Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the rule governing debate for H.R. 2804, the ``All Economic Regulations Are Transparent Act of 2014,'' the so-called ``ALERRT Act.'' H.R. 2804 makes numerous changes to the federal rule-making process, including: (1) requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, such as alternatives to rules proposals; (2) requiring agencies to review the ``indirect'' costs of proposed and existing rules; (3) giving the Small Business Administration expanded authority to intervene in the rule-making of other agencies; and (4) requiring federal agencies to file monthly reports on the status of their rule-making activities. I cannot support this legislation in its present form for two reasons, one procedural and one substantive. Procedurally, I oppose the bill because in its present form it was never considered by the Judiciary Committee. This bill was reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line 19-15 vote but was not acted on by Judiciary Committee. As reported, the bill contained only provisions relating to monthly reporting requirements regarding agency rule-making. But the bill being brought to the floor now includes three additional and very controversial Judiciary bills (H.R. 2122, Regulatory Accountability Act; H.R. 1493, Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act; and H.R. 2542, Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act). This is not the way to legislate on matters that have such serious consequences for the public health and safety. Substantively, I oppose the underlying bill this rule makes in order because it imposes unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities to protect the public health and safety. I oppose the bill also because it creates unnecessary regulatory and legal uncertainty, increases costs for businesses and State, local and tribal governments, and impedes common-sense protections for the American public. Mr. Speaker, the bill is unnecessary and invites frivolous litigation. When a federal agency promulgates a regulation, it already must adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is implementing. Agencies already must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural requirements of federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Congressional Review Act. Regulatory agencies already are required to promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs and to consider regulatory alternatives. Final regulations are subject to review by the federal courts which, among other things, examine whether agencies have satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable statutes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2804 in its current form does not include an exemption for rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security to protect the safety of the American people and the security of our country. For this reason, I offered an amendment that provides this important exception and I thank the Rules Committee for making it in order. The security of the homeland is one of the most preeminent concerns of the federal government. The increased need for national security following the attacks of September 11th makes it important that the Department of Homeland Security not be unduly impeded in the promulgation of rules that may preempt attacks against our nation. Unnecessary delays to rules set forth by the Department of Homeland Security can wastes scarce resources that keep our nation safe as well as impede the regular operations of the agency. I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2804.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, I am moving this on behalf of Mr. Johnson. The amendment is simple. It would exclude from this bill any rule that would result in net job growth. I ask that my colleagues support this commonsense amendment to promote job growth and strengthen the middle class. After all, the stated purpose of the ALERRT Act is to grow the economy and create jobs. Although this bill purports to grow the economy and create jobs, we cannot pretend that this bill's myopic focus on regulations will accomplish any of these goals. I have profound concerns with the ALERRT Act. The bill would undermine the ability of agencies to protect the public interest. It is a continuation of the majority's obstructionist approach that led to the sequester and the shutdown of the Federal Government. The majority continues to rely on debunked and partisan studies that presuppose that regulations have harmful effects. Far from it. There is ample, bipartisan evidence that have found that regulations have a negligible effect on the economy and create jobs. No one would argue that there is not a positive impact from the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, and all of the regulatory scheme that has provided for a safe workplace for our workers under OSHA, and those who protect the quality of life of Americans from sea to shining sea. Leading scholars such as Wake Forest law professor Sidney Shapiro has testified that all of the available evidence contradicts the claim that regulatory uncertainty is deterring business investment. Bruce Bartlett, a senior policy analyst in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, has observed that regulatory uncertainty is the canard invented by Republicans that allows them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal with high unemployment. Nevertheless, the House Republican leadership continues to bulldoze its deregulatory agenda through Congress. This deregulatory train wreck threatens to send us back to the days before the Wall Street collapse, a financial catastrophe that could have been avoided by responsible policies. Instead of working together to come to a bipartisan solution and end sequestration, this Congress has continued an agenda to make life worse for American families. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to thank my good friend, Congressman Johnson, for his leadership and the management of this legislation. I would just like us to take a journey down memory lane: I am sure that many of us will be reminded of the famous Pinto and the crafting of that automobile. I have no commentary on the great industry that so many of us admire, but for those of us who have memories, we realize some of the injuries that occurred in the structure of the Pinto; Or maybe it is cars without seatbelts or airbags; Or maybe we recall times when we travel throughout our community and we notice not only a heavy fog but polluted air. Maybe some of us have been exposed to polluted water; Or maybe you traveled internationally, even in the 21st century, seeing the conditions that many who live outside of the United States live in, with the utilization of dirty water because they have no other water or the food danger because it is not regulated. Well, my friends, unfortunately, the legislation that is here on the floor of the House seems to take us backwards down a poisonous memory lane. So it is very difficult to support this legislation. I said today in a committee hearing that I know that Members come here with good intentions. So I will not attribute to anyone that this bill does not come to the floor with good intentions, but it is a bill that has not been, as a whole, considered by the Judiciary Committee. This is now being brought to the floor with three separate bills combined, now called the ALERRT Act. But it really imposes unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities to protect the public health and safety. This, I believe, is an important responsibility. It creates unnecessary regulatory and legal uncertainty and increases costs for businesses and State, local, and tribal governments and impedes plain common sense. I will offer an amendment dealing with homeland security. We just had a hearing today that emphasized the importance of the work of the Homeland Security Department. With our new Secretary of Homeland Security, Secretary Johnson, we are very much on the right track, recognizing franchise terrorism and the need for securing the border. Much of the work done by Homeland Security is a regulatory structure. Why would we want to impede securing America? Well, my friends, that is what is going to occur with this legislation, the All Economic Regulations Are Transparent Act. I also offered an amendment dealing with baby formula. For those of us mothers who have raised children and tend to their needs as newborns and use infant formula, it is well known that there is a great need to regulate companies that manufacture infant formulas in an effort to protect babies from food-borne illnesses and promote healthy growth. On Thursday, the FDA announced plans to revise, earlier this month, infant formula regulations with an interim final rule that will be published soon. But guess what. The legislation that we have will stand in the way as an iron wall, if you will, prohibiting any rule from being finalized until certain information is posted for 6 months. How long will 6 months be in the life of an infant?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It will override existing statutes, such as the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, and override any aspect of regulating this important food product, adding more than 60 additional procedural and analytical requirements to the FDA's work on trying to help babies and making it easier for rules to be delayed or stopped by allowing regulated industry and entities to intervene. And so, in actuality, this is not saving money. It will be a quagmire of spending money. In the meantime, the protections of our innocent babies who demand the responsibility of adults to protect the food products that they need for life by good regulations will be stopped. Well, Madam Chairman, I don't want to go back down memory lane and horrible car crashes and no seatbelts and no airbags and polluted air and dangerous water. That is what we will be doing. I look forward to introducing my amendment on the floor regarding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. I can't imagine that my colleagues would want to stand in the way of securing America. With that in mind, I hope that we will find a way to defeat this legislation, or to make it better, and ask our colleagues who are they standing for. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak on H.R. 2804, the ``All Economic Regulations Are Transparent Act of 2014,'' the so-called ``ALERRT Act.'' H.R. 2804 makes numerous changes to the federal rule-making process, including: (1) requiring agencies to consider numerous new criteria when issuing rules, such as alternatives to rules proposals; (2) requiring agencies to review the ``indirect'' costs of proposed and existing rules; (3) giving the Small Business Administration expanded authority to intervene in the rule-making of other agencies; and (4) requiring federal agencies to file monthly reports on the status of their rule-making activities. I cannot support this legislation in its present form for two reasons, one procedural and one substantive. Procedurally, I oppose the bill because in its present form it was never considered by the Judiciary Committee. This bill was reported by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on a party line 19-15 vote but was not acted on by Judiciary Committee. As reported, the bill contained only provisions relating to monthly reporting requirements regarding agency rule-making. But the bill being brought to the floor now includes three additional and very controversial Judiciary bills (H.R. 2122, Regulatory Accountability Act; H.R. 1493, Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act; and H.R. 2542, Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act). This is not the way to legislate on matters that have such serious consequences for the public health and safety. Substantively, I oppose the bill because it imposes unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities to protect the public health and safety. I oppose the bill also because it creates unnecessary regulatory and legal uncertainty, increases costs for businesses and State, local and tribal governments, and impedes common-sense protections for the American public. Madam Chairman, the bill is unnecessary and invites frivolous litigation. When a federal agency promulgates a regulation, it already must adhere to the requirements of the statute that it is implementing. Agencies already must adhere to the robust and well-understood procedural requirements of federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and the Congressional Review Act. Regulatory agencies already are required to promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the regulations justify the costs and to consider regulatory alternatives. Final regulations are subject to review by the federal courts which, among other things, examine whether agencies have satisfied the substantive and procedural requirements of all applicable statutes. Finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 2804 in its current form does not include an exemption for rules promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security to protect the safety of the American people and the security of our country. For this reason, I offered an amendment that provides this important exception and I thank the Rules Committee for making it in order. The security of the homeland is one of the most preeminent concerns of the federal government. The increased need for national security following the attacks of September nth makes it important that the Department of Homeland Security not be unduly impeded in the promulgation of rules that may preempt attacks against our nation. Unnecessary delays to rules set forth by the Department of Homeland Security can wastes scarce resources that keep our nation safe as well as impede the regular operations of the agency. The Jackson Lee Amendment to H.R. 2804 will improve the bill. But, on balance, the bill still has too many defects and should not be passed by this body.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for the debt ceiling increase. You may recall that two years ago the Nation's credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever because of politicized negotiations and the initial failure to reach an agreement--and now we risk that and more because an odd lot of members in this body and one, perhaps two in our bicameral twin, wish on the American people out of some misguided principle. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling poses a cataclysmic danger to the stability of our markets and the economic security of our middle class and complete devastation for the poor. I agree with President Obama that the full faith and credit of the United States is non-negotiable. The United States has been the worldwide standard bearer for many years and many other nations have been comfortable holding our paper but now our preeminent financial status is in jeopardy. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated last year: ``A government shutdown, and perhaps even more so a failure to raise the debt limit, could have very serious consequences for the financial markets and for the economy . . .'' The Federal Government's statutory debt limit currently stands at a sum near $16.699 trillion; and it needs to be increased. I ask what we tell the people of China and Japan, who each own over one trillion in U.S. treasury securities. Or Singapore which owns $80 billion. We have enjoyed the status for many years now of hearing the phrase: ``the flight to Treasuries,'' from financiers and investment analysts from around the world. This is something we should not and cannot take for granted. And I ask what about the Seniors and Baby Boomers who literally count on the Social Security Trust Fund for their retirement--because while our international image and reputation are incredibly important, Mr. Speaker, the largest single holder of Treasury Securities is the Trust Fund. The American people are not just owed government bonds--this Congress--and you--owe them peace of mind let us vote on the debt limit--post haste. Here are some of those consequences if we do not raise the debt ceiling and pay our nation's bills: A debt limit increase simply allows Treasury to pay the bills for spending Congress has already approved and does not add one cent to the debt. House Democrats agree with President Obama that the full faith and credit of the United States is non-negotiable.