Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has served so ably on this committee, and we congratulate him for his ranking position on the Education Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We started out this afternoon by saying that we join together in stopping the scourge of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and I still stand by that premise. I support the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act. I do believe that adding advertising and having the provision in the law that includes mens rea is an important protection, that there must be an intent to sell and to advertise victims of exploitation. This, of course, is part of a number of proposals that we are considering today--and we hope we are successful--to combat sex trafficking; but, as we have discussed with respect to these other bills, much more must be done to prevent sex trafficking as well as to aggressively investigate and prosecute these crimes. H.R. 285 amends the current Federal sex trafficking statute so that advertising would now be one of the prohibitive means of facilitating this type of exploitive criminal conduct. We know, of course, that technology, however, sometimes is tricky. The bill correctly recognizes the fact that sex traffickers increasingly obtain customers for their illegal acts through the means of mass communication, either through various forms of print media or via the Internet. Maybe they throw in the cell phone or hard line as well, but they are out to get their victim. They are out to get that child. They are out to get that young woman or young man, boy or girl, and we must stop them in their tracks. In fact, sex traffickers use generalized marketplace Web pages to advertise, as well as sites and pages devoted to advertising the availability of commercial sex. While the Internet has enriched our lives greatly, these sex traffickers are only interested in using it in the most vile manner; and they use the Internet to perpetrate heinous criminal schemes, such as the selling of minors for sex. Without question, sex traffickers who advertise their scheme should be penalized for their criminal acts. While I realize that some have raised questions about how the advertising prohibitions under this bill would apply to online companies, I am concerned that we have a free use of that, if I might throw in a word, ``net neutrality.'' Because of this, we adopted an amendment during the Judiciary Committee's markup last Congress and now again, in a bipartisan effort, to address such concerns. That amendment is included in the text of H.R. 285. We know, for example, however, that with the way the Internet is, some innocent person might wind up finding things on their site that they may not have had anything to do with. We hope the standard of mens rea will help those individuals have a defense. So as it relates to this legislation, I raise concerns, as my colleagues have done, about the utilization, conduct, of mandatory minimums, primarily because of the vastness of the Internet, and our friends made the point that this advertising could wind up or some act could wind up on there without their knowledge. We know the one-size-fits-all approach, which is part of the mandatory minimum approach, to criminal actions in the form of mandatory minimums has greatly contributed to our Nation's crisis of overincarceration, and our Judiciary Committee, rightly so, has looked at this over the years. In the markup of this bill, the Judiciary Committee did not adopt an amendment that would have removed application of the statute's mandatory minimum penalties and instead allow a judge to apply an appropriate sentence under the circumstances of the case up to the statute's existing penalty, which I support enthusiastically, life in prison. Given the complicated nature of Internet communications networks with respect to how advertisements are delivered, the role of the judge might help to carve through, to ferret out, the facts and determine the level of guilt. So authorizing life imprisonment is a good thing. It would allow sufficient latitude for the imposition of extremely lengthy sentences where appropriate. I am hoping as we move forward with this legislation, which has a very important premise and point, that we will have the opportunity to discuss with our colleagues in the Senate to see how we can best make sure that this bill works to, in essence, target the bad guys and make sure that it does it fairly and directly, because sex trafficking, as I have always said on this floor, should be weeded out. Sex trafficking should not be. I ask my colleagues again to consider the mandatory minimum. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, H.R. 285, the ``Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act,'' is among a number of important proposals we are considering today to combat sex trafficking. As we have discussed with respect to these other bills, much more must be done to prevent sex trafficking as well as to aggressively investigate and prosecute these crimes. H.R. 285 amends the current federal sex trafficking statute so that advertising would now be one of the prohibited means of facilitating this type of exploitative criminal conduct. The bill correctly recognizes the fact that sex traffickers increasingly obtain customers for their illegal acts through the means of mass communication, either through various forms of print media or via the Internet. In fact, sex traffickers use generalized marketplace Web pages to advertise, as well as sites and pages devoted to advertising the availability of commercial sex. While the Internet has enriched our lives greatly, these sex traffickers use the Internet to perpetrate heinous criminal schemes such as the selling of minors for sex. Without question, sex traffickers who advertise their schemes should be penalized for their criminal acts, while I recognize that some have raised questions about how the advertising prohibitions under this bill would apply to online companies. Because of this, we adopted an amendment during the Judiciary Committee's markup last Congress to help address such concerns. That amendment is included in the text of H.R. 285. Nevertheless, I cannot support this bill in its current form because it would subject yet another category of conduct to mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums lead to sentences that sometimes are not appropriate based on the facts of a particular case. A one-size-fits- all approach to criminal actions in the form of mandatory minimums has greatly contributed to our Nation's crisis of overincarceration. In the markup of this bill, the Judiciary Committee declined to adopt an amendment that would have removed application of the statute's mandatory minimum penalties and instead allow a judge to apply an appropriate sentence--under the circumstances of the case--up to the statute's existing maximum penalty of life in prison. Given the complicated nature of internet communications networks with respect to how advertisements are delivered, the role of the judge in evaluating each case is particularly important. And, authorizing life imprisonment would allow sufficient latitude for the imposition of extremely lengthy sentences--when appropriate. Because of this defect involving mandatory minimum sentences, I must oppose the bill that we consider today. By voting ``no,'' the House will allow the Judiciary Committee time to fix this serious flaw. With this important consideration in mind, I must ask my colleagues to oppose the bill today so that we may consider a better bill dealing with this aspect of sex trafficking in the near future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, if he has any further speakers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in closing, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Speaker, we have had three bills so far, and we are getting ready to offer two others that all speak to this very devastating impact on our children--human trafficking and sex trafficking. I think the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act, H.R. 285, does focus on a particular niche that is heinous. Our children are on the Internet, they are tech savvy, and they easily can become victims of an attractive site or attractive sounds and music, so I think this legislation, again, pinpoints a very serious issue. The bill is an amendment of an existing legislation that includes a mens rea. There must be intent; but we do know, in the course of legislation, we have the opportunity to make sure that what we do does meet the test of getting those who are truly the perpetrators. I would hope as this bill moves to the Senate, as we recognize the importance of this legislation, we, again, be reminded that one size does not often fit all and that judges can rightly have discretion to a sentence of life. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can have a comprehensive approach to legislative bills that have been on the floor today to attack head on, if you will, those who prey on our children, young men and women, people who find themselves lost with no place to go and become the serious victims of child pornography, sex trafficking, and human trafficking. As Members, we know that, many times, the entire life of that individual is changed forever. I yield back the balance of my time and ask for support of the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will close. I yield myself such time as I may consume. The previous speaker indicated that we are in the national month acknowledging and recognizing the gravity of human trafficking, and I believe that it calls upon us to stand by the most vulnerable who really can't help themselves. My last comment before yielding was the demand for commercial sex is a primary cause of the human rights violation of human trafficking, so eliminating that violation requires the elimination of the demand. What I might not have added, which a number of Members have said, is the violence that goes along with sex trafficking and human trafficking, the violence that goes along when some entity--a person called a pimp, which is an old-time term, really becomes an abuser, a violent abuser and abuses the frail, small body of a little girl or boy because they really haven't risen to the occasion, provided them with their daily infusion of dollars to continue to do their dastardly work. As I have heard mentioned on this floor, we are not alone here in the United States. For those of us who met the victims of sex trafficking and human trafficking around the world, we understand that America's standards will help others. What is good about what we are doing today and the underlying bill is that we set a standard that the world can look at, that we are not going to tolerate or be sufferers of the abuse of little children. Yesterday, as I listened to a great success story spoken about by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, relating their economic success, she was willing to talk about Jamaica's concerted effort at fighting human trafficking. An island where it might be easy for that trafficker to move from one place to the next, here was a leader of government acknowledging the scourge of human trafficking and that Jamaican children were suffering and subjected to sex trafficking and that it remains a serious problem, but we are going to fight it. I felt very good about that because you would think that an island that is very much dependent on tourism and entertainment would not have that calling and that cause; but, yes, the fight is spreading. I believe the Jamaican Government should be congratulated, and I ask other governments to take heed of the underlying legislation, rise to the standard, be part of the total elimination of cutting into the lives of children, of little boys, of little girls, of cutting them off from any kind of aspirations and hope that they could ever have. Maybe we don't necessarily connect it, but we know the story of the three women that were held for a period of time in our own Nation. Some started out as children. When they were ultimately found, they were women. One cannot help note that the violence that they described was a vile sex trafficking, human trafficking episode. We don't know how many around the Nation that are today, as we stand on the floor of the House, suffering. I thank Representative Poe. I thank my colleague Representative Maloney and committee staff on both sides of the aisle to help address this issue, and as well, I am glad that this particular legislation will set a standard that this dastardly series of acts will not be suffered by any human being not only in this Nation, but around the world. With that, I ask support for H.R. 181 and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I indicated this afternoon was an important afternoon. I thank the gentleman for his legislation and his leadership, and I add my appreciation of the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson, and, as well, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who previously did four bills, Mr. Conyers. It seems that we are having bipartisan support on a very important crisis in our Nation and around the world. In 2014, President Obama said: At home, we are leading by example. My administration is cracking down on traffickers, charging a record number of perpetrators. We are deploying new technology in the fight against human trafficking, developing the Federal Government's first-ever strategic action plan to strengthen victim services and strengthening protections against human trafficking in Federal contracts. During the past year, the White House has hosted events on combating human trafficking, bringing together leaders from every sector of society. Together, we came up with new ideas to fight trafficking at the national and grassroots levels. The present legislation before us, as I rise to strongly support it, H.R. 460, is the Human Trafficking Detection Act of 2015. This is a great partnership between Homeland Security, the committee which I am a senior member on, and Judiciary to fight against human trafficking. In particular, this bill has a very important purpose because our Homeland Security personnel are in our airports and ports, they are along our borders, they are the eyes and ears, they are the first responders. It is crucial that this bill is effectively working with personnel to train, to deter, detect, disrupt, and prevent human trafficking during the course of their primary roles and responsibilities and for other work. This is a very good idea. Human trafficking is not only a crime but also a horrible violation of human rights. Human trafficking is often a hidden crime. Victims of human trafficking may be afraid to come forward and get help because they may be forced or coerced. They may fear retribution or they might not have control over their documents. According to the most recent estimate from the Department of State, approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across global borders each year. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Houston, Texas, is one of the Nation's largest hubs in human trafficking. There are over 200 active brothels in Houston and more strip clubs and illicit spas than Las Vegas. These businesses serve as fronts for sex trafficking. Let me be very clear. This is not a condemnation of my city. This is a recognition that every single elected person; local, county, and State government; and our law enforcement are working every day and we are being successful, in essence, in shutting down strip clubs, illicit spas, and others. The main factors that contribute to high levels of trafficking throughout the Nation and in Texas are proximity, demographics, and a large migrant labor population. Houston's proximity to the Mexican border, I-10, a highway running cross-country through Houston, and the port make it a popular point. But that is not solely the site of human trafficking. As my colleague has mentioned, it is everywhere. It is a national problem. Therefore, our Homeland Security personnel, thank goodness, will now have the opportunity to have special training so that in the capacity of their work, their eyes and ears will be extra trained to detect those trying to move past the law. Houston's huge geographic size and large ethnic and culturally diverse population is seen in and around the Nation, which creates optimal conditions. It is not the only city with that. To combat human trafficking, the Department of Homeland Security, recognizing there needs to be a national campaign, launched the Blue Campaign in 2010. Through the Blue Campaign, DHS works in collaboration with law enforcement, government, nongovernment, and private organizations to protect the basic right of freedom and to bring those who exploit human lives to justice. This legislation will begin to institutionalize the training. Last year, this training--the Blue training--was credited when two men were arrested at Miami International Airport. TSA personnel who had received training to detect trafficking observed the interaction between the young men and young woman and noticed the signs. What we want to do today, again, is to institutionalize and codify this effort so that no human trafficker, no child being held by an adult but being trafficked can escape the eye of our trained Homeland Security personnel, and they can break that hand away from that adult that is trying to do that child harm because they will know that is not the friendly parent or wonderful grandparent or best aunt or uncle. They will know it is a dastardly act. I support the underlying bill, ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, Human trafficking is not only a crime, but also a horrible violation of human rights. Human trafficking is often a hidden crime. Victims of human trafficking may be afraid to come forward and get help because they may be forced or coerced, they may fear retribution, or they might not have control over their documents. According to the most recent estimate from the Department of State, approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across global borders each year. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Houston, Texas is one of the nation's largest hubs for human trafficking. There are over 200 active brothels in Houston and more strip clubs and illicit spas than Las Vegas; these businesses serve as fronts for sex trafficking. The main factors that contribute to high levels of trafficking through Houston and the rest of Texas are proximity, demographics, and a large migrant labor force. Houston's proximity to the Mexican border, I-10, a highway running across country through Houston, and the port of Houston make it a popular point of entry for international trafficking. Additionally, the presence of two large airports provides ways in and out of the city. Houston's huge geographic size and large ethnic and culturally diverse population create optimal conditions for trafficking because of the ability to blend in with the community. To combat human trafficking, the Department of Homeland Security launched the ``Blue Campaign'' in 2010. Through the ``Blue Campaign,'' DHS works in collaboration with law enforcement, government, non-government and private organizations to protect the basic right of freedom and to bring those who exploit human lives to justice. In part, DHS does so by increasing awareness and training for its front line employees such as Transportation Security Officers, Customs and Border Protection Officers, and others. Last year, this training was credited when two men were arrested at Miami International Airport. TSA personnel, who received training to detect trafficking, observed the interaction between the men and a young woman and noticed the signs. The bill before us today seeks to codify in law the training of DHS personnel on how to deter, detect, and disrupt human trafficking and, where appropriate, interdict a suspected trafficker during the course of their primary roles and responsibilities. For CBP, this means Officers at our ports of entry will be trained on how to identify potential victims of trafficking. For TSA, it means that screening personnel, who screen approximately 1.8 million passengers a day, will be knowledgeable about signs of trafficking. Importantly, the bill requires that the training received be appropriate for a particular location or environment in which the personnel receiving the training perform their official duties. This will help tailor the training received so that it is relevant to the specific personnel receiving the training. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we have the opportunity to call attention to the human rights crisis that is human trafficking. January is ``National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month.'' To ensure that continued attention be paid to this often hidden crime, I urge passage of H.R. 460. Though the bill before us today will not eliminate human trafficking, it may help prevent it by ensuring that DHS' frontline workforce is properly trained to fight it. President's Interagency Task Force Progress in Combating Trafficking in Persons: The U.S. Government Response to Modern Slavery Trafficking in persons, or human trafficking, is the act of recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, providing, obtaining, or maintaining a person for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion. Sex trafficking of a minor under the age of 18 does not require the use of force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion. The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386), as amended, describes this compelled service using a number of different terms, including involuntary servitude, slavery, debt bondage, and forced labor. Human trafficking can include, but does not require, movement. Under the TVPA, people may be considered trafficking victims regardless of whether they were transported to the exploitative situation, previously consented to work for a trafficker, or participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked. At the heart of this phenomenon are the traffickers' aim to exploit and enslave their victims and the myriad of coercive and deceptive practices they use. Human trafficking is an opportunistic crime. Traffickers target all types of people: adults and children, women, men, and transgender individuals, citizens and noncitizens alike. No socioeconomic group is immune; new immigrants, Native Americans, runaways, the homeless, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth are particularly vulnerable. One of the most common assumptions about ``average'' trafficking victims is that they are vulnerable simply because they come from the poorest, most isolated communities, whether overseas or in the United States. Indeed, many do. Yet some victims, from a variety of backgrounds, have reported that their suffering began with their aspirations for a better life and a lack of options to fulfill them. That's where the traffickers come in. Exploiting these realities, traffickers appear to offer a solution--a good job, a brighter future, a safe home, or a sense of belonging, even love. They prey on their victims' hope and exploit their trust and confidence, coercing them into using themselves as collateral for that chance. In the United States, the President's Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (PITF) and its operational arm, the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG), bring together federal departments and agencies to ensure a whole-of-government approach that addresses all aspects of human trafficking--enforcement of criminal and labor law, development of victim identification and protection measures, support for innovations in data gathering and research, education and public awareness, enhanced partnerships and research opportunities, and strategically linked foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement. The agencies of the PITF are the Departments of State (DOS), Defense (DOD), Justice (DOJ), the Interior (DOI), Agriculture (USDA), Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation (DOT), Education (ED), and Homeland Security (DHS), as well as the Domestic Policy Council (DPC), the National Security Council (NSC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As part of the PITF, these agencies convene routinely to coordinate both federal policies to combat trafficking in persons and implementation of the TVPA. Agencies of the PITF have brought together leaders from government, the private sector, advocates and survivors, faith leaders, law enforcement and academia, and have made significant progress following President Obama's March 2012 call to strengthen federal efforts to combat human trafficking, his September 2012 speech announcing a number of new and strengthened initiatives, and the first-ever White House Forum to Combat Human Trafficking in April 2013, where the first recipients of the Presidential Award for Extraordinary Efforts to Combat Trafficking in Persons-- survivor advocate Florrie Burke and hospitality and travel company Carlson--were honored. The pages that follow reflect the work these agencies have accomplished over the past year, as well as their commitment to continue their efforts in the year to come. From strengthening the SPOG and its four Committees to implementing the nation's first-ever Services for Trafficking Victims in the United States, to implementing an Executive Order that strengthens protections against human trafficking in government contracting, PITF agencies are enabling law enforcement and service providers to deploy resources more effectively and raising public awareness both at home and abroad. Federal agencies also worked to expand partnerships with civil society and the private sector in order to bring more resources to bear in fighting this horrific injustice. Although the primary responsibility, for fighting this crime and protecting its survivors lies with governments, governments alone cannot solve this problem. Everyone has a role--from local law enforcement and first responders to the heads of major corporations and everyday citizens. Effective anti-trafficking strategies require partnerships that integrate the experiences and guidance of survivors and reach industries, local communities, schools, religious congregations, and multilateral partners. The U.S. government, for example, funds the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC), a national hotline (1-888-373-7888) operated by a nongovernmental organization that provides emergency assistance every day of the year, as well as anti- trafficking task forces in which law enforcement and victim service providers combine efforts to respond to this crime in their communities. Significant partnerships and support for non-governmental efforts have also taken root, including the Partnership for Freedom, where Humanity United and DOJ, HHS, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched the first of three challenge award contests, Reimagine: Opportunity, to develop innovative solutions to address human trafficking; twelve finalists will compete to expand access to housing, social services, and economic empowerment for trafficking victims. In addition, DOS has teamed up with Veritee, an NGO leader in supply chain management, to implement a project in consultation with federal agencies and other stakeholders to help gather data on the risks of trafficking in the production of goods and provision of services. Working with partners the Aspen Institute and Made in a Free World, Veritee will also convene stakeholders and develop a tool for federal contractors and businesses to analyze supply chain risks and adopt ethical sourcing guidelines and compliance plans that align with Executive Order 13627. Finally, partnering with survivors of human trafficking, federal anti-trafficking experts from DOJ, with partners from DHS, DOS, HHS, and the White House, hosted a day-long Survivor Forum and Listening Session to gain insight from a diverse group of survivors in developing more effective programs and strategies. The Task Force has drawn strength and direction from these partnerships, which have brought procurement officers and CEOs, professors and human resources professional together with law enforcement and victim advocates in the service of freedom. Such effective collaboration has led to concrete results in the United States' efforts to advance government priorities and combat modern slavery both domestically and globally. This compilation of the Obama Administration's accomplishments represents merely a snapshot, as of February 2014, of the work made possible by the multifaceted approach the United States has adopted to combat trafficking in persons. Each day, the Obama Administration strives to improve its strategy and to enhance its partnerships in order to fulfill not only the mandates of the TVPA, but also the promise of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me emphasize what I just said earlier. Two people were caught at Miami International Airport. They were caught by officers of TSA who had received training to detect trafficking and observed the interaction between the two men and a young woman. It was the exact description that I gave--holding a little girl's hand, holding a teenager's hand, looking innocent--but our DHS personnel could be the savers of the day. Just a few years ago, in our own airport, a number of Chinese nationals--young women--were brought in, ultimately, to be held against their will. It was astute personnel who knew that even though girls traveled together that something was wrong. That is why this legislation is so important. The bill before us today seeks to codify in law the training of DHS personnel on how to deter, detect, and disrupt human trafficking and, where appropriate, to interdict a suspected trafficker during the course of their primary roles and responsibilities. Our front liners from the Department of Homeland Security are everywhere. There is not a place you can travel when entering this country--through our airports or through our ports-- that our agents in some capacity, in some roles, are not there. For the CBP, this means officers at our ports of entry will be trained on how to identify potential victims of trafficking--smuggling, human slavery. For the TSA, it means that screening personnel, who screen approximately 1.8 million passengers a day, will be knowledgeable about signs of trafficking. Importantly, the bill requires that the training received be appropriate for a particular location or environment in which the personnel receiving the training perform their official duties, streamlining it to make it work. This will help tailor the training received so that it is relevant to the specific personnel receiving the training. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we have the opportunity to call attention to the human rights crisis that is human trafficking. I am glad that this bill has been generated out of the Homeland Security Committee, which emphasizes the security of this Nation but, as well, the important act of making sure America stands against human trafficking. January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. To ensure that continued attention be paid to this often hidden crime, I urge the passage of H.R. 460. The bill before us today will not eliminate human trafficking, but it may help prevent it by ensuring that DHS' frontline workforce is properly trained to fight it. In conclusion, let me say that we are all committed. Again, I refer to all of us. To report suspected human trafficking, dial 1-866-347- 2423. If you are a victim, to get help, call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center at 1-888-373-7888. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership, and I thank our committee chairman and ranking member for their leadership. I ask for support of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the Record that the House should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for her courage. Madam Speaker, I stand here today, refusing to surrender on behalf of millions of women of all economic backgrounds, races, ethnicities, and religions who rely upon the Supreme Court of the United States, which, under the Ninth Amendment, has indicated that Roe v. Wade--the right to choose--is a viable and important law of the land. How can we undermine the Constitution in its premise and its articulation? Today, very quickly, let me say that I know there are millions who are here to disagree with me. I respect that disagreement, but I am saddened that we would take advantage of this day to misrepresent the law and pass a law that will do damage to millions of Americans. This is the face of Republican women, who, in essence, decided that H.R. 36 was too extreme. Even Republican men said that they could not vote on a bill that caused or asked women to report a rape before they would be able to benefit from an abortion. How sad, in the trauma of rape, that you must require someone to go to the police department before she could get assistance. That bill was pulled. That extreme bill was pulled. In order not to leave us without dramatics, we come again to do what is hurting millions of women in Texas--where they cannot even get health services because of the laws passed in Texas, which completely shut down good health care clinics that deal in abortion and other women's services for health care--with this dastardly law about requiring those clinics to be within a certain milage of hospitals, with their never having any problem before. Now we come with another masquerade in H.R. 7, which prohibits Federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage which includes the coverage of abortion, making permanent already existing Federal policies, prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by Federal or the District of Columbia health care--again, interfering with the women in the District of Columbia-- and prohibiting individuals from receiving refundable Federal tax credits--individuals interfering with private health insurance. Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it. It undermines the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill. 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 the 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. We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have raise their families in poverty. A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life. 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. Madam Speaker, 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. The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would: 1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.) 2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. 3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds. 4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. 5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage. If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds. This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly. H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes. H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger. H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.'' This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up. These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion. As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds. In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month. H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium. By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not. Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose 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. Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, 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. Because of Vildri's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vildd than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, 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, and their God. H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not 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. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). 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. The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated. I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill. H.R. 7 should be pulled off of this floor! Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 36, the ``Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' In the last Congress, I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation. I opposed the bill, which arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising her constitutionally protect right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, last year for the same reasons I do now. This purely partisan and divisive legislation: 1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk; 2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother; 3. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, unfairly targeted the District of Columbia; and 4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Madam Speaker, in 2010, Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care after 20 weeks. Since then 10 more red states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma--have enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate health exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or incest. H.R. 36 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy of these states 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 Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22- week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that followed. Eight days later, Danielle gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, who died 15 minutes later. H.R. 36 hurts women like Vikki Stella, 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. Because of Vikki's diabetes, 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 he knows, 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, and their God. That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes 20- week bans, citing the threat these laws pose to women's health. 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 fact, the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Nadler, which would have added a ``health of the mother'' exception to the bill. Madam Speaker, this may come as news to some in this body, but each year approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women under age 18! Madam Speaker, last and most important, I oppose H.R. 36 because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. 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. Late Wednesday night because of how absurd H.R. 36 was--it was pulled from the floor. 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. In striking down Texas's pre-viability abortion prohibitions, the Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade: With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the `compelling' point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justification. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). NOT can the government restrict a woman's autonomy by arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with the bill before us. If this bill ever were to become law, it would not survive a constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20-week provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit because it ``unduly burden[ed] a woman's right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus.'' Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 (10th Cir. 1996). And just last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a 20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been ``unalterably clear'' that ``a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.'' Isaacson v. Horne, F.3d, No. 12-16670, 2013 WL 2160171, at *1 (9th Cir. May 21, 2013). 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.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what an interesting coincidence. We are here today to hear from the President of the United States, President Barack Obama, on his State of the Union. Just yesterday, millions of Americans honored together the legacy and the message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I rise today to emphasize that Dr. King's message was not a message for one particular ethnic or racial or religious group, but as I have reflected over the years, he equals the original values of this Nation. The Constitution begins by saying we have come to order a more perfect Union. It is a small document. The Bill of Rights gives flesh to the bones of the Constitution because it gives us the freedom of religion and speech and access and the ability to move around, and the right to a jury trial and the right to due process and the right to dignity, and it freed the slaves. But it also is a document that can free us from the biases that sometimes come because of isolation, and that was Dr. King. He sought for America her higher angels. He wanted her to be able to be true to her values. For those who fled persecution in faraway places, he wanted America to be that place that did not see color, religion, ethnicity, did not see differences because one was disabled or gay or straight, but really saw us in an equal manner. He marched for all people, and I would hope that as we begin this session of Congress, as we listen to the President of the United States, who literally stands on the shoulders of Dr. Martin Luther King--for it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where many lost their lives and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 where a young woman by the name of Viola Liuzzo died right after the Selma march. As she was bringing back those protestors and marchers, she was shot dead. She was a white woman from Michigan. And so I pay tribute to Dr. King today, and I look forward to listening to the President's message that will hopefully be a message of hope and the opportunities for America to work together. At the same time, I remember my own community. I pay tribute to a place called Freedmen's Town, founded by former slaves, and Camp Logan, a place where Black soldiers were isolated in World War I, but they had on the uniform of this country. I pay tribute to Christie Adair, Zollie Scales, C. Anderson Davis, Reverend F.N. Williams, and, as well, S.J. Gilbert, Reverend J.J. Roberson, and many others who have walked the pathway, the leaders of the NAACP, the leaders of the Urban League, and many of our seniors who came to us to give us knowledge through their sacrifices of World War II, to the Buffalo Soldiers that we see in our community all the time, and to those who have put on the uniform through the ages. All of those persons combined make up the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King, who leaves us with the most important statement: ``injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'' As we now go on our new journey, let us look to respect our law enforcement but also look, as we stand alongside of the men and women in blue, that we also find a way to be able to bring justice and opportunity and, as well, fairness to the criminal justice system. It takes all of us to be able to get that system right side up: our law enforcement officers and their training, and then, of course, the judicial system. Let us look forward in Dr. King's spirit of coming together, no matter what our race, color, or creed, whatever our body says to do, to be able to do what is right. I said to young people when I was speaking about Dr. King this weekend, I used one simple theme: he had a humble courage, a quiet courage. He had to make decisions in the quietness of his own presence and his own space to say, ``I am willing to do what is right even though there may be danger.'' He never announced and never spoke about words that dealt with his own personal courage. He did say that he had a peace that would allow him to see the promised land and to acknowledge to us that he might not get there with us, but he knew that we as a people--and I take that ``we'' as the American people--will get there some day. Let us together fix Ferguson and the many Fergusons around the Nation. Let us bring comfort to parents all around this Nation. Let us be reminded of Dr. King's spirit, not just in this weekend of activities and respect and honor, but let us do it always. I close by simply saying, thank you at home to Mr. Ovide Duncantell. Mr. Duncantell has been the visionary for our efforts in Houston on honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. He first met with Daddy King and named the street, and then we were able successfully, with Federal funds and working with Mr. Duncantell, to place a Martin Luther King memorial, the first built outside of Washington, D.C., in the last 10 years. We are excited about it. We know that his spirit is not in bricks and mortar; it is living within us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel and Mr. Poe for their leadership in bringing the House together on a very important issue. Earlier today I stood and spoke about the tragic news that we heard early this morning of two Japanese citizens being held and ISIS asking for $200 million. The work of these individuals in Paris, France, and beyond was in their mind a connectedness to al Qaeda and others, proudly so, as they slaughtered those individuals who chose to lift up liberte in the spirit of the French people and take to the pen and assess the atmosphere of the day and provide humor to it. Mr. Speaker, I do not comment on one person's opinion, but I do know that liberte, democracy, liberty, and our own beliefs give every human being dignity and the freedom of expression, the free press, the right to free speech and religion, and I believe these are very valuable ideals. And so this resolution speaks to that by condemning the heinousness of the act. How many families--children, mothers, and fathers--were impacted by the loss of their loved ones? What a tragedy to see a police officer gunned down in the street who asked, as I reflect on the words as I recall them, to be left alone, and yet was shot again, and other officers in the line of duty being subjected to the violence of these individuals. This is an intolerable situation that should not be tolerated. But we are hearing from the voices of these terrorist groups that they are now asking individuals to stay in place, to stay at home and create jihad. At the same time, I have heard voices from the Islam extended community, people of the faith, Islamic faith, and I have heard them condemn these violent acts. I have heard them condemn these acts as not reflecting their faith. Then again, as we watched an individual slaughter Jewish persons in a kosher market purposely because of their faith, we cannot tolerate that. In one single voice, we should rise up as this resolution, H. Res. 37, says to express the affection for all people and their right to exist. That is, if you will, a universal phenomenon, to allow individual persons and individuals to exist without threat of heinous violence. As I talked about Dr. Martin Luther King, I said the very words he has commended to us: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. As we begin this journey into a new year, I don't know how much we will be confronted with these horrible acts. I am on the Homeland Security Committee, and for a long time we were seeing the signs of what I call franchise terrorism. But I do know that it has to be a world, a global effort, but it also has to, as I began to talk about earlier, reach the hearts and minds of young men and possibly women who are being subjected to radicalism on the Internet or elsewhere. We have to stop that bleeding, if you will, and begin to promote openly our values, which include respect for religious differences. As we do that, I believe it will be well worth the investment because we don't know where this is going to end, and we certainly need to say to the American people that we are committed, in essence that we are on top of it, and that we have many solutions to this tragic problem. So I rise in support of H. Res. 37 for its condemnation and recognition of where we are today, and I ask for us to address this in a multitude of ways in order to have peace in this world and in our Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning most Americans woke up to the news that ISIS was holding two citizens of the nation-state of Japan and, in the holding of those citizens, threatening to kill them, asked Japan to give $200 million. Mr. Speaker, does that sound like an organization that is dedicated and committed to principles however much we disagree with them, or does it sound like a group of thugs who are willing to do anything to gain money to promote their evil and dastardly acts? The very existence of ISIS and others is not a reflection on Islam. Over the weekend, we have seen so many that have expressed opposition to these terrible acts. That is why it is so important, as we listen to the President's State of the Union, that the Congress, although with different opinions, agree to work on behalf of what is good for all of America, both building the economy but fighting against the war on terror, not only with weapons but with educating about democracy and principles and equality and trying to win the hearts and minds. Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of work to do.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I started out this week to remind Americans of the difficult times in which we live. Sadly, today, rather than passing a clean Homeland Security Appropriations bill upon which Americans are depending to secure this land, we had a political fight. I want to remind those around the world that America still stands strong and committed to fighting the war on terror. In joining with our friends in Africa against the horrific actions of Boko Haram and the suicide bombings that they are forcing 10-year-old children to do, we stand with our friends in Europe and around the world. Most of all, what we must do is find a way to steer the young lives that are being captured by the Internet and online brutality away from these kinds of dastardly acts. I think it is important that we find a way to educate the young boys and girls in Nigeria and in countries around the world and to be able to say to them that there is a greater and better life of opportunity and humanity. I am committed, as we move in this legislative process, to focus on removing the dastardly acts of these terrorists and on saving our boys and girls.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this year, the nation observes for the 29th time the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King Holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk; he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. ``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life: I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others, he said. I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity. We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Klu Klux Klan. For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. And not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that we celebrate today could have turned out to be just another African-American who would have had to learn to be happy with what he had, and what he was allowed. But he learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination. Dr. King was a dreamer. His dreams were a tool through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society, and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper. But the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join the nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation and create a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Dr. King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 51 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. The 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict. The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally. It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. It started with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. But the dream did not die there. Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, begun with Rosa Parks, that lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to discriminate on account of race in the field of interstate public transportation. Dr. King used nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was still a very young man, only 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The sanitation workers there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and police batons. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality; his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity. Dr. King believed that freedom and justice was the birthright of every individual in America. It is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, following in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the Keystone XL Pipeline Project and the legislation before us, H.R. 3. Mr. Speaker, the Keystone XL project proposed by TransCanada, a Canadian company, would build new pipeline to transport Alberta oil sands crude and crude oil produced in North Dakota and Montana to a market hub in Nebraska, and from there to Gulf Coast refineries. The proposed pipeline would deliver an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil per day. One of the most appealing aspects of the project is the positive economic impact it is expected to have on the economy. Let me just take one state's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. There would be a $2.3 billion investment in the Texas economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs in the Houston area, providing $48 million in state and local tax revenues, and increasing the gross domestic product of the state by $1.9 billion. I favor the job creation potential of the Keystone XL Pipeline project, and voted accordingly less than a month and a half ago, on November 14, which was H.R. 5682. Yet the legislation contains several provisions that are of great concern to me which I feel inclined to address. First, because the pipeline would cross an international border, construction requires a presidential permit and would be subject to applicable state laws and permitting requirements. To issue a presidential permit, the State Department, after consulting with other federal agencies and providing opportunities for public comment, must determine that the project would serve the national interest. Because the Keystone XL project would constitute a major federal action with a potentially significant environmental impact, it is also subject to environmental impact statement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill, however, declares that a presidential permit is not required for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline's northern route from the Canadian border through Nebraska even though the project crosses an international border. This is unprecedented. Second, H.R. 3 deems that environmental impact statements issued to date would be considered sufficient to satisfy all requirements of the NEPA and the Endangered Species Act. As a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have a problem with ``deeming'' something done that has not been done in fact. Third, the bill vests exclusive jurisdiction regarding legal disputes over the pipeline or the constitutionality of this bill would be granted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and requires claims regarding the pipeline to be brought within 60 days of the action that gives rise to the claim. It is unduly burdensome to require aggrieved parties to bear the considerable expense and hardship of traveling from their homes in North or South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, or Texas to Washington, DC to vindicate their legal rights. Mr. Speaker, I also believe the bill before could have been improved had amendments been made in order. For example, two proposed amendments, one from a Democrats and one Republican, making oil sands petroleum eligible to pay an excise tax into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and another splitting revenue generated by the pipeline's construction between DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy research and deficit reduction, were not made-in-order. Had the bill been subject to amendment and the amendments offered in the Rules Committee been made in order and approved, the bill before us would be improved markedly. And Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of this body, you are well-aware that when amendments are made-in-order, the rank-and-file can at least feel that they had a say in the process but when a Closed Rule is put forth--it does not stoke optimism about the legislative process for the 114th Congress.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Aderholt- Mulvaney-Barletta Amendment to H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. I oppose the amendment because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. The President will veto the underlying bill if the Aderholt Amendment is adopted so I urge my colleagues to defeat this irresponsible amendment which has the potential to put the security of our homeland at risk. House Republicans are playing a dangerous game of Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland by recklessly adding this ``poison pill'' to legislation needed to fund the agencies and programs charged with securing the border and protecting the homeland. Mr. Chair, the Aderholt Amendment seeks to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status. The amendment bill seeks to make January 9, 2015 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken President Obama to address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation. Mr. Chair, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, who is the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley V. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities. Mr. Chair, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. 6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Chair, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years. Mr. Chair, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration laws. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. And as shown by the success in the last Congress of H.R. 1417, the bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation. This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles announced professed last year by House Republicans. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together. It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream. These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for far too long for their chance. We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws in an effective and humane manner. If congressional Republicans, who refused to debate comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the President for signature. The President has shown responsible leadership. The next move is for congressional Republicans to stop playing Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland and bring to the floor a clean Homeland Security spending bill that the President can sign into law. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Blackburn Amendment to H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act. I oppose the amendment because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. The President will veto the underlying bill if the Blackburn Amendment is adopted so I urge my colleagues to defeat this irresponsible amendment which has the potential to put the security of our homeland at risk. The Blackburn Amendment would prohibit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using federal funds to implement enforcement guidance governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to ensure that scarce resources are targeted toward aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety and not wasted on Dream Act children who pose no threat to our nation. I oppose the Blackburn Amendment because it is hypocritical, irresponsible, and mean-spirited. It is hypocritical because supporters of the amendment regularly claim that their refusal to compromise on budget issues and their support for sequestration is motivated by their belief in the importance of setting spending priorities. Yet, the Blackburn Amendment would deny ICE the ability to use its limited resources in the most efficient manner to achieve its highest priorities which are apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety. The Blackburn Amendment is irresponsible because it seeks to prevent trained, experienced, and professional agents and prosecutors from exercising their discretion and acting on the basis of what everyone knows to be true: that there is a vast difference between a terrorist bent on harming America and DREAM Act kid studying hard in school so he or she can graduate and join the Armed Services and willingly risk his or her life to defend the country. This inefficient use of resources wastes taxpayer dollars and does nothing to keep America safe. Third, the Blackburn Amendment is mean-spirited because it would have ICE target its limited resources on innocent, law abiding, young people who were brought to this country as children and would have them deported to a foreign land even though America is the country they know as home and the only to which they have ever pledged allegiance. As Member of Congress, I have traveled many times to Iraq and Afghanistan and always the highlight of my visit was meeting the young men and women who are willingly risking their lives to defend the country they love more than life. Right now, at this very moment, there are thousands of soldiers fighting for us in Afghanistan and elsewhere who are not yet American citizens but who dream that one day they will become citizens of the nation they gladly risk their lives to defend. The Blackburn Amendment, however, would have ICE agents and prosecutors pretend to see no difference between someone like these veterans who came to this country as an undocumented immigrant and an alien engaged in or suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Blackburn Amendment wastes the money of hard-working taxpayers. It does nothing to make America safer. And, just as bad, it is inconsistent with American values of justice and fair play. Madam Chair, as a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together. It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream. Instead of passing irresponsible measures like the Blackburn Amendment, we should instead seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from the passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the Blackburn Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and the ranking member for his leadership. Madam Chair, this is a full force assault on immigrants. It is an assault on the integrity of this Nation which was built upon the investment and the love of this country by immigrants from all over the world. As I look to the landscape of what we now confront--2,000 dead in Nigeria by Boko Haram, little girls dressed with suicide bombs, and Homeland Security being held hostage by an assault on immigration--let me say to you that the Constitution has given the President the authority under the ``take care'' provision, so this assault of amendments that is trying to chip away at these executive actions is a false premise in order to attack the ideas and the values of this Nation. In my own State, if the actions of the President's are in place, we will gain $8.2 billion in gross domestic product and $19.2 billion over 10 years, a decade. Do you think we need the underlying amendment or amendments? Pastors and religious leaders--the Episcopal bishops--have indicated that they support the executive actions. The Catholic bishops support the executive actions. The Aderholt amendment wants to attack those young DREAMers who want to invest and young soldiers. The Blackburn amendment wants to take away, if you will, the childhood arrivals. Mr. DeSantis wants to misrepresent to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence. Mr. Salmon, in his amendment, wants to suggest that workers are being hired over American workers; then Mr. Schock wants to ignore the investment of this particular language into this Nation. Let me end by saying this is an attack on immigrants. Let's oppose all of these.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans (SAV) Act, which will help stem the epidemic of veteran suicide. Tragically, an estimated 22 veterans commit suicide each day--more than 8,000 each year. Of the more than 2 million Americans who have served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is estimated that one-third, roughly 600,000 men and women, have traumatic brain injury, PTSD or Depression. Mr. Speaker, combatting the epidemic of veteran suicide must be one of the nation's highest priorities. The bill before us is important to our nation and critically important to my home state of Texas, which has one of the highest rates of veteran suicide in the country. According to an analysis conducted by the Houston Chronicle, suicides among Texans under the age of 35 who had served in the military ``jumped from 47 in 2006 to 66 in 2009--an increase of 40 percent.'' According to that same analysis, ``last year, suicides made up nearly 25 percent of the deaths of Texans younger than 35 who served in the military. That percentage is more than twice the rate of suicide in the comparable civilian population.'' Mr. Speaker, H.R. 203 expands access to mental health services for our nation's veterans and increases the capacity and efficiency of VA care to deal with the more than one million veterans returning from war. Our veterans deserve to have our support. These individuals put their lives on the line for our country to stay safe. Specifically, H.R. 203, which enjoys broad and deep bipartisan support: 1. Establishes a peer support and community outreach pilot program to assist transitioning service members with accessing VA mental health care services. 2. Requires the VA to create a one-stop, interactive website to serve as a centralized information source regarding all mental health services for veterans. 3. Takes steps to address the shortage of mental health care professionals by authorizing the VA to conduct a student loan repayment pilot program aimed at recruiting and retaining psychiatrists. 4. Requires yearly evaluations--with interim reports due in the first two years and a final report due the third year and every year after-- conducted by a third party, of all mental health care and suicide prevention practices and programs at the VA to find out what is working and what's not working and to make recommendations to improve care. Passing H.R. 203 is an essential first step in ensuring that our veterans are receiving the help and care they need. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 203.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the new year has come with many blessings, but it has also come with a major wake-up call. I rise again to express my deepest sympathy to the people of France, the loss of lives, including our Jewish brothers and sisters targeted simply because of their faith and other innocents. I stand as well to recognize my friends in the Muslim community who have all come together, to thank them for standing against violent and reckless terrorism. Their voices were loud and present and noted. I recognize the heads of state, the work of the United States in standing alongside France, our early and longstanding partner in democracy and liberty. Yesterday, some of us had the privilege, hosted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, to greet the French Ambassador and to offer to the people of France our personal regrets and sympathy. As we look to the incidents that are coming to our attention around the world, let me bring up again the girls in Nigeria, who were taken almost a year ago, 300 innocent school girls. The only thing that they wanted to do was to take their exams. In the spring of 2014, I led a delegation of Members of Congress to the northern state of Borno. I met the pleading and crying and broken families. I met some of the girls who gave a harrowing story of how they escaped, sliding through the wooded forests, escaping for their lives with just the clothes on their back. Only through a light from a house along the road were they able to get some refuge, and then three of them escaped on a motorcycle with a hero whose name probably will never be noted. But these girls have no more identity. We are saying bring the girls back, but maybe they are married and impregnated and indoctrinated in this instance with doctrines that were not their life. They were Christian. The focus on Africa must be enhanced. I thank my good friend Congresswoman Karen Bass, who has been working tirelessly as the ranking member of the Africa Subcommittee and had a brilliant meeting this morning. I come now to announce that we cannot stand by as Boko Haram pillages violently, recklessly, with inhumanity, kills with reckless abandonment, with no one stopping them, 2,000 people along Lake Chad, bodies that people are tripping over and finding under bushes and trees. This is a cry for mercy; this is an outrage. The world cannot stand by idly and not look to this. Nigeria cannot fight this alone, and just as we have announced a concerted global effort against ISIL and al Qaeda, we must do this against Boko Haram. They are not simply a group of thugs. They have connected to this vile institution of terrorism, and they are going up against ill-prepared military forces. We could point the finger, and I am asking for the Government of Nigeria to stand and ask for help. There is no shame in asking for help. I am asking the United Nations to do more than it is doing. I am asking the African Union to collaborate with the forces that they have at their side with the collaboration of African countries to go to the rescue of the innocent persons in northern Nigeria. How can we stand by when a 10-year-old girl who needs to be playing with dolls and going to school and looking into the sunshine for an aspirational light of things that she can do in 2014, probably a brilliant little girl, unbeknownst to her, strapped with a horrible bomb and now in death, with her little body splintered by a bomb--a suicide bomber--how can she even understand what they had told her she was doing? Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that I am calling upon the world to join in a global effort to fight the terrorist dastardly behavior of an uncaring Boko Haram, and I close by saying that we must reach out to young Muslim boys in northern Nigeria for an alternative to that life. May God rest in peace those who have died at the hands of terrorists, and we ask for a unified global response.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today again to join my colleagues whom you will hear from to challenge this dastardly act of our 300 girls that remain captured, abused, violated, impregnated, and maybe even married into the horrors of Boko Haram. These women and these voices that you see are the very women that we met when we went to Borno State just last year as they pleaded to be able to bring the girls back, but now their voices were turned toward the 2,000 who have been killed by the horrors of Boko Haram. So, Mr. Speaker, as I join my colleagues today, I ask for a global response in the war on Boko Haram, a global response from the African Union, a global response from the United Nations, and a global response from the world to fight against Boko Haram and, at the same time, to save the boys that are being recruited by this violent and horrible leader. This leader is turning these young boys into violent killers. 2,000 dead bodies are all over the ground, and our girls now are still suffering. So to these beautiful women who are now still in the midst saying bring the girls back, I want to tell them that we are coming to the rescue. We will not allow the world to stand by while Boko Haram kills.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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