their paychecks stagnant; 2. harder to send your kids to college by cutting student loans; and 3. harder to enjoy a secure retirement by privatizing Medicare. If the House Republicans' ``Work Harder to Get Less'' budget were adopted, here is a sample of the pain and misery that will be visited on middle-class and working families: 1. An end to higher education tax credits; 2. an end to needed increases in the child tax credit; 3. the loss of access to tax credits for affordable health care for millions of Americans; and 4. a reduction in tax rates for the wealthy yielding an average tax cut of $200,000 for millionaires financed by a $2,000 tax increase on the typical middle class family. Mr. Chair, this ``Price is not Right'' budget will make it harder to middle and working class parents to send their kids to college by: 1. Ending higher education tax credits; and 2. cutting student loan programs and Pell Grants, making college less affordable and adding to the already huge levels of student debt. The damage caused by the Republican budget is not limited to working families and students; there are also lumps of coal for seniors who have earned and deserve a secure retirement: 1. The Medicare guarantee is turned into a voucher program with increased costs for seniors. 2. Seniors who have worked hard for a financially secure retirement will immediately have to pay new co-pays for preventive care and much higher costs for prescription drugs. The Republican budget also disinvests in America's future: 1. Slashes the part of the budget we use to invest in our children's education; and 2. devastates our investments in scientific research and innovation. Mr. Chair, the Republican budget exacerbates the drag on the economy resulting from a crumbling infrastructure by cutting $187 billion, or more than 19 percent, from transportation funding over the coming decade and provides no solution to address the current shortfall in the federal transportation fund, which means we can expect construction slowdowns beginning this summer. Mr. Chair, compared to the President's budget, the Republican budget would result this fiscal year in 35,000 fewer children in Head Start and up to 6,000 fewer special education teachers, paraprofessionals, and other related staff. The Republican budget also shortchanges America's future by cutting investments in scientific research and innovation in real terms by failing to lift the draconian sequester on domestic priorities. As a result, under the Republican budget, there would be 1,300 fewer medical research grants at National Institutes H and 950 fewer competitive science research awards at the NSF, affecting 11,600 researchers, technicians, and students. Finally, Mr. Chair, the Republican Budget mistreats the poorest and most vulnerable persons in our country. The Republican ``Work Harder, Get Less'' budget takes aim at millions of families with children struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table by converting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) into a block grant beginning in 2021 and cutting funding steeply--by $125 billion (34 percent) between 2021 and by 2025. These dramatic cuts could mean in 2021 through 2025 either cutting off assistance to 11 to 12 million eligible people each year, or cutting benefits by almost $55 per person per month. In contrast, the Democratic Budget works FOR American families by giving them the tools to buy a home, send their kids to college and enjoy a secure retirement. Mr. Chair, the Democratic Budget represents a better way. We Democrats understand that we are all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible reduction in expenditures. Our plan will protect and strengthen our recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like education, health care, innovation, and clean energy. Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here to advocate for their interests. Let me highlight a few examples. 1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, Texas seniors will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare. 2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care. 3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare-- currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the vine.'' 4. If the Republican budget resolution were to be adopted by Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, later this year, the nation will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the enactment of Medicare, one of the most consequential acts of social justice in American history. Today, we mark the fifth anniversary of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, which will surely take its place in the pantheon of America's greatest laws, alongside the Social Security Act, the GI Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like those great achievements, the Affordable Care Act, or ``ObamaCare,'' was vehemently opposed and derided by its adversaries, who said it was too costly, would not work, was unnecessary, or would change the character of America for the worse. Like the critics of Social Security, Medicare, and the GI Bill, all of whom are silent now, they are wrong. The Affordable Care Act has been an unqualified success. This historic legislation has extended affordable health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, and has helped to bring peace of mind to many of those for whom relief seemed far out of reach. The Affordable Care Act was driven by a simple premise: that citizens of the most prosperous nation on earth should not be forced to choose between their health and their financial security. Since the passage of the ACA in 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen by nearly one third, or roughly 16 million people. These Americans come from all walks of life. They are women, who can no longer be denied coverage or be forced to pay exorbitant amounts for coverage simply because of their sex. They are nine million seniors and people with disabilities, who have saved $1,600 each on expensive and lifesaving prescription medication. And they are this country's most at risk citizens; people who are working hard and struggling make ends meet while living in near- poverty, and who have been covered by Medicaid expansion in 27 states and the District of Columbia. These benefits have been felt across the country, especially in my home state of Texas. In Texas alone: 10,695,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, cancer, or diabetes--including up to 1,632,000 children--will no longer have to worry about being denied coverage or charged higher prices because of their health status or history. 4,889,000 uninsured Texans have new health insurance options through Medicaid or private health plans in the Marketplace. 5,198,000 individuals on private insurance have gained coverage for at least one free preventive health care service such as a mammogram, birth control, or an immunization in 2011 and 2012. In the first ten months of 2013, 233,100 seniors and people with disabilities saved on average $866 on prescription medications. 357,000 young adults have gained health insurance because they can now stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. In addition to the tangible healthcare benefits for millions of families, the ACA has had powerful effects on the financial state of our nation. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we have extended the solvency of the Medicare Trust fund by more than a decade, and helped save taxpayers $116 billion through new Medicare efficiencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has estimated that hospitals saved more than $5.7 billion in costs that would have normally gone unpaid by patients without insurance. Contrary to the claims of the law's critics, private insurance companies have leapt at the opportunity to compete for business among the newly insured, and the healthcare industry has boomed. Through all of these successes, however, House Republicans remain obsessed with destroying this law, and with unraveling the security it provides to millions of Americans. With 56 votes to repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have repeatedly ignored the evidence and failed to suggest workable alternatives. It is time for Republicans to abandon their fixation and join with us in celebrating the health and economic security that this landmark law affords every American.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 162, a resolution which urges the President to utilize his authority, granted by Congress in December of last year, to begin providing military aid to the government of Ukraine. Since the February 2014 Revolution in which the corrupt then- Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, the Russian Federation has made every effort through political, economic, and military means to subvert both the independence and the democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people. I strongly support the current policy of the United States not to recognize the absorption of Crimea into Russia through referendum--a referendum that took place against the backdrop of masked gunmen, widely believed to be unmarked Russian special forces, commandeering Crimean government buildings and intimidating voters. In a recently aired Russian television documentary, President Putin acknowledges that plans were already in place to reabsorb Crimea into Russian territory weeks before the March 2014 referendum was held. Russia has covertly infiltrated sovereign Ukrainian territory repeatedly, providing tanks, artillery, and rockets to separatist militias, which has resulted in a conflict leaving over 6,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and more than a million displaced persons. Mr. Speaker, Russia is openly breeding opposition to Ukrainian democracy through its veiled support of separatists, who on July 17, 2014, destroyed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, a civilian airliner, utilizing a Russian-made missile which took the lives of all 298 innocent persons on board. The United States has already made available to Ukraine economic and non-lethal equipment meant to shore up the country from Russian-backed rebels. However, it is clear now that Russia has no intention of ceasing aggression against the democratic government of Ukraine. The time has come for the United States to provide military aid to Ukraine to shore up its military, a military under assault by these Russian-backed separatists who have repeatedly broken their promises for a ceasefire against the democratic nation of Ukraine. This military aid was requested by Ukraine's democratically elected president Petro Poroshenko, in a joint meeting of Congress on September 14, 2014, and is endorsed by both Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter. Mr. Speaker, the United States has no intention of allowing Russia to redraw international borders as it pleases and subverting the democracy of our Ukrainian ally. That is why I strongly support this resolution giving President Obama explicit authorization to provide military aid to the Ukrainian government. With this aid, the United States is affirming its continued support of the Government of Ukrainian in its struggle to resist this heinous aggression from Russia. Mr. Speaker, I ask all Members to join me in voting for this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me, with enthusiasm, thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Royce, and the ranking member, both my friends, and my friend from New York (Mr. Engel). We have worked together on a number of issues. I am both a student of Nigeria and a Member of Congress who has one of the largest--I am being polite. I believe I have the largest population of Nigerian Americans in my congressional area, which is in Houston, Texas. And we are very proud of the contributions that Africans from the continent but, in particular, in this instance, Nigerian Americans have made over the years. I am also privileged to chair with Congressman Chabot the Nigerian Caucus. I invite my colleagues to join because Nigeria is the largest population and I think the largest economy. I know that South Africa has been touted as such, but the numbers go up and down. There are many good people in Nigeria who want a better education for their children and for that economy to help develop all of Nigeria. I represent a number of energy companies who have been in Nigeria for at least half a century. But, more importantly, we have seen Nigeria do some very positive things. And might I first make sure that I mention Congresswoman Robin Kelly, who I know is en route. I want to thank her for her leadership on this legislation. I am delighted to cosponsor. I had likewise introduced legislation that was legislation sponsored by myself and Congressman Chabot. But I am delighted to have the opportunity to support this legislation, which is, in essence, a combination of our points about Nigeria. And also to acknowledge Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, whom we have been working together with on Boko Haram. My point is that Nigeria has had some positive successes. It is one of the only and first states on the continent to fight and successfully overcome Ebola, to have the kind of medical care and science to make sure that they eliminated Ebola in Nigeria, even though one of the first cases was in Nigeria by way of someone traveling to Nigeria. Of course, we have faced a crisis not of the making of the Nigerian people but in a northern state, unfortunately through the misunderstandings and the horrors of believing--not only believing but evidence--that the resources of Nigeria did not reach northern state, Bono state. ISIS was able to root its evilness. And, of course, it has been in Nigeria for a period of time. However, the acts of Boko Haram came to our attention with the taking of 165-plus girls and boys that we all know in terms of the tragedy of taking the girls.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. And we began this campaign of ``bring the girls back.'' In the spring of 2014, I led a bipartisan delegation to Bono state and met with families whose girls had been taken and whose girls were still taken. I met with Jubilee, an organization that had saved some of the girls and were educating them here. This resolution is particularly important because it tracks the legislation I authored, H. Res. 143, and condemns the cowardly acts of what has occurred through Boko Haram, particularly in the town of Baga, where it is alleged that thousands were killed. It also focuses on the Nigerian election, where we are asking that the elections pending this weekend will be held expeditiously and safely. I want to mention that we understand that Boko Haram is a heinous evil group that kills children and men and women and innocent persons and burns down villages and intimidates people who just want democracy and an opportunity to live. That means these elections are crucial. And those who stand for election, they must stand for democracy and the ending of the siege of Boko Haram in whatever way it can be. Let me express my gratefulness to the African Union, of which I raised a question with them, led by Chad and Nigeria and other countries to fight off the siege of Boko Haram. But let me be very clear that Boko Haram wants to be associated with ISIS. They want to continue to be heinous and evil and dangerous. They must be weeded out, and the continent of Africa must stand with them. I do want to acknowledge that there has been a victims fund set up. It is important for the Government of Nigeria to fund that victims fund and use that victims fund for the broken families and broken children. We know that Boko Haram has caused the death of over 9,000 persons. This resolution asks for the recognition of the dangers of Boko Haram and the elimination of Boko Haram and the safety and security of a strong election. Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me simply say that I urge the candidates to stand for peaceful elections. I urge the people to exercise their right to vote. I urge the international community to continue to support and promote a safe and free and fair election. And I urge the winner to bring people together and to stop this horrible siege. I ask my colleagues to support the resolution, H. Res. 53. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong and enthusiastic support of H. Res. 53, a resolution condemning the cowardly attack on innocent men, women and children in the Northeastern Nigerian town of Baga. This resolution also urges the Government of Nigeria to hold a safe, free, and fair election on March 28, 2015. I thank Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel for their commitment to peace, security, stability, justice and democracy around the world in general and in Nigeria in particular, and for shepherding this important resolution to the floor. I also thank the gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman Kelly, for introducing this resolution which I am proud to co-sponsor. Also I want to thank the Ranking member Karen Barr and Chairman Smith of the African Sub-Committee. Mr. Speaker, many of us are very passionate about this very important issue of peace, security, stability and democracy in Nigeria. Nigeria, a regional giant and one of Africa's largest economies, possesses abundant natural resources and a historically capable military force which has provided regional stability and humanitarian support to its African neighbors and other countries around the world. We also recognize that peace, security and a stable economy in Nigeria have a great bearing on global peace, security and stability because of its posture in the African continent. Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Congress, I have worked to promote peace, security, stability, democracy and economic empowerment in Nigeria. Indeed, earlier this year, I authored H. Res. 143, a resolution urging the government of Nigeria to move forward expeditiously with national general elections. Also, last year in response to the devastating kidnapping of the Chibok school girls, I led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Nigeria, along with my colleagues Frederica Wilson, Steve Stockman and Lois Frankel. While we were in Nigeria, we met with key stakeholders for peace in Nigeria: political, community and civil society leaders. During our meeting with these leaders on the ground in Nigeria, we called for the creation of a Nigerian fund to compensate the victims of the Boko Haram attacks, starting with the families of the kidnapped schoolgirls. Thus, H. Res. 53, the resolution offered by Congresswoman Kelly, is a continuation of prior concerted efforts to catalyze peace, security, stability, and free and fair elections in Nigeria. Mr. Speaker, Nigeria's efforts to adhere to democratic political processes, including safe, free, and fair elections are under direct attack by the terrorist group Boko Haram. Boko Haram's terroristic activities are intended to wreak havoc on and incite fear on the part of the Nigerian people in order that they stay away from the polls. These violent threats by Boko Haram are in direct derogation of the constitutionally protected rights of the Nigerian people to exercise their right to vote. For instance, Boko Haram has caused the death of over 9,000 persons, according to a report by the Council on Foreign Relations and over 1.5 million persons have been displaced in Nigeria and regionally as reported by Amnesty International. In addition to the kidnapping of children such as the school girls from the Government Girls Secondary School in the Northeastern province of Chibok, Boko Haram has become more brazen with children now being used as bomb shields as recent news reports inform us. Boko Haram is decapitating and slicing the throats of women, leaving them for dead. These terrorists have taken over villages, raping, pillaging and stealing the resources of innocent villagers who are not able to defend themselves. Mr. Speaker, Boko Haram is a rogue bully and terrorist organization that needs to be dismantled and defeated. Nigeria's success in combatting national and regional extremism is critical to the security not only the Nigerian and African people but of the United States and the global community. Our commitment to promoting democracy and security in Nigeria and Africa continues to be underscored by each and every cowardly brutal act by Boko Haram. It is critically important that we remain steadfast in our resolve to defeat Boko Haram in view of the fact that this band of cowards and terrorists has now cast its lot with ISIS. Today, by this resolution, the United States stands in solidarity with the Nigerian people in condemning Boko Haram and supporting a government that promotes peace, security, stability and democracy in Nigeria. We stand together in promoting the Nigerian people's constitutional right to exercise their right to vote and have their voices heard. Today, 5 days before March 28, the National elections, a historical day for the country of Nigeria, I have four concluding points to make: 1. I urge Presidential candidates Goodluck Johnathan and Muhammadu Buhari to adhere to the 2015 Abuja Accord to avoid any conduct or behavior that will endanger the political stability and national security of Nigeria and fully abide by all rules and regulations as laid down in the legal framework for elections in Nigeria; 2. I urge the Nigerian people to exercise their right to vote and promote peace as they engage in this sacred act of lending their voices to the political process which will affect their future and the future of Nigerian youth; 3. I urge the international community to continue to support and promote a safe, free and fair election in Nigeria and sustainable democracy to promote economic upward mobility in Nigeria and opportunities for youth; and 4. I urge the winner of the national election, whomever he may be to protect the Nigerian people from the scourge of Boko Haram, and to help find the abducted girls and work with the United States and regional governments in Africa to contain and ultimately defeat Boko Haram. Mr. Speaker, peace in Nigeria requires democratic elections, the creative weapons of transparency, peace coalition building, addressing grievances, negotiations, the use of social media, infrastructure building and political intellectual capital building.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I speak on two issues of justice. One deals with my alma mater, the University of Virginia. And I would like to thank the young man, the student who experienced an unfortunate incident that caused him to have 10 stitches and to bleed on the streets of Charlottesville by the hands of those who were enforcing the law. I want to join him by saying that we all should be treated with human dignity, and I thank the Governor of the State of Virginia for a full investigation. We have to find a way to balance law and order with the dignity of the treatment of African Americans and all people. I will also say that the hostage-taking of the Attorney General nominee by those who will not push for her confirmation on the floor of the Senate, of the other body, is not the handling of the Constitution and the advice and consent that is necessary in the process of government. She is qualified. She is ready to serve. The Nation needs a chief law enforcement officer. We must come together and find that balance that the Constitution protects, and that is the right of all people to access and freedom of speech. But we must also respect law and order. We have to find a way to walk that pathway together.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my colleagues and thank Congresswoman Kelly and Chairman Butterfield for the opportunity to carry forward the spirit of the 50th commemoration of the march over the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Let me also begin by thanking our colleague Congresswoman Terri Sewell and all of the Alabama delegation for their hospitality and their spirit of unity. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am so moved by that experience that I frankly believe that now is the time to move the bill that is bipartisan that is a response to the United States Supreme Court to the floor of the House, to the Committee on the Judiciary and to the floor of the House. Leader Clyburn was very apt in describing a very significant point that really answers the question of the Supreme Court. If I had my way, coming from the State of Texas, I frankly believe that the reauthorization that we did through the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member, and which I was very much engaged in in 2006 and 2007, was a thorough expose of the value of the Voting Rights Act. We did 15,000 pages of testimony, and witness after witness from different perspectives indicated that the formula that we were using at that time on the preclearance was an effective formula. Of course, the Supreme Court challenged the data, and I would only argue that it is appropriate to update the data. I welcome that. But we have gone even further. As has been articulated by the bill that has just been introduced by a number of us, we have crafted a formula that says it is an even playing field, an even playing field for a State to opt in because they have voting rights abuses for all people or to opt out because they have a smooth, evenhanded process for citizens in their State to vote. So I believe it is important that the message get out of what the Voting Rights Act stands for and what it meant for those foot soldiers to cross that bridge. They crossed that bridge, and they were willing-- and were bloodied, frankly--to do something nonviolent, and that is to petition their leaders at the voting box. I can't imagine that there is any Member here in this place, in this august Congress, that would not want to go to their constituents, whether they live in South Dakota or Utah or Mississippi or New York or Texas, as I do, that there is an unfettered right to vote. I will soon be introducing a Voting Rights Act that establishes the date that we signed the Voting Rights Act by the President that came from Texas, Lyndon Baines Johnson, with the leaders of Martin Luther King and John Lewis and many others standing at his side, to introduce that as being Voting Rights Act Day, to reinforce the value to Americans of the importance of voting. Who would want to oppose the idea that voting is not important? So I am looking forward to having Members join on the simple premise that it is important to vote in America and that it is important to commemorate the signing of the Voting Rights Act and make it Voting Rights Day. That inspiration came as we saw the thousands that were marching across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Let me just clarify for a moment, under section 5, the submitting jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and H.R. 885, Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2015, has to prove that the proposed changes are not retrogressive, that they do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. We have expanded that, again, to go by acts, by occurrences that would keep someone from voting. So I believed that this past weekend, or the weekend of Bloody Sunday, was a moving moment that would draw us together, that would allow us to understand H.R. 885. And might I say this: I know that many of us will be willing to have teach-ins to ensure that our colleagues understand the importance of this legislation and that we do it in a bipartisan manner. Let me conclude my remarks by saying, earlier today I stood on the floor and asked for a bipartisan approach to the approval of the Attorney General nominee by the other body. I say that from the spirit of recognition of the three branches of government. A President has nominated a very well-qualified, distinguished member of the bar, Loretta Lynch, to be the next Attorney General of the United States of America. We understand differences of opinion with legislation. I have no quarrel with those differences. I happen to support the human trafficking bill and recognize that there is a disagreement on language that I agree with the disagreement, but that disagreement can be worked out through ongoing talks and however they want to approach it or a vote on the floor. But Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General nominee, should not be held up captive to disagreements on legislation and moving toward a constitutional crisis. All of this, Mr. Speaker, is wrapped up together. The Department of Justice enforces the Voting Rights Act, enforces the voting rights of Americans. As we look to the future, as we formulate the understanding of the three branches of government, to avoid a constitutional crisis of not having the leadership that is timely for the work that has to be done, I would hope the Senate would move forward, and I would hope that all of us would honor the Voting Rights Act and the message of Selma that we stand together under this wonderful flag and stand for voting rights for all. Since its passage in 1965, and through four reauthorizations signed by Republican presidents (1970, 1975, 1982, 2006), more Americans, especially those in the communities we represent, have been empowered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 than any other single piece of legislation. Section 5 of the Act requires covered jurisdictions to submit proposed changes to any voting law or procedure to the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for pre- approval, hence the term ``pre-clearance.'' Under Section 5, the submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proving that the proposed change(s) are not retrogressive, i.e. that they do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. In announcing his support for the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act, President Reagan said, ``the right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties.'' And Section is the ``crown jewel'' of the Voting Rights Act. But a terrible blow was dealt to the Voting Rights Act on June 25, 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 537 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b), the provision of the law determining which jurisdictions would be subject to Section 5 ``pre-clearance.'' Facts of Shelby County v. Holder In 2006, the City of Calera, which lies within Shelby County, enacted a discriminatory redistricting plan without complying with Section 5, leading to the loss of the city's sole African-American councilman, Ernest Montgomery. In compliance with Section 5, however, Calera was required to draw a nondiscriminatory redistricting plan and conduct another election in which Mr. Montgomery regained his seat. According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down Section 4(b): ``Times change.'' Now, the Court was right; times have changed. But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. And that is why the Voting Rights Act is still needed. Let me put it this way: in the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act succeeded in stymying the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans and language minorities but did eliminate them entirely. Before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot. Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also suffered systematic exclusion from the political process. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, there were approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, there are now more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Now to be sure, the Supreme Court did not invalidate the preclearance provisions of Section 5; it only invalidated Section 4(b). But that is like leaving the car undamaged but destroying the key that unlocks the doors and starts the engine. According to the Court, the coverage formula in Section 4(b) had to be struck down because the data upon which it was based--registration rates and turn-out gaps--was too old and outdated. But my colleagues in Congress and I refuse to let the Voting Rights Act die. And so we went to work, crafting and drafting the legislation that would repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court decision and capable of winning majorities in the House and Senate and the signature of the President. After months of hard work, consultation, negotiation, and collaboration, we produced and have reintroduced in the 114th Congress, a bill, H.R. 885, ``Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015'' that can achieve these goals. To be sure, this legislation is not perfect, no bill ever is. But--and this is important--the bill represents an important step forward because it: 1. is responsive to the concern expressed by the Supreme Court; and 2. establishes a new coverage formula that is carefully tailored but sufficiently potent to protect the voting rights of all Americans. First, H.R. 885 specifies a new coverage formula that is based on current problems in voting and therefore directly responds to the Court's concern that the previous formula was outdated. The importance of this feature is hard to overestimate. Legislators and litigators understand that the likelihood of the Court upholding an amended statute that fails to correct the provision previously found to be defective is very low and indeed. H.R. 885 replaces the old ``static'' coverage formula with a new dynamic coverage formula, or ``rolling trigger,'' which works as follows: 1. for states, it requires at least one finding of discrimination at the state level and at least four adverse findings by its sub-jurisdictions within the previous 15 years; 2. for political subdivisions, it requires at least three adverse findings within the previous 15 years; but 3. political subdivisions with ``persistent and extremely low minority voter turnout,'' can also be covered if they have a single adverse finding of discrimination. The effect of the ``rolling trigger'' mechanism effectively gives the legislation nationwide reach because any state and any jurisdiction in any state potentially is subject to being covered if the requisite number of violations are found to have been committed. Prior to Shelby County v. Holder, the Voting Rights Act covered 16 states in whole or in part, including most of the states in the Deep South. The rolling trigger contained in H.R. 885, unfortunately, does not; at least not initially. The only states that would be covered initially under the new bill are: 1. Texas 2. North Carolina 3. Louisiana 4. Florida 5. South Carolina. To compensate for the fact that fewer jurisdictions are covered, our bill also includes several key provisions that are consistent with the needs created by a narrower Section 5 trigger. For example, H.R. 885: 1. Expands judicial ``bail-in'' authority under Section 3 so that it applies to voting changes that result in discrimination (not just intentional discrimination); 2. Requires nationwide transparency of ``late breaking'' voting changes; allocation of poll place resources; and changes within the boundaries of voting districts; 3. Clarifies and expands the ability of plaintiffs to seek a preliminary injunction against voting discrimination; and 4. Clarifies and expands Attorney General's authority to send election observers to protect against voting discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans, and many of us in Congress, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, maybe even a few months ago, I had the privilege of listening partly to the testimony of Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, a brilliant expression of a seasoned and competent, qualified and wise attorney that has served this Nation for many, many years. Formerly, as the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn, New York, she has been one who has received accolades from all over the Nation. Now, unfortunately, the Senate, the other body, chooses to create a constitutional crisis. As she lingers waiting for a confirmation vote, already approved by the Judiciary Committee with a bipartisan vote, it begs the question: Why we are having this kind of treatment of the appointees of President Obama? So I ask the other body if they would do what is right for the American people as we look for law enforcement leadership, as we continue to look for direction on antitrust issues, voting rights issues, women's rights issues, human rights issues, and many issues dealing with terrorism that fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice. It is time, and now, for this confirmation to be done and approved and for this former U.S. attorney to be sworn in as the United States Attorney General in the Department of Justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, fifty years ago tomorrow, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On March 15, 1965, before a joint session of the Congress and the eyes of the nation, President Lyndon Johnson explained to the nation the significance of ``Bloody Sunday'': I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. . . . At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. So it was at Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago at Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama. The previous Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved colleague, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience. Mr. Speaker, what is so moving, heroic, and awe-inspiring is that the foot soldiers of Selma faced their heavily armed adversaries fortified only by their love for their country and for each other and their audacious faith in a righteous cause. The example set by the foot soldiers of Selma showed everyone, here in America and around the world, that there is no force on earth as powerful as an idea whose time has come. These great but nameless persons won the Battle of Selma and helped redeem the greatest nation on earth. But we should not forget that the victory came at great cost and that many good and dear persons lost their lives to win for others the right to vote. Men like Jimmy Lee Jackson, who was shot by Alabama state trooper as he tried to protect his mother and grandmother from being beaten for participating in a peaceful voting rights march in Marion, Alabama. Women like Viola Liuzzo, a housewife and mother of five, who had journeyed to Selma from Detroit to join the protests after witnessing on television the events at Edmund Pettus Bridge on ``Bloody Sunday'' and who was shot and killed by Klansmen while driving back from a trip shuttling fellow voting rights marchers to the Montgomery airport. Persons of faith, goodwill, and non-violence like the Reverend James Reeb of Boston, a minister from Boston who heeded the call of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to come to Selma and who succumbed to the head injuries he suffered at the hands of his white supremacists attackers on March 9, two days after Bloody Sunday. Mr. Speaker, in the face of unspeakable hostility, violence, brutality, and hatred, the foot soldiers of Selma would not be deterred--would not be moved--would not be turned around. They kept their eyes on the prize and held on. And help came the very next week when President Johnson announced to the nation that he would send to Congress for immediate action a law designed to eliminate illegal barriers to the right to vote by striking down ``restrictions to voting in all elections--Federal, State, and local--which have been used to deny Negroes the right to vote.'' On August 6, 1965, that legislation--the Voting Rights Act of 1965-- was signed into law by President Johnson and for the next 48 years did more to expand our democracy and empower racial and language minorities than any act of government since the Emancipation Proclamation and adoption of the Civil War Amendments. But our work is not done; the dreams of Dr. King and of all those who gave their lives in the struggle for justice are not behind us but still before us. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, which severely crippled the Voting Rights Act, we have seen many states across our nation move to enact legislation designed to limit the ability of women, the elderly, racial and language minorities to exercise their right to vote. To honor the memory of the foot soldiers of Selma, we must rededicate ourselves to a great task remaining before us--to repair the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by working to pass H.R. 885, the Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015, which I am proud to be one of the original co-sponsors. As I have stated many times, the 1965 Voting Rights Act is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans, and for many in Congress, it is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. As we remember and honor the foot soldiers of Selma, let us resolve also to restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965, so that it remains a lasting monument to their heroism and devotion to the country they loved.