Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller for all of their work in their stewardship in bringing this strongly bipartisan bill to the House Floor for consideration. They have both worked hard on ways to improve education for our nation's youth and I have had the pleasure of working with the Chair on many issues of mutual interest for the improvement of education. Mr. Chair, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 10. My amendment directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools under this bill to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-circular activities. My amendment has the support of the National Educational Association and the American Federation of Teachers. I have letters from both organizations that I would like included in the Record along with my statement. Charter schools were new--but today they have become for many parents an important public education option. Not all public charter schools have been successful, but the work of those that have been successful have led us to this point of considering legislation to provide additional Federal funding for the creation of additional charter schools. This amendment is a pro-education consumer amendment that would educate parents who are investigating the public charter school option for their child's education. The Jackson Lee Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, anti quality of education life issues programs for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia are taught. Many public charter schools provide this information online, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. The Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs. This information being provided on Charter School websites would help us better understand what public charter schools are offering to parents and students. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of higher enrollment in public charter schools and promote greater public awareness regarding polices on such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as programs that impact of education on children with learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention. In Houston, I have had the benefit of seeing the work of public charter schools at work: Harmony Public Schools, YesPrep Public Charter Schools, and KIPP Public Charter Schools have made tremendous advancements. It is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education. I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10. I also offered a second Jackson Lee Amendment in the form of a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti- bullying programs in charter schools, including those that serve rural communities not supported by the Rules Committee. I regret that this amendment was not made in order for consideration of this bill because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems facing school officials. Bullying is not a new behavior. Kids have been exposed to bullying in school for generations. Now, however, bullying has taken on new heights and sometimes victims of bullies suffer severe and lasting consequences. For victims of bullying, they go to school every day facing harassment, taunting, and humiliation. Studies show that 25-35 percent of teens encountered some type of bullying in their lifetime. Bullying is a form of violent behavior that happens not only in the schools but everywhere. The National Center for Educational Studies reports show that 14 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds surveyed report being victims of direct or indirect bullying. 1 out of 4 kids is bullied. The Department of Justice reports that 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth. I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people. This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our nation's youth. The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying. 90 percent of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type. 56 percent of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school. 71 percent of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school. 15 percent of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school. 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school, 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month. Consequences of bullying: 15 percent of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school. According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying. Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic. Statistics on gun violence: Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old. Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24. Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day. 82.8 percent of those youths were killed with a firearm. Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun. Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm. In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns. One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6 percent of reportedly carry a gun. 87 percent of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them, and 86 percent said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools. In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries. Victims of bullying often suffer in silence and parents are the last ones to know that their child is being bullied or may be a bully. What once was thought to be a childhood ritual has been proven by school psychologists, law enforcement officials, parents, and students to be much more serious. Anti-bullying programs can help children understand the seriousness of bullying; and assist parents in learning the signs of bullying as well as learning how to speak to their children about the issue of bullying. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment to make information available on publicly funded charter school websites so that parents are afforded the opportunity to make the best education decisions for their children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. When we put forward legislation that focuses on the education of our children and the choices that our children can make, balanced alongside of ensuring the lifting of the boats of public education, we are in the right direction. I am delighted to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak during the House's consideration of the Rule for H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.'' The Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act would revise the Charter School Program and the Public Charter Schools of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The rule before the House will pave the way for the consideration of a legislative proposal that consolidates two existing federal charter school programs into one: The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools. The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school. The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools. The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide. H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts: Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization. Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools. National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs. The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.'' H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school. Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10 I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens. The Education and Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I had intended to offer as a separate amendment. The language reflects the intent of my amendment by adding rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools. Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention. Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education. I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10. The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the Nation. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award Federally funded grants to charter schools to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-curricular activities. This Amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues like reasonable accommodations for students with learning disabilities like dyslexia or physical disabilities. Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2 The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities. I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems focusing school officials. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order for consideration under this bill. I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013 because of the unresolved national epidemic of school bullying. This anti-bullying bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people. This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying is the most common form of violence faced by our Nation's youth. The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 students in grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th grade students report being victims of bullying of some type, 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month. Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; According to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; Suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic. Statistics on Gun Violence: Homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; Homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; Thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; Every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; Every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; In 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; One of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them,'' and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; In 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries. I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways. We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Amendment Offered by Ms. Foxx

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to come and join in an aspect of our bipartisan work that is working for children, and I thank the Education Committee and Mr. Polis for their leadership in focusing on the idea that our children need the best education. I also know the hearts of the Education Committee members and Mr. Polis in recognizing that public schools are a valuable asset, having been educated throughout my primary and secondary education in public schools. We want to have the opportunity to match excellence with excellence and to ensure that the oversight allows for excellence. So H.R. 10, the Success and Opportunity Through Quality Charter Schools Act, brings all of this together: respecting teachers, holding children to a higher standard, and giving them the necessary tools. I am glad that I had an amendment that will be in the manager's amendment that deals with requiring the Secretary to report issues regarding the age, race, and gender at charter schools, and also, the attrition and college acceptance. It has that same requirement for the teachers, as far as teacher attrition. That is important. That is already in the manager's amendment. I also think more transparency and information to the parents on the Web sites concerning orientation materials, enrollment curriculum, student discipline, and behavior codes adds to this legislation. In that, we can ensure that there will be policies to prevent any bullying or even to have bullying intervention so that our children can have a better quality of life. This is a holistic approach to educating our children. I believe the underlying bill speaks volumes that our children are our most precious resource. I hope that, as we continue, we will be able to work on other items, such as unemployment insurance and comprehensive immigration reform, because these are ways that we show America that we are working for them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak during House consideration of H.R. 10, the ``Success and Opportunity through Quality Charter Schools Act.'' Jackson Lee Amendments to H.R. 10 I have long supported the need for better data on the experiences of children that Congress could use when deliberating on legislative measures intended to benefit our youngest citizens. Charter Schools are a new addition to education options available to parents and their children. It is important that Congress ensures that the benefit of a good free pre-K-12 education is available to all parents and children of this nation. The Education and the Workforce Committee included language in the amendment in the form of a substitute for the bill that reflected an amendment I intended to offer. The language in the bill that adds rates of student attrition as a measure to be considered by charter school authorizers in monitoring the successes of schools is appreciated and will help gain additional insight into children's education. Attrition data would help us better understand the impact of charter schools on student retention. It would also bring additional transparency regarding the drivers of attrition issues such as discipline, counseling, drop-outs, bullying, as well as the impact of learning disabilities like dyslexia on student retention. Although the data reporting is not mandatory, it is my hope that charter school districts and charter schools will take up the challenge of providing hard data to make the case for their approaches to education. I offered two amendments for consideration by the House Rules Committee that would strengthen the legislative goals of H.R. 10. The amendments were simple and were an important addition to this strong bipartisan effort from the Education and Workforce Committee to bring clarity and improve transparency of charter schools in communities around the nation. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 The Jackson Lee amendment made in order by the Rules Committee for debate of this bill directs State Education Agencies that award federally funded grants to charter schools under this bill to work with those schools so that they provide information on their websites regarding student recruitment, orientation materials, enrollment criteria, student discipline policies, behavior codes, and parent contract requirements, which should include any financial obligations such as fees for tutoring, and extra-circular activities. This amendment will make it possible for parents to learn more about how schools deal with important education issues such as academic performance, enrichment programs, and quality of education life issues programs for children with learning disabilities like dyslexia are taught. Many charter schools already provide this information, and the amendment would support this good transparency practice. This Jackson Lee amendment is good for parents and for charter schools because parents would have access to information that helps them make education decisions for their children; and charter schools would speak to a larger audience regarding their education programs. Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2 The second Jackson Lee amendment was a ``Sense of the Congress'' on the promotion of, and support for anti-bullying programs in charter schools, including those serving rural communities. I regret that this amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee because the prevention of bullying is one of the most challenging problems facing school officials. Bullying is not a new behavior. Kids have been exposed to bullying in school for generations. Now, however, bullying has taken on new heights and sometimes victims of bullies suffer severe and lasting consequences. For victims of bullying, they go to school every day facing harassment, taunting, and humiliation. Studies show that 25-35% of teens encountered some type of bullying in their lifetime. Bullying is a form of violent behavior that happens not only in the schools but everywhere. The National Center for Educational Studies reports show that 14 percent of 12- to 18-year-olds surveyed report being victims of direct or indirect bullying. 1 out of 4 kids is bullied. The Department of Justice reports that 1 out of every 4 kids will be abused by another youth. I introduced H.R. 2585, the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Reauthorization and the Bullying Prevention and Intervention Act of 2013. This bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 by expanding the juvenile accountability block grant program with respect to programs for the prevention of bullying to include intervention programs. The bill's objective is to reduce and prevent bullying and establish best practices for all activities that are likely to help reduce bullying among young people. This year a million children will be teased, taunted, and physically assaulted by their peers. Bullying the most common form of violence faced by our nation's youth. The frequency and intensity of bullying that young people face are astounding: 1 in 7 Students in Grades K-12 is either a bully or a victim of bullying; 90% of 4th to 8th Grade Students report being victims of bullying of some type; 56% of students have personally witnessed some type of bullying at school; 71% of students report incidents of bullying as a problem at their school; 15% of all students who don't show up for school report it to being out of fear of being bullied while at school; 1 out of 20 students has seen a student with a gun at school; 282,000 students are physically attacked in secondary schools each month. Consequences of bullying: 15% of all school absenteeism is directly related to fears of being bullied at school; according to bullying statistics, 1 out of every 10 students who drops out of school does so because of repeated bullying; suicides linked to bullying are the saddest statistic. Statistics on Gun Violence: homicide is the 2nd leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24 years old; homicide is the leading cause of death for African Americans between ages 10 and 24; thirteen young people from ages 10-24 become victims of homicide every day; 82.8% of those youths were killed with a firearm; every 30 minutes, a child or teenager in America is injured by a gun; every 3 hours and 15 minutes, a child or teenager loses their life to a firearm; in 2010, 82 children under 5 years of age lost their lives due to guns; one of four high school males reportedly carry a weapon to school, with 8.6% of reportedly carry a gun; 87% of youth said shootings are motivated by a desire to ``get back at those who have hurt them, and 86% said, ``other kids picking on them, making fun of them or bullying them'' causes teenagers to turn to lethal violence in the schools; in 2011, over 707,000 young people, aged 10 to 24 years, had to be rushed to the emergency room as a result of physical assault injuries. Victims of bullying often suffer in silence and parents are the last ones to know that their child is being bullied or may be a bully. What once was thought to be a childhood ritual has been proven by school psychologists, law enforcement officials, parents, and students to be much more serious. Anti-bullying programs can help children understand the seriousness of bullying; and assist parents in learning the signs of bullying as well as learning how to speak to their children about the issue of bullying. H.R. 10 will consolidate two existing federal charter school programs into one: The Charter School Program, which supports grants for charter school developers to open new charter schools. The program also provides funds to disseminate best practices and provide state facilities aid to charter schools. The Charter School Credit Enhancement Program assists charter schools in accessing better credit terms to acquire and renovate facilities to operate a charter school. The rule will allow the consideration of the bill that will create a new federal charter schools program to promote high-quality charter schools at the state and local level; and allows states to use federal funds to start new charter schools as well as expand and replicate existing high-quality charter schools. The bill adds a new component--a Charter Management Organization grant program to support the opening of additional charter schools nationwide. H.R. 10 establishes a new Charter School Program that would consist of three parts: Grants to support high-quality charter schools will be awarded to a State Educational Agency, the State Charter School Board, the Governor, or a Charter School Support Organization. Facilities Aid will be awarded to continue credit enhancement activities and support state facilities aid for charter schools. National Activities will allow the secretary of education to operate a grant competition for charter schools in states that did not win or compete for a state grant and a competition for high quality CMOs. The legislation adds five new definitions: a ``charter management organization, a charter support organization'', a ``high-quality charter school''; the ``expansion of a high-quality charter school''; and a ``replicable, high-quality charter school model.'' H.R. 10 authorizes $300,000,000 for fiscal years 2015 through 2020. The bill permits state-determined weighted lotteries and allows students to continue in the school program of their choice by clarifying students in affiliated charter schools can attend the next immediate grade in that network's school. I strongly believe that where our children are concerned, Congress is in a unique position to advocate on their behalf in an effective and forceful way. Letting children know by our actions that members of Congress consider the lives of children and their experience to be of the utmost importance would help them in countless ways. We cannot gamble with our children's future, and ultimately the future of our nation. I am committed to finding ways to make sure that education is as valued as national defense--because education is crucial to our nation's global success in all areas.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished Congressman from New Jersey, Congressman Lance, for having this very special Special Order this evening and my friends, Congressmen Brian Higgins, Chuck Fleischmann, and John Carney, for sponsoring this evening's Special Order to recognize the 50th anniversary of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One would wonder what seven physicians were doing some 50 years ago. And I am glad that they came together to recognize the vibrance and the vitality of their specialty and the importance of gathering together. They had their first real meeting with 51 physicians in November of 1964. And I am glad that they organized because, as we watch the progression of research and care in the treatment of cancer, we owe a great deal to them. Let me tell you why: because when they founded this organization in 1964, cancer was perceived as largely untreatable. In fact, even today, we still have the remnants of that fear when you get that diagnosis. Many people call it the big C. There is trepidation and fear. And I would say to you that when those physicians organized in 1964, they understood the awesome and ominous task that they had. Only a handful of hard-to-tolerate and mostly ineffective therapies were even available. And they organized to provide for physicians with proper professional educational background material and the opportunity to come together to facilitate their own improved management of patients with neoplastic diseases, supporting collaborations in medical and research organizations, and initiating and coordinating and cooperating on projects of investigation. So I am glad to celebrate them today because, in the cancer hospitals across America--and I have the privilege of having in my community MD Anderson. And among the work that MD Anderson does, it collaborates with our local clinics and other hospitals because everyone knows that everyone cannot get into a specific cancer hospital, but they may be in a general hospital in which there is a cancer unit. Those oncologists collaborate with the oncologists in the major cancer centers of America. And I simply want to thank my colleagues here because MD Anderson has benefited from your understanding of the need for cancer research dollars. The NIH is an entity that we should fully fund, and I am on record to have that funding. $32 billion is what will put that entity in a position to do its work. I was interested to listen to the gentleman who spoke of both his mother and his father. And I believe when Members come to the floor and speak of their personal and human experiences, it draws us closer to our constituents and to our colleagues who have walked some of the similar territories. So as I have listened to his story, mine is different, for I heard that diagnosis--cancer, breast cancer. And I didn't hear it quickly, because when I suspected that my physician was calling to say that, all of a sudden, my phone didn't work, and it was quite difficult to reach me. I was on an airplane. I was in a meeting. And even in this era of new research, to hear that is a startling and overwhelming experience. But the good news is that oncologists have grown in their research, working with the NIH over these 50 years, and they have been able to give families and children not 100 percent, maybe not even 90 percent, but they have been able to cut the mortality rate of pediatric cancer. All of us know how heart-wrenching that is, how difficult it is to see a child suffer with cancer. There was a story in my local newspaper. I talked with one of my neighbors a distance away from my community who, sadly, lost their 3- year-old. The community gave that 3-year-old a princess parade some months ago; and, sadly, she lost her life. It is heart-wrenching to see a family member suffer without relief. But yet, through the oncologists and their research and the work that we are doing here in the United States Congress to support that research, we have been able to impact pediatric cancer. We have been able to work to impact breast cancer. And I have continued to work to highlight the idea that cancer, in all of its forms, can ultimately be cured. I would like to cite the physicians at MD Anderson. I visited with one today who talked about the new attitude that they have and wanting to get woven into care a large sector of preventative care because they realize that we are living longer. And by living longer, that is a plus, but they are recognizing that more elderly are now susceptible to cancer in their older years and, therefore, we need research, preventative care to be able to get in front of that so that the cost of saving their life can be the amount needed to do so, but that we can put a stop to them losing their life because we have engaged in preventative care. So I have offered amendments on something called the triple-negative breast cancer. It is one of the most deadly aspects of breast cancer. It impacts minority women, African American and Hispanics, white women and Asians, all women. I remember being in a breast cancer walk, and a young woman came up to me who, I guess, had been reading everything about it. She hugged me and said, ``I am here to walk for my mother. I saw what you are doing for triple-negative''--a Hispanic young woman. ``She did not make it, but thank you.'' That is how families are. They are so grateful for any recognition of the pain that they went through, that even if they lost their loved one, they are so happy that maybe you are doing something to help others. So I am glad that we are here tonight to be able to acknowledge oncologists who are the very ones who would come and bring forward these new ideas. Might I just briefly say these few points: one, with respect to triple-negative breast cancer, between 10 and 17 percent of female breast cancer patients have triple-negative. It is three times more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer do not live more than 5 years after being diagnosed. There is no targeted treatment available. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' But the good news is that in my conversations with MD Anderson, among the many finite research areas that they are doing, they have included triple-negative breast cancer. I know that those oncologists are going to give us a new day. So Congressman Lance, I thank you for honoring now 50 years of oncologists working to ensure that there is a cure. And I want to acknowledge Dr. DePinho, who is the new CEO of MD Anderson, his wife and the amazing research that she is doing, and all of the oncologists there. But as I close, I would like to recognize a dear friend, MD Anderson oncologist Dr. John Mendelsohn, who served as the CEO for any number of years. Many of my colleagues here in the United States Congress know him well. I call John a friend. He will be honored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology for its 50th anniversary through the organization's Oncology Luminary series. He is an oncologist, as we know. He served as president of MD Anderson through an incredibly productive period of nearly 15 years. The institution doubled in size during his tenure and aimed at higher excellence. He has an international reputation. And he and his collaborators in California produced monoclonal antibody 225, which inhibits human cancer cell proliferation by blocking the signal and pathways that are activated by the receptors for epidermal growth factor. There are many whom we can cite tonight, but I simply want to celebrate that there is a specialty called oncology that could cause more of us to answer that phone call when we are called and to receive that diagnosis in a way that we know there is hope and that family members will know there is hope and other family members who are now facing a diagnosis of cancer of their loved one will have hope. Oncologists have given us that hope as they continue to research, and I stand ready with my colleagues to provide the right kind of research and funding for them to continue to look to save lives. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues Congressmen Leonard Lance, Brian Higgins, Chuck Fleishmann, and John Carney for sponsoring this evening's special order to recognize the 50th anniversary of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. On April 9, 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology held its first organizational meeting when 7 physicians who are known as the founders of the organization. Fifty-one physicians attended the first meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago in November of 1964. The ASOC supports oncologists by: providing physicians with proper professional educational background material and the opportunity to facilitate their own improved management of patients with neoplastic diseases; supporting collaborations with other medical and research organizations, national and otherwise, with a view of enhancing professional education in the area of diagnosis and treatment of patients with neoplastic diseases; and initiating, coordinating and cooperating in projects of investigation of human neoplastic disease. At the time ASCO was established in 1964, cancer was largely untreatable. Only a handful of hard-to-tolerate and mostly ineffective therapies were available. I want to thank and recognize the Oncologists who serve the residents of the City of Houston for their work and dedication in providing treatment and care to cancer patients. Congresswoman Jackson Lee's work on Women's Health and Safety I introduced H.R. 80, the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Research and Education Act. The bill requires the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to expand, intensify, and coordinate programs for the conduct and support of research on triple-negative breast cancer (breast cancers whose cells are negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and the HER2 protein on their sources). Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop and disseminate to the public information regarding triple-negative breast cancer, including information on: (1) the incidence and prevalence of such breast cancer among women, (2) the elevated risk for minority women, and (3) the availability of a range of treatment options. Requires the Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), to develop and disseminate information on triple-negative breast cancer to health care providers. Last year, I offered an amendment that was added to the House of Representatives' Department of Defense Authorization bill that directs the Department of Defense Office of Health to collaborate with the National Institutes of Health to provide resources to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for TNBC. Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a term used to describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their cell membrane of tumor cells. Between 10-17% of female breast cancer patients have the triple negative subtype. Three times more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer, 70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed. There is no targeted treatment available for TNBC. The American Cancer Society calls this particular strain of breast cancer ``an aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates.'' Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) cells are usually of a higher grade and size; Onset at a younger age; More aggressive; and more likely to metastasize TNBC is in fact a heterogeneous group of cancers with varying differences in prognosis and survival rate between various subtypes. This has led to a lot of confusion amongst both physicians and patients. Apart from surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy is the only available treatment; targeted molecular treatments while being investigated are not accepted treatment. Populations Affected by TNBC TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American women, Hispanic/Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1'' genetic mutation, which is prevalent in Jewish women. TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age. More than 30% of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American women are of the triple negative variety. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women. Women with TNBC are more likely to have distance metastases in the brain and lung and more common subtypes of breast cancer. Breast cancers with specific, targeted treatment methods, such as hormone and gene based strains, have higher survival rates than the triple negative subtype, highlighting the need for a targeted treatment. Houston is home to MD Anderson I would like recognize MD Anderson Oncologist Dr. John Mendelsohn who will be honored by the American Society of Clinical Oncology for its 50th anniversary through the organization's ``Oncology Luminaries'' series. Dr. Mendelsohn is an Oncologist at MD Anderson, which is located in the city of Houston Texas. Dr. Mendelsohn served as president of MD Anderson through an incredibly productive period of nearly 15 years. The institution more than doubled in size during his tenure, while aiming for even higher excellence in patient care and research. Dr. Mendelsohn brought to MD Anderson an international reputation for his research on how the binding of growth factors to receptors on the surface of cells regulates cell functions. He and his collaborators in California produced monoclonal antibody 225, which inhibits human cancer cell proliferation by blocking the signaling pathways that are activated by the receptors for epidermal growth factor. His subsequent research in the laboratory and the clinic pioneered the universally adopted concept of anti-receptor therapy that targets key cell signaling pathways as a new form of cancer treatment. I join my colleagues in honoring and recognizing the important contribution to advances in cancer treatment made possible by the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, among other challenges in this world and in this Congress, Nigeria faces a killing machine. In the last 48 hours, again, Boko Haram struck and killed 300 people. This killing has been going on for a minimum of 5 to 10 years. Yesterday, five Members--five women of the United States Congress held this sign to indicate that we, as mothers, grandmothers, aunts, and those who care about children, all of our colleagues stand united to find the kidnapped girls and to stop the killing in Nigeria. We stand united to find the vile and evil Abubakar Shekau, the head of the Boko Haram killing contingent. We saw him most recently grabbing attention by standing in front of a tank, holding a gun, and citing the most ludicrous and insulting prospect that one could hear. He held up $12 and indicated that he would sell the kidnapped girls. Mr. Speaker, that is not all that he is doing. He has been killing and pillaging. He has caused parents to have to, in essence, go after him with sticks and stones. Yesterday, we spoke not only with the leadership at the Nigerian Embassy, a relationship that the United States prides in terms of the contribution Nigeria has made, but it is no doubt that, in this instance, we want Nigeria to do more and more and more. We asked, by speaking to the leadership in Nigeria by phone, that President Goodluck Jonathan stand up and indicate Nigeria's commitment to finding these girls and, in essence, bringing this horror terrorist to justice. At the World Economic Forum, his opening remarks did just that. He spoke about the help that was coming from the United States, the leadership of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, and the other nations that are coming together to be able to find these girls. Outside of Syria and Afghanistan, in terms of mass killings over the recent years, this stands, clearly, in the eye of the storm. We ask to have created a victims' fund. We want to be able to ensure that these parents who are, literally, broken and the children that may be found--or the wounded ones--have the opportunity to be made whole. We believe that it is important to create an elite police or military force, one that is focused to utilize the resources of intelligence and the law enforcement resources that are being sent to Nigeria by the United States. That deployed elite military and/or police force-- special ops, if you would--would have the sole purpose of getting those kidnapped girls. The reason why this is so very important is because Nigeria has porous borders. There is speculation that these girls may be in Cameroon, may be in Chad, may be in Niger, Benin, all places that will make it even more difficult to find these innocent children who simply came to school to be able to take an exam, so that they could do better in life. How dare we allow this brutal killer to last much longer without being brought to justice? So that elite force would bring this vile and evil person, who has no intent to do anything more than to continue to ramp up his publicity and the world's attention to his violence, bring him now to justice, move quickly utilizing the resources and focusing. It is also important that all of the world's institutions declare Boko Haram--the ridiculous group that says: we don't want any western education, and all girls should be married--declared a terrorist organization. It must be done swiftly, so that all the world's focus will be on this dastardly, devastating, vile leader of this organization and the organization. We can collaborate with the African Union and the U.N. peacekeepers. Then we want to provide armed protection for all of the schools as they finish out or continue their educational training. Mr. Speaker, let me say to you these are like the boys and girls that are in the schools of America right now. These are primary education children. These are secondary. I ask my colleagues to join in the outrage of this ridiculous and horrible situation. I ask that we are finding our girls and capturing this terrorist leader.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I think we all understand and believe that our children are our most precious resource. Over the last couple of weeks, hearts and minds of many around the world have been captured by a heinous thug by the name of Abubakar Shekau, the leader of the Boko Haram, who has been a vile, disgraceful, violent, and uncaring terrorist thug. Yet we do not know where these girls are. As women of the United States Congress, yesterday, myself, Barbara Lee, Marcia Fudge, Karen Bass, and Janice Hahn went to the Nigerian Embassy to stand and reject the $12 that Shekau wants to sell these girls for. We ask that we have a concerted effort on this. We should also establish a victims' fund. In the meeting, as we spoke to those from Nigeria, we asked President Jonathan to stand up to say they will find these girls and they will bring this terrorist to justice. We ask that today because no one knows where these girls might be. I close by calling two names: Aisha Ezekial and Nguba Buba. I will be calling these girls' names throughout this week to remind us they must be found now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, the ranking member on the Rules Committee, and my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, for the hard work that the Rules Committee engages in. I think the first comment that I would like to make is what we have been making, Ms. Slaughter, throughout this process, is our deep and abiding sympathy for the Americans who lost their lives in the name and in the duty to this country. I don't think there is a divide on that issue. I would take a different perspective from a cold case. This is a hot and ongoing case that has been investigated and has evidenced individuals whom I would believe that, in any other instance, my friends on the side of the aisle would hold to the integrity of their representation. One hundred years of military experience testified on the question of Benghazi, I believe, in the Committee on Armed Services. We have heard over and over from those in the State Department. We have had conclusions on the question of coverup, and we have seen nothing pointed to the administration to do so. I think the issue today is a question of fairness. That is what Democrats have always stood for. I have watched my leaders through the endless investigations, starting from Waco and the impeachment process, and I can almost say--maybe I should even say that I come from a district where the Honorable Barbara Jordan served. She was on the Watergate Committee and the impeachment process as a member of the Judiciary Committee. I remember her posture on that committee and holding up the Constitution. As a Texan, as a Democrat, we admired that. That is the premise upon which I believe we should be looking at this process. As I read this resolution, I am troubled, Mr. Speaker, because if we are going to do fairness and if we are going to reach a level of ethical respect, then there is a concern. We need an amendment, because this follows the rules of the House, which means that the chairman is solely given and ceded the authority--that means he or she could--of subpoena power. That does not rise to the level of fairness. Now, someone refuted our leadership's request for a bipartisan, even- numbered committee and cited that the only committee that is even- numbered is the Committee on Ethics, and they are right, Mr. Speaker. We want this to be an ethical, fair, responsibly, constitutionally grounded committee investigation report, because the committee is unending. It will end only 30 days after the completion of its work; therefore, it can go on and on and on. The question is will the American people see fairness.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what we want them to see, if we truly honor those dead Americans that died in the line of battle and duty, then we need the kind of face to the American people that balances the subpoena power so that we all--meaning Republicans and Democrats who are on that committee, if that committee is finalized--can responsibly question witnesses, and that the issue will not be the committee in its process, but it will be the fairness, it will be the Constitution, it will be the dignity and honor we give to those who have fallen. I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, we can waive the point of order, amend this on the floor of the House to give a balance to this committee, to add the balance that our leadership has asked for, the fairness that our leadership is asking for, give the subpoena powers in a balanced manner, pay tribute to those who have honored this Nation by being willing to stand in the line, in the eye of fire. I conclude simply by indicating we are the people of this Nation. Respond to our concerns. And I ask my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, could you give us how much time is remaining on both sides, please?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I begin this discussion today, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 565. I want to lay the premise of the discussion as I begin to explain why the question of ``why?'' is not answered. I would imagine that the question of ``why?'' will not be answered by the conclusion of this debate. The premise of the resolution H. Res. 565 is on the Federal regulations 601, 600.2, and 600.3. On the face of the resolution, in the facts, there is no evidence under either of the two initial ones. And that is, first, there has been no elimination of the question of whether there is a criminal investigation or whether there should be; and the grounds for appointing a special counsel include whether or not they determine such an investigation is needed, and that the investigation or prosecution of the person or matter by the United States Attorney's Office would present a conflict of interest. Then the circumstances will be in the public interest. None of those criteria have been met. First of all, in a May 7 letter most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has said there is an ongoing determination of criminal investigation, an ongoing investigation into all of the allegations. From the Ways and Means, from the Oversight Committee there is an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice investigation. Now, I believe in congressional oversight, but I also believe in rational congressional oversight, which means, why are we asking for special counsel when the Department of Justice is in the middle of an active investigation? There has been no conclusion, there has been no suggestion that there will not be a further investigation or criminal investigation, and there is no proven conflict of interest. The Department of Justice employee that has been mentioned by the majority: One, is not lead counsel, as evidenced in a letter dated February 3, 2014; And two, President Obama is not the point of this investigation, as I understand it, and the individual made private free speech donations in the course of a campaign. Are you suggesting that a public employee does not have the private personal right, First Amendment right, of freedom of speech? I would think not. So I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. There are no grounds for it. The Justice Department is working and it is investigating. Again, for those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department that has been adhered to by Republican and Democratic administrations. You may not like the results of it, but it gives the criteria for authorizing the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.'' There is an ongoing investigation. That means that at the conclusion, or when all of the data and information is reviewed, that decision is still to be made. There is no closure now to suggest that the Department of Justice has not done what it is supposed to do. In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's prosecution will present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility. This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of that criteria. The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful, constitutionally protected political activity, of which I have spoken, and is not the lead counsel-- definitively is not the lead counsel. We have two distinct and qualified experts: Bruce Green, a former Federal prosecutor and current professor of law at Fordham Law School, and Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal procedure from Columbia, who clearly articulate no basis for experts conflict of interest. In fact, the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that committee's yearlong investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax exempt status. Among this report's principal findings are that over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified. Not a single one of these witnesses' interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation. These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no political affiliation. Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is, as I have indicated, an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department in this matter, and they are complying with the structure of the appointment process for a special counsel. There has been no determination of conflict. There has been no determination that we are ending the investigation to the lack of satisfaction of the United States Congress. We are in an ongoing investigation. 600.2 of the Code, as I mentioned, of the Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigation in lieu of appointing a special counsel to determine whether grounds can even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. But an easy manner, other than a resolution on the floor of the House: a simple letter could have been written to the Attorney General for his consideration. So what is this resolution about? To begin with, it is pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and, of course, C-SPAN coverage, but has no real legal effect. Even The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, which is certainly not a partisan entity as it relates to its advocacy of President Obama or its administration, which is not a bastion of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability.'' I would rather have us working together, Mr. Speaker. I would rather us get to the facts. I would rather that the professional men and women of the U.S. Department of Justice be allowed to pursue this investigation unbiased and thorough. Rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the opposite result. The Journal explains: With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move to the shadows, and the administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed. If there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the four corners of the violated statute. Beyond proving the specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. We could be doing other things, and we could not be spending $14 million. There has been no basis for this resolution to pass, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 565. For those of you who are unaware of the legal authority undergirding this resolution, it is based on a series of regulations promulgated by the Justice Department. In pertinent part, section 600.1 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations authorizes the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel ``when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted,'' under certain specified circumstances. In sum, these circumstances are that the Justice Department's prosecution would present a conflict of interest for the Department and that it would be in the public interest for a special counsel to assume responsibility for this matter. This measure that we are debating today, however, utterly fails to meet any of these criteria. The sponsors of H. Res. 565 make bald, unsupported conflict of interest allegations against a mid-level career attorney whose only fault was to engage in lawful--constitutionally protected--political activity. In fact, the Ranking Member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee issued a report earlier this week detailing that Committee's year-long investigation of the IRS efforts to screen applicants for their tax-exempt status. Among this report's principal findings are that: over the course of lengthy and detailed interviews of 39 witnesses involved in this matter, absolutely no evidence of White House involvement was identified; and not a single one of these 39 witness interviews revealed any evidence of political motivation. These interviewees included IRS employees who identified themselves as Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others who had no political affiliation. Another fact that the supporters of this measure ignore is that there already is an ongoing investigation by the Justice Department into this matter. Indeed, section 600.2 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations explicitly authorizes the Attorney General to direct an initial investigation--in lieu of appointing a special counsel--to determine whether grounds even exist to warrant the appointment of a special counsel. So what is this resolution really about? To begin with, it's pure political theater. Rather than simply writing a letter to the Attorney General asking him to appoint a special counsel, which is the time-honored way to do this, the House Leadership has resorted to using a resolution that is subject to floor debate and C-span coverage, but has no real legal effect. Even the Wall Street Journal's Editorial Board, which is not a bastian of liberalism, noted in an editorial published a year ago that ``calling for a special prosecutor is a form of cheap political grace that gets a quick headline at the cost of less political accountability.'' And, rather than promoting greater transparency, the appointment of a special counsel, as the Wall Street Journal points out, would have the opposite result. The Journal explains: With a special prosecutor, the probe would immediately move to the shadows, and the Administration and the IRS would use it as an excuse to limit its cooperation with Congress. Special prosecutors aren't famous for their speed . . . . If there were no indictments, whatever the prosecutor has discovered would stay secret. And even if specific criminal charges were filed, the facts of an indictment couldn't stray far from the four corners of the violated statute. Beyond proving his specific case in court, a special prosecutor will not be as concerned with the larger public policy consequences and political accountability. The Wall Street Journal concludes by pointing out the obvious: Congress can do the investigating first, and if it discovers criminal behavior it can make that known and refer the cases and evidence to Mr. Holder, who will then be accountable if he refuses to act. Unfortunately, the real scandal here is that this foolhardy witch hunt directed at the IRS has cost American taxpayers well in excess of $14 million dollars, money that we all know could have been better spent. And now we are wasting limited floor time on this charade rather than taking up the issues that the American people urgently need this Congress to act upon. These include: fixing our broken immigration system; increasing the minimum wage; strengthening our Nation's economic recovery; creating more jobs; extending unemployment insurance; and helping students struggling with overwhelming educational loan debt, which now exceeds one trillion dollars. These are real issues that affect real people across America. This is where we should be focusing our resources. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived measure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to state that one of the provisions that is not in the regulation for establishing a special counsel is that it is a ``get you'' procedure. It is not a ``got you'' procedure. It follows an orderly process of which the Department of Justice is engaged. I would like to introduce into the Record a letter dated February 3, 2014, that indicates that the Justice Department's lawyer who has been charged with leading the investigation is not leading the investigation. He is part of a team. Office of the Deputy Attorney General, Washington, DC, February 3, 2014. Hon. Jim Jordan, Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Jordan: This responds to your letter to an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, dated January 31, 2014, again requesting her testimony at a Subcommittee hearing on February 6, 2014, regarding the Department of Justice's ongoing criminal investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's treatment of groups applying for tax exempt status. To reiterate, consistent with longstanding Department policy, no Department representative will be in a position to provide testimony about this ongoing law enforcement matter. As a preliminary matter, we disagree with your allegation that because of the attorney's engagement in lawful political activity, she has a conflict of interest regarding the investigation. Your letter of January 28, 2014, selectively quoted the Department regulation concerning the disqualification of employees from investigations based on personal or political relationships, and alleged that ``at the very least, [the attorney's] participation in the investigation runs afoul of this regulation.'' A careful review of 28 C.F.R. 45.2, however, shows that this is not true. That regulation provides that an employee should not participate in an investigation if he or she has ``a personal or political relationship'' with a person or organization substantially involved in the conduct being investigated or who has a specific and substantial interest in the investigation's outcome. The regulation defines a ``political relationship'' as ``close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof,'' and defines ``personal relationship'' as a ``close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality'' and states that employees are presumed to have a personal relationship with spouses, parents, children, and siblings, and that other relationships must be judged on an individual basis. Accordingly, consistent with this regulation, the attorney whose integrity you have unfairly questioned has neither a political nor personal relationship that disqualifies her from the investigation. We also note again that, contrary to the assertion in your letter of January 28, 2014, this attorney was not assigned to lead the investigation, but rather is a member of a team that includes representatives of the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. We agree with your view that ``[t]he American people deserve to have complete confidence that the Administration is conducting through and unbiased investigation.'' Accordingly, it is imperative that we avoid actions--such as testifying before Congress about this pending criminal investigation--that could give rise to a perception that the criminal investigation is subject to undue influence by elected officials. We reiterate that consistent with longstanding policy, in order to protect the integrity or our investigation, we are not in a position to provide you with any non-public information about this ongoing matter. This policy is intended to protect the effectiveness and integrity of the criminal justice process, as well as the privacy interests of third parties. It is neither new nor partisan, but rather based upon longstanding views of Department officials, both Democrat and Republican alike. While we respect the important role of congressional oversight, we believe that our provision of the testimony you have requested would be inconsistent with our commitment to principles of justice and the independence of our law enforcement efforts. As the Attorney General stated in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 29, 2014, ``[t]he men and women of the Justice Department have for time immemorial put aside whatever their political leanings are and conducted investigations in a way that relies only on facts and the law,'' and we do not ``have any basis to believe that the people who are engaged in this investigation are doing so in a way other than investigations are normally done--that is, by looking at the facts, applying the law to those facts and reaching the appropriate conclusions.'' We request that you allow the Department employees responsible for this investigation to conduct it without demands for disclosures or other interference that would be inconsistent with their commitment to the integrity of the criminal justice process. We appreciate your interest in this investigation and, as the Attorney General has explained, we will be in a better position to provide Congress with information about our decisions in this matter when it is concluded. Sincerely, James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say very quickly that the entire premise of the gentleman's comments have been proven absolutely wrong. Thirty-nine witnesses never said one moment that the Presidential election of 2012 was in any way involved in this particular issue. In addition, this is a bipartisan investigation because we have the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration appointed by a Republican and who is a Republican working with the Department of Justice. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, who has had a detailed investigation and oversight from his committee on this issue. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico, Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, a former official of the New Mexico State Government.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I also will include in the Record a May 7, 2014, letter that emphasizes that this is a bipartisan investigation. The inspector general of the Tax Administration, appointed by George Bush, is working with the U.S. Department of Justice. It negates very visibly any suggestion of conflict of interest or that this is a biased investigation. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Washington, DC, May 7, 2014. Hon. Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter of April 9, 2014, providing the Department of Justice (the Department) information and documents that the Committee on Ways and Means (the Committee) has obtained in the course of its ongoing investigation into allegations of targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of organizations based on their political views. As you may know, the Department has an ongoing criminal investigation into the IRS's treatment of groups applying for tax-exempt status, which is being conducted jointly with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA). We appreciate your concern and will carefully consider the Committee's findings as part of our investigation into these allegations. We hope that this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may provide assistance in this or any other matter. Sincerely, Peter J. Kadzik, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In addition, I think it is very important to note that we are the Congress and the administration. But I take great issue in suggesting the lack of integrity of our employees in the Federal Government and that they would do anything to undermine an official investigation. The letter that we received on February 23, 2014, debunks any personal relationship of this single attorney in a single office with any one political candidate from a personal perspective. A donation, yes. But are you suggesting that that individual has no private right to enterprise their free speech? There is no close identification with an elected official, no relationship with families and children. And so, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this resolution that is not grounded in any substance, does not meet the standard of 600.1, 600.2, and finds no conflict. This is no investigation that is over. There is no suggestion that they are not, in essence, investigating all parties, and that there will not be a conclusion that will ultimately make a decision that is unbiased as to whether or not persons will be criminally prosecuted. And so this resolution does not meet the standard. It is, again, taking up space on the floor. I would like to see unemployment insurance and immigration reform here. I would like to help the American people and help job legislation to make a difference here in the United States Congress. I have other documents I will add into the Record, Mr. Speaker. These letters are experts saying there is no conflict of interest. Columbia University Law School, New York, NY, February 5, 2014. Re Prosecutorial Disqualification Hon. Donald K. Sherman, Counsel, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Sherman: Although I lack deep familiarity with the matter you are inquiring about, I can offer some brief thoughts on the questions you have posed to me, specifically: Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a Presidential campaign or political party create a conflict of interest in a multi-agency investigation regarding allegations of political targeting by federal agency officials? Do past political contributions by a career prosecutor to a Presidential campaign or political party create grounds for disqualification arising from a personal or ``political relationship'' under 28 C.F.R. Sec. 45.2 in a multi-agency investigation regarding allegations of misconduct of federal agency officials? Is it appropriate for Department of Justice leadership to check the political donations made by a career prosecutor before assigning that person to join a multi-agency investigation involving victims claiming that they were treated unfairly because of their political beliefs? For background: I am currently the Paul J. Kellner Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. For the past twenty years, my scholarship has focused on criminal procedure and federal criminal enforcement issues. I teach courses in Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Federal Criminal Law, and a Sentencing seminar. Before entering academia, I served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and ultimately was the Chief Appellate Attorney in that Office. Since leaving government service in 1992, I have served as a consultant for various federal agencies, including the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General, and I have been retained as defense counsel or a consultant in a number of criminal and civil matters. You have posed these questions with respect to a specific Justice Department employee who, according to publically available FEC data, donated amounts totaling $4250 to political campaign funds related to the Democratic Party and Barack Obama in 2004, and $2000 to funds relating to President Obama in 2012. Any claim that these contributions, in of themselves, create a conflict of interest or should be cause for disqualification for a career prosecutor investigating allegations of political targeting in the Executive Branch strikes me as meritless. 28 CFR 45.2 is bars an employee from participating ``in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with: (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or (2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. And it goes on to define a ``political relationship'' as a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof. . . . Simple past campaign contributions do not come close to meeting this standard. Indeed, were they to do so, the conflict concerns would extend as much to employees who had donated to the party out of office, since presumably that party would be gain from any findings of impropriety by the current Administration. It would similarly be highly inappropriate for Justice Department officials, in putting an investigative team together to inquire into the legal political contributions that line prosecutors have made in their private capacity. In my experience, one of the glories of the Justice Department--worthy of celebration, not undermining--is the non-partisan way in which line prosecutors have done their work as Administrations come and go. The last thing we want is to divide them into political affinity groups. Very truly yours, Daniel Richman.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Oppose this present resolution and let's move on to come together and effectively work on behalf of the American people. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sure my kind friend from Virginia will yield me some additional time, but I will use what I have. Let me try to bring us together, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, there was a collegial moment when we said, Let's clarify the law. If there is anything the Democrats and Republicans agree with, it is that ineptness, wrongness, misdirection was obviously evident in the equal targeting of all groups--groups that had the name ``progressive,'' ``Occupy,'' and others. As Members of Congress, none of us want the citizens of the United States to be in any way intimidated by a government that is here to help them. And I stand here saying we can come together to ensure that all of our government agencies work well. The President made the point in May of 2013 that if in fact the IRS personnel engaged in the kind of practices that have been reported on and were intentionally targeting conservative groups--and it has been noted by the witnesses in the Oversight Committee that they were targeting other groups as well--Occupy, progressive--then that is outrageous, and there is no place for it. There is no conflict in this. What we are now debating is a fallacy of the appointment of a special counsel and the $14 million and the 700,000 pages of unredacted documents, more than 250 people who have been responding to congressional inquiries. I will include in the Record an April 23, 2014, letter to Congressman Sander Levin that talks about the litany of requests that the IRS has been requested to do. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, April 23, 2014. Hon. Sander Levin, Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Levin: I am responding to your request for documents relating to tax exempt advocacy organizations. Since May of last year, the Internal Revenue Service has been collecting, reviewing, and producing materials in response to a number of Congressional requests, including those from you and your Committee. In order to provide you and your staff our full cooperation in addressing this matter, more than 250 people, including attorneys, litigation support staff, and other IRS personnel have worked more than 100,000 hours. With this production, we have produced, including special requests from individual committees, nearly 700,000 pages of unredacted documents to the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees, which are authorized to receive I.R.C. Sec. 6103 information. We also have produced, including special requests from individual committees, over 530,000 pages, redacted as required by section 6103, to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Our productions have prioritized the custodians, subject matters, and search terms when and as requested. We have responded to more than fifty Congressional letters and hundreds of informal Congressional requests. We have facilitated more than sixty transcribed interviews by Congressional staff of current and former IRS employees. IRS personnel have answered questions related to the subjects of these investigations at 18 Congressional hearings. The IRS document production was collected from IRS hard copy and electronic files, including documents from 83 individual custodians. This production consists of documents from multiple custodians; the materials are Bates-stamped IRSR0000617700-- IRSR0000645643 and IRSR0000649674--IRSR0000650117. Additionally, we are reproducing documents that were previously produced with non-6103 redactions, which have been removed in this production. These documents are Bates-stamped as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Begin Bates End Bates ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IRSR0000572647......................... IRSR0000572649 IRSR0000572657......................... IRSR0000572659 IRSR0000572665......................... IRSR0000572666 IRSR0000572667......................... IRSR0000572669 IRSR0000574027......................... IRSR0000574029 IRSR0000574572......................... IRSR0000574575 IRSR0000574627......................... IRSR0000574630 IRSR0000574641......................... IRSR0000574643 IRSR0000574654......................... IRSR0000574657 IRSR0000574732......................... IRSR0000574734 IRSR0000574735......................... IRSR0000574737 IRSR0000574742......................... IRSR0000574743 IRSR0000574744......................... IRSR0000574747 IRSR0000575418......................... IRSR0000575424 IRSR0000579620......................... IRSR0000579623 IRSR0000581378......................... IRSR0000581381 IRSR0000581459......................... IRSR0000581462 IRSR0000582671......................... IRSR0000582674 IRSR0000582782......................... IRSR0000582785 IRSR0000589737......................... IRSR0000589741 IRSR0000589756......................... IRSR0000589758 IRSR0000589759......................... IRSR0000589764 IRSR0000589787......................... IRSR0000589789 IRSR0000590764......................... IRSR0000590770 IRSR0000590783......................... IRSR0000590786 IRSR0000590791......................... IRSR0000590797 IRSR0000591252......................... IRSR0000591256 IRSR0000591422......................... IRSR0000591425 IR5R0000593400......................... IRSR0000593401 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For your convenience, we are also providing this set of documents in PDF. If you have any questions, please contact me or have your staff contact me. Sincerely, Leonard Oursler. National Director for Legislative Affairs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the Rule for H.R. 4486, the ``Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015,'' which supports our military and their families and provides the benefits and medical care that our veterans have earned for their service. H.R. 4486 provides the facilities and infrastructure needed to house, train, and equip our military personnel to defend this Nation, both in the United States and abroad, provides the housing and military community infrastructure that supports a good quality of life for them and their families, and allows the military to maintain an efficient and effective base structure. The bill also funds programs to ensure that all veterans receive the benefits and medical care that they have earned as a result of their sacrifices in the service to our Nation. Just as our military pledges to leave no one behind on the battlefield, Democrats in Congress have pledged to leave no veteran behind when they come home. The bill provides a total of $165 billion in FY 2015 to fund military construction projects and programs of the Veterans Affairs Department, an increase of $7 billion (4%) over current funding levels. This total includes $93.5 billion in mandatory spending for VA benefits and $71.5 billion in discretionary funding. The bill provides a total of $64.7 billion in discretionary funding for the VA in FY 2015, a 2% increase over current funding and I am pleased that it increases mandatory funding for veterans' compensation and benefits by almost 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, although there is much in this bill that I support, I wish to note two major concerns. First, I disagree with the funding level for VA Medical Care in the bill, which is $368 million below the President's request and the amount I support. This underfunding for VA Medical Care could delay the timely delivery of health care services to veterans and impede our efforts to end veterans' homelessness in 2015. Second, the bill provides $50 million less than the President's request for Information Technology operations and maintenance programs. The result is likely to be a delay in making the necessary improvements to technology infrastructure that ensure continuity of operations for services that support all of VA's services and benefit delivery. Third, I do not support section 411 of the bill, which would prohibit the use of funds to construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the United States to house individuals held in the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. I do not support this rider because it unduly constrains the flexibility that the our Armed Forces and counterterrorism professionals need to best protect U.S. national security. Mr. Speaker, the VA serves nearly 48.5 million people: 22 million veterans and 26.5 million family members of living veterans or survivors of deceased veterans, so in in my remaining time let me highlight some of the positive aspects of the bill: $1.2 billion for family and military personnel housing--equal to the administration's request; The bill contains an advance appropriation for FY 2016 of $58.7 billion, continuing the trend started in the Democratic-led 111th Congress of providing advance appropriations to the VA for the medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities accounts. This is a significant benefit to the veterans served by the VA at the 152 hospitals, 107 domiciliary residential rehabilitation treatment programs, 133 nursing homes, 300 Vet Centers, 70 mobile Vet Centers and 821 outpatient clinics, which include independent, satellite, community-based and rural outreach clinics. $589 million is provided for for medical, rehabilitative, health services and prosthetic research--$3.3 million above current levels and recommends that a proportionate amount of funding for prosthetics should be focused on prosthetics for females, who outnumber male amputees by 3 percent. In addition to veterans medical benefits, the bill provides $93.7 billion, an increase of $8.84 billion, in mandatory funding for other veterans benefits--primarily veterans compensation and pensions, and readjustment benefits. $78.7 billion for veterans service-connected compensation benefits and pensions, an increase of $7.2 billion (10%) over current funding levels. These funds are used for service-connected compensation payments to an estimated 4.6 million veterans, survivors and dependents and pension payments to 519,000 veterans and survivors. $14.8 billion for veterans readjustment benefits, an increase of $1.6 billion (12%) over current funding levels. These funds include education and training assistance to veterans and service personnel; vocational rehabilitation; special housing and transportation grants to certain disabled veterans; and educational assistance to eligible dependents of deceased and seriously disabled veterans, as well as dependents of servicemembers who were captured or are missing in action. This is not a perfect bill but this piece of legislations addresses the most critical needs of our service members, military families, and veterans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on H.R. 4486, MILCON-VA Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2015. The bill provides a total of $165 billion in FY 2015 to fund military construction projects and programs of the Veterans Affairs Department-- $7 billion (4 percent) more than current funding. This total includes $93.5 billion in mandatory spending (all for VA benefits) and $71.5 billion in discretionary funding. Sequestration has caused significant problems for the VA in meeting the needs of our nation's veterans. Unfortunately, H.R. 4486, does not provide the President's budget request for Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) medical care and includes unnecessary restrictions that could have negative consequences for benefits to our veterans. I am disappointed with the funding level for VA Medical Care, which is $368 million below the President's request. This funding level could delay the timely delivery of health care services to veterans and impede the Administration's efforts to end veterans' homelessness in 2015. I hold our men and women of the armed services in the highest regard. I have fought for them to receive pay raises, affordable and safe housing, family support services, and the best possible medical care. The Dr. Michael DeBakey VA Medical Center is in my District, and I am proud to say that Harris County is home to 187,717 veterans and Texas is called home by more than 1,618,413 veterans. Our veterans never fail to respond to the call to serve their country. That is why we cannot and must not fail to serve them. And that begins by eliminating the back log. Veterans should not have to wait months to receive the care they need. We must continue to fund programs to end veteran homelessness and increase benefits for veterans to assure they have access to healthcare, education and good paying jobs. My support of veterans has been consistent and strong over the time I have served in the House of Representatives. I know firsthand how painful it is for Veterans to seek assistance for medical care-- especially PTSD or Traumatic Brain injuries. The VA has made important progress on the disability claims backlog which was at 900,000 last year, but the agency despite sequestration has made progress in reducing. I will not be satisfied until the VA disability claims backlog has been eliminated. VA funding should not be reduced from the amount requested by the Administration especially in light of the continuing backlog in disability claims. Further, the bill provides $50 million below the request for Information Technology operations and maintenance programs, which may result in delayed technology infrastructure improvements that ensure continuity of operations for services that support all of VA's services and benefit delivery. I appreciate the funding level provided for electronic health record interoperability and VistA Evolution, but I object to restriction on obligations for VistA modernization efforts. Interoperability between the DOD and VA recordkeeping systems could significantly reduce the number of Veteran disability claims that are waiting processing. Interoperability can also lead to significant cost savings by reducing inefficiencies that are created when the capacity for computing systems to automate benefits management and track claim submissions are not available. Furthermore, interoperability among systems that are key to our men and women in uniform transitioning to civilian life makes sense for them and their families. The Administration is committed to achieving seamless data integration and interoperability between the Department of Defense, VA, and also with private healthcare providers. Meeting the challenge of interoperability must be addressed to make sure that Veterans receive the necessary and appropriate care in a timely manner. The level of discretionary funding for FY 2015, which includes $55.6 billion in advance funding from prior-year appropriations, is $1.8 billion (2 percent) less than current comparable funding and $398 million less than requested. I do thank the Appropriations Committee for its decision to provide $58.7 billion in advance FY 2016 funding for VA medical programs. The measure boosts discretionary spending for the VA, providing $64.7 billion for FY 2015, $1.5 billion (2 percent) more than the comparable current level, while cutting military construction by $3.3 billion (33 percent) to $6.6 billion, equal to the administration's request. The administration, given current budget caps on defense and nondefense spending, elected to propose reductions in military construction in order to preserve funding for defense readiness accounts in the Defense appropriations bill. With defense and non-defense spending caps in place for FY 2015, House and Senate appropriators expect to avoid the gridlock on spending bills that occurred last year. Mr. Chair, it is my hope that my colleagues in the majority will place the best interest of the American people first during the deliberations on the budget to ensure that Federal government nor the American people have to endure another shutdown.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop for doing an outstanding job as they have done and make a bipartisan statement that as the first bill of the appropriations season comes forward we stand in solidarity against veterans waiting, against veterans' claims not being processed, and against veterans dying because they have not been treated. I don't think any Member of Congress would adhere to that kind of abuse of our veterans, and I hope that we find solutions in a bipartisan way. I also believe the administration and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a military retiree himself, would stand in solidarity to stop this kind of treatment of our veterans. One of the groups that we have a solidarity and commitment to are the Nation's homeless veterans. We know that there are over 100,000 homeless veterans and 1,000-plus homeless veterans in Houston, Texas. My amendment reinforces and reaffirms our commitment in looking to ensure that funds are not cut in subchapter 3, dealing with homeless matters, enhancement of comprehensive services, in particular, hospital, nursing home, and domiciliary care, which used to be only for homeless veterans who were suffering from mental health issues, now access to all veterans. So the Jackson Lee amendment is here to ensure that reducing, eliminating homelessness among veterans is of paramount responsibility and commitment to those who risk their lives to protect our freedom. My amendment will remind us of our obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid homelessness, which includes adequately funding for programs, Veterans Administration's support of housing that provides case management services, adequate housing facilities, mental health support, and address other areas that contribute to veterans' homelessness, such as the homeless matters, enhancement of comprehensive services. Mr. Chairman, our veterans deserve the best service available, and I believe that we could do much for them. I know that in this particular appropriations bill there has been a standard of excellence to put our veterans first. Many other veterans are considered homeless or at-risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions. So that means the number of 107,000 goes up. Contrary to popular belief, ending homelessness among veterans remains a big challenge. My own city of Houston has its own share of homelessness. Let me take note of the homeless centers in my community: Salvation Army, Joshua House for Men, Magnificent House, Modest Family Health Care, Open Door Mission, Salvation Army, Harbor Light--of which I participate in their Thanksgiving ceremonies or Thanksgiving dinner almost every year that I have served in the United States Congress-- Star of Hope, Ultimate Changes, and my good friend Mr. Jones who is on Lyons Avenue who has a facility that opens its doors to anyone who will knock, a man who needs the resources that have been cut over the years. My amendment is to reinforce that, as this bill is passed, we will ensure that the provisions given to us under title III, section 301 that emphasizes the utilization of facilities for veterans who happen to be homeless, all veterans, would not be diminished. That is at least our minimal responsibility--minimal responsibility. But as we approach this Memorial Day where we honor those who lost their lives, let us not leave their fellow brothers and sisters along the highway of despair. On a personal note, let me indicate that as a member of the local elected government, for many years I used to participate in the standdown, where you got to talk and interact with our veterans. I can tell you firsthand the experience. Our veterans welcome our help and need our help, for they have helped this Nation. Mr. Chair, Thank you for this opportunity to describe my amendment, which simply provides that: ``None of the funds made available by this Act for the Department of Veteran Affairs--Benefits for Homeless Veterans and Training and Outreach Programs may be used in contravention of the title 38, Part II, Chapter 20, III of the U.S. Code. This amendment will help ensure that the rate of homelessness among veterans in the United States does not increase. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their hard work in shepherding this important legislation to the floor. I offer the Jackson Lee Amendment because I believe reducing and eliminating homelessness among veterans, those who risked their lives to protect our freedom, should also be one of the nation's highest priorities. Homelessness among the American veteran population is on the rise in the United States and we must be proactive in giving back to those who have given so much to us. My amendment will help remind us of our obligation to provide our veterans the assistance needed to avoid homelessness, which includes adequately funding for programs Veterans Administration Supportive Housing (VASH) that provide case-management services, adequate housing facilities, mental health support, and address other areas that contribute to veteran homelessness. VASH is a jointly-administered permanent supportive housing program for disabled Veterans experiencing homelessness in which VA medical Centers provide referrals and case management while Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) administer the Section 8 housing vouchers. Mr. Chair, our veterans deserve the best services available, and I believe that we could be doing much more for them. Today, in our country, there are approximately 107,000 veterans (male and female) who are homeless on any given night. And perhaps twice as many (200,000) experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing. Contrary to popular belief, ending homelessness among veterans remains a big challenge. In my hometown of Houston for example, between the years 2010 and 2012, the number of homeless veterans increased from 771 to 1,162. We must be vigilant and continue to fight for those who put on the uniform and fought for us. Providing a home for veterans to come home to every night is the very least we can do. Mr. Chair, you should know that programs like VASH have succeeded in changing lives. In 2012 alone, 35,905 veterans lived in the public housing provided by VASH. I have seen the impact of such grants in my home state of Texas, and within my congressional district in Houston, and I am sure that this funding has positively impacted many communities across this country. In Texas, there are committed groups in Houston, working to eradicate the issue of homelessness. For example, the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center has been involved in changing veterans' lives in a mighty way by providing Veterans and their families with access to affordable housing and medical services that will help them get back on their feet. Mr. Chair, we cannot let this issue of homelessness continue. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment and commit ourselves to the hard but necessary work of ending veteran homelessness in America. National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, Washington, DC, August 7, 2012. Bill to Reauthorize, Improve Critical Homeless Veteran Programs Signed Into Law Washington.--In mid-July 2012, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed H.R. 1627, the ``Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012.'' As reported by NCHV, (http://nchv.org/index. php/news/headline article/ senate_unanimously passes_bill_ to_reauthorize_ improve_critical_ homeless_Vet/). This bill would reauthorize and improve several homeless veteran programs that are critical to the success of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Five-Year Plan to End Veteran Homelessness. On July 31, the U.S. House of Representatives proceeded to pass H.R. 1627, and less than one week later, the bill was signed into law by President Barack Obama. This bill represents a comprehensive agreement between both parties in both the House and the Senate. NCHV's most recent Congressional Leadership Award recipients (http://nchv.org/ index. php/news/headline_ article/highlights_from_ the_ 2012_annual _conference/)--Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs--were at the center of this compromise. Throughout the 112th Congress, NCHV has regularly advised the congressional committees of jurisdiction on the provisions in H.R. 1627 that would greatly impact homeless veteran assistance. Descriptions of these individual provisions are provided below. For more information on H.R. 1627, visit the following links: The full text of the bill can be downloaded here (http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1627eas/pdf/BILLS- 112hr1627eas.pdf) (PDF). The House Committee on Veterans' Affairs has set up a webpage with a title-by-title overview of the bill and supplementary information. This page can be accessed here (http://veterans.house.gov/HR1627). H.R. 1627, ''Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012'' Title II--Housing Matters Sec. 211. Modification of authorities for enhanced-use leases of real property Authority for VA's Enhanced-Use Lease (EUL) program expired on Dec. 31, 2011. This section provides a modified reauthorization for the program. The VA Secretary may now enter into a EUL ``only for the provision of supportive housing,'' which is defined in the bill as ``housing that engages tenants in on-site and community-based support services for veterans or their families that are at risk of homelessness or are homeless.'' Title III--Homeless Matters Sec. 301. Enhancement of comprehensive service programs This section would allow Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program capital grants to be used for the new construction of facilities. Additionally, these applicants would be able to use funding from other private or public sources, so long as the applicant ``demonstrates that a private nonprofit organization will provide oversight and site control for the project.'' Within one year, VA must also ``complete a study of all matters relating to'' the GPD per diem payment method, as well as develop a more effective and efficient method for adequately reimbursing GPD capital grant recipients. Sec. 302. Modification of authority for provision of treatment and rehabilitation to certain veterans to include provision of treatment and rehabilitation to homeless veterans who are not seriously mentally ill This section expands VA's authority to provide ``hospital, nursing home, and domiciliary care'' (Title 38, section 1710, U.S. Code). Current law only allows homeless veterans who are suffering from serious mental illness to receive this care-- H.R. 1627 will allow all homeless veterans to access these services. Sec. 303. Modification of grant program for homeless veterans with special needs This section expands the VA's Special Needs Grant Program to organizations that are eligible for GPD funds. Current law only allows existing GPD providers to receive Special Needs grants. Additionally, male homeless veterans with minor dependents would become eligible for services through the Special Needs Grant Program. Current law restricts these services to women veterans with minor dependents. H.R. 1627 authorizes these dependents to directly receive services through the program. Sec. 304. Collaboration in provision of case management services to homeless veterans in supported housing program This section states that the VA Secretary ``shall consider entering into contracts or agreements'' with eligible organizations to help provide case management through the HUD-VA Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program. Training and technical assistance may be provided to help facilitate these efforts. Within a year and a half of H.R. 1627's enactment, VA must report to Congress on this collaboration. Sec. 305. Extensions of previously fully funded authorities affecting homeless veterans This section reauthorizes programs that are critical to the success of the Five-Year Plan to End Veteran Homelessness: The Grant and Per Diem Program is reauthorized at $250 million for FY 2013--the same level at which it is currently authorized. The Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program (HVRP), administered by the Department of Labor-Veterans' Employment and Training Service (DOL-VETS), is reauthorized at $50 million for FY 2013--the same level at which it is currently authorized. The Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program is reauthorized at $300 million for FY 2013--$200 million above the level at which it is currently authorized. The Special Needs Grant Program is reauthorized at $5 million for FY 2013--the same level at which it is currently authorized. For more information on policy and legislative issues that affect homeless veteran service providers, visit http:// nchv.org/index.php/policy/ (http://nchv.org/index.php/ policy/).