Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you so very much for the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues a pending action in the United States Congress and a plea for civility and fairness. As I do that, let me acknowledge Equal Pay Day and my support, as I've done over the years, of Congresswoman DeLauro's continued acknowledgment and recognizing of the need to finally put an end to disparities in pay for women. That's what America is all about, and I'm delighted to join my colleagues who have already spoken to the idea of ensuring that we have equal pay. I hope we can pass that legislation. I also want to raise an issue and offer my concern and expression, if you will, of comfort to the students at Lone Star College. Part of Lone Star College is in my congressional district, and I share that with one of my colleagues in Texas. I just wanted to say to all of the parents and to my colleagues: I have children who have finished college. We support our children, all of our children, going to a safe place and being safe and having the ability to be educated in a safe place. So I express great sympathy. We are not sure of the status or whether or not there has been any loss of life. We know that there are persons who are critical, and we are wishing and hoping for their safety. We do want to determine the facts, and our law enforcement was there expeditiously. Allow me to acknowledge the Lone Star Police, the police in the surrounding area, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, and the first responders who were there as well. Today, however, I want to acknowledge that we have a pending crisis, and that is that we have the need to pass sensible gun legislation. Why do I call it a ``crisis''? It is because we are moving toward a day that has been designated by the leadership in the Senate that we would be able to vote on sensible gun legislation. Remember, I've said ``sensible'' gun legislation. So, today, I rise to the floor of the House because I think it is crucial--I think it is imperative--that we find that common path to save lives. That's what it really is about. It is a pathway to be able to save lives. I am delighted to have one of my distinguished colleagues on the floor. She is the former speaker of the Ohio House, the distinguished Congresswoman from Columbus, Ohio, who will share her thoughts about the pending vote that is coming up this Thursday. Let me just cite for you that we have heard the commitments and sermons and passion after each tragedy. I remember Columbine. I was here, Mr. Speaker, for Columbine. In fact, I was appointed to a school safety select committee to talk about school safety at that time. Obviously, a lot of us were here for Aurora. Virginia Tech, I was here for that as well and then, of course, Newtown and then cases in between. Many of us are here for the tragedies that we see when we go home. Just this past weekend in Sugar Land, Texas, an individual who was mentally challenged was shot dead in his house when he came out of his bedroom, Mr. Speaker, pointing a gun at law enforcement officers. Many of you know the tragedy that we face in Texas, which we are still mourning. Two prosecutors and a prosecutor's wife--district attorneys in Texas--were shot dead. Individuals were shot dead by someone who should not have had a gun. Tragically, the individual was released and should not have been released; but more importantly, they were able to get a gun through what we understand might have been a straw purchase-- somebody else purchasing the gun for them. So I believe we are no longer at the point when we can have sermons or we can mourn and yet not do something. Let me thank--I think ``applaud'' is not the appropriate terminology--those parents who flew in Air Force One from Newtown, Connecticut. You can imagine that they are hurting. Tears came to my eyes as I saw them deplane, come down out of Air Force One, knowing that they are still hurting. I heard a quote that said: For some of us, it's months. For those parents, it's one day at a time. To imagine little ones--5 and 6 years old--whose bodies were riddled, and they are here in the hallways of Congress to be able to ask us: Can we do the right thing that is for the American people? And I want to answer today a question that I raised: Can we stop the filibuster? Can we resolve the fact that sensible gun legislation does not violate the Second Amendment? In fact, we protect the Second Amendment. No one has challenged the Second Amendment, and no one has challenged permits for concealed weapons that are in many States. With the tragedy that occurred in Arizona in which someone was using an automatic weapon and had multiple rounds and for those who say, you see, if the good guys had a gun--and in that instance the good guy had a gun and was probably going to shoot the wrong people if someone had not intervened--what we need to do, in essence, is to ensure that we find common ground and do sensible things. What do I think are sensible things? Sensible things include universal background checks. I know there are some discussions about family exchanges and one-to-one exchanges among family members. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, I'm open to reasonable discussions, but we've got to close the gun show loopholes; we've got to close people opening up their trunks on a highway and giving them to someone who is going to wind up shooting in a robbery; or going into an old man's house just like happened in my community last night--shooting an 83-year-old and taking his car--or the incidence, as I indicated, of this individual with mental health concerns; or the bloody killing of a mother's daughter and her granddaughter by what I would say is a crazed ex-husband, who did not need to have a gun. So isn't it reasonable to think that universal background checks would weed out those who did not need to have them? We're not going to knock on your door and take any guns from families, but we do hope that you will secure them. I hope that I'll be able to get a vote on H.R. 65, a bill that was taken after an ordinance that I passed in the city of Houston, as a member of the city council-- because we have legislative authority--and, in fact, legislation that's the law of the land in Texas, and that is to hold people responsible for not locking up their guns. I would be happy to yield for a moment to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio. I just want to pause on that a moment. Let's think about storing guns. I want to thank her for her legislative prowess. We are so proud that she has already come here ready to go, because anybody who was the minority leader of the Ohio House, if you will, is already ready to go. She is already taking charge on women's issues, and she is taking charge on economic issues. I am very proud to yield to the gentlelady at this time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for bringing a sense of passion to this debate. So many of us can remember where we were and how incredulous it was when we heard the news coming, and first we thought this is not real. We couldn't be hearing it accurately. Maybe we were hearing the tragedy of six adults, that already was innocent teachers and principals, but we couldn't imagine you were talking about a classroom, that someone would open the door in a recovery mode and see the carnage that one had to be able to look at. Not to be any more graphic, but so much so that, as I understand it, many could not view the situation. And so I thought it was imperative to come from Houston today, and before I got on the airplane I stopped at the Konia Learning Center for K-6, and I listened to babes talk about knowing Sandy Hook, raising their hands and about wanting to stop gun violence, and understanding that guns in the hands of teachers would not be the way to go. Having little ones in the fifth and sixth grades explain how fearful they would be to have guns with teachers, not because it was the idea that our teachers are not ones that are loving, but we know what happens with human nature and accidents, guns being taken out of drawers or purses or pockets and what can happen. Yes, I believe we can have common agreement on increasing school resource officers, however school districts would like to use them. We have very fine police departments for many of the school districts that I represent; and do you know what those chiefs of police told me in an earlier hearing that I had in my district, not one of them, university chiefs of police or school district chiefs of police, wanted to arm school personnel and teachers in the classroom to be able to protect our children. Those were the chiefs of police. I didn't put words in their mouths, and they wanted it to be known that they are the responsible ones for security, not to be able to arm those who in essence would be responsible for shooting a gun, making a decision when to shoot, and then not making a decision right and causing havoc, causing themselves to be shot, or causing someone else to be shot. As a matter of fact, at a press conference I had on the anniversary Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4 in my district, because we had been having these gun informational press conferences to raise the understanding, we have been working with a group by the name of Moms Demanding Action, thousands of moms across America, we were with them on Thursday, and then we were at the Lighthouse Church this past Sunday when Moms Demanding Action went to the pulpit, honored and recognized Pastor Henderson to talk about Moms Demanding Action to prevent gun violence. But this little school that I went to, I said to them that I would come and give their message on the floor of the House, that I would tell the President that I was in this school where these children are so bright, private school that it was, alongside a public school, these children spoke well about their fear of gun violence, the gun violence that they see around them and that they want to be in a place where they are safe, and guns they feel do not make them safe. So I got motivated, and I thank the Senators for informing me, a letter that I received March 22, 2013, from Senator Paul, Senator Cruz, and Senator Mike Lee, and they have now grown to 13 Senators. I know they have good hearts, but the language that I want to read specifically says: We will oppose a motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions. You see, that's wrong in and of itself because we're talking about sensible gun legislation. I don't want to restrict anything. I would like to take that word out of the vocabulary of sensible gun legislation, because I will not restrict you from getting a gun if you pass a background check. I will not restrict you from having guns in your home, but I will hold you responsible for guns that are not locked up. I will not restrict you from hunting. I will not restrict you as a sportsperson. I will not restrict you for a legitimate concealed weapons permit, but I will restrict that dastardly person who went to the door of a Colorado corrections chief and shot him dead because he had a gun that he should not have because we don't enforce, which we should, but add to the idea of preventing straw purchases for that individual for getting a gun because someone purchased the gun for him. Mr. Speaker, that can be blocked. And the idea of storage, my friends, I'm talking about gun locks. Maybe somebody has a gun lock manufacturing company in their district. Just think what would happen if folks have to lock up their guns, at least the ones that are classic, the AR-15s or the assault weapons that you already have. No one is coming to get those. But the guns that the young man had in Newtown, if only they had been locked up. Many people don't speak of it, but I think she deserves to be mentioned, his mother, who I know had to be a loving mother. I know she cared. She recognized the disturbed individual that he was, and maybe it might have gone another way. Maybe there should have been some other response to his situation, but all you can say is that mother was trying. But look at her, dead in her bed. Guns that were open to someone who was challenged. So, Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why we would ignore some of the numbers that I'm getting ready to share with you. But before I do that, let me raise again, if I can highlight what simple legislation that we're asking for: require universal background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands. Let me be very clear: dangerous hands. Ban military-style assault weapons. Limit high-capacity magazines. That was the kind of magazine that was used tragically in Arizona. The individual could keep shooting and shooting, and the only way he was stopped was when he had to reload. Just imagine, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, no reloading. And the individual in Newtown, 155 rounds in 5 minutes before he stopped, taking the lives of so many. Let me share with you these statistics that impact urban loss of life, rural loss of life, just the enormous tragedy. Take the incident of a rogue cop in California that wound up with weapons of war until he was finally caught, how many people he killed and how many more he could have killed. He had assault-type weapons. If you speak to the law enforcement community, particularly right after Newtown, people became gunned up to the extent that when I spoke to my law enforcement, they indicated to me that they couldn't even find any guns, that people had bought guns so, so much. Let me share with you some of these numbers about gun violence. First of all, the number of persons killed by guns since Newtown, 440 in the United States. I'm sure that number is down since the time these statistics were presented: 103 in Texas, 21 in Houston, 57 this month alone; 48,000 people killed annually in the United States. If I might remind you, over 1 million persons, Americans, have been killed by guns since John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., were assassinated. So let me remind you of that list. John F. Kennedy, assassinated by a gun in 1963; Bobby Kennedy, assassinated by a gun in 1968; Martin Luther King, assassinated by a gun in 1968; and Ronald Reagan, attempted assassination in his first term, and the critical and devastating injury to his press secretary, Mr. Brady, who has committed himself to gun safety, again, not to take your guns away. I thank you, Mr. Brady. We have had an opportunity to work together. I thank you for what was done, and certainly your legacy of commitment. I thank that legacy. Then, of course, let me thank Mr. Bloomberg, who is one that has shown his passion, so much so that he has received criticism. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg. Thank you for standing up and saying that those who would stop gun legislation that is sensible, that they have to have their story told to those around the country and those in their district, for we're not asking for anything. We're just asking for fairness, just an up-or-down vote. Let me share with you these numbers that I think are devastating. In 1 year, on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun. In 1 year, 31,000--and this is from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence--31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries; 12,179 people murdered; 44,466 people shot in an attack; 18,223 people who killed themselves; 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun. Let me just stop for a moment. How tragic it is that someone would think that the only way out of their misery is by a gun. And it is well known by these statistics that if a gun is near you, if you are near a gun, if you are near a gun, then that leaves you more open to using that gun for violence against others or violence against yourself. If you make it easy, rather than giving these people mental health services--which I think should go hand in hand with sensible gun legislation, and that's why I'm supporting a number of initiatives and cosponsored initiatives by Carolyn McCarthy, because it is important to find a balance and to be able to work on issues that would balance the needs of our community and mental health services, but also the needs of our community in being protected from gun violence. I want to restore the Centers for Disease Control's ability that was taken away a few Congresses ago by people who really don't understand sensible gun legislation. They stopped the Centers for Disease Control from doing the research and gathering the statistics on what violence does to America, what the medical cost is, what the psychological cost is. We want to reinstate that so that we can make important decisions. When I was with these children, one of the things that comes up in the idea of teen violence or the loss of life is that teens pick up guns 87 percent when they are bullied or when they feel someone has hurt them, said words to them, because the gun is accessible. They bring the gun to school, they have a gun, or they engage in gang violence. Don't separate gang violence and say it's just a bunch of gangbangers. It's gangbangers who are kids who have guns. And the young man that I brought to the State of the Union was a redeemed gangbanger, was shot at 15. He's here today, at 21, 22, about to get married, and shuns guns. But guns were accessible to him. He was already shot at in a drive-by. And then after he's shot at in a drive-by, then there was a point when they got him. Don't condemn the gangbangers. They've got guns that are trafficked, that are not enforced, that are straw purchased, and they come into places even that have strong gun laws. Why? Because we don't have sensible gun legislation. And yes, I'm going to agree with my friends on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends. Let's enforce the gun laws that we have. Who would run away from that? That's a sensible proposition. Put a resolution on the floor of the House. Let's enforce the gun laws that we have. But join me in voting for universal gun background checks to close the gun show loopholes. I mentioned this idea of suicide, and let me just finish on this enormous, terrible number. How many of us have read articles, have seen over the last couple of days tragedies that have occurred that have been publicized nationally? All I can say is, you have a person who is disturbed, who has given up on life, who doesn't have a connection to faith, cannot find their faith leader, cannot get a hug from their family member, and all they think they can do is commit suicide, and they've got a gun. I venture to say there's probably very limited numbers of those who take a knife and stab themselves. And yes, there are pills. But they have a gun because nobody was there to stop them, they weren't able to get mental health services and they've got a gun. 592 people were killed unintentionally, and 8,610 were shot unintentionally but survived. There was one time in Houston where every time school was out, little ones, 2 years old, 3 years old, 4 years old, teenagers, accidentally shooting themselves, playing with a gun, taking the gun from under the mattress. Guns not stored. That's why we passed that legislation in Texas to hold adults responsible for a child that gets a gun and injures themselves, kills somebody, or kills themselves. That's the least we can do for our children. Over 1 million have been killed with guns in the United States since 1968 when Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated. And then U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous, high-income countries combined, despite similar nonlethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the United States is 19.5 times higher. Mr. Speaker, we're not gaining anything by being gunned up. Among the 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States. On Thursday, not only should we get a vote, not only should there be no filibuster, but we should win that vote. Win it in the name of somebody in your congressional district that died unfairly because someone who should not have had the gun had it. And I can venture to tell you that background checks will have a sizable impact. Now, somebody said in 1994, when we passed the assault weapons ban, that it didn't do anything. Oh, there's a big debate. There's a tit for tat. But it is documented that the numbers of killings by assault weapons went down. Of course you can find other ways to kill people, but the utilization of assault weapons went down. That's a victory. That's a victory. When I had this listening session with my little ones at the Konia Learning Academy, we had pictures of these weapons. Do you know that these little ones that were pre-K could point out that these were machine guns? Little ones. What are we doing to our kids? They should call it a carrot because they've never seen one. With the violence on TV, we want to talk about that, and violence around them, and the gun talk and the killings on national TV, what do you expect? Wouldn't it be nice if the headlines came out on Thursday, the Senate makes the first step, sensible gun legislation? Wouldn't that be good? That we came together and we did something that spoke to the anguish and pain? I was here for 9/11, a memory that none of us will ever forget. And the one thing that I will compare to what is happening with these families is the 9/11 families. The Congress felt compelled, after its own mourning and the loss in the Pentagon and the loss in Pennsylvania, we just felt compelled that we had to do something, that the pain of these families scattered all over America, we had to answer them. We obviously suffered. I remember standing on the steps singing God Bless America. But we put away any opposition to issues that had to be addressed. We put forward a Patriot Act at that time that was bipartisan. We worked in the Judiciary Committee. We handled the privacy issues, because we felt that this was a time for America to shine. Well, I believe this is the time for America to shine. Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, in the cost of the criminal justice system, and security precautions such as metal detectors and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens--Mr. Speaker, you've got to get up out of your chair on this one--estimated to cost--with a smile on my face, because you stand up and I need to sit down because it's just knocking me down--a hundred billion dollars. And that was 2000. And so it's soaring in medical costs, in fear, in security. What are we going to do about the enormity of gun violence? Where there are more guns, there are more deaths. An estimated 41 percent of gun-related homicides and 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not have occurred in the same circumstances had no guns been present. Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. Mr. Speaker, we have within our power to be able to move forward on sensible gun legislation. I will be asking my colleagues to join me in a letter to send to my friends on the other side of this body to be able to listen to our voices as fellow legislators. And then, as well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the voices of America will ring. I know that my phone will ring for those who are saying, They're snatching our guns away. And I'm going to have a smile on my face because they have a right to express themselves. But right now we need to put aside our individual political futures, because I believe that when you do the right thing, your future will be bright. And some child will say, Look at America. Look at the red, white, and blue. Look at the country that stands for values that we all are created equal. They didn't come to take away guns. They came to enforce good laws. They came to ensure that guns are not exploited, that loopholes are not walked through and become open caves, and that people are safer in their schools, their homes, their places of worship. Just think about that. A pulpit. Ministers in my State have been shot dead by guns of disturbed members--because they have guns. And let's make, Mr. Speaker, the mental health system a parallel effort to be able to ensure the safety of us all. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this brief discussion--and if I may, how much time is there remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. I'm so glad the Speaker was responding on that hundred billion dollars. It probably got him out of his chair. I think we're allowed to say those kinds of things on the floor. I will have a few more points that I do want to make. The number of a hundred billion dollars is certainly a lot, but I want to spend some time on this issue of gun trafficking and to speak about how gun trafficking can be something that we can find ways to come together. Gun trafficking is dastardly because in jurisdictions like Washington, D.C., strong gun laws; New York, strong gun laws; the State of Connecticut, strong gun laws; and now Colorado, strong gun laws. And my heart goes out to them for the loss that they experienced with the shooting of their head of corrections in a terrible manner, being shot on his doorstep. Also, the district attorney and his wife that were so loved and the other district attorney that was so loved that was shot here in Texas. That comes out of criminals with guns that they should not have. And so forcing a review of our gun laws to stop gun trafficking and to pass legislation that stands in the gap and that speaks to straw purchases--using someone else--and holding people very responsible for doing that is a smart way to go. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns have a very important point, and that is, when you pass the universal background check as a systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers, and the seriously mentally ill, that's the answer to people that say it doesn't make a difference. Criminals and other prohibited purchasers can avoid background checks by buying firearms from unlicensed private sellers. That's the back of the trunk. That's the gun shows. Often at gun shows are anonymous online transactions. If my recollection is correct, the shooter at Aurora got his guns online. How tragic. And in the course of those shootings, we know that little ones lost their lives in that theater. What a terrible thing to come out for a joyous occasion, an exciting night, fiction but fun, and you lose your life and you never get home. I heard something today that I thought was important. Parents who sent their children to school that morning in Newtown were sending their children to school--it was December 14--with the expectation for celebrating holidays like Hanukkah and Christmas. They were looking forward to hugs and toys. They were looking forward to family dinners. They were looking forward to picking those children up at the end of the day. Mr. Speaker, they did not get a chance to do that. And so when you have background checks, certainly in the instance of Newtown, a different set of circumstances, both dealing with mental illness and the access to guns. But I tell you what it will do with background checks. It will lessen the horror of those involved in criminal activities. The private sale loophole undermines the background check system by allowing millions of buyers to avoid background checks simply by going to private sellers. We've got to fix that. And we've got to hold the data. We've got to make sure that our law enforcement can check a national data system so that those who would perpetrate violence cannot go from State to State. I know that I wanted to pass similar legislation on DNA data for child predators so that a person cannot go from State to State. Now we have the technology and we have the ability to protect rights. But if you are involved in criminal activity and you're in the database on guns, your rights are lessened because we have to save lives. The Internet has created a vast marketplace for guns, where millions of buyers and sellers can easily identify one another and conduct firearms transactions with no supervision whatsoever. Nearly 12 years ago, the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that there were 80 online auction sites and approximately 4,000 other sites of gun sales. No control whatsoever. The private sellers are literally involved in-- maybe not to their own choosing--those guns getting out into the arena and being utilized by others to do harm. So this is a time when we don't need a filibuster. What we need is a debate on the pros and cons of sensible gun legislation and, finally, a vote that would move us to respond to the pain of so many Americans. Why shouldn't this be a Democratic and Republican effort? Once the Senate votes on something that has substance to it, why shouldn't our Speaker, Mr. Boehner, also put it on the floor and not block it? The reason is because there was regular order on the Senate side. It went through committee. But in the instance of Republicans, listen to a 2010 survey by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who found that 82 percent of U.S. gun owners, including 74 percent of NRA members, support criminal background checks for all gun sales. What more do we want? What are we saying here? That we can't come together on a nonwatered-down gun background check? Let me speak to why I think that's so important. We have officers around here. This is like a little city. We have our Capitol Police. They wear the uniform. They're here to protect. Law enforcement officers all over America--school law enforcement officers, county and city, villages, departments of public safety, highway patrol, drug enforcement, ATF, FBI, men and women in the United States military--are here to protect. My friends from the Texas Air National Guard, my friends from the National Guard, they're here to protect. What happens when they lose their lives through some untoward violence that's not on a battlefield somewhere, but right here in their own hometown? What happens when an officer has fallen because someone who shouldn't have a gun illegally has a gun, and we've done nothing about it? Close the gun show loopholes, stop the gun trafficking, and, most of all, get us universal access to gun checks and background checks. Everybody should be required. I know that we can't see these clearly, but there is a whole load of guns, and it says handguns offered by a private seller in Tennessee, handguns licensed by a licensed dealer--not checking anybody, though. You got the money, you can just show up. I remember walking into a gun show and seeing children walking around unaccompanied. I believe they should not be able to walk around at a gun show unaccompanied. Long guns being sold by a private seller in Columbus, Ohio. This is what's happening all over America. Probably right, as I'm standing on the floor of the House, that is what's happening. That's why I support Mayor Bloomberg and his commitment to this whole idea of sensible gun legislation. There are currently 18 million assault weapons in circulation, and I don't think most of them are in the hands of the United States military. I am just going to add these points and come to a close, Mr. Speaker, because this is what pushes the wrong direction; this parts us away from each other. We can't be friends. We can't talk about sensible legislation. And I hate to say it, I don't know how much carnage we have to see. I don't know how much we have to see, how many sirens we have to hear for those of us who live in urban areas, police cars running after ambulances because there's been someone that's been shot. What I would say to you is listen to the voice of a victim that I met just a couple of days ago. I just want to put this myth out. She was a teacher coming home late at night and somebody came up and said, get out of the car. She didn't know what to do. She didn't get out of the car. She bent down, and that person shot her in the legs. I asked the question, if she had a gun, does she think that she would be able to do better. She said, no, I was too scared; I wouldn't know what to do. My friends, don't fool yourself that having a gun is going to make it better for you. We've got to lessen criminals having guns; we've got to have background checks; we've got to close the gun show loopholes and people selling guns out of the back of their trunks on a highway somewhere outside of a gun show. More guns don't lead to more murders. This is myth number one. A survey by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the idea that even if you control for poverty levels, more people die from gun homicides in areas of higher rates of gun ownership. You've got a gun, you may be in jeopardy. The Second Amendment prohibits strict gun control. We all know that that is not supported by the Supreme Court and that we're not talking about taking guns away. We're talking about regulating guns. As many people have said, we regulate insurance. We ask you to have a registration and a driver's license for a car--that can be a deadly weapon--and we have you register it. And we have you have, if you will, a license. State-level gun controls haven't worked. Scholars Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander recently studied State-to-State variations in gun homicides. They found that firearm deaths are significantly lower in States with stricter gun control legislation. Myth number four: we only need better enforcement of the law; we don't need new laws. We passed several laws. Yes, we need enforcement; but it is well known that you need to keep guns out of the hands of those who would do harm, and you need to have universal background checks in order to stop the criminals from getting guns, and you need to work on the mental health services so that those individuals cannot have guns. In some States they have that. We're not blanketing everyone; but in certain instances we need to be able to protect those individuals, protect their families from the crazed person, the violent abuser, the domestic abuser who goes and violates a restraining order and has a gun--because they just bought the gun because there's no background check. And you can't check if they have a restraining order. Sensible gun regulation is prohibitively unpopular. We've already heard of the large percentages from Republican pollster, Mr. Luntz, about the percentage of individuals--Republicans, all Americans, NRA members--who believe in universal background checks, not arming parents and arming, if you will, the teachers who are there to have a pencil and a pen and a chart and to talk about reading, writing, and arithmetic. So I am humbled today to have the opportunity to speak to my colleagues, but I am humbled by the fact that we live in a democracy. There is something called a ``filibuster''; it's a procedure that's used--not in this body--simply we've got a bunch of Members on the floor that talk, talk, talk, one after another. But we don't have the procedure; the Senate does. As I indicated, initially three of our friends, and now 13, I would ask them--and I would ask the minority leader--I would ask them not to engage. I would ask the other body to work with us. I would ask the other body to hear our cry. I would ask the other body to think of those who as we speak are being shot by a gun in America by someone who shouldn't have it. I'm asking them to think of the little children from one end of America to the other who were shot with a gun. For us Washingtonians--and I say that because I am in Washington a lot of the time here in the United States Congress--remember the sniper of a few years ago, the frightening atmosphere of a sniper, a young man and his father; guns they should not have had; killing innocent people along the highways and byways of this region. The sniper. That's what my message is today, that we have no time--no time--for a filibuster. We may have time for prayers. We may have time for encouragement. We have time for common sense. We still have time for a vote that will pass. And we have time for the House to take up sensible gun legislation. We still have time to save the lives of little babies. We still have time to save an innocent woman who may be subject to domestic violence. We still have time. We still have time to stop the gang-banger. We still have time to stop the criminal that may have come into your house or come into a bank or accost you on the street. We still have time to keep the guns out of their hands. We still have time. Who is going to answer the cry to stop the filibuster and stop the foolishness? I ask my colleagues: If it is not us, then who? If it is not now, then when? In the memory of John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America; in the memory of his brother, Bobby Kennedy, former Attorney General of the United States of America; Martin Luther King, in his memory, a man of peace and nonviolence; and President Ronald Reagan, who lived, if it is not in the common sense of those leaders of our Nation and the needs of the children and families across America, then whose voices will we heed? There is still time for commonsense legislation, and I might say that we should demand, stand up for a vote on this Thursday. I hope our voices--not mine, but our voices--are heard. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing this time to debate on the floor of the House, and I yield back the balance of my time. U.S Senate, Washington, DC, March 22,2013. Dear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance. The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens' right to self-defense. It speaks to history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries. We will oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions. Rand Paul, M.D., Ted Cruz, Mike Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest appreciation for the life, legacy, and actions of Mr. Cesar Estrada Chavez. The changes that Cesar Chavez fought for throughout his life have dramatically changed the way that farm workers are treated in our country. Cesar Chavez was one of the Nation's greatest civil rights activists and the tireless champion of migrant farm workers fighting for humane working conditions. As a young man Cesar Chavez worked in the fields where he saw firsthand the dangerous conditions which farm workers were forced to endure. In 1952 he became an organizer for the Community Service Organization (CSO), a Latino civil rights group, and eventually became the national director of the organization. In 1965, Chavez co-founded the National Farm Workers Association with Dolores Huerta which evolved into the United Farm Workers union. The National Farm Workers Association was successful in securing fair wages and safe working conditions for farm workers. The UFW also led a worldwide grape boycott that helped ensure farm workers had a voice in contract negotiations. Cesar Chavez is also known for his fasts which he used as a nonviolent method of promoting his beliefs. In 1972 Chavez fasted in response to Arizona's passage of legislation that prohibited boycotts and strikes by farm workers during the harvest season. On April 23, 1993 Cesar Chavez died, bringing great sadness to the farm workers community that he spent his life fighting for. With his death also came a great sense of pride for all the progress that Chavez brought as a direct result of his unwavering commitment to farm workers' rights. I urge my colleagues in joining me in celebrating Cesar Estrada Chavez's life and legacy. America is a better place because of Cesar Chavez.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today is Equal Pay Day, the day in April recognized annually to signify the point into a year that a woman must work to earn what a man made the previous year. This means that on average, a woman needed to work from January 1, 2012 until April 9, 2013 to earn the same salary that a comparable man earned in 2012 alone. More than 50 years after Congress made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sex, it is shameful that hard working American women are paid so much less than their male counterparts for the same work. Today, women make up nearly half the workforce, but their paychecks still lag far behind men's. Today the typical American woman who works full time, year round is paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to her male counterpart. The wage gap occurs at all education levels, after work experience is taken into account, and it gets worse as women's careers progress. Women are paid less than men in nearly every occupation. One study examining wage gaps within occupations found that out of 265 major occupations, men's median salary exceeded women's in all but a few lower paid service sector jobs. The six jobs with the largest gender gap in pay and at least 10,000 men and 10,000 women were in the Wall Street-heavy financial sector: insurance agents, managers, clerks, securities sales agents, personal advisers, and other specialists. Advanced-degree professions proved no better predictors of equality. Female doctors made 63 cents for every $1 earned by male physicians and surgeons. Female chief executives earned 74 cents for every $1 made by male counterparts. Women only constitute 3.7 percent of Fortune 500 chief executives and 18.3 percent of corporate-board directors. The wage gap impacts women as soon as they enter the labor force, expands over time, and leaves older women with a gap in retirement income. The wage gap is smaller for younger women than older women, but it begins right when women enter the labor force. The typical 15-24 year old woman working full time, year round, earns 92.2 percent of what her male counterpart is paid. Among older women, the gap is even larger. The typical 45-64 year old woman working full time, year round is paid just 72.8 percent of what her male counterpart is paid. For women still working at age 65 and older the figure is 72.1 percent. A typical woman who worked full time, year round would lose$443,360 over the course of a 40-year working life due to the wage gap. This woman would have to work almost twelve years longer to make up this gap. A typical woman working full time, year round who starts, but who does not finish high school would lose $372,400 over a 40-year period, an enormous amount of money for women who are typically paid $21,113 a year. This woman would have to work over seventeen years longer to make up this gap. As a result of lower lifetime earnings and different work patterns, the average Social Security benefit for women 65 and older was about $12,700 per year, compared to $16,700 for men of the same age in 2011. In 2010, women 50 and older received only 56 cents for every dollar received by men in income from pensions and annuities. One study found that the typical woman worker near retirement with a defined contribution plan or individual retirement account had accumulated $34,000 in savings, while her male counterpart held $70,00--more than twice as much. Reasons for the Wage Gap

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 25, the House Republicans' ``Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2014.'' I oppose this irresponsible budget resolution because it continues the reckless approach to fiscal policy that that the House majority championed for years, with disastrous results. I oppose the resolution before us because it favors the wealthy over middle class families and those struggling to enter or remain in the middle class. I oppose the resolution because it asks major sacrifices of seniors who can barely make ends meet, and fundamentally alters the social contract in our America by turning Medicaid into a block grant. I cannot and will not support a resolution that attempts to balance the budget on the backs of seniors, children, the poor, or mortgages the future by failing to make the investments needed to sustain economic growth and opportunity for all Americans. Mr. Chair, we Democrats have a better way. We understand that we are all in this together and that our current economic situation calls for a balanced approach between increased revenues and responsible reduction in expenditures. Our plan will protect and strengthen our recovering economy, reduce the deficit in a responsible way, while continuing to invest in the things that make our country strong like education, health care, innovation, and clean energy. Mr. Chair, this Republican budget is bad for America but it is disastrous for the people from my home state of Texas who sent me here to advocate for their interests. Let me highlight a few examples. 1. If the Republican budget resolution were to become the basis of federal fiscal policy, 3,435,336 Texas seniors would be forced out of traditional Medicare and into a voucher program. Under the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it, beginning in 2024 all Texas seniors will receive a voucher instead of guaranteed benefits under traditional Medicare. 2. For the 3,435,336 Texans aged 45-54, the value of their vouchers would be capped at growth levels that are lower than the projected increases in health care costs. Previous analyses showed that this type of plan would cut future spending by $5,900 per senior, forcing them to spend more out of pocket and diminishing their access to quality care. 3. Additionally, private insurance plans will aggressively pursue the healthiest, least expensive enrollees, thereby allowing Medicare-- currently the lifeline for 3,187,332 Texas seniors--to ``wither on the vine.'' 4. If the Republican budget resolution were to adopted by Congress, 206,304 Texas seniors would pay more for prescription drugs next year. The Republican plan would reopen the ``donut hole,'' forcing seniors to pay the full cost of their prescription drugs if their yearly drug expenses are more than $2,970 for the year. Seniors reaching the prescription drug ``donut hole'' would pay an average of $828 more in prescription drug costs in 2014 and approximately $13,000 more from now through 2022. 5. Under the Republican budget, 2,445,462 Texas seniors would be forced to pay for preventive health services. By repealing health reform, the Republican plan will require that the 2,445,462 Texas seniors who utilized free preventive services currently covered by Medicare in 2012 will face increased costs in the form of higher deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments for certain services, including even cancer screenings and annual wellness visits. 6. The Republican budget slashes $31.71 billion in nursing home care and other health care services for 754,500 Texas seniors and disabled who currently rely on Medicaid for their long-term care needs. 7. The draconian cuts included in the Republican budget would have a devastating impact on the 1,191 certified nursing homes in Texas that serve 91,717 seniors, with more than half relying on Medicaid as their primary payer. As a result, nursing homes would be forced to slash services, turn away seniors, or close their doors. Mr. Chair, this budget could have invested in programs that help strengthen the middle class, reduce poverty, and strengthen our economic recovery. Instead, the Republican budget makes deep cuts to the area of the budget helping low-income families put food on the table and make ends meet. These are families who are already struggling with unemployment, lower wages, and just simply trying to make ends meet. The House Republican budget will push millions more Americans into poverty and put a large number of low-income children, seniors, and people with disabilities at risk. It guts Medicare and Medicaid and calls for massive cuts to food assistance, all in order to protect tax breaks for special interests and for multimillionaires who are not even asking for them. The Republican budget may be characterized in many ways--cruel, irresponsible, short-sighted, reckless--but ``fair and balanced'' is not one of them. In contrast, the alternative budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and Congressional Progressive Caucus, which were made in order by the Rules Committee, are each worthy of support because they fairly balance the need for increased revenues and responsible reductions in expenditures with the imperative of making the necessary investments in human capital required to move our country forward. Specifically, the Alternative Budgets proposed by the Democratic Caucus, CBC, and CPC: help create more jobs now; replace the sequester; make key education investments; invest in research and development and clean energy; invest in long-term infrastructure; preserve Medicare as we know it; protect health reform's benefits for seniors; protect Medicaid for seniors in nursing homes; preserve Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP); reduce the deficit through a smart, targeted, and steady approach provides tax relief for working families and ends tax breaks for the wealthy; take a balanced approach to reducing the long-term deficits and debt; and put the budget on a sustainable path. Mr. Chair, under the Democratic budget, the deficit would fall from 7 percent of GDP in 2012 to under 3 percent of GDP by 2015, and to 2.4 percent of GDP in 2023. The balanced plan put forward by the Democratic Caucus will bring the budget into primary balance in 2017 and complete balance by around 2040--about the same time as the House Republican budget last year. The Democratic Budget Alternative will generate 1.2 million more jobs this year compared to the Republicans' ``austerity first'' plan by investing $200 billion in creating jobs up-front, strengthening the middle class, creating greater upward mobility, and ensuring opportunity for our children and future generations. Included in the Democratic proposal is $50 billion to fund jobs that address immediate surface transportation priorities and $10 billion to establish an infrastructure bank, as well as tax incentives to support small businesses and manufacturing. Additionally, the Democratic budget immediately ends the sequester, which would otherwise cost the economy 750,000 jobs by the end of the year, and replaces it with deficit reduction resulting from a balanced approach combining responsible spending cuts with increased revenues by cutting tax breaks for special interests and wealthy individuals without increasing the tax burden on middle-income Americans. Finally, Mr. Chair, as a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, let me note my disappointment that an amendment I offered which would have made this dreadful budget resolution a little less hurtful was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. The Jackson Lee Amendment to H. Con. Res. 25 would put the Congress on record in support of current funding levels for crime prevention grant programs administered by the Department of Justice. The first and most important obligation of government is to ensure the safety of the people and nothing is more destabilizing to communities and inimical to job creation and economic growth than crime. That is why it is counterproductive to cut investments in crime prevention under the guise of balancing a budget to spur economic growth. It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said: ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.'' For that reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.'' The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards. The Democratic alternatives do not. For these compelling reasons, I stand in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 25 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this ill-conceived and unwise measure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in a few weeks, transportation security officers, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol agents with very devastating furloughs and cuts are jeopardizing the national security of this Nation. Today, we can make a decision by voting on the Van Hollen Democratic substitute and a resounding ``no'' on the Republican budget. The Van Hollen bill gets rid of the sequester. It, in fact, saves 750,000 jobs and creates over 1.5 million jobs. We can do the right thing for America. Then, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we look and do the right thing for gun control, gun regulation, gun violence prevention, and pass legislation such as H.R. 65, that is my Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act, that provides for safety locks and educational grants to train people how to be safe in using their guns and also provides for an age level for young people not being able to possess these guns. This is a way that America wants us to go. Let us travel a pattern of saving jobs and preventing gun violence intervening in the lives of those who need our protection. That is what this Congress should be doing--providing the pathway for America's success.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, as a proud member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, CPC, I rise in strong support of the CPC's alternative to H. Con. Res. 25. This alternative budget, more appropriately known as the ``Budget for All'' Substitute invests in America, reforms corporate and individual taxes in a balanced manner, and adopts sensible, modern defense spending. Simply put: the CPC is an egalitarian and effective budget for all of America. The CPC's ``Budget for All'' wisely invests the hard earned peace dividend resulting from the successful end to the war in Iraq and the winding down of the war in Afghanistan to promote economic growth and a healthier and cleaner environment. In addition, this budget puts Americans back to work, charts a path to responsible deficit reduction, enhances our economic competitiveness, rebuilds the middle class and invests in our future. The CPC budget makes no cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits, and asks those who have benefited most from our economy to pay a sensible share. It is only fair. The CPC budget addresses America's persistently high unemployment levels with more than $2.9 trillion in additional job-creating investments, which frankly will help depressed economies in inner-city communities across America, including those in my hometown of Houston, Texas. This plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get our economy moving again, including: Direct hire programs that create a School Improvement Corps, a Park Improvement Corps, and a Student Jobs Corps, among others. Targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing, and cutting-edge technological investments in the private sector. Widespread domestic investments including an infrastructure bank, a $556 billion surface transportation bill, and approximately $2.1 trillion in widespread domestic investment. The Budget for All achieves $6.8 trillion in deficit reduction, hits the same debt to GDP ratio as the Republican budget with lower deficits in the last five years; and does so in a responsible way that does not eviscerate vital services Americans want preserved. These benchmarks are achieved by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit: unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and policies that helped cause the recent recession--rather than irresponsibly putting the middle class's social safety net on the chopping block. The budget also taxes fairly, because it: Ends tax cuts for the top 2% of Americans on schedule at year's end. Extends tax relief for middle class households and the vast majority of Americans. Creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. Eliminates the tax code's preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. Abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies. Eliminates loopholes that allow businesses to dodge their true tax liability. Calls for the adoption of the ``Buffett Rule''. Creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good. The CPC budget demonstrates that we have been listening to the American people because we responsibly and sensibly end our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving America more secure at home and abroad; and modernizes our military to address 21st century threats and stop contributing to our deficit problems. This is the peace dividend. With this dividend, the CPC budget: Provides a Making Work Pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food cost's 2013-2015. Extends Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child and Dependent Care Credit. Invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep families in their homes. Invests in our children's education by increasing Education, Training, and Social Services. Mr. Chair, the federal budget is a moral document, with meaning, fiber, and a unique texture. Sometimes we lose sight of this fact given the preoccupation by many with, I could wax on and on today on the Floor about the ``baselines,'' ``benchmarks,'' and ``extrapolations and projections of future budget conditions,'' based on the assumptions that may or may not turn out to be accurate. But real people living, struggling with real problems in the real world are not interested in such esoteric discussion. They want us to focus on their lives and their problems. They want to know that we understand the necessity of making taxes fairer, simpler, and economically reasonable. Most economists agree, Mr. Speaker, that entitlement policy must be evaluated and progressively modified to achieve sustainability. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending grew rapidly from 5% of GDP in 1962 to a range of 9% to 10.5% of GDP from 1975 to 2007, peaking in recession years because of automatic stabilizers. Let me be clear: I am unalterably opposed to any entitlement reform that deprives seniors, like the ones that reside in the 18th Congressional District of Texas, of benefits they have labored long and hard to earn. To do otherwise would break a promise to prior generations who faithfully paid into the current system. These are not entitlements; they are earned benefits. And they must not be taken away. And speaking of Texas; recently my hometown of Houston was forced to lay off nearly one thousand municipal employees. When these employees are put on the unemployment line, libraries close, schools cut back on essential after-school programs, community centers lose personnel, police hours are trimmed, and the truly destitute become an afterthought. Those tough budget decisions had a human cost and I hear from my constituents every day about them. Frankly, I do not want tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of jobs for working and middle class families in Texas. The CPC fiscal year 2014 budget alternative stands in clear contrast to the budget that our Republican colleagues have put forward. This budget will reduce the deficit in a balanced and credible way, making difficult choices while providing investments that help create jobs now and build an even stronger economy for the future. But unlike the Republican budget--which ends the Medicare guarantee while providing enormous tax breaks to millionaires--we ask the very wealthy and special interests to share responsibility for reducing the deficit. We must embark on a truly shared sacrifice. I ask my colleagues to support the CPC Budget for All Substitute.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the CBC Budget Substitute to H. Con. Res. 25 because it provides for serious deficit reduction, job creation, and promotes pragmatic economic growth. In a word: this budget puts America back in the black. I wish to thank Chairwoman Fudge of the CBC and Congressman Scott of Virginia, a Member of the CBC who helps to drive our budget, and Congresswoman Gwen Moore who sits on the Budget Committee; Members who have taken the lead in steering our job-creating, morally righteous, and deficit-reducing budget to the House Floor. The Members of this body have some very serious ideological differences that have manifested themselves in the respective budgets that the American people will hear over the course of the next few days. But at the end of the day we have to produce for the American people--and budget means that we must do just that--and do so by addressing both sides of the ledger. That means tough, bedrock decisions about spending but also about revenue. My colleagues in the CBC have taken on this task in earnest and I believe produced a serious, pragmatic Fiscal Year 2014 budget alternative. The FY 2014 CBC Budget entitled, ``Pro-Growth, Pro-People, Pro- America,'' contains $2.8 trillion in deficit reduction relative to current law, which would put debt on a downward path after the expiration of short-term stimulus spending. Debt is projected to fall from 78.8 percent of GDP in 2014 to 66.2 percent of GDP in 2023. We include a lowering of the threshold for the tax cuts extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act from $450K to $250K, a concept which I strongly supported in 2010, 2011, and 2012; taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, and enacting a financial transactions tax. The CBC Substitute also cancels the harmful sequestration, enacts a permanent ``doc fix'', and includes $862 billion in jobs measures and long-term investments. Revenue would rise to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2023 in the CBC's budget, compared to 19.1 percent under current policy. Spending would fall to 22.3 percent of GDP by 2023 under current policy, and would fall to the same level under the CBC's budget though with a great deal of short-term stimulus measures. The CBC Budget protects and enhances Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, TANF and other vital safety net programs that save millions of families from poverty. The CBC Budget creates jobs and opportunity via new infrastructure investments, outlined below: Maintenance and repair for public transit, highways, airports, ports, railroads, bridges and other infrastructure investments. ($230 billion); Workforce development programs such as the Workforce Investment Act Adult Program, the Dislocated Workers Program, Job Corps and other employment and training services. ($13 billion); Providing relief to states to preserve teacher, law enforcement and first responder jobs. ($50 billion); Neighborhood stabilization programs that provide affordable housing development, infrastructure improvements and other community development needs. ($50 billion); Veterans programs that honor our commitment to help our nation's soldiers after they come back from serving our country. (Increased by $50 billion). The CBC Budget also calls for significant tax reform measures that would enhance revenues over the next decade by $2.7 trillion. Economic history has demonstrated that you cannot starve the government of revenues. To achieve our revenue goals, the CBC Budget outlines approximately $4.2 trillion in revenue enhancements that Congress could use to achieve this goal, including: Ending special tax breaks and closing tax loopholes. ($1 trillion over 10 years); Limiting tax preferences for Corporate Debt. ($1.151 trillion over 10 years); Enacting the ``Buffet Rule'' and a surcharge for millionaires. ($460 billion over 10 years); Reduce the ``tax gap'' through better tax enforcement. ($107 billion over 10-years); Ending the mortgage deduction for vacation homes and yachts. ($10 billion over 10 years); The CBC Budget addresses health disparities by fully funding the Affordable Care Act and providing strong support of the National Institute of Health. In contrast, the Republican Budget attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, while using the revenues to help achieve balance. The elephant in the room is entitlement policy. Unlike discretionary spending, mandatory spending grew rapidly from 5 percent of GDP in 1962 to a range of 9 percent to 10.5 percent of GDP from 1975 to 2007, peaking in recession years because of automatic stabilizers. The American people spoke last year and their collective voice clearly said no to haphazard, immoral, and arbitrary cuts to their hard-earned benefits; and the Supreme Court raised its voice when it upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It is the law of the land. I am here to say that any type of entitlement reform will not be done on the backs of Seniors in the 18th District of Texas--and I am prepared to ``stand in the gap'' to protect their benefits. And speaking of Texas, two years ago, my hometown of Houston, Texas was forced to lay off nearly one thousand municipal employees. When these employees are put on the unemployment line, libraries close, schools cut back on essential after-school programs, community centers lose personnel, police hours are trimmed, and the truly destitute become an afterthought. Those tough budget decisions had a human cost and I hear from my constituents every day about them, and frankly, I don't want tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of jobs for people in Texas. Nonetheless, I stand here today and declare that the federal budget is a moral document, with meaning, fiber, and a unique texture; and the budget we craft, and what we do here today in the hallowed halls of Congress is really about the American people and the impact that our budget and fiscal policy decisions will have on them. The Democratic Budget Alternatives stands in clear contrast to the budget that our Republican colleagues have put forward. This budget will reduce the deficit in a balanced and credible way, making difficult choices while providing investments that help create jobs now and build an even stronger economy for the future. But unlike the Republican budget--which ends the Medicare guarantee while providing tax breaks to millionaires--we ask the very wealthy and special interests to share responsibility for reducing the deficit. It is a shared American sacrifice. This budget demonstrates that we can put our fiscal house in order without blindly slashing investments and breaking our promises to seniors, low-income kids, and individuals with disabilities. We will preserve the Medicare guarantee and work to strengthen it, along with Medicaid, and not ending it. We will provide tax relief for working families, not a tax windfall to millionaires and corporations that is financed by middle-income Americans. And we will protect the promise and opportunity of the American Dream for all, instead of leaving future generations behind. Mr. Chair, let's roll-up our sleeves and get to work on a pro-growth, pro-people, and pro-American budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. When you look at the tax rate under President Clinton, that was 39.6 percent, and we created 20.8 million jobs. The Republican budget is a jobs killer. Then you have where we had a 35 percent tax rate, and you lost 580,000 jobs under George Bush. Here's the Democratic budget, the Van Hollen budget. We focus on creating jobs. We replace the sequester, 750,000 jobs, reduce the jobs deficit by 450,000, and our total net is 1.2 million net jobs. Family economic security is the Van Hollen budget. I ask my colleagues to vote for the Democratic budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I certainly thank the Budget Committee for the work that they have done. I'd make the argument that clearly we have a dilemma in focus and commitment and direction. I call the other budget the budget that has a sense of lacking of what people truly need. The Democratic budget is a budget that speaks to what people need, and it cares about people. It also cares about family economic security. Under the budget that Mr. Ryan is offering, the Republican budget, 3 million Texas seniors will see Medicare end as they know it, 50 million seniors across America. But frankly, this is the real key on how the GOP budget really works: $500 billion in their so-called balancing is taken from the Affordable Care Act in the fiscal cliff deal. That's how they say they reached budget, so that means they'll undermine millions of Americans who will not have health care. That's the budget that does not concern itself with family economic security. Then if we want to look again at the idea of safety net programs, rather than giving Americans an opportunity to stand on their own feet, the Republican budget literally cuts the programs that help reduce poverty. So it is not one that cares about economic security for our families. Then, Mr. Chairman, if you want to really see what works, it really works when we talk to the top 2 percent.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. When you have a preschool program, when you have programs that transition women out of their homes after raising their children and into jobs, when you have a program that allows young people with a college degree to get a job, when you have programs that invest in infrastructure and build highways and bridges that America is begging for--like the Hoover Dam--that our grandchildren and children will receive in America, that we invested in, they'll receive a gift. And they'll be able to work with their hands and their minds, and they will have the ability to pay down any debts and they'll close any deficit. And they'll be grateful to do it, because America will be the greatest Nation that it can. Don't constantly pound us with our grandchildren and our children. Right now, today, America can afford to pay for what we are doing in the Van Hollen Democratic budget because we are creating jobs, we're building infrastructure, we're making America greater--the very America that people around the world admire. So I want to vote for a growth budget. I want to vote for one that reduces unemployment under 5 percent. I want to vote for one that lifts America so that our children and grandchildren will have the benefit of all that we've done for them, and they'll have the benefit of paying for what America promises. Vote for America's promise. Vote against the Ryan budget.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank both of my colleagues. I thank the gentlelady and the manager of this rule. I vigorously rise to oppose this rule, the underlying bill, the Republican proposal for a budget. And I really do speak from the heart, because when you go home, it is often the best time of the service to your Nation because you get to see hardworking Americans, no matter what region you live in. And so I'm very proud to associate myself and support the Van Hollen Democratic budget substitute, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The singular theme that rides through all of these budgets, which is the very question that is raised, whether or not it's a teenager coming out looking for a summer job; whether or not it's a college student with their bright, new diploma holding it up, looking for America's great opportunity; or whether it's someone who has worked for a period of time, well-qualified, but just can't find the job to get back into the market. I know there are those who are listening, my colleagues, who have constituents like that. Every single budget, including the Van Hollen budget, the Democratic budget, helps to create jobs, gets rid of the sequester and, in actuality, brings back the 775,000 or 750,000 jobs lost by the Ryan budget, plus more. The Congressional Black Caucus focuses on maintenance for public transit and highway and airports, creating jobs. The Congressional Progressive Caucus focuses on making work pay and emergency unemployment compensation. But here's the story that I think is under the underlying Ryan budget--good friend of ours, of course, we work together--and the underlying premise. I am tired of raising up the generational fight. Just because the Greatest Generation fought in World War II, are we to say to our children and grandchildren, ``You know what, we don't want to burden you when the military calls you, when your Nation needs you; we don't want to burden you''? There's no way to protect what our grandchildren and children will have with this budget, other than the fact that the Democratic budget invests in people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, $5 trillion in surplus was extinguished in the last Republican administration. It had been created by President Clinton. The Affordable Care Act will help provide the health coverage that is needed by millions of Americans. I rise today to speak particularly about Texas. Some 24 percent of the population of Texas is uninsured, and yet our State government has refused to accept expanded Medicaid. So today, Mr. Speaker, I make a public plea on behalf of the millions of Texans who get up and work every day and do not have health insurance, and to have a State government that is ignoring their plea, and that is to have expanded Medicaid to provide health insurance for working Texans and poor Texans, those that work, as well, below the minimum wage. It seems selfish that the concerns of those who lead State government are all political and not in any way concerned about the mothers, fathers, and children who all of the medical professionals from county governments to private practice have said that the expanded Medicaid coverage, if taken by the State of Texas, like Florida and like Ohio, will save lives. Do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished ranking member of this committee, and I thank the floor managers. I particularly thank Mr. Hinojosa for his long service on workforce issues and about higher education issues to the proponent of the amendment. Certainly, we know that reporting is important. What I want to focus on, Madam Chairwoman, is what America is all about. We are, in fact, the land of opportunity and dreams. We are the richest country in the world, and our benefit and our success has come because we have invested in people. As we watched the Depression and the era of World War II and our soldiers coming home, prosperity began when we gave them the GI Bill; and here we are today, trying to undermine under H.R. 803 the very opportunity in States for those people who are still seeking to climb the ladder. By block-granting these 35 programs and shifting to our State governments individual programs that are to serve our adults and youth and farm workers and dislocated workers, we are going down a road of no return. We are eliminating the priority of service delivery for low- income adults and out-of-school youth. We are eliminating the thought processes that are necessary to know what rural neighborhoods or communities and urban communities need. Texas is one of the largest States in the Union, and I can assure you that eliminating separate training funds for youth programs is devastating. It was devastating when we lost the summer youth job program, which I'd always said would have been a more effective program if you'd joined it with training. In our local communities, that's what we did--we joined summer youth jobs with training. Now you're telling us that we will be eliminated from doing that. Rather than suggesting that the problems of this deficit are always on the least, it would be best for us to chronicle how we got here-- billions of dollars in the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, Medicare part D, the bailout.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. It is important to support the Democratic alternative, which streamlines and improves the coordination of training programs, which puts the dollars in community associations that are there on the ground. Madam Chair, America is not good with this bill, H.R. 803, but it is good with the Democratic alternative, which invests in people and makes America great.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 803, the ``Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, or SKILLS Act.'' While H.R. 803 rightfully reauthorizes the Work Force Investment Act (WIA), it does so while adding destructive provisions that undermine the very core goals of the legislation. As an alternative, we ought to consider H.R. 798. Moreover, despite some of the rhetoric coming from the proponents of H.R. 803, one need only read the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report to know that this bill does not save the American taxpayers anything. The Workforce Investment Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 1998, and provides a framework for our nation's workforce preparation and employment system. It was designed to help American workers advance their careers while satisfying the needs of U.S. businesses. The idea was a simple yet effective one: to train American workers for the jobs that businesses demand. Despite partisan resistance nearly every step of the way, our current economic policies have put us on the right path toward economic growth, with 260,000 jobs added and unemployment falling to 7.7% during the month of February. Today, while the American people are demanding that Congress act to facilitate the creation of even more new jobs, H.R. 803 would take us in the opposite direction by freezing investment in job training and other WIA programs for seven years, from Fiscal Year 2014 through Fiscal Year 2020. It is inconceivable that at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work, this bill proposes to cut funding from the very programs that would help give the Americans the skills they need to secure jobs in our changing economy. Moreover, WIA funding has already been cut in half since 2001. After more than a decade of placing funding for WIA on the backburner, now more than ever is the time to invest in American workers to assist them in securing their economic futures. Worse still, H.R. 803 effectively consolidates 35 programs under the WIA into a single block grant, despite the lack of any independent evaluation of whether such a consolidation would be beneficial. Currently, the programs are individually tailored to meet the needs of different types of workers, including adults, youth, farmworkers, dislocated workers, and other disadvantaged populations. However, by consolidating these programs into one lump sum block grant, diverse groups of workers with different skills and different needs would be forced to compete with one another for the same resources. The youth employment rate remains unacceptably high, and the SKILLS Act would force young aspiring workers to compete with adults for the resources of a single fund focused on serving the needs of adults. If enacted, H.R. 803 would allow state officials to choose to reduce or eliminate programs that support some of our nation's most vulnerable populations who derive the most benefit from the programs. H.R. 803, if enacted would have a disparate impact on youth, persons living in high-poverty communities, minorities, women, seniors, persons with disabilities, those recently incarcerated, single parents, veterans, those who lack English proficiency or do not have a high school diploma or GED. Perhaps the most appalling part of H.R. 803 is that it eliminates the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program, which is specifically tailored to help disabled veterans. Veterans who return home to the country that they sacrificed for deserve to have a program dedicated to helping them overcome their challenges in obtaining employment as a result of injuries sustained while serving. Eliminating the program without providing disabled veterans with an alternative that contains accountability measures that preserve their unique interests is categorically unacceptable. I urge Members to alternatively consider H.R. 798, the ``Workforce Investment Act of 2013,'' which modernizes the Workforce Investment Act to improve the nation's workforce investment infrastructure. H.R. 798 is focused on focusing on finding workers jobs and careers via strategic partnerships with in-demand sector employers, community colleges, labor organizations, and nonprofits. The American people want tangible solutions; not another ideologically partisan bill that harms the very people who can least afford it during an economic recovery.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They take all the good things that, might I say, the Democrats have worked on and can really be defined as balanced and fair and utilize it in a budget that is absolutely lopsided. And I thank you for having us on the floor to explain to the women of America why this budget will not be good for them, their children, or their expanded families, and that we're committed to standing against this kind of approach that is really not the American way.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady for that astute assessment. When I give these various points, women are disproportionately placed. Many of them are heads of households, many of them are senior women. Many are going back into the workforce because they have resource shortages, if you will. And the Ryan budget takes in all of these; i.e., the $85 billion in sequester cuts. By the way, again, I introduced legislation to eliminate the sequester provision out of the Budget Reconciliation Act. I happen to think that it is meritorious because we need to start from a fair point of view, not what I call nickel and diming, ending people's research, closing doors in the Capitol, and a number of other things that are not good for America. But let me just finish on this. If we're interested in R&D, as we indicated, or clean energy--slashed. Obviously, it will have an impact on the quality of life of families who are raising their children. What about nutrition assistance, the SNAP program? What an obliterating cut to the SNAP program, which is now serving 48 million people. Let me remind my colleagues that these are military persons, women who are in the military. These are young families. These are individuals who are in school. And so women are disproportionately impacted. And this, I think, is clearly one of the largest conflicts of reason, and that is to underfund or take away the funding for the Affordable Care Act, which has been reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court and has been documented as having a health care savings and providing for a healthier America. And here we are taking away coverage from 27 million Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my friend from New York, Congresswoman Maloney, for her leadership on economic issues particularly impacting women, for the persistence of her introduction of the Equal Rights Amendment, long overdue, that we all join in to ensure the rights of women. And let me thank the gentlemen that are on the floor that joined us this evening. I want to follow up, as I listened to the discussion that you just had, I met with Dr. Brinkley in the hallway, who is one of the leading researchers in biomolecular research from Baylor University, in my Congressional region, if you will. I consider representation because it is such a massive institution. And he brought with him two of his researchers. In fact, the headline on one of my papers was the standstill work of one of our important researchers because of the sequester, and certainly because of this budget. All of that points to women who are most vulnerable as relates to the needs of research in chronic illnesses. Let me cite for my colleagues about this question of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security what is drastically cut and reordered under the Ryan Republican budget. I'm really saddened that misinformation comes that the Medicare's predominance, in terms of its help, goes to those who are fat cats. Let me share some numbers with you. Many of these are women. We do know that women live longer, and so the needs that they have for Medicare and Social Security may be extended. And may I take something out of our vocabulary, though it is in the dictionary. Medicare and Social Security are earned. I don't know where we got the word ``entitlement,'' because entitlement suggests you're entitled with no basis of responsibility. But they earned this. Women earned this. And women started before the fight that we had, Congresswoman, for pay equity over the last decade or two. They were making the lower wages, and so their Social Security input had to be much lower as they continued to work years in. But let me just share with you on the Medicare beneficiaries: Annual income less than $22,500: 50 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries include in that number women; Chronic conditions: of those who receive Medicare, 40 percent include in that number women; Fair and poor health: 27 percent, women in that population; Cognitive mental impairment: 23 percent, women in that population; Functional limitations: 15 percent, women in that calculation. So, as I look at this budget, 60 percent of it is taking away health care from the poor and middle class, which would include women. The idea that the bill slants itself toward protecting the interests of the wealthy by not listing any deduction that you're willing to take. Now, I know if we get into a discussion about deductions, we put ourselves in that circle; but let me just say, middle class Americans need mortgage deductions. I know, however, that that is one that is under discussion. But why did our friends writing this budget not list the deductions that they would be willing to put on the table? Some of us realize that mortgage deductions help young families. It helps single women. It helps women who are maintaining or getting their first house. So here we have a special emphasis. I'm glad my colleague mentioned breast cancer. I have introduced legislation on triple negative. It happens to have a far-reaching impact on women from all ethnic groups, whether they are Caucasian, whether they are Hispanic, or whether they are African American or Asian, but it is a deadly form of the disease, a more deadly form of the disease. And so that kind of research which many of us are arguing for is now limited because of this budget. The budget does not--well, let me just say this. The budget takes for its own what was accomplished with the savings in the Affordable Care Act. It takes for its own the cuts that we made, were willing to make in 2012, over a trillion in cuts and spending. And it totally ignores economists who have indicated that the austerity format that was taken in Europe was the completely wrong direction, and that, then, impacts our families more negatively.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the floor leaders for their hard work, but I have another explanation for where we are today. My colleague before me indicated that flexibility is important. It means that we, your Representatives, are listening to you. But I'm listening to more voices than just those who are here on this floor. I'm listening to the voices of those who want to get out of poverty, and I'm delighted to be part of a newly established caucus that focuses on eliminating poverty. I was here for the first reform bill, and I do believe there's something important about work; but let us understand that when we talk about poverty, we're talking about children, we're talking about parents who are raising children and who may need to be home. We've always made the argument that mothers working at home is work. I'm disappointed in this legislation primarily because it takes the flexibility away from Governors to determine how best to get people back to work. But why don't we bring a bill to the floor to raise the minimum wage from $7 to $9? Why do we not listen to people who say, I barely can make it, such as one of my constituents who said, Not only am I at minimum wage, but they require me to pay for my parking. Can I please get a lift? Or maybe we're not aware of title 3 in the housing act that has people in public housing being able to work, which was an amendment that I offered to that particular title to allow those to work on projects that the housing authority has. My housing authority just told me that people are lining up to work. They have people working. So this is not about making people work. It's about ignoring and picking on, again, President Obama's administration because they decide to listen to Republican and Democratic Governors to work on behalf of the American people. Let's get it right. Let's talk about getting people out of poverty. Let's raise the minimum wage. Let's talk about the flexibility so that people can work. Because they want to work. I haven't heard anybody that doesn't want to work. But realize if you are getting TANF, you're getting it because of your children, because of some situation that puts you in a place that you hope to get out of. I don't think it is the right thing to do to strangle the hands of the administration doing what the American people would like them to do. Let's vote against this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to simply express my disappointment in H.R. 890, The Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act of 2013, which it actually does not do. I had an amendment prepared which would simply make the effective date for this bill of December 2035. This is not a whimsical attempt to delay implementation; but merely an expression of my frustration that Members on the other side have come to disagree with policies which their Caucus, past and present, helped to create and foster. In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it would consider requests from the states to operate demonstration projects within the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to help recipients prepare for, find and maintain employment. The effort was partially a response to requests from governors throughout the United States--including many Republican governors-- asking for just such flexibility to operate TANF. The Secretary of HHS has stated that any governor wanting such a waiver must commit that their proposal will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work. Rather than embrace the Administration's efforts to provide states flexibility, however, Republicans in Congress have waged a disingenuous campaign against the waiver proposal, drawing rebukes from fact- checkers. On Feb. 28, House Republicans introduced H.R. 890 to prohibit the Administration from granting such flexibility to states. The bill was unanimously opposed by my Democratic colleagues during a Committee markup held on March 6, 2013. This year's action comes after Republicans took nearly identical action last fall. After passing it out of the Ways and Means Committee against unanimous opposition from Committee Democrats, House Republicans passed a resolution disapproving of the Administration's flexibility plan on Sept. 20, 2012. Let's look at some facts: Same Waiver Authority Used by President Clinton--On July 12, 2012, HHS issued guidance that it was exercising the agency's authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act to entertain requests from States to conduct demonstration projects under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. A legal analysis from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that HHS' current waiver initiative is ``consistent'' with the prior practice under the Clinton Administration, which permitted dozens of welfare waivers prior to the enactment of the 1996 welfare law. Projects Must Focus on Increasing Work--The HHS notice clearly and repeatedly states that all demonstration projects must be ``focused on improving employment outcomes.'' Such outcomes must be demonstrated by a rigorous evaluation, and states must meet targets for accelerating job placements for welfare recipients. Cutting Red Tape and Increasing Performance--Governor Herbert of Utah, a Republican, informed HHS that his state would like to be evaluated on the basis of the state's success in placing welfare recipients into employment, rather than on their participation in certain activities, and that this approach ``would require some flexibility at the state level and the granting of a waiver.'' Providing States with Flexibility, While Holding them Accountable-- HHS Secretary Sebelius has stated, ``the Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job. Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work compared to the state's past performance.'' No Effect on Funding Levels or Time Limits--Nothing in the waiver authority applies to the current five-year federal time limit on TANF assistance. Additionally, demonstration projects will in no way affect the fixed block grant amounts now provided to states under the TANF program. Republicans Were For Welfare Waivers Before They Were Against Them-- In 2002, 2003, and 2005 Republicans passed legislation on the House floor that included a provision allowing the waiver of TANF work requirements. While these waiver proposals were broader and affected many more programs than the policy now proposed by HHS, the Congressional Research Service confirms that all of these bills ``would have had the effect of allowing TANF work participation standards to be waived'' Chairman Camp, along with Speaker Boehner and Representative Ryan, voted for all three of these bills. Claims that Waivers Remove Work Requirements Are Clearly False-- President Clinton, who signed the 1996 welfare reform law, said ``When some Republican governors asked if they could have waivers to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama administration listened because we all know it's hard for even people with good work histories to get jobs today. So moving folks from welfare to work is a real challenge. And the administration agreed to give waivers to those governors and others only if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20 percent, and they could keep the waivers only if they did increase employment. Now, did I make myself clear? The requirement was for more work, not less.'' Ron Haskins, the lead Republican Congressional staffer in charge of drafting the 1996 welfare reform law, has said ``there is merit to what the Administration is proposing,'' and ``I don't see how you can get to the conclusion that the waiver provision undermines welfare reform.'' Politifact declared that Governor Romney's claim that the waiver proposal would eliminate work requirements for welfare recipients was ``pants on fire'' false. The fact checker said the contrary was true, stating: ``by grating waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them.'' FactCheck.org says Romney's claims on the issue ``distorts the facts'' and is ``simply not true.'' It reiterates that work requirements are not being dropped under the waiver proposal, and that ``benefits still won't be paid beyond an allotted time.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate H.R. 749, the ``Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act,'' which seeks to eliminate wasteful and unnecessarily duplicative privacy notification requirements for financial institutions. More specifically, H.R. 749 would amend the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to exempt from its annual privacy policy notice requirement any financial institution that: (1) Provides nonpublic personal information only in accordance with specified requirements, and (2) Has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from those disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers.'' Under current law, financial institutions are required to give notices to customers that delineate their information-sharing practices. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 attempted to balance the information privacy interests of consumers with the need for financial institutions to share information for ordinary business purposes. To that end, GLB required financial institutions to inform their customers, in the form of a privacy notice, about the types of information they collect as well as the types of businesses that may be provided that information. In order to give the customer the choice of determining whether he or she is comfortable with the sharing of their information, the privacy notice is required to be issued upon the opening of a new account as well as once a year. Financial institutions collect basic information from customers, such as your name, phone number, address, income, and details about your assets. Moreover, in determining whether someone qualifies for a particular product, such as a loan, a financial institution may collect additional details from other sources, such as credit reports from credit bureaus. Furthermore, some financial institutions track your use of products like credit cards and record information such as how much you borrow, how much you buy, where you shop, and whether you pay your balance in a timely fashion. Some financial institutions share this collected information with other entities, including unaffiliated companies like retailers and telemarketers. This is why it is particularly important that customers know the privacy policies of their financial institutions; customers must make a determination as to whether they are comfortable with how their bank intends to share their information. However, requiring financial institutions to submit annual privacy notices to customers when they remain unchanged can be considered wasteful. Moreover, because the notices must be issued with regularity, it may have the effect of lowering awareness on the part of consumers when a change to a privacy policy is in fact made. H.R. 749 intends to eliminate this waste and potential for diminished customer awareness by removing the annual notification requirement for financial institutions, so long as the policy remains unchanged from the last notification and the financial institution otherwise complies with the requirements for notification. For that reason, Members ought to copsider H.R. 749 in contemplation of the intent of the notification requirements in Gramm-Leach-Bliley.