Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it's my intent to bring the House's attention to several important issues. First of all, I would like to join in a mutual effort with Mr. Poe to address the devastation of the people in Camp Ashraf and Camp Liberty. Those are Iranian refugees who have been attacked and who have been mistreated, and we must fight for them and ensure their safety. I also want to comment on the introduction of a new budget by the House and to say that we have to come together and not be conflicting with programs or initiatives that will not happen; and to have a budget based upon the elimination of the Affordable Care Act, it simply will not happen. We must come together. Finally, America is ready for comprehensive immigration reform. In a meeting I held yesterday in Houston with over 90 to 100 persons, if you heard the story of a father who was told to leave his children behind and to leave the country, you would know this is not about immigration. It's about families. It's about humanitarianism. It's about bringing America and Americans together. We have a few things to do in this country and a few things to do in this Congress. Let's get on with it and do it in the right way.

Mrs. JACKSON LEE

Mrs. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1035, a bill ``To require a study of voluntary community-based flood insurance option and how such options could be incorporated into the national flood insurance program, and for other purposes.'' More specifically, this bill directs FEMA to study options, methods, and strategies for making voluntary community-based flood insurance policies available through the National Flood Insurance Program. Moreover, this study would include a strategy to implement options that would encourage communities to undertake flood mitigation activities. Flooding is the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States. 90 percent of all presidential-declared U.S. natural disasters involve flooding. Flooding occurs in all 50 states and chronically impacts many communities, including my constituents in the 18th district of Texas. In Houston, there are a number of areas which are frequently flooded from excessive rainwater in bayous. These areas include the Buffalo Bayou, the Greens Bayou, and the Halls Bayou. These areas, and others across this nation, could greatly benefit greatly from this study. In 1968, the U.S. Congress established the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to address the nation's flood hazard exposure and challenges inherent in financing and managing flood risks in the private sector. The program has played a central role in U.S. flood risk management policy; that is, the prevention and recovery from flooding disasters. Under the NFIP, the federal government (1) identifies areas of flood risk; (2) encourages communities to implement measures to mitigate against the risk of flood loss; and (3) provides financial assistance, through contracts of insurance, to help individuals and small businesses recover rapidly from flood disasters. Until 1986, the NFIP was financially self-supporting from policy premium revenue and fees that covered all expenses and claim payments. However, because of its below-market insurance rates and catastrophic hurricane-related floods in recent years, the NFIP has accrued a substantial debt that as of September 30, 2011, stands at $17.75 billion. Under current law, the funds borrowed from the U.S. Treasury must be repaid with interest. Because the NFIP cannot charge risk-based premiums for all of its policies, hold loss reserve funds to offset unusually catastrophic losses, or purchase reinsurance, the program faces a constant risk of financial insolvency. The NFIP currently covers approximately 5.6 million households and businesses across the country for a total of $1.25 trillion in exposure. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, was established in response to increasing Federal Government spending for disaster relief. Standard homeowners insurance does not cover flooding and therefore offers no protection from floods associated with hurricanes, tropical storms, heavy rains and other conditions. The NFIP mandates that federally regulated or insured lenders require flood insurance on properties that are located in areas that have a high risk of flooding. Unlike private insurance programs, the NFIP is not actuarially sound; it is not designed to ensure that its premiums will cover the average claims and expenses expected over the long run. By law, some NFIP policyholders receive insurance at rates that are subsidized. Such subsidies are mainly granted to property owners whose properties were built before their communities joined the program and are intended to encourage communities to participate in the program and thus mitigate potential losses. H.R. 1035 would study the means by which communities can enhance their own ability to recover from flooding. Giving communities the opportunity to effectively become the policyholder of a flood insurance program, rather than individual property owners, renters, or businesses, would potentially yield several benefits. The study produced by H.R. 1035 would explore the policy of community-based flood insurance to find ways to incentivize communities to mitigate future flood losses, as well as to provide them with a greater role in determining flood risk assessment, mapping, and insurance pricing. Furthermore, the study would allow communities to implement mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements tailored to a community's individual needs. Moreover, the study would reveal the extent to which community-based flood insurance may produce economies of scale for a community, streamlined underwriting, as well as reduced administrative costs for the insurer. Community-based flood insurance programs have the potential for the development of synergies between local communities and the National Flood Insurance Program. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the H.R. 1035, which directs FEMA to study how to improve our national system of disaster insurance with respect to community-based flood insurance. This bill is a timely response to recent flooding disasters wrought by Hurricane Sandy, as well as sensible way to address future floods that occur in communities across our country.