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3578, a bill to ensure new and revised requirements for screening testing or treatment of airman or air traffic controller sleep disorders. As the former chair of the House Homeland Security Committee Subcommittee on Transportation Security I am in strong support of this bill. This bill is a commonsense measure to address sleep disorder conditions that airman and air traffic controllers may be experiencing. Under the bill the Secretary of Transportation can follow consistent acceptable medical standards and practices, to implement or enforce actions that provide for the screening, testing, or treatment; including consideration of all possible treatment alternatives for sleep disorders. Sleep disorders is a serious matter that requires Congressional action to save lives and improve medical knowledge and best practices to assist those who suffer from a wide range of conditions. There are 40 million people, or about 5 percent of the population, in the United States who suffer from chronic sleep disorders. It is estimated that sleep disorders cost U.S. employers about $18 billion in productivity due to sleep loss issues. Further it is estimated that about 62 percent of all adults in the United States experience sleep problems a few nights each week. During any year, about 30 percent of all adults suffer from insomnia. In addition, only 29 percent of adults report getting the required amount of sleep each night. At least 37.9 percent of adults report unintentionally falling to sleep during the day once in the past month. The annual number of fatal car crashes associated with falling asleep at the wheel is 1,550. The number of non-fatal crashes associated with falling asleep is 40,000. Sleep disorders can occur due to medical conditions such as excessive drowsiness, fibromyalgia or narcolepsy and low thyroid function. Drowsiness in the context of sleep disorders is more serious than when the average person feels drowsy or sleepy during the day. We can usually deal with that feeling by walking around, consuming a hot beverage or distracting themselves with other mentally stimulating activity. The excessive drowsiness experienced as a sleep disorder is a feeling of abnormally needing to sleepy during the day. People experiencing excessive drowsiness may fall asleep in inappropriate situations or at inappropriate times. Fibromyalgia is a common syndrome that can lead to sleep disorders. Fibromyalgia is a syndrome in which a person has long-term, body-wide pain and tenderness in the joints, muscles, tendons, and other soft tissues. Fibromyalgia has also been linked to fatigue, sleep problems, headaches, depression, and anxiety. Narcolepsy is more widely known as a nervous system disorder that can cause a sufferer to fall into an uncontrolled sleep nearly instantaneously. The exact cause of narcolepsy is unknown. In some patients, narcolepsy is linked to reduced amounts of a protein called hypocretin, which is made in the brain. The reason why narcolepsy can lead to less production of this protein is unknown. Researchers believe that low levels of a protein called hypocretin may be an underlying cause of narcolepsy--a disorder that makes people fall asleep during the day. Pharmaceutical companies are now looking for drugs that will replenish the lost hypocretin. Emmanuel Mignot, of Stanford University Medical School, California, and his colleagues identified that low levels of hypocretin in patients with narcolepsy, their study appear in the September issue of Nature Medicine. There is no cure for narcolepsy and symptoms include an uncontrollable desire to sleep during in the day, sudden loss of muscle tone, and paralysis. Narcolepsy is diagnosable as early as aged 15 to 25, and those affected by the disorder must find ways to cope with illness by changing their work and eating habits to achieve a level of normal behavior. There is far too little research that answers the hard questions about sleep disorders which impact airman and air traffic controllers as well as millions of people in the United States. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3578.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to debate on the floor of the House, I have seen that Members are coming from all regions of the United States, which means that, in fact, this will be impacting all of our constituents. So I would hope Republicans would join the Democrats who will vote by and large, almost near 100 percent, to do what the Federal Reserve former Chairman Ben Bernanke said is to avoid a government shutdown. And perhaps even more so, a failure to raise the debt limit could have very serious consequences for the financial market and for the economy. More importantly, it will cost student loans much more to our young aspirants who are attempting to develop an expertise to contribute to this society. A longer default could increase payments by $2,000 of 531,327 Texas students who rely on loans to go to college. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to do that. Higher interest rates for mortgages and auto loans and student loans and credit cards--Mr. Speaker, I don't want to do that. Families' retirement savings and 401(k)s dropping as the stock market plummets, reminding us of about 4 years ago when we had one of the worst plummets that we have ever experienced during the last administration. 3.4 million veterans not receiving their disability--I know we do not want to do that. Ten million Americans not receiving their Social Security check on time in just the first week--we cannot do that. Drug reimbursements under Medicare stopping and doctors and hospitals not getting paid--I know the Members of Congress will not and do not want to do that. So, a clean debt ceiling is the only direction, but we have some other options. We can do this in a bipartisan manner. We can have the Democrats standing tall as they have advocated for a clean debt ceiling, but we can join with our partners and we can acknowledge the fact that the government is not broke. We can invest in infrastructure. As my colleague, Congressman Levin, has said, we can ensure that we extend the unemployment insurance and provide for education and provide for research and development. We can build this country. It is time now to vote for a clean debt ceiling and do it together so that we can invest in America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, just a few minutes ago, I left the House Judiciary Committee, where they were discussing, ``Asylum Fraud: Abusing America's Compassion,'' a hearing that was called by the Republican majority. Madam Speaker, I adhere to following the law, but I do believe as we approach the 50th year of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, we will see more and more voices being raised for the indignity and lack of human rights in not passing comprehensive immigration reform. Let me remind my colleagues that the Refugee Act was signed by President Reagan in 1980. It reflects America's values and this country's deep-seated commitment to liberty and human dignity, as well as to pledge, under the Refugee Convention protocols, to save those who have been abused, sexually or otherwise, and children or families who have been subject to violence. Let's get on with the values of this Nation. Let's pass comprehensive immigration reform. Let's restore the values of this country and provide laws that secure all of our borders. Yet we continue to have these hearings suggesting that those of us who cry out for immigration reform do not understand the law. Coming from a border State, let me be very clear, Madam Speaker, that I understand the law. Let's pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Speaker, what we can do is really do our work and pass comprehensive immigration reform to deal with the pain of so many in this country. I do believe that we should defeat the previous question so that my constituents in Texas, along the coastline, can stop paying $8,000 in flood insurance. It is absolutely absurd. A bill has passed. We are ready to go. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we discuss H.R. 3193, which wants to undo the corrections that we made to save America's jobs, homes, life savings, and pensions when we reformed Wall Street. We believe in the capitalistic system. We just don't believe in the abuse of the capitalistic system. The Consumer Protection Agency that has been put in place to help consumers with credit, credit cards, and other matters dealing with their financial needs is now being imploded by this legislation. What do we have to say to speak for the people of the United States? This bill effectively defunds the CFPB. What we want to do is to continue the consumer protection board, continue the leverage that it has given to protect consumers. I have actually heard from consumers who have said, Thank you; we now have a board that will hear our voices and that will express our concerns with what kind of treatment we are getting from financial agencies. Let's move on behalf of the American people now, not on behalf of special interests.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the manager of this legislation. I thank our chairman, our ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, for his consistent diligence on acting on behalf of the men and women in the United States military, and certainly those who have already served. I, for one, will associate myself with the disappointment of the offset that has been offered in this legislation. No one likes sequester. I will add an additional point of contention is that this Nation is not broke. Economists have said over and over again that we are not broke. We can fully fund and should fund our military as it relates to preparedness. That is part of protecting the homeland, which I serve on the Homeland Security Committee. Then of course we all have tried to deliberate on what we can do best for our doctors under what we call the SGR, or the doctor fix. Let me just say this as I rise to support this legislation, because I do come from Texas, and I do interact with veterans across the Nation and others. As painful as the extending out of the sequester to 2024 was, I just want to offer this thought. First of all, as I have argued--and I hope maybe the light will come on that we are not broke, that we will rid ourselves of the sequester and begin to budget fully to provide investment in our people. So, the reason for advocating is, as I go home every weekend, and throughout the week when I am in the district I will run into military personnel and/or veterans, to speak about the impact that this would have on them, their families. Certainly I believe that this was one that needs to be corrected, and I would like to see us working fairly across the board, that we find a way to respond to the high numbers that this costs, and as well to work with those with optional ideas. I hope before 2024 we have no sequester. As my good friend has indicated, it is a poor way of managing our budget. Let me also say, because of the many low-income areas and the physicians that I have interacted with, who indicate how difficult it is to serve my low-income patients or my patients that are elderly, that the doctor fix is crucial for the 18th Congressional District in providing health care for those who are in need, particularly those who are elderly. So, as we look askance at how this has been formulated--and I know that it is one that has come to us--but I would hope that we would do this fix this time, Mr. Speaker, and then work to undo the offset so that we can help seniors and doctors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2014, I was unavoidably detained attending to representational activities in my congressional district and thus unable to return in time for rollcall votes 55 and 56. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 55 I would have voted ``aye'' (February 10) H.R. 2431--The National Integrated Drought Information Systems Reauthorization Act (Representative Hall--Science, Space and Technology); On rollcall No. 56, I would have voted ``aye'' (February 10) (H. Res. 447, Supporting the democratic and European aspirations of the people of Ukraine and their right to choose their own future free of intimidation and fear, as amended 2319, Native American Veterans' Memorial Amendments Act of 2013 (Representative Engel--Foreign Affairs).

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Judiciary Committee, we had a very vigorous hearing and discussion on the questions of the National Security Agency and privacy for the American people. I have introduced H.R. 2434, the Civilian Contractors Engaged in Intelligence Activities Reduction Act, which has seen a large support from the White House and others about the importance of considering and looking at reduction of outsourcing of our intelligence activities and really bringing in-house the training and the expertise of those handling America's intelligence. I introduced H.R. 2440, which is the FISA Court in the Sunshine Act, which I am very glad that part of it is in H.R. 3361, Uniting and Strengthening America By Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping. This is the bill that deals with the mega trolling that has occurred under the NSA of business records. What America wants is security but balanced with privacy and the respect for the Fourth Amendment, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure. It is important for this Congress to come together in a bipartisan way to stand up and be on the American people's side so that we can secure them, secure the homeland, but we can also provide for their privacy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1791, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act for two reasons. First, the bill will save lives. Second, the legislation is necessary to support the vital work of first responders in the event of a biological and chemical terrorists attack or incident. The legislation provides for the development and maintenance of an initial pharmaceutical stockpile, including medical kits, and diagnostics sufficient to protect first responders, their families, and immediate victims from a chemical or biological event. The Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act will amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity, and mass prophylaxis capabilities. This legislation ensures that first responders have necessary medicines and treatments to protect themselves, their families and those within their vicinity immediately should a biological and chemical terrorist attack occurs. In short, first responders will not be able to do the work of saving lives if they fall victim to an attack or are distracted by worry regarding how their family may be fairing during a biological or chemical attack should one occur. First responders often include law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical personnel. The city of Houston covers over a 1000 square mile region in Southeast Texas. It has an evening population of nearly two million people and over three million during the day when commuters are in the city. There are 103 fire stations that serve the city of Houston with most offering ambulance or medic support, but there is only one station, Number 22, that specializes in hazardous material. In the city of Houston one out of every ten citizens use Emergency Management Services (EMS) and within a year there are over 200,000 EMS incidents involving over 225,000 patients or potential patients. EMS response services have 88 City of Houston EMS vehicles, with just under fifty percent staffed by two paramedics and can provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) to patients. These consist of 15 ALS Squads, and 22 ALS transport units with eight functioning in a ``Dual'' capacity as both Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support (BLS). The remaining fifty-one transport units are Basic Life Support (BLS), and staffed by two Emergency Medical Technicians. Law enforcement agencies that serve the city of Houston include the Houston Police Department, Harris County Sheriff's Department, Harris County Constables, Port of Houston Authority Police and Corrections Officers. Because of the nature of chemical or biological terrorist attacks mass casualties are the objective and the impressive resources of our nation's 4th largest city would likely be overwhelmed immediately should an attack occur it is important to provide them with the resources provided by this legislation. The prepositioning of resources in the form of medicines that can support pulmonary respiratory function or arrest neurological damage as a result of poisoning lives can be saved that could otherwise be lost. This bill can reduce deaths and give victims the greatest chance for survival and recovery. Emergency responders because of this bill would have treatments in the communities where they serve and live to help neighbors, coworkers, and people who are immediate need to live saving help. As a senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I am mindful of the need for our first responders to be prepared and well trained to manage a wide range of potential threats both conventional and unconventional. This bill offers one more resource that will be available to first responders to do the work they have dedicated their lives to doing-- saving lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1791, the Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act for two reasons.

Ms JACKSON LEE

Ms JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, and President Obama for joining with voices, particularly those of the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats, and acknowledging that the United States is comprised of only 5 percent of the world's population, but we incarcerate almost a quarter of the world's prisoners. While the entire U.S. population has increased about one-third over the last 30 years, the Federal prison population has increased at a staggering rate of 800 percent, currently totaling nearly 216,000 inmates and currently operates at a 33 percent overcapacity. One-half of those Federal prison populations are drug offenses. While some of them are truly dangerous persons, as Deputy Attorney General Cole said, many of them are first-timers, and by possession only, wound up under Federal laws, the crack cocaine laws, in the Federal system. Today, I stand to support the clemency offering that is being offered by the Department of Justice, as well as to reduce barriers in housing and access to health care. I ask my colleagues to join me in working to ensure that we get word out to these individuals and their families to make sure that this clemency works and works in the right way, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to announce to the House that America has lost one of its greatest voices championing the cause of civil rights, social and economic justice, and peace. Pete Seeger, the legendary folk singer and prolific songwriter, who helped popularize the beloved ``We Shall Overcome'' as the anthem of the Civil Rights Movement, died yesterday in New York City. He was 94 years old. For more than 60 years, Pete Seeger's was a powerful voice, unafraid of speaking out against what was wrong with our country, while always promoting that people stand up and speak just as fervently for things that are right. Pete Seeger had a vision of America's potential and that idea flowed through his music to impact so many people in the United States and around the world. Pete Seeger's humility kept us rooted as a people by reminding us of our common humanity while his songs challenged us to realize the full promise of country. The author of such iconic songs as ``If I Had A Hammer,'' ``Turn, Turn, Turn,'' and ``Where Have All the Flowers Gone?'', Pete Seeger touched chords deep in the American heart and inspired many of the great songwriters of succeeding generations, including Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen. Mr. Seeger sang about the labor movements of the 1940s and 1950s, confronted with his music the Vietnam War, civil rights and the environment. From roots residing in spirituals, songs like ``We Shall Overcome,'' spoke to activists in the civil rights movements and became a rallying cry for their efforts. Pete Seeger was elected to the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 1972, and in 1993 received a lifetime achievement Grammy Award. In 1994 he received a Kennedy Center Honor and, from President Bill Clinton, the National Medal of Arts, America's highest arts honor, awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1996. At the age of 89, Mr. Seeger won a Grammy Award in the children's music category in 2011 for ``Tomorrow's Children,'' and another in 1997, for the traditional folk album ``Pete.'' With Pete Seeger's passing, the nation has lost a great champion for jobs and justice for working people. It is up to us, the living, to carry on the struggle for the causes to which Peter Seeger devoted his life. I ask a moment of silence in honor of Pete Seeger.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the importance of recognizing January as National Mentoring Month. Since 2002, National Mentoring Month has served as an opportunity for our country to reflect on the benefits of youth mentoring and to highlight the positive impact it has on the development of our youth. The theme of this year's mentoring month is ``Mentoring Works''! It allows us to proudly and openly discuss mentoring as a vital academic and social development strategy for our youth. The fact is that in many regions mentoring helps young people achieve academic success; it also serves to help young people make responsible decisions for their futures. According to a recent report released by MENTOR: the National Mentoring Partnership, some of the benefits of mentoring include: The creation of higher educational goals. It is more likely for a youth with a mentor to attend college than for a youth without a mentor. Participation in productive and beneficial activities. It is more likely for youth with mentors to engage in leadership positions, extracurricular activities and sports, and community service than youth without mentors. Another added benefit of mentoring is Upward Mobility. Integrated with other national initiatives, mentoring has the capacity to reduce poverty and increase the economic mobility of young people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3547, the bipartisan ``Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I want to thank Chairman Rodgers and Ranking Member Lowey for their constructive work in fashioning this bipartisan and bicameral legislation to fund the government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2014. The bill before us is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class. As with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I do not. The bill abides by all the terms set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (the ``Ryan-Murray Agreement''), providing a total of $1.012 trillion for the operation of the federal government, a substantial and necessary increase over the inadequate $968 billion spending limit contained in the House budget resolution which led to the shutdown of the federal government last October. The bill contains all 12 regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2014, with no area of the government functioning under a Continuing Resolution, thus allowing every program to be considered on its own merits and prioritized, rather than be subject to arbitrary across the board cuts. The bill also provides increased funding for several programs that I strongly support. Let me list just a few of the more important ones. Agriculture and Related Agencies: $6.7 billion for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), sufficient to meet expected need in 2014. Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: $17.65 billion for NASA, which is $154.8 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $376 million for Byrne-JAG grants, which is $8.3 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $11 million more than the post-sequester level. $214 million for the COPS program, which is $4 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $4 million more than the post-sequester level. $417 million for Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs, which is $9.1 more than the 2013 enacted level. The bill rejects House proposals to prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to challenge state immigration laws; and prohibit grants from being awarded to ``sanctuary'' cities. Defense: Multiple provisions focused on eliminating sexual assault in the Department of Defense and supporting victims, including: (1) Fully funds request of $156.5 million for Sexual Assault and Prevention Office (SAPRO) services; (2) $25 million above request to implement a Sexual Assault Special Victims Program; (3) Prohibition on obligation of funds contravening more severe penalties for perpetrators established in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Fully funds Peer Reviewed Medical Research Programs and includes $125 million above the request for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Psychological Health research and $4 million above the request for alcohol and substance abuse research. The final agreement repeals last year's cut to cost of living adjustments for disabled military retirees and survivors. Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies: $1.912 billion for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, which is $102 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $5.467 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, which is $495 million more than the 2013 enacted level (excluding emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy relief). $1.11 billion for water resources projects within the Department of Interior, which is $46 million more than the 2013 enacted level. The agreement eliminates the majority of riders proposed in the House bill, including those related to Waters of the United States, guns on Corps lands, Clean Water Act agriculture exemptions and ceiling fan standards. Financial Services and General Government: $673.3 million for the District of Columbia, which is roughly equal to the 2013 enacted level. Homeland Security: $10.6 billion for Customs and Border Protection, $220.4 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $4.93 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, which is $225.8 million less than the 2013 enacted level. $923.8 million for Cybersecurity and Communications, an increase of $27.5 million above the 2013 enacted level. $4.35 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, $3.8 million above the 2013 enacted level. $1.5 billion for State and Local Grants, an increase of $35.4 million above the 2013 enacted level; and $680 million for Firefighter Grants, an increase of $5.7 million above the 2013 enacted level. Controversial House riders related to abortion services and immigration enforcement are not included in the bill. Among the contentious riders dropped was a provision to prohibit ICE from adhering to enforcement guidance, including a June 15, 2012, memo prioritizing enforcement actions against dangerous criminals ahead of DREAM Act children. Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: $3.938 billion for wildland fire, which is $417 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $4.4 billion for the Indian Health Service, which is $78 million more than the 2013 enacted level. A total of $2.35 billion for the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Funds, which is only $4.7 million less than 2013 enacted levels but $119 million more than the post-sequester level. $2.6 billion for the National Park Service, which is $29 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $146 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is equal to their 2013 enacted levels. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies: $8.6 billion for Head Start, which is $612 million more than the 2013 enacted level, sufficient to both fully restore the cuts to Head Start and to invest in the Administration's Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships. $2.6 billion for job training through WIA Training and Employment Formula Grant program, which is $10 million less than the 2013 enacted level but $121 million more than the post-sequester level. $815 million for Seniors' Nutrition programs, which is equal to the 2013 enacted level and $46 million more than the post-sequester level, allowing full restoration of meals. $2.36 billion for Child Care & Development Block Grants, which is $36 million more than the 2013 enacted level. The agreement abandons the futile but wasteful effort by House Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act and provides the Department of HHS roughly the same amount as it had last year for implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and some additional funds will become available through existing fees on policies sold on the exchanges. Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: $63.2 billion in discretionary funding for Veterans Affairs, which is $2.3 billion more than the 2013 enacted level. $585.6 million for prosthetic research, which is $3.5 million above the 2013 enacted level. The Omnibus provides new tools and resources to address the backlog of veterans disability claims by increasing personnel, enhancing training and quality oversight, and strengthening accountability. State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies: The final agreement does not include a policy rider codifying the `Global Gag Rule,' which prohibits non-governmental organizations (NGOs) receiving federal funds from providing women information about certain health services. I would have preferred that the bill provide more than $2.67 billion for Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, an amount that is $224 million less than the 2013 enacted level. Our diplomats who risk their lives serving in dangerous outposts around the world deserve all the resources required to keep them safe. Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies: $600 million for National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER), which is $100 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $17.4 billion for Section 8 Tenant Based Rental Assistance renewals, which is $123 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $9.6 billion for Section 8 Project Based Rental Assistance renewals, which is $596 million more than the 2013 enacted level. $1 billion for HOME Investment Partnerships, which is equal to the 2013 enacted level. The bill does not include any funds for high-speed rail. I believe this decision is shortsighted and shortchanges our nation's future. Highspeed rail will save energy, create jobs, and increase our nation's global competitiveness. As I stated, this bill is not perfect. But on balance it is a significant improvement over the spending bills considered in the House last year and is worthy of our support.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, hunger is not an option. And although there were many elements of the farm bill that, over the years, I have supported enthusiastically as a Representative from Texas--and I thank all of those who produce food--it is a question of taking a stand. First, $40 billion, then $11 billion, then $8 billion. It is not an option in terms of the closing off of the opportunity for food stamps. For those who are working, as Maggie, a young lady in Austin, Texas, and the 48 million women who are living in poverty and the 22 million children living in poverty, I took a stand today, and I am proud of it--not because the work was not there for the farm bill, but we have got to protect those who need us most. Hunger is not an option. I take this time as well to thank Trudi Terry, my dear friend, for her service to this Nation. She is professional and distinguished. And as we refer to each other on the floor, ``the distinguished gentlelady from Texas,'' ``the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts,'' you are the distinguished gentlelady from Virginia, along with Irene. We thank you for sharing with us. And I appreciate one thing: thank you for being our friend and my friend. God bless you and continue in prosperity and service. God bless you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is very kind, sir. If, for example, you have pretax money for health care or a health savings account, you are taken care of, but if you live in the District of Columbia and you want to use local funds, you are left along the highway of unequalness. If you are in the United States military, you are left along the highway of unequalness. If, for example, you have been the victim of sexual assault that results in a situation that requires access to health care, you are left alone. Federal employees, you are left alone. Poor, you are left alone. The bill that we have was just submitted to the Rules Committee. It was not before the House Judiciary Committee. We don't know what is in it. So, Madam Speaker, I do not rise against a person's conscience. I rise and hold the Constitution in my hand, and that is that we have a right to privacy, and we have a right to use local or your own funds, and in this bill, all of that has been denied. I ask the question: Can we pass this legislation and deny Americans equal protection under the law? Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation which is an assault on women; and ask that my colleagues also vote against H.R. 7, The No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act. What we have before us in H.R. 7 is a dangerous and misleading bill which has one goal--eliminating abortion coverage in all of the insurance markets. And it is the reincarnation of H.R. 3 which was a featured bill in the last Congress. And although some terrible things were in the bill have been removed--this bill is still an attack on women. Let me be clear, if H.R. 7 were to become law, all women could either lose insurance coverage that includes abortion or be stigmatized while seeking such comprehensive insurance. Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment in the Rules Committee last night along with ALL of the women on the Judiciary Committee, which was summarily rejected as were all of the other amendments to this bill. Our amendment would have corrected a shortcoming in the bill, which only considers a woman's health when she is faced with death. I would like to thank all four women on the Judiciary Committee, Karen Bass, Judy Chu, Susan DelBene, and Zoe Lofgren who cosponsored this important amendment. Every year, 10-15 million women suffer severe or long-lasting damage to their health during pregnancy. This Congress should not be in business of interfering with a woman's health nor should we ever single out women who choose not to endure a long-lasting health defect or disease due to a pregnancy. Without this amendment, this Congress would submit millions of women to face serious and long- lasting health issues. Our amendment reflects the 1978 version of the Hyde Amendment by incorporating an exemption for severe and long-lasting damage to a woman's health in continuing a pregnancy. This amendment is supported by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women must receive the best health care and disease prevention and have access to all medically appropriate legal medical procedures. And Mr. Speaker it must be stated over and over that this is purely partisan and divisive legislation which: 1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk; 2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother; 3. Unfairly targets the District of Columbia; and 4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution. The bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. One of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to devel beyond the 22- week point. There was less than a 10 percent chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2 percent chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God. H.R. lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. And again, our amendment would have helped to preserve this hard won right for women. Let's not turn back the hands of time Mr. Speaker--vote ``no'' on H.R. 7.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a list of those opposing H.R. 7 into the Record. Organizations Opposing H.R. 7, the ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act'' Advocates for Youth; American Association of University Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American Public Health Association; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum; Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP); Black Women's Health Imperative, Catholics for Choice; Center for Reproductive Rights; Choice USA. Feminist Majority; Guttmacher Institute; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc; Jewish Women International; Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs; Methodist Federation for Social Action; NARAL Pro-Choice America; National Abortion Federation; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF); National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Council of Jewish Women; National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; National Health Law Program; National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. National Organization for Women; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health Network; National Women's Law Center; People For the American Way; Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; Population Connection Action Fund; Population Institute; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Religious Institute; Reproductive Health Technologies Project; Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS); South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce; Third Way; Unitarian Universalist Association; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentleman who has served on this committee of opportunity, equality and justice for his entire career, among other committees, in the United States Congress. Let me thank the manager and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well. We do not come to the floor in argument about each other's conscience. We respect the belief of others and the conscience of others and the integrity of the decision made by those who choose to stand for their positions. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I only stand here on the basis of equal protection under the law and the applying of the Constitution to every single person, which includes a woman's access to health care. What H.R. 7 does beyond the Hyde amendment, which has been law and in law and adhered to for decades, one, that I would be reminded of the eloquence of Chairman Hyde, who would be on the floor discussing the continuation of his position.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of the optimism of this Nation and of her people. Frankly, we do live in the greatest Nation in the world. Sometimes we are questioned when we say that, but I say it proudly and with a spirit of humbleness. I know that because on faraway shores and lands there are men and women who wear the uniform proudly. This morning, in our own House of Representatives, we held a reception for participants of the Wounded Warriors program. These individuals are in a number of Members' offices. Many of us look forward to that opportunity, and they continue to serve. So I know as President Obama rises tonight to speak to the Nation, he will have a sense of optimism, which I will enjoy and support. He will note, however, that as we are optimistic, we must provide that optimism and economic opportunity for all of our brothers and sisters, citizens and persons, in the United States of America. It is well known that we have made great strides. We no longer have the horrific mortgage collapse, though we are still working with homeowners. We don't have the debacle on Wall Street because, as Democrats, we worked hard to fix that problem, as Wall Street continues to thrive. Of course, we have taken ourselves out of the doldrums of a deep depression--or recession--in 2008 and 2009 with a powerful stimulus package which today, in Houston, Texas, has seen the retrofit of the Mickey Leland Federal Building. With $90 million, they put people to work fixing a building where citizens come for services. That is the American way of investing, and not handouts, as has been described by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. When are we going to recognize that the investment in human resources is really the answer? Thank you, Mr. President, for understanding that. Theodore Roosevelt said: The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of government. That is true. Wealth inequality must be fixed, and it must be fixed now. In the U.S., income inequality has been rising steadily over the past four decades, reaching levels not seen since the late 1920s. The President has signed an executive order, which I congratulate him on, understanding that you cannot live on less than $10 an hour. It needs to be more. That is investing in the American way. That is generating the jobs so that individuals can then spend their dollars and then more jobs are created. So tonight I don't want there to be a retrenching. I don't want us to be overwhelmed with this myth of debt and deficit so much so that we cannot invest in the education of our children and we can't fix the horrible situation of individuals not having access to higher education. Who in their right mind would continue to allow those who are chronically unemployed and need unemployment insurance to suffer, as they are doing? Who would allow four out of five beneficiaries who have at least one adult that they are taking care of, children that they are taking care of, or multiple adults, who would allow 50 percent of those who have a college education and 36 percent who have a high school education and are not able to get jobs, and not extend the unemployment benefits on an emergency basis? Who would allow the over 9 in 10 that live in households with a total income under $75,000 that need this extension of unemployment benefits so they can pay their rent or mortgage, who would allow such a crisis? We are doing it right here, and we should be optimistic. I have introduced legislation to extend unemployment for a whole year. It is an emergency. Then I introduced H.R. 3888, which indicates that those who are on unemployment benefits can get training to redirect their career with a stipend--their unemployment benefits do not cease--so that they can come back to what they want--the very stories that I listened to as I went to career recovery and resources fairs. Mr. Speaker, tonight, I will be optimistic. I will be optimistic for Maggie, a 25-year-old Army veteran who has to get food stamps. She makes $10 an hour, 6 days a week, in order to save for paramedic training. She is the very example of someone that we can provide that training for so she can invest in the community, even though she tried nursing but did not have the money to finish. Or, maybe I can speak of Ms. Aguilar, who lives in my State of Texas, which refuses to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Where is the optimism, Mr. Speaker? So tonight, Mr. President, you do what is necessary for the optimism of this Nation. It is the greatest Nation in the world. We will stand with you as you invest in human resources, create jobs, provide unemployment extension, and raise the minimum wage to cure wealth inequality.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, the President is going to address this House and this country with great enthusiasm about the work that he has done with his Cabinet, Democratic Members of Congress, and others who have worked with him to make America better. He will able to report that 3 million Americans have enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, giving suffering Americans with preexisting conditions the opportunity for good health care. He will able to acknowledge that people like Mrs. Aguilar would be better off if States like Texas would have expanded the Medicare coverage. Her children are covered, but she is not. We are committed to working to make sure that that happens. He will be able to say that he stands on the side of extending the unemployment for working Americans--those who have worked and now are unemployed, and yes, he will be able to say that it is important that we invest in the infrastructure. It is important to note that America is great, as we watch our soldiers in foreign lands wearing the uniform with pride. We must invest in the American people. Food stamps, which are now given mostly to working Americans, are an investment, and the President can be optimistic and work for all of America.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the Record in support of extending unemployment insurance for 1.6 million Americans instead of this radical Republican assault on women's health care rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, our leader is right. Our message today should be to be able to help the chronically and unemployed individuals who have worked and are now in need of an extension of the unemployment benefits. Instead, today, as we pass H.R. 7, we will be making a blatant attack on equal protection of the law, and that disappoints me because I know my good friends believe in the Constitution on the other side of the aisle. And the Hyde amendment, and I had the privilege of serving with Chairman Hyde for a number of years on the Judiciary Committee, clearly is the law. But what this bill has done is gone even further. It has disenfranchised, from their civil liberties, the people of the District of Columbia, and completely abolished home rule, to the extent of women's health. And if it was a State, the question would be whether or not it was appropriate under the 10th Amendment. Then it has disincentivized small businesses, for you have disqualified them from getting a tax incentive or a tax credit because they are not allowed to provide for their employees. This bill should be put to the side, and we should pass legislation to ensure that the unemployed have unemployment insurance. That is what is right about America, and we should do the right thing. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill. I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people. Instead of resuming their War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to extend unemployment insurance to the 1.9 million Americans whose benefits have been terminated and to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty. A far better use of our time would be to provide help to long-term unemployed jobhunters by bringing to the floor and passing H.R. 3888, the ``New Chance for a New Start in Life Act,'' a bill I introduced that would provide compensated skills training for the jobs of tomorrow to the long-term unemployed. Last year I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation when it was brought to the floor. I opposed this bill when it was considered in the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I opposed this bill yesterday when it was being considered by the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, the version of H.R. 7 before us is only a little less bad than the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee. Dropped are the tax provisions that would prevent an individual from deducting any abortion expenses as a tax-eligible medical expense or using pre-tax flex health or health savings accounts for abortion expenses. But the other draconian provisions of this terrible bill remain intact: 1. Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.) 2. Prohibits the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. 3. Applies such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds. 4. Prohibits individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. 5. Prohibits small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage. Taken together, these provisions have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God. H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a State could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated.