Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me thank the chairman and rise to support the Jackson Lee amendment with a little journey down memory lane of just a few days ago. Just a few days ago in northern Nigeria, a heinous terrorist group by the name of Boko Haram killed 2,000 people. Pillaging and killing has been their mantra, their definition. A few days before that, we watched in horror as three terrorists killed 17 people in the nation state of France, our ally for many, many, many years--our partner, if you will, in the virtues of liberty and democracy. My amendment speaks to the diminishing impact that this present legislation would have on the security of our Nation. My amendment simply asks that those issues dealing with Homeland Security be exempted from this rule. The rule itself causes there to be some 70 particulars that have to be met when rulemaking begins. Can you imagine subjecting national security to that kind of criteria? As indicated, this bill modifies a Federal regulatory or rulemaking process by codifying many requirements included in Presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule. We mentioned that in my earlier discussion. My amendment would simply exempt from the bill's congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. As a senior member of the Committee on Homeland Security, having served previously as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I am concerned about legislation that throws a monkey wrench in the footsteps of Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, ICE, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, and many others. I am concerned when our Secretary of Homeland Security indicates that we live in dangerous times and, therefore, calling upon America not just to see something and say something, but to be conscious of these dangerous times. Can you imagine the necessity of a rulemaking that then must be burdened with 70 new levels of criteria defining the budget analysis or cost benefit? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do think we have oversight responsibilities, and I do think that we should be responsible in those oversight responsibilities and fiscally conservative or fiscally responsible, but I do not think that this legislation that has come to us time and time again and obviously failed is any answer to what we are trying to do. Let me, first of all, say that this bill does not do as the Constitution has asked, and that is the ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union'' in the beginning of our Constitution. This does not adhere to that, and I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the remaining time. Sally Katzen, formerly of the Obama and Clinton administration, mentioned how valuable regulations can be to helping the American people. This is an impediment. I don't want to impede a regulatory scheme to help with cybersecurity; I don't want to impede the Coast Guard if it has intelligence about an attack on the Houston port with some regulatory scheme that doesn't allow it to move forward or to be able to address that question. What we are suggesting is there are obstacles being put in front of national security. I ask that you support this amendment by exempting the Department of Homeland Security that is entrusted with the security, domestic security of the United States of America. I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. What Does the Regulatory Accountability Act Do? This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives. In addition, the measure creates statutory thresholds for regulations to be deemed ``major'' rules and ``high impact'' rules--i.e., rules likely to cost more than $100 million or $1 billion a year--and requires that these rules proposals be subject to additional criteria and procedural steps. What Does the Amendment Do? My amendment would exempt from the bill's Congressional approval requirement any rule promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, I am very concerned about any legislation that would hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to respond to emergencies. The bill would add new review requirements to an already long and complicated process, allowing special interest lobbyists to second- guess the work of respected scientists and staff through legal challenges, sparking a wave of litigation that would add more costs and delays to the rulemaking process, potentially putting the lives, health and safety of millions of Americans at risk. The Department of Homeland Security simply does not have the time to be hindered by frivolous and unnecessary litigation, especially when the safety and security of the American people are at risk. According to a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, public protections and regulations ``do not tend to significantly impede job creation'', and furthermore, over the course of the last several decades, the benefits of federal regulations have significantly outweighed their costs. In our post 9/11 climate, homeland security continues to be a top priority for our nation. As we continue to face threats from enemies foreign and domestic, we must ensure that we are doing all we can to protect our country. DHS cannot react to the constantly changing threat landscape effectively if they are subject to this bill. Professor Sally Katzen, a former Obama and Clinton Administration official, discussed the benefits of regulation which an agency like the Department of Homeland Security demonstrates, and that is brought home by the tragic events in Nigeria and France, where terrorists struck with horrible efficiency last week. Professor Katzen stated: Moreover, while we hear a lot about the costs of regulation, we rarely hear about the benefits of regulation-- for example, improving our health or the air we breathe or the water we drink protecting our safety in our homes, our automobiles, or our workplaces; or increasing the efficiency of our markets. Those who embrace cost/benefit analysis should speak to the benefits as well as the costs of regulation. Here, there are data--incomplete as they may be--which clearly show that the benefits of rules issued during the Obama Administration have been substantially greater than the costs of those rules. For example, the 2012 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs of Federal Regulations showed that for FY2011 (the most recent fiscal year for which data are available), the rules ``were estimated to result in a total of $34.3 billion to $89.5 billion in annual benefits and $5.0 billion to $10.1 billion in annual costs. And make no mistake about Mr. Chair, the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a wide variety of duties under its mission. One example of an instance where DHS may have to act quickly to establish new or emergency regulations is the protection of our cyber security, an issue that should be at the forefront of everyone's legislative agenda in this new Congress. In the past few years, threats in cyberspace have risen dramatically. The policy of the United States is to protect against the debilitating disruption of the operation of information systems for critical infrastructures and, thereby, help to protect the people, economy, and national security of the United States. We are all affected by threats to our cyber security. We must act to reduce our vulnerabilities to these threats before they can be exploited. A failure to protect our cyber systems would damage our Nation's critical infrastructure. So, we must continue to ensure that such disruptions of cyberspace are infrequent, of minimal duration, manageable, and cause the least possible damage. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the number of cyber incidents reported by Federal agencies to USCERT has increased dramatically over the past four years, from 5,503 cyber incidents reported in FY 2006 to about 30,000 cyber incidents in FY 2009 (over a 400% increase). The Department of Homeland Security is also tasked with combating terrorism, and protecting Americans from threats. With the current unrest in the Middle East, why would we want to limit DHS's ability to do its job? The Department of Homeland Security is constantly responding to new intelligence and threats from the volatile Middle East and around the globe. We must not tie the hands of those trusted to protect us from these threats. Hindering the ability of DHS to make changes to rules and regulations puts the entire country at risk. As the Representative for the 18th District of Texas, I know about vulnerabilities in security firsthand. Of the 350 major ports in America, the Port of Houston is one of the busiest. More than 220 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2011, and the port ranked first in foreign waterborne tonnage for the 15th consecutive year. The port links Houston with over 1,000 ports in 203 countries, and provides 785,000 jobs throughout the state of Texas. Maritime ports are centers of trade, commerce, and travel along our nation's coastline, protected by the Coast Guard, under the direction of DHS. Simply put, if Coast Guard Intelligence has evidence of a potential attack on the port of Houston, I want the Department of Homeland Security to be able to protect my constituents by issuing the regulations needed without being subject to the constraints of this bill. The Department of Homeland Security deserves an exemption not only because they may need to quickly change regulations in response to new information or threats, but also because they are tasked with emergency preparedness and response. There are many challenges our communities face when we are confronted with a catastrophic event or a domestic terrorist attack. It is important for people to understand that our capacity to deal with hurricanes directly reflects our ability to respond to a terrorist attack in Texas or New York, an earthquake in California, or a nationwide pandemic flu outbreak. On any given day the City of Houston and cities across the United States face a widespread and ever-changing array of threats, such as: terrorism, organized crime, natural disasters and industrial accidents. Cities and towns across the nation face these and other threats. Indeed, every day, ensuring the security of the homeland requires the interaction of multiple Federal departments and agencies, as well as operational collaboration across Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. We cannot hinder the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect the safety and security of the American people. No mission is more sacrosanct--and by bottling up the process with bureaucratic red tape. As Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said recently: Recent world events call for increased vigilance in homeland security. H.R. 185 makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to unnecessary regulatory uncertainty and undue delay-- something that the American people can ill-afford. We cannot hamstring the Department when it is trying to cope with threats such as franchise terrorism. My amendment frees up Homeland Security to do its critical mission of protecting the American people. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment in order to ensure that lifesaving regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security are not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation. This GOP Bill Is Opposed by A Long List of National Organizations. National organizations opposing the bill include such organizations as the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, which itself is a coalition of more than 70 consumer, environmental, health and public interest groups: Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; Americans for Financial Reform; Better Markets Center for Responsible Lending American Association for Justice Center for Effective Government; Public Citizen

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman, the distinguished ranking member, for yielding the time. Mr. Chairman, I would almost attempt to bring back ``Swanee River,'' or some old song that reflects ``here we go again.'' This is a bill that has been recycled. It has been recycled and it has been recycled. I believe the underlying premise of the bill is contrary to the values of the American people. This is proposed as a Regulatory Accountability Act to generate jobs and opportunity. I rise in opposition to a bill that stymies progress, hinders clean water and clean air, and provides mountainous obstacles to the national security of America. What is the underlying premise of H.R. 185? The underlying premise of this bill is to require 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act, and it requires Federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all indirect costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost. Mr. Chairman, is there logic to saying that you are streamlining the APA process when you are adding a mountainous, tall, multifloor skyscraper of requirements? Is it accurate to suggest that you are making the process better when you are causing agencies of varying sizes already suffering from the restraints of the budget-cutting process of my friends on the other side of the aisle, are you suggesting that they can then analyze indirect costs and actually save money? We live in a climate and an era of difficult times. As a member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, as our Secretary of Homeland Security has said, these are dangerous times. We have already indicated our sympathy for the people of France and viewed it as a wake-up call. Do you realize that some of the agencies facing this crisis will be Homeland Security, Health and Human Services? Does anyone recall the tragedy of Ebola and how quickly action was needed? This undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for Federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. In fact, this is not helpful when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far. So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the question: What are we saving here? What money are we saving? Why are we undermining the very protection of this Nation? Again, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, and, again, homeland security, all of these very important elements of safety for the American people will be undermined by H.R. 185. Today, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to stand on the side of the American people and vigorously oppose H.R. 185. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 185, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015. This bill modifies the federal rule-making process by codifying many requirements included in presidential executive orders and requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problem that the rule is meant to address, and potential costs and benefits of the proposal and alternatives. In essence though--this H.R. 185 only adds to the procedural burdens of federal agencies--making it harder for them to effectively carry out their missions. The Regulatory Accountability Act: Creates confusion and delay by adding over 70 new analytical requirements to the Administrative Procedure Act and requires federal agencies to conduct an estimate of all the ``indirect'' costs and benefits of proposed rules and all potential alternatives without providing any definition of what constitutes or does not constitute an indirect cost. Mr. Chair, the tragedy last week in France was a wake-up call--and we simply cannot delay, obfuscate, and slow down the regulatory process. Slows down the rulemaking process by significantly increasing the demands on already constrained agency resources to produce the analysis and findings that would be required to finalize any new rule. Undermines the integrity of the process by increasing the procedural burdens for federal agencies when they try to carry out their mandates. Mr. Chair, this is not helpful legislation when we entrust our agency personnel to help protect the American people against threats near and far such as franchise terrorism, keep our water clean, and our food safe. Allows any interested person has the ability to petition the agency to hold a public hearing on any ``genuinely disputed'' scientific or factual conclusions underlying the proposed rule. hinders the production of guidance documents ``Super-mandates'' cost-benefit analysis measures for major guidance documents. In addition it makes it much harder for agencies to issue guidance, thus leading to increased regulatory uncertainty. Provides regulated industries and companies multiple opportunities to challenge agency data and science and thus further stretch out the already lengthy rulemaking process--again--undermining the process. makes the least costly rule the default choice Requires that an agency default to the ``least costly'' rule unless it can demonstrate--out of all the possible alternative rules--that additional benefits justify any additional costs and offer a public health, safety, environmental, or welfare justification clearly drawn from the authorizing statute including such critical measures as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. expands judicial review of agency judgments This bill discourages agencies from rulemaking and from being able to do their jobs because judges are emboldened to substitute their own opinions for the findings of agencies. Expands the scope of judicial review. The Regulatory Accountability Act is designed to further obstruct and hinder rulemaking rather than improve the regulatory process. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to VOTE AGAINST the Regulatory Accountability Act and ensure that progress is not thwarted and government operations not unnecessarily delayed by this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important for us to focus on what we are discussing here today: Paris, 17 dead; Canada; Australia; Boko Haram, 2,000 dead, a 10-year-old suicide bomber; and, of course, 9/11. This is the Homeland Security Appropriations. I have had the privilege of serving on the authorizing committee since its creation, and every day we go to that committee, we know that the commitment is to secure the American people. This is not a forum to battle one's agreements or disagreements with the Constitution and with the President's executive authority or to battle your disagreements with the idea of deporting felons over families--that debate can be had--but, tonight, we are wrongly jeopardizing the national security of the American people. We do it on the basis, our Republican friends, of failing to even read the Constitution, for it is clear, as it is stated in the Constitution under article II, section 3, that the President can have the authority, ``shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' In essence, he has the right to make sure that we are treating persons fairly and that prosecutorial discretion is exercised in a fair manner. Nothing that is in the executive actions of the President violates any law; but what it does do, as we are debating today with the poison pill amendments, is to take the inhumanity of some viewpoints and to throw it against people who have come to this country by no fault of their own, who have come to this country to do us not harm but good, who have come to this country to work hard and to help build this great Nation. I am saddened by the fact that, because of this debate, the Coast Guard will suffer, that the Secret Service will suffer, that the airport and aviation security will suffer. Why? Because we will not have a bill. I believe that this challenge for all of us is to raise the question of whether our Republican friends have come here to govern. The only thing I see is that they are using this Homeland Security bill for extreme positions that they want to foster over security. Why would they want to defund DACA? Why would they want to capture the basic infrastructure of the funding of Homeland Security? It has worked over the years, the fees that have supported the Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation and Security; yet they want to capture these dollars and cripple Homeland Security. They want to make sure we don't have enough Secret Service agents as we move forward into the election year.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Department has been entrusted by the United States Congress and the American people to give guidance to the security and the protection of their families. It is not families who, by chance, are considered undocumented; it is all families. What the President did in his executive action is to define for America who is here in this country; not only that, he gave an economic engine by providing for fines and fees in order to get in regular order. By the way, Mr. Chairman, these individuals are not getting in front of those who have been standing in line through the legal immigration process. They have a separate process that simply gives them status, not immigration status. He is not bestowing upon them immigration status. As I close, I ask: Is there any heart and warmth to those who are debating these questions? First, do we understand family, and do we understand we are a nation of immigrants? What has been established is an infrastructure of law to help them be established in regular order. What we are doing is undermining the national security of this Nation to cast against those who are innocent. I ask my colleagues to defeat these amendments and to vote for a clean Homeland Security bill. Let's support the national security of Americans. Mr. Chair, while it is not perfect, I would support H.R. 240, the Fiscal Year 2015 Homeland Security Appropriations Act, as originally introduced because it provides adequate funding of the Department of Homeland Security, including support for important federal cybersecurity initiatives, disaster relief and recovery programs, and essential law enforcement activities that are critical for ensuring the Department can help keep our Nation safe from harm. But I cannot support the bill on final passage if it contains any of the ``poison pill'' amendments made in order by the Rules Committee. Those amendments are simply the latest attempt by House Republicans 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. I oppose all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee because their inclusion will spell certain doom for the bill and needlessly put the security of the homeland at risk at a time when things are so perilous in the world. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram in Nigeria given heightened urgency to the words of Appropriations Committee Chairman Rogers that we need to get a clean Homeland Security spending bill ``to the president's desk so we can get a signature funding Homeland Security at a very tedious time in the world.'' Sending this bill to the president with the Republican poison pill amendments will result in a presidential veto rather the signature needed for the bill to become law. In addition, were the bill to become law with the poison pill amendments intact, it would inflict tremendous damage to the nation's economy and the economy of my home state of Texas. According to an analysis conducted by the Council of Economic Advisors, the executive actions taken by the President to mitigate the damage caused by our broken immigration system would grow the U.S. economy by $90 billion to $210 billion over the next ten years. And they would grow the GDP of my home state of Texas by $8.2 billion to $19.2 billion over that same period and increase Texas state revenues by $770 million to $1.8 billion. I cannot and will not support a bill that would do such harm to our efforts to protect the homeland and expand the economy so that it creates jobs for all who seek employment at wages that will enable workers to provide for their families and their retirement, buy and keep their homes, and send their children to college. I urge my colleagues to reject all of the amendments made in order by the Rules Committee and pass the bill as originally introduced by Chairman Rogers. There are many good things in that bill that are worthy of support, including the following: 1. $39.7 billion in regular discretionary appropriations for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in fiscal year 2015; 2. $12.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP); DHS would be required to accelerate the hiring of CBP officers; 3. $5.96 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plus an additional $345 million from the agency's fee funded accounts, bringing the total to $6.3 billion; 4. $553.6 million in funding to manage the influx of unaccompanied alien children, or ``UAC,'' entering the U.S.; the funding would be used to interdict migrants, care for and transport approximately 58,000 undocumented children to the custody of Health and Human Services (HHS), and facilitate the movement of undocumented families through removal proceedings after crossing the U.S. border; 5. $1.9 billion for both domestic and international investigations, including increases to combat human trafficking, child exploitation, cyber-crime, and drug smuggling, and to expand visa vetting capabilities; 6. $4.8 billion for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA); 7. $10 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard; 8. $753.2 million for cybersecurity operations in the National Programs and Protection Directorate to fund and sustain improvements to the Federal Network Security and Network Security Deployment programs; 9. $1.7 billion for the U.S. Secret Service--an increase of $80.5 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level--to begin preparation and training for candidate protection for the 2016 presidential election and to address critical failures in communications and training at the White House Complex; 10. $7 billion for disaster relief--fully funding FEMA's stated requirement; and 11. $1.1 billion for Science and Technology, $32.1 million above the President's request. The White House has announced that the President will sign H.R. 240 as originally introduced but he will veto the bill if it contains any of the irresponsible and reckless amendments made in order by the Rules Committee. I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting against all of the amendments and sending a clean Homeland Security funding bill that will receive the presidential signature needed to become and law provide the resources needed to keep our homeland safe.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 33, the ``Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act,'' which clarifies that volunteer firefighters and first responders are not to be counted towards an employer's calculation of its full-time employees for the purposes of determining if the employer falls under the ACA's employer responsibility requirement. I support this bill because it protects fire departments from being required to pay for the insurance of their volunteers. If they were required to pay, it is likely that many fire companies would be forced out of business. This bill is identical to H.R. 3979, reported in the 113th Congress by the Ways and Means Committee by a 37-0 vote, and passed on the House floor by a bipartisan 410-0 vote. The only reason this bill was never delivered to the President's desk was that the Senate ran out of time in their effort to pass the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, preventing the Federal government from shutting down. Within the state of Texas, nearly 85% of fire departments are operated entirely on a volunteer or mostly basis. Failure to pass this bill would mean dire consequences for the future of these volunteer fire departments. As this bill was passed unanimously in the previous House, I see no reason why it should not do the same in this one. I ask that my colleagues to join me in protecting our nation's fire departments by voting for the passage of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think my good friends who are on the floor today, my good friends on the Republican side of the aisle, have failed to read the Constitution, which includes, clearly, the President's authority for executive actions and not, as they have articulated, an executive order. And it says in the ``take care clause'' that he has the ability to manage this government, as Presidents Reagan and Eisenhower did. What I would offer to say is, there is nothing in what the President has done but to exercise executive action. But I will say to them that Secretary Johnson of Homeland Security has said that we are placing ourselves in a dangerous position, not because of the President's actions, not because of the appropriations bill, but because of these enormous poison pills that are stamping and stomping on the President's right to executive action. I oppose all of the bills that are presently in this rule, including the regulatory bill, the Financial Services--all of them have poison pills. The regulatory bill, for example, wants 70 criteria before any agency can pass a regulation. Yes, to my Republican friends, we are in a moment, a historic moment. France was more than a wake-up call. But what I will say to you is that we can pass a clean Homeland Security appropriations bill and we can end this dangerous condition that we are in. I would ask my colleagues to eliminate the poison pills of pulling back on the President's constitutional authority.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 240, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015. I oppose the rule because, if passed, the five Republican amendments made in order by the Rules Committee guarantee the bill will be vetoed by the President at a time when ensuring that the agencies charged with securing our border and protecting the homeland have the resources needed to keep us safe should be our highest priority. 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. Speaker, the amendments to H.R. 240 made in order by the Rules Committee are simply the latest attempt by House Republicans 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 rule we are being asked to accept makes in order amendment that seek to block 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. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, 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 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. 2. 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. 3. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. Mr. Speaker, 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. 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. 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. 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. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote against the rule so we can put an end to the dangerous game of playing Russian Roulette with the security of America's homeland. Let us defeat this rule and bring to the floor a clean Homeland Security spending bill that the President can sign into law.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate and wonderful statement of two distinguished Members of Congress, the chairman and ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and I associate myself with their words on how crucial this legislation is, and what an important statement the Veterans' Affairs Committee is making: that there is no party affiliation when it comes to saving the lives of our men and women who put on the uniform. To the author of this bill, Mr. Walz, as I chatted with him on the floor, I indicated to him that just this weekend I met for hours with two wounded warriors, both of them having experience with PTSD, both of them being challenged about the transition into civilian life, both of them knowing of this legislation, feeling left out and deprived that it did not, despite the valiant effort of this House, pass in the last Congress. So let me congratulate all of you for recognizing that this is a crucial, lifesaving element of the men and women that we stand and admire and love. Every day, 22 veterans take their lives, but it is 8,000 a year. And if I might say, Texas walks alongside of Florida and other States in having the highest number of returning vets. Two million served in Iraq and Afghanistan across the Nation. Now, one-third, 600,000, have experienced traumatic brain injury and PTSD. From the early years of working with then-Chairman and Ranking Member Murtha, I was privileged to bring $1 million to my district for PTSD, but that is not the heart of it. The bleeding and the sorrow of these men and women is not befitting of the service and the uniform that they put on. Not one moment should they wait at a veterans hospital for treatment for PTSD that should keep them grounded. Not one moment should they be alone contemplating suicide, without treatment and friends and family having assistance. This bill makes that statement, H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt SAV Act. It says that you are not alone and that we have put our actions where our words are. We have walked the walk. So I want to say to those wounded warriors who shared their heart with me, proudly come back and say: This bill is moving, and as it moves to the United States Senate, this bill is moving. And as we look to the President's desk, a signature will allow this bill to be in place. To those who missed the deadline, this law will allow you to still be able to receive that treatment because it allows an extended time for those who have missed the deadline. I know as I go back home to Texas and meet families that they are looking for action when it comes to our beloved veterans and those who have put on the uniform to serve this Nation as they watched their comrades die. This is a bill that says, God bless America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is a bill that reflects the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and our wonderful Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I want to say to my friends at Ellington Field, which is just down the road from my congressional district, and to the many bases across the State of Texas that have amongst their ranks veterans who have served in Active Duty and who are still pressing forward in spite of conditions that they face, this is the bill that provides the answer and the love and affection for the veterans and military personnel who have put on the uniform every day and who have never--never once--shied away from their duty and decided that their lives and their ills were greater than their commitment to this Nation. We owe them this. This is a ``God bless America'' bill. I thank the proponents of it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Amendment III: ``No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this morning, we started by reading the Constitution, and I did not want to leave this week without reminding us of Amendment One of the Bill of Rights: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'' Today, we stand with the people of France who, in the early years of our beginnings, certainly gave to America many of the democratic principles by way of their own values. Today, we acknowledge that violence will not undermine democratic values around the Nation or around the world. We mourn those who have lost their lives, and we want to stop the terrorist violence, but what we most want to do is to be able to acknowledge the individual dignity of all people and that we will not stigmatize religions or ethnicities or race in this country, but we will recognize that we are great because we are able to welcome all from all places and to be able to accept their human dignity. We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, and I am grateful for the greatness of this Nation, but I stand with the people of France and mourn their loss this week.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as I come to the floor--I had been on the floor earlier today--I offer again my deepest sympathy to the people of France and mourn with them for the heinous tragedy yesterday, and I know all Americans also do so. I come, however, to talk about an issue that will draw bipartisan recognition of the importance of ensuring the support in the lack of reductions of SSI benefits. There are 300-million-plus Americans in this country. Madam Speaker, 5.81 million Americans receive SSI; 4.6 million of them are disabled, and 1.3 million are children. My office is in the Federal building in Houston, Texas. I watch individuals come to our Social Security office. They don't look rich. They don't look fraudulent. They don't look like they are trying to take advantage of the system of help that America is giving them. I am sending out an SOS alert to all the families who have loved ones on SSI or the children who are receiving death benefits because their parents are dead. I am asking that we commit to ensuring and providing the support for the SSI account, not reducing it, not reducing benefits, because these are the neediest Americans who I would be in utter shame to point out that they are fraudulent. We will be having a teach-in in my district. We will ask them to come and tell their stories because I am insisting and refusing to allow their benefits to be cut.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas. Madam Speaker, I wonder: Does anyone know who Lisa Gray is? Or the many Lisa Grays across America? Lisa Gray is a woman who, as a small business owner, admitted that if it had not been for the Affordable Care Act, she would not have been able to get the chemo treatment for her leukemia. Just think of the workers who are now getting affordable care access. Now, with this legislation, they will be cut to 39 or 38 or 32 hours, so as not to have the employee-mandated and responsible way of treating their health insurance. This bill that is on the floor today will give us a $53 billion deficit. It will result in 1 million people losing their employee- sponsored coverage like Lisa Gray or families that I saw coming for enrollment in Texas. It will increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the health insurance marketplace between 500,000 and 1 million and increase the number of uninsured by upwards of 500,000. Do we realize what we have gained through the Affordable Care Act? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose just 3 percent. That is far different from 7.9 percent before the Affordable Care Act. Where is all this noise that our insurance premiums are going up? I will tell you what will be going up: it will cause an additional 6.5 million workers to find that their employers have cut their hours, and it will result in $19.6 billion in additional costs to the Federal health care program. Are we talking about deficit? I am talking about lives, Madam Speaker, and I am talking about the ability to save lives. This legislation is not interested in doing so. What about my State of Texas? We have not opted in to the expanded Medicaid. Twenty-three States--what will that do to individuals below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line if they had any ability to access the marketplace? They won't have the ability to access the marketplace because they will be in those who are cut down. Let me just say that we have the ability to realize and do better. Let me stop people from saying there is no Federal law that requires employers, Madam Speaker, to cover employees. You won't face penalties. You can do better. I believe this bill does not answer our concerns. I don't want Lisa Gray to lose her insurance. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which is the latest attempt by the House Republican majority to impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care. At the start of the new Congress the American people expect the ``People's House'' to take up matters of central concern to their lives: jobs, affordable education; and initiatives to close the income gap. I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week. The majority is bringing before the House of Representatives a bill that was brought before the last Congress, and the Obama Administration said that it would be vetoed. The majority has attempted over 50 times to end the Affordable Care Act with no hope of accomplishing their goal. Today's vote is no different from past attempts to take away Americans' right to affordable health care insurance. Further, should the Republican majority in the Senate decide to take up this bill--they do not have the 60 votes to bring H.R. 30 before the Senate for a final vote. If they could get H.R. 30 out of the Senate the President would veto the bill and neither the House nor the Senate has the two-thirds majority necessary to overcome a veto. This is a waste of limited legislative days for 2015, and a poor start to the 114th Congress. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act would: Increase the federal deficit by $53 billion over the next decade; Result in one million people losing sponsoring coverage; Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplaces by between 500,000 and one million people; and Increase the number of uninsured by up to 500,000. Since 2013, over 10 million Americans now have health insurance because they took advantage of the Affordable Care Act. An independent analysis conducted by the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly three times as many workers, about 6.5 million in total, being vulnerable to hour reductions than under current law. Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grew in 2014 at the lowest rate on record back to 1999, tied with 2010. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation data, the average annual premium for employer- sponsored family health insurance coverage rose just 3.0 percent (1.2 percent adjusted for inflation) to $16,834 in 2out, far below the 7.9 percent (5.6 percent adjusted for inflation) rate seen from 2000-2010. Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process. This nation because of the Affordable Care Act has 7.3 million people signed up for Marketplace plans, paid their premiums, and accessed quality, affordable coverage. An additionally, 8 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP since the beginning 2015 Open Enrollment--that's an increase of nearly 14 percent compared to average monthly signups before this year's enrollment period began. Millions of young adults have gotten covered on their parent's plan, because the law says they can now do so until they turn 26. An article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 10.3 million uninsured Americans have gotten since the start of Open Enrollment. In just one year (since the start of Open Enrollment), we've reduced the number of uninsured adults by 26 percent. Americans have more choices. During Open Enrollment 21314, consumers could choose from an average of 47 plans. Contrast that to before the Affordable Care Act when many consumers had few, if any, real choices. Today, we're able to announce that in 2015 there is a 25 percent increase in the total number of insurers selling health insurance plans in the Marketplace in 44 states. Seventy-six million Americans with private health insurance can finally get preventive services such as vaccines, cancer screenings, and yearly wellness visits without cost sharing, because the law says your insurance company must provide you with these services with no copay or other out-of-pocket expense. This includes nearly 30 million women and over 18 million children. Millions of families have real financial security because insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because they reach an annual or lifetime limit in coverage. Insurance companies must include things like prescription drugs and hospital stays in their coverage. And being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition. H.R. 30 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour workweek. The bill would redefine ``full-time employee,'' for purposes of determining which employees an employer must provide health insurance coverage to only those hourly wageworkers who work 40 hours a week. The Affordable Care Act for the purpose of employers providing health care to workers defined a full time employee as any worker who works 30 hours a week or more. Few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers. Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC or Medicaid to make ends meet. In the 115th Congress wants to help Americans with access to affordable health care insurance they would address the issue of states that are not participating in the Medicaid expansion in states like the state of Texas where millions of uninsured low wage workers do not have access to health care insurance. Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation. I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients. I ask that my Colleagues vote against the rule for H.R. 30. [From The Ledger.com, Jan. 8, 2015] Stories Behind the Legislation: Woman--Obama's Health Coverage Saved Me (By Noam N. Levey) Alexandria, VA.--Like many working Americans, Lisa Gray thought she had good health insurance. That was until she was diagnosed with leukemia in mid-2013, and the self-employed businesswoman made a startling discovery: Her health plan didn't cover the chemotherapy she needed. ``I thought I was going to die,'' Gray, 62, said recently, recalling her desperate scramble to get lifesaving drugs. Through a mix of temporary measures, doctors and patient advocates managed to keep Gray stable for a few months. But it was a new health plan through the Affordable Care Act that Gray credits with saving her life. The plan, which started Jan. 1, 2014, gave her access to the recommended chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall. It's been one year since the federal law began guaranteeing coverage to most Americans for the first time, even if they are sick. Some consumers pay more for insurance. Some pay less. Doctors, hospitals and businesses are laboring to keep up with new requirements. And across the country, ``Obamacare'' remains a polarizing political issue. For many Americans like Gray--who were stuck in plans that didn't cover vital services or who couldn't get insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition--the law has had a personal, even life-changing impact. ``A couple years earlier, I think I would have been done,'' Gray said. Even the law's supporters concede more must be done to control health care costs and ensure access to care. But the insurance guarantee--which includes billions of dollars in aid to low- and middle-income Americans--has extended coverage to about 10 million people who previously had no insurance, surveys indicate. That cut the nation's uninsured rate more than 20 percent last year, the largest drop in half a century. The law also changed coverage for millions more people who were in plans like Gray's that capped or excluded benefits. Gray thought little of these potential changes when President Barack Obama signed the health law in the spring of 2010. She'd had health insurance for decades. With a monthly $1,095 premium, the Kaiser Permanente plan that she had gotten through her husband's employer wasn't cheap. But it was her only option. As a breast cancer survivor, Gray probably wouldn't have been able to find a new plan. On the morning of May 20, 2013, Gray skidded off the road driving to her vacation condominium on Maryland's Eastern Shore. Aside from a few bruises, she was unhurt. But she had a bigger surprise at the emergency room. A routine blood test showed an unusually high white blood cell count. Gray had chronic myeloid leukemia, a relatively uncommon form of cancer that starts in the bone marrow and leads to the production of abnormal blood cells. The disease is now considered highly treatable. Gray's oncologist at Kaiser prescribed the standard oral chemotherapy, a medication known as Gleevec. Gray called her pharmacy to pick up the prescription. There was a pause on the line. The pharmacist asked Gray whether she knew the drug would cost $6,809 per month. ``I freaked out,'' she recalled. ``Why would they even make this drug if people can't afford it?'' Neither Gray nor her doctor realized her Kaiser plan covered only $1,500 worth of prescription drugs a year, a provision spelled out in small type in Appendix B of her 80- page plan brochure. Gray's family explored going to Canada, where pharmaceuticals are often less expensive. They finally found a clinical trial closer to home at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, where researchers were testing an alternative to Gleevec called ponatinib. Gray's cancer quickly responded. The relief was only temporary, however. The next month, Gray had to stop the ponatinib. Without access to either drug, she was again scrambling. Bristol-Myers Squibb, which provides cancer patients with a temporary insurance card for a 30-day supply of yet another cancer drug, seemed to offer hope. But the card wasn't accepted at the Kaiser pharmacy where Gray had to get her prescriptions. American Cancer Society advocate Brandon Costantino persuaded a company sales representative to give Gray a month's supply anyway. Even the promise of a new insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act seemed elusive at first. Gray, like others, battled through the problems that hobbled HealthCare.gov after it opened. Finally, on Dec. 2, 2013, she selected a new Kaiser Permanente health plan for $780 per month. That was $315 less than her current plan. Most important, the plan covered Gleevec for a $30-a-month co-pay. Gray broke down in the pharmacy when she picked up her first prescription. She admits she's ``kind of a crier.'' Nine months later, a bone marrow biopsy showed no further sign of leukemia.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of issues that are confronting this Congress as it returns to serve the American people here in the United States Capital. What a wonderful place of democracy and freedom. It gives me a sense of ownership on these values on behalf of my constituents in celebration that we live in a nation that admires and respects and finds a way to disagree without being disagreeable but, more importantly, that we understand that violence against one another is not the solution. Tragically, I stand to mourn with the people of France as they have experienced a heinous terrorist act, the first, I believe, in a decade that follows the tragedies in Canada and Australia. So we have to define ourselves in somewhat of a different way. The commentary indicated, How would we know? As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I challenge all of us to say we have to know. We must find a way to balance our civil liberties and the respect for our Constitution with protecting the American people, and in a two-road process, try to hinder those who would come to do this violent harm on our soil. But more importantly, we have to begin in a societal confrontation through diplomacy on stopping the radicalization of young people using sources such as the Internet. It is real and we must address it. I look forward as a member of the Homeland Security Committee to begin looking legislatively and pointedly at how we address this question to protect the American people. I want to step aside for a moment and just speak on two local issues. Riverside Hospital, Houston

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, Riverside Hospital, Houston, quite different from my earlier comments, is a local hospital in my community founded by the family of a deceased World War I veteran. It has a special place in the hearts of African Americans because it was the only hospital where Negroes could go in the 20th century. It has fallen on difficult challenges. And so my question and my inquiry is to the new, incoming Governor for the State of Texas, Governor Abbott, to find value in this medical facility because of its historic relationship. It once housed the only outside posttraumatic stress disorder center in Houston outside of the veterans hospital system. It was well attended by veterans who loved the idea of a center that was away from the massive hospital system. It serves people who are poor in the neighborhood and seniors. It has helped those who suffer from substance abuse, and I believe that it needs and desires and deserves a new start. I will be working with a variety of agencies to do that, and will not be ashamed that unfortunately tragic or, let me say, misbehavior of some caused this unfortunate turn in this hospital. Its history is worth saving. I thank the Cullinan family, whose son died in World War II, for providing the initial funds for us to be able to have this Negro hospital. Saluting Wheatley High School

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, then I want to salute Wheatley High School and those who have attended it. It was named after Phillis Wheatley. It was an African American high school in the great city of Houston in the fifth ward. Two of its many graduates were the late Congressman Mickey Leland and late Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, and obviously many other great Americans who went to that high school. Unfortunately, the original Wheatley High School--over the valiant efforts of Wheatley graduates because ``everything new'' seems to be the direction we want to go--was torn down. But I believe there is a way to find common ground, and I am going to encourage HISD to meet with these valiant former alumni to find a common path of preserving that history in the new school and bringing the community together. We look forward to meetings forthcoming, for HISD to lend a hand out to people who want to preserve history, to tell the story of a school that was built in 1927 out of a material that in fact actually lasted. And when African Americans could not go to any other school, when those who went off to World War II and Vietnam couldn't go elsewhere, they had the Wheatley High School that sits proudly in the fifth ward. There is a Wheatley High School that was modernized, but the original building of terra-cotta material--so beautiful if you had seen it-- could have been restored. I would like to stand here and say don't condemn those who wanted to hold that piece of history alongside of educating children today and give them the kind of technology they needed. We can do this together. I want to salute those who fought hard, and we can find a common path by working together.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, we have seen tragic incidents occurring against innocent people, today in particular, the tragic killing of journalists and police officers in Paris, France, terrorist acts against innocent persons and persons who we know in the United States have the right to the First Amendment and freedom of expression that is the very core of the principles of this Nation of which we value and which our soldiers have gone to faraway wars to fight for. At the same time, Boko Haram, a terrorist group that has plagued the African continent, mainly in Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and around the areas of Niger, have taken a city near Lake Chad. They have seized that city. They have taken over the military base. They are continuing to kill thousands and causing 1.5 million to be displaced. Again, we have to fight terrorism in a universal manner, both in terms of our attitudes and values, but more importantly, in the organizing of African nations to stand up against these heinous terrorists, who have stolen children, 300 girls and boys, and taken them from their families and lives. Boko Haram cannot be in control. We must, in a united way, stand against them and provide for the peace and tranquility of the people of the continent where they are.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we come to begin this new opportunity of service to the American people, clearly we want to emphasize to them that we take this responsibility seriously and, as well, that we know that we represent our constituents. These are districts that are between thousands of people that are in our congressional districts, but we realize that the broader sense of what we do is to represent our Nation and the values and needs of the American people. Over the last 2 days, as we begin this legislative process, I have been concerned about two issues in particular that I believe do not, if you will, provide for the overall sensitivity to the American people. We were discussing a major financial services bill that will be coming up. Many elements are in this bill, but I want our constituents and, more importantly, our colleagues to realize that you have a bill that will diminish what we call the Volcker rule. What that is is a protection to make sure if banks want to dibble and dabble in risky ventures or risky investments, that they do so with the money that is private and separate from money that is protected by the FDIC. That is your savings accounts. That is the money you socked away. In the instance of this legislation, they want to take that protection away so that banks can dibble and dabble in accounts that are protected by the FDIC, meaning that you pay for mistakes; you pay for collapse; you pay for the wrong decisions that are made; and you lose. I don't want the American people to lose. It is something that has touched my heart because I represent a vast amount of constituents: those who are quite well-endowed, if you will, quite wealthy, such as major corporations and neighbors and others who are doing quite well; and then, of course, I represent children and widows who are dependent on something called SSI, or those who are disabled who are dependent on SSI. And I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we would pass legislation that would, in essence, indicate that we are not going to continue supporting SSI, in fact, that we may call for either the elimination or the decreasing of benefits under SSI. Do we realize, does this Republican leadership realize, that those who receive SSI are the most vulnerable, the poorest, the children who are in great need, the sick who are in great need, people who have worked and who have fallen upon times in which they need that kind of support? Why would we, in the thinking of representing the core of American values, lifting all people, believing in the equality of all, why would we do this? And so my voice is going to be heard loudly and clearly. I call upon, as my Democratic colleagues have so aptly noted, that we raise our voices and that we get in the way and that we stop this kind of intrusion on those who cannot, in some instances, speak for themselves. I want to rise today as well to acknowledge my deepest sympathy to the people of France for the heinous and tragic incident which has just occurred. When I left, there were 12 dead, including two police officers in the line of duty. We pray for their families, and we stand up against this vile act of franchise terrorism. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am grateful to serve on that committee with the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and Chairman McCaul. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan manner to confront this kind of dangerous terrorism, recognizing that we do not label people by their faith, but we label them by their actions. Might I also say that I express, again, on the floor, a sympathy for the tragic execution of the NYPD law enforcement officers. We do not stand for that. That individual has been determined to be disturbed, crazed, and does not represent any value of America. We offer our deepest sympathy to those shot recently in the line of duty. Hopefully we will continue working in the Judicial Committee to look at the criminal justice system that really involves a whole number of elements, such as the grand jury system, the special prosecutor system, the constant traffic stops in many instances that are done on a racially profiled scenario, and the uplifting of training and community-oriented policing. Mr. Speaker, we can do all of these things if we work together, but I did not come to this Congress to undermine the criminal justice system or to undermine people who are in need.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, The Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act of 2015. This Trojan Horse legislation is actually a combination of eleven separate bills, ten of which were authored by Republican members of the Committee. I believe that Members should be afforded the opportunity to offer amendments and have a full and fair debate on these bills. However, by considering this package under Suspension of the Rules, Republicans begin the new year by denying Members the opportunity to thoroughly debate a measure that will have far-reaching impact. Let's be clear: regulators have made tremendous progress in implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already returned $4.6 billion to 15 million consumers who have been subjected to unfair and deceptive practices, some of whom live in my Congressional District in Houston. The CFPB has established a qualified mortgage rule, ensuring that borrowers who are extended mortgage credit actually have the ability to repay the loan, and has established new rules-of-the-road for mortgage servicers. In addition, the CFPB has worked with the Department of Defense to develop financial protections for service members and veterans, and established a national database to aide consumers with complaints about debt collectors, credit card companies, and credit rating agencies, among others. Let us not turn back the clock on American consumers who already have seen the benefits of the CFPB's efforts. The Volcker Rule has forced banks to sell-off their standalone proprietary trading desks, and banks have shifted away from speculative trading to investments in the real economy. Shareholders of U.S. corporations now have the ability to have a ``say-on-pay,'' voting to approve or disapprove executive compensation. In addition Mr. Speaker, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recovered more than $9.3 billion in civil fines and penalties since 2011, leveraging enhanced authorities provided by Dodd-Frank. The SEC has also established an Office of the Whistleblower to aid them in policing securities market violations, which has already received more than 6,573 tips from 68 countries. Further, private funds are making systemic risk reports to regulators, helping them to understand previously opaque risks. To implement the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has completed 65 final rules, orders, and guidance documents resulting in the registration and enhanced oversight of 102 Swap Dealers, two Major Swap Participants, 22 Swap Execution Facilities, and four Swap Data Repositories. In addition, the CFTC has established rules governing mandatory clearing, exchange trading, and reporting of the entire $400 trillion notional swaps market. It should also be noted that since Dodd-Frank's passage, stability in the market has led to significant economic growth. Nearly 9.7 million private sector payroll jobs have been created since February 2010. There are now nearly 900,000 more workers employed in the private sector than before recession-related job losses began in early 2008. The unemployment rate has fallen by 3.9 percentage points since its peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 and currently stands at 6.1 percent--its lowest level since September 2008. Real GDP has grown 10.2 percent since its trough in 2009, and now stands 5.5 percent higher than its pre-recession peak in late 2007. That in and of itself is news that the media should be discussing. Moreover, the housing market is recovering, with home prices rising, negative equity falling dramatically, and measures of mortgage distress improving. The S&P 500 has risen by 85 percent since July 21, 2010 and has recently reached new peaks. However, this progress has been regularly stymied by a concerted effort by the Majority to underfund regulators' operations, relentlessly pressure them to weaken regulations, and otherwise erect roadblocks to implementation. As a result, the progress regulators have made to implement the law remains precarious. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and have a full debate on its merits.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Having written a letter to join with other colleagues for the release of Alan Gross, I want to make sure the record said Alan Gross and not Alan Grossman. Best to his wife and him at this time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as you notice, Members who are on the floor today have come from a variety of States, a variety of political philosophies and positions. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge Congresswoman Barbara Lee for galvanizing Members on both sides of the aisle on an important and enormous leap of change that we have made over the years by her determination and persistence and knowledge. So I thank her very much for that kind of leadership, allowing many of us to travel to Cuba on any number of occasions, meeting with Fidel Castro, speaking about issues of government and the needs of the Cuban people and the needs of the American people. To my colleagues, everyone who has visited, they have found the Cuban people hospitable and friendly, desiring peace, and respecting America. If there is ever one impression that you have when you leave Cuba, it is the desire for strong relationships and the connectedness between Cubans, Cuban-Americans, and Americans. As a Representative from Texas, I can assure you that over the years I have heard often from members of my agricultural community about their desire to begin engaging with trade in Cuba. And they do so as proud Americans, as Americans who have sent young men and now young women to faraway shores in military uniform to defend this Nation. What they see in Cuba, as has been indicated, is a friend with which we had disagreements, but a friend with which we now can find a pathway forward. As was mentioned, we had engaged in a war in Vietnam, we have engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers coming home now with few soldiers left behind. And, Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in diplomatic relations with Iraq, Afghanistan, and certainly Vietnam. How in the world can an island 90 miles away be held in such contempt that we cannot find a pathway forward. So I strongly support the executive order of this President, and I will tell you why in just a few minutes of the time that I have remaining. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and previously on Judiciary, on which I continue. My colleague is correct. At the time of the young boy by the name of Elian Gonzalez, who was found near the shores of our great Nation, his mother deceased trying to escape, of course, from Cuba with a number of others, there was this custody fight, if you will, about whether or not his relatives here or his father should have custody over him, his father being in Cuba. What a sensitive question for a very young boy who could not make a decision on his own. What a traumatic experience in those difficult waters watching his mother not survive. So as a member of that committee, working with my fellow colleagues and working then with the Clinton administration and then Attorney General Janet Reno, though it was not, if I might say, a clear and pretty scene, we knew that in the best interest of the child the parent was the best custodian or guardian, whether or not that child was, in fact, having to go to Cuba. But as I said earlier, the Cuban people are peaceful people. Every country has had a revolutionary path, and Cuba has as well. But it was a right decision for Elian, who is now a young man, and to all accounts is performing his duties as a responsible adult. But that was a very tough incident in our political life, if you will, to see a child snatched by officials of this government to take him home to Cuba. Maybe that was, in fact, the first statement of an altered policy. Let me close by saying why I believe the President's executive order is legitimate in the context of his legal authority, and I am excited about the beginning of the change in diplomatic relationships between Cuba and the United States. Mr. Speaker, would you not want to know who is 90 miles away from you in this time of franchise terrorism? Wouldn't we want to know who our allies are in the Caribbean, or who our allies are in fighting horrific drug trafficking? Well, I think we can find that in the entity of the Cuban government. We know that we have not seen a terrorist incident in that particular country. That is why we need to normalize relations. I am grateful for Mr. Gross' return, who was brought out by many Members of Congress, including my colleagues here, including Congresswoman Lee, and as well some of the other political prisoners who have been released, including some in recent days. And then lastly let me say, let us celebrate the Cuban people for the magnificent export that they have: medicine, medical research, and physicians. Everyone knows that in the Ebola fight, the largest contingent, or one of the largest contingents of medical professionals, doctors fighting against Ebola on the continent of Africa, is and has been Cuban doctors alongside of the international workforce of medical professionals, Good Samaritans who sacrifice their lives to fight this deadly disease. But every single medical crisis in the world, you can count on Cuban doctors being there, as well as in conflicts and wars, such as over in the Mideast, Cuban doctors go to save lives. I want to thank the gentlewoman for this Special Order. I look forward to joining her in further codels to visit and to be part of the continued normalization. I say this not out of disrespect of the feelings of others who have experienced a crisis in their relationship with Cuba, but only to say that now may be the time for peaceful reconciliation, for families to be reconciled and for us to begin this peaceful journey with the nation of Cuba. Let me thank you, thank President Obama, and thank those who are very much a part of this.