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman's tone, and let it be known that all of us want to engage in that kind of civil discussion. I assume, if we all got locked up in a room, we'd be able to find the compromise. Let me just indicate that the revenues and cuts that you just spoke about are over a 10-year period, but they're still cuts. This bill not only adds to that, but then the sequester adds to that, as well. Our suggestion in my remarks is that this will have a heavy, heavy, heavy, heavy impact on vulnerable and innocent persons. The cuts are going forward, and so my question is: Why can't we continue the discussion on how we balance cuts and revenues? We must operate the government.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his words. I associate myself with Mr. McGovern. But also, I do acknowledge Mr. Cole, my good friend. You have certainly joined us on bipartisan issues, as has already been stated, and I thank you for that. But I do want to, in essence, gently correct the gentleman on whether or not the President got his, it's now time for us to get ours. I think what we have missed is that this is an ongoing process, an ongoing process to find the right balance of revenue and the right balance of cuts. Let it also be on the record that we've cut over $1 trillion already, and I can tell you that it has come out of the backs of poor people. Now, let me give you some resounding, exciting breaking news: the Dow hit the highest amount yesterday, 14,253.77, the highest in history. Wall Street is celebrating while the backs of poor people are being broken. This is not a rule that should pass today. We should remain snowed out. We shouldn't even be here. Snow us out until we can get the right kind of balance. This is the bill that we received in less than 24 hours, and they're asking us to vote on it. And while we're asked to vote on it, let me suggest to you that the long-term unemployed will be particularly impacted: $130 a month will come out of their unemployment. It will be brutal to government workers and job training programs, those that we slash and burn, but these are the men and women that work and do the business of government; For women who are caretakers, they will find that 50 percent of them are more likely to hold government jobs, they're going to be impacted; $725 million is going to come out of poor people's children's education; Those of us who support community health clinics, $120 million of Federal support for community health centers will just drop, and 900,000 patients will not be served. 540,000 doses of vaccine will not be there. The point is that when it comes to the backs of those who will bear the brunt, it will be those who need clean energy, education, and research and development. I introduced H.R. 900, a simple bill to get rid of the sequester. My point would be that we need to go back to work and vote ``no'' on the rule. It is on the backs of poor people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically rise to support John Conyers' H.R. 900, of which I'm an original cosponsor, which is a thoughtful response to legislation that was really hostage-taking, and that is the passage of sequestration almost 2 years ago. Everyone knows it was the need for the debt ceiling to be raised that generated it. But I'm not about excuses. H.R. 900 simply eliminates the sequester provision in the Budget Reconciliation Act. It is thoughtful and allows us to proceed. However, we will not be able to pass it because our friends on the other side of the aisle are celebrating about the $85 billion in cuts across the board, hurting seniors, children, and families. And then they want to acknowledge this is the President's fault. Well, the President is willing to not look at poll numbers to be able to fight, to support, and enhance revenues and spending cuts. Thank you, Mr. President, for leading. For those who say nothing has happened, it's because it has not happened yet, but I will tell you the continuation of sequester is going to hurt the American people and kill jobs. The continuing resolution that devastates those nondiscretionary projects of Head Start and education will also hurt the American people. Let's pass H.R. 900 and begin a process that the American people can buy into and a budget that is fair, with taxes and spending cuts that work on behalf of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 338, the ``Stop Tobacco Smuggling in the Territories Act of 2013,'' which adds previously uncovered American territories to the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act. Specifically, H.R. 338 provides that American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and Guam will be covered by the current Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which makes it illegal to knowingly ship, transport, receive, possess, sell, distribute, or purchase 10,000 or more contraband cigarettes that do not have a state or territorial tax stamp. Currently, only the 50 states, Washington, DC, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are covered by the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act. We all understand the dangers associated with cigarette smoking and its prevalence in the United States. This bill seeks to treat the aforementioned territories like any other state when it comes to trafficking. Roughly 23 percent of American adults and 30 percent of adolescents are current smokers. Every day, 3,500 minors try smoking for the first time, one thousand of whom go on to become regular, daily smokers. Moreover, more than 15.5 million children are exposed to secondhand smoke at home. Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined, with thousands more dying from spit tobacco use. About one of every five American deaths is related to smoking, or about 400,000 Americans each year. Tragically, about 50,000 adult nonsmokers in the nation die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke. More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, car accidents, suicides, and murders combined. More than 8.6 million Americans currently suffer from smoking-caused illness, and over six million Americans under the age of 18 who are alive today are estimated to ultimately die from smoking. In addition, smokers lose an average of 13 to 14 years of life because of their smoking. We must do more to dissuade people from smoking.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to question H.R. 668, a bill to amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, to require that annual budget submissions of the President to Congress provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit. What does this bill accomplish--very little. More specifically, H.R. 668 requires the President to submit the pro rata cost for taxpayers for any deficit projected in the President's budget for a given fiscal year. While I support genuine bipartisan efforts to resolve our fiscal and budgetary issues, it is difficult to see how this bill proposes a productive use of the House's time and taxpayer dollars. H.R. 668 appears to be a politically motivated bill aimed at placing blame on the President for our deficit issues rather than proposing a sound, bipartisan solution that would provide a balanced approach to turning our annual budgets deficits into surpluses. This Congress cannot absolve itself of the duty to reach a bipartisan deal to mitigate the devastating effects of the sequester now imposed on the federal government. We must remember that this sequester was intended to be harmful to our nation's progress in the eyes of both parties, in order to incentivize this Congress to make the difficult choices necessary to forge a sustainable economic future. The cuts are arbitrary and are no substitute for sound policy: $42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 7.9 percent cut); $28.7 billion in domestic discretionary cuts (a 5.3 percent cut); $9.9 billion in Medicare cuts (a 2 percent cut); and $4 billion in other mandatory cuts (a 5.8 percent cut to nondefense programs, and a 7.8 percent cut to mandatory defense programs). Each day that passes under the sequester, it imperils our security, our economic recovery, and our families across this nation. From military readiness, to disaster and terrorism preparedness, to law enforcement and emergency responders, to education, to small business, to veterans care, to travel, to food safety, to vital research and innovation; there is virtually no facet of our way of life that will avoid being negatively impacted by the sequester. Aircraft purchases by the Air Force and Navy are cut by $3.5 billion. Military operations across the services are cut by about $13.5 billion. Military research is cut by $6.3 billion. The National Institutes of Health get cut by $1.6 billion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are cut by about $323 million. Border security is cut by about $581 million. Immigration enforcement is cut by about $323 million. Airport security is cut by about $323 million. Head Start gets cut by $406 million, kicking 70,000 kids out of the program. FEMA's disaster relief budget is cut by $375 million. Public housing support is cut by about $1.94 billion. The FDA is cut by $206 million. NASA gets cut by $970 million. Special education is cut by $840 million. The Energy Department's program for securing our nuclear materials is cut by $650 million. The National Science Foundation gets cut by about $388 million. The FBI gets cut by $480 million. The federal prison system gets cut by $355 million. State Department diplomatic functions are cut by $650 million. Global health programs are cut by $433 million; the Millennium Challenge Corp. sees a $46 million cut, and USAID a cut of about $291 million. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is cut by $55 million. The SEC is cut by $75.6 million. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is cut by $2.6 million. The Library of Congress is cut by $31 million. The Patent and Trademark office is cut by $156 million. This is neither the way to govern, nor is it a permissible path forward. We cannot continue along this path of perpetual, self-imposed destruction--moving from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis without providing the American people with certainty and clarity as to the future. In just three short weeks, the federal government faces another manufactured crisis; a shutdown that threatens to compound the effects of the sequester and further damage our economy, making it harder for families to endure. We must focus our efforts on working together to enact a continuing resolution in order to avoid a government shutdown, and to enact a plan that provides a healthy balance of revenues and spending cuts that will move us forward without devastating the middle class. Bills that do not serve any ostensible practical purpose and are simply meant to advance an ideological position should not occupy the House's time, and the American people expect more of their elected representatives. We must remember that the faces of those who are negatively impacted by the sequester are not of millionaires or billionaires; they are of average Americans who, through no fault of their own, have struggled through a tough economy and fiscal adversity. As we work together to get our Nation's fiscal house in order, we should strive to carefully consider the impact of decisions--or in this case, the lack of decisions--on the millions of middle and low-income Americans who are counting on us to come to an agreement. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on both sides of the aisle on a long-term debt and deficit solution, and am confident that we can reach an agreement that will work for the benefit of all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 11, the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Over the last 18 years, VAWA has provided life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women, men, and children. Originally passed by Congress in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, this landmark, bipartisan legislation was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence and the significant impact that such violence has on the lives of women. Just last month a co-ed at the venerable University of Virginia, my alma mater was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. This hits close to home. As well as Yvette Cade, who had acid poured over her face by an irate ex-husband. As well as the murder of Annie Le at Harvard University. And unfortunately, I could go on and on. These women were white, black, and Asian, living in different cities under different circumstances. They had one common denominator: victims of abject and perverse violence. Lives destroyed because of men-at-rage. With each reauthorization, VAWA has been improved in meaningful ways to reflect a growing understanding of how best to meet the varied and changing needs of survivors. VAWA is working, while rates of domestic violence have dropped by over 50 percent in the past 18 years, there remains a lot of work to be done still have a lot of work ahead of us. In December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which found: 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime and 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by a partner; Over 80% of women who were victimized experienced significant short- term and long-term impacts related to the violence and were more likely to experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and long-term chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. Every nine seconds a woman in the United States is assaulted or beaten by stalkers or her partner. Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners, often after a long, escalating pattern of battering. In 2009, 111 women were killed by their former or current husband, intimate partner or boyfriend in the State of Texas. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury for women in America According to a study, there are more victims of domestic violence than victims of rape, mugging and automobile accidents combined. VAWA was designed to address these gruesome statics. VAWA established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which receives over 22,000 calls each month. VAWA funds train over 500,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other personnel each year. This landmark legislation sent the message that violence against women is a crime and will not be tolerated. States are taking violence against women more seriously and all states now have stalking laws, criminal sanctions for violation of civil protection orders, and reforms that make date or spousal rape as serious of a crime as stranger rape.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlelady from Maryland and thank her for her leadership. This is a very important statement today because I was on the floor earlier this morning and said that we should not go home, that we should stay here. I'll say it again: We should not go home. We should stay here. With all of the chatter of disagreement and accusations and blame games, what should be the message to the American people is, in fact, that we are committed to finding some form of common ground. Now, common ground is enormously challenging when there is no give from our Republican friends. I do want to applaud the Congresswoman today in that the Violence Against Women Act was passed because of Democrats' championing the right direction so that immigrant women, so that the LGBT community and so that Native Americans could be specifically covered, which, as a lawyer, is what the law is all about. Fuzzy legislation cannot work, but when you specifically designate in law the protection of these groups, then you have brought about a change. I say that only because I want to thank our Republican friends who voted for that ultimate Senate bill that was passed in a bipartisan way in the Senate and now in the House. That should be an example of what we can do with regard to this dastardly act that is going to occur tomorrow--the sequester--which most Americans don't even understand. So I am delighted to join and to be able to be part of this Special Order, led by the gentlelady from Maryland, on explaining how vulnerable women can be impacted. We did a good act today. Vulnerable women have been in the eye of the storm since this legislation was not reauthorized, and women's centers and shelters all over America were feeling the ax of the non-funding of the STOP grant, but today we made a difference. I want to make a difference in stopping the onslaught against women and children that the sequester will bring about, and I am going to use as an example the impact on a State like mine--the State of Texas--that has a diverse, if you will, congressional delegation, with more Republicans than Democrats. Frankly, the people of the State of Texas are not interested in what party we are; they simply want to find out why we can't come to the floor and vote to block the sequester and find common ground. So, to my State of Texas, let me tell you what you will be facing, and why I want to say, stay and work, stay and work, and find some kind of common ground. In the alternative, all of us are willing to be called back this weekend. We're willing to be called back Friday night and Saturday morning. I want that to be on the record. We're willing to get back in a short order of time to come here and solve this problem. Specifically, I have worked extensively with our teachers and schools and school districts: $67.8 million for funding for primary and secondary education, putting 950 teachers' and aides' jobs at risk, meaning that they may ultimately be terminated. Those jobs are at risk in the State of Texas. 172,000 fewer students can be served in approximately 280 schools. That's not just in Houston; that's throughout Republican and Democratic districts in the State of Texas. That is shameful. Texas will lose approximately $50 million in funds for about 620 students and aides to help children with disabilities; Work study jobs will impact our college students. 4,720 fewer low- income students will be able to have those jobs, and, of course, it will eliminate the opportunity to finance the cost of college to around 1,450 students, who will not get work study jobs; Head Start. Many of my Head Start leaders advocated and asked me, as I was in Austin this past week, to stop the elimination of their funding. I will be meeting with those from AVANCE next week, approximately 4,800 students in Texas, on the reducing of access to critical early education; Law enforcement. Part of the Violence Against Women Act specifically speaks to the question of helping the crime victims. When I had a gun briefing in Texas, I made sure that the victims of gun violence were in the room. What we'll be stopping is $1.1 million in what we call Justice Assistance Grants, which specifically deal with our crime victims; This is an example of what will happen in America if you're looking for jobs and if you want assistance from the Federal Government. It's interesting how people make light that the Federal Government does nothing. My friends, the Federal Government is you. It is the tax dollars used wisely to ensure that it is a bridge, a complement, a collaborator with State government. So you will be losing in the State of Texas, for those of you who are searching for jobs--and you do it every day--some $2.2 million if this goes through. Child care. Up to 2,300 disadvantaged and vulnerable children may lose their access to child care. That impacts women who go out every day, one possibly to look for a job but, more importantly, to go out to go to work. I hate the thought that 9,000 children will have a lack of access to vaccines. That's a mother's responsibility, that's a parent's responsibility to ensure her children are getting vaccines, and the public health system will collapse because of the lack of resources; $1.1 million will be lost, in particular, for HIV tests, which is devastating among the African American community, particularly women. We have encouraged them now to get tested. We've tried to remove the stigma. When they go up to the door of the public health entity to get tested, you're going to tell me that there are a million less dollars and that the door will be closed? On the STOP Violence Against Women's program, which we'd now reauthorize, I'm sad to say that Texas could lose $543,000 and that 2,100 more victims will not have this. Let me come to a close and look at it generically across America as I cite what Congresswoman Edwards just cited about small businesses, and I would indicate that, on a nationwide impact, two-thirds of all new jobs we know have come from small businesses. As I listened to the news this morning about a woman-owned business that does work with the Defense Department, she was being interviewed, and she said, about 5 days from now, she'll literally be shut down. So what we're talking about is losing $900 million across the Nation in helping small businesses. That is a travesty. When we travel internationally, one thing we sort of look at is the question of food safety, and what we pride ourselves on here in the United States is that which stops disease and that which stops contamination. Well, my friends, 2,100 food inspectors for the Nation, who deal with helping to ensure the kind of safe food for our women and children, will be shut down. That means that billions in food production will be shut down. I heard a plant manufacturer, or a food manufacturer--a packaging company--say that it literally cannot do anything without a food inspector saying ``yes.'' Let me indicate something that is very close to my heart, and that is those who are needing mental health services. Do you realize, with the sequester, Congresswoman, that 373,000 mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally disturbed children will lose public services for their needs? That is a travesty, and asks the question: Why are we going home? Why don't we stay here and find the compromise that we did for the Violence Against Women Act? Let me close on our work in dealing with homeland security. I am the ranking member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. We have responsibilities with ranking member Thompson and our chairperson, who has noted in our hearings as recently as this week that we would lose some 2,750 Customs and Border Protection officers, CBP. Those are the individuals who allow goods to travel, to meet individuals at airports; and we would lose 5,000 Border Patrol officers at our borders, where we're talking about the question of border security. Are we talking out of two sides of our mouths? Here we're making the argument that we want border security, and we're willing to allow 5,000 Border Patrol agents--willy-nilly--to just go away? We're allowing difficulties with the FAA and, as well, with TSA officers of whom some have critiqued. I serve on the Transportation Security Subcommittee. These officers every day face the trials and tribulations of ensuring safety on our airlines and airplanes, and we are telling them that we don't care about security? Right now, we've got a sequester and you're out, and we don't know how long the lines are. Frankly, the statement is being made by my Republican friends and leadership that they simply don't care. We have an opportunity to work together. We can work with the Senate. We can work with the White House. We can understand the underpinnings of this whole debate, and that is: revenue and cuts. Why do I want revenue? Because I want for the money not to run out when the victims of Hurricane Sandy are desperate. That's why I want revenue. I want the Head Start programs to be funded, and I want our military in a balanced way to be funded. So I support the utilization of the Buffett rule that has been offered by the Senate, and aspects of many other proposals. They are out there, we can do it, and we can do it with the kind of grace and mercy and understanding of the needs of the American people, and protecting the middle class. And, as Congresswoman Edwards stated, we can do that with an eye on women, to make sure that women, many of whom are heads of households, do not face these devastating cuts that would literally shut them down, their small businesses, Head Start, teachers for their children's schools, to ensure that there is funding for the Violence Against Women Act. I want to say thank you to Congresswoman Edwards for allowing us to have an opportunity to share our concerns today. I am pained by what we are saying today, but I am extending a hand of friendship to my friends on the other side of the aisle. Leadership can call us back. We are ready to be called back. We can huddle somewhere else. We can find a way to get consensus by email so that when we come back next week, we have an immediate vote because we have been willing to do so. I'll close by saying I'm supporting Mr. Conyers, who has offered an alternative that will be coming forward next week that ends the sequestration. I believe that is the way to go to allow us more time for debate and collaboration. I hope others will join us in supporting this legislation we're introducing today. I thank him for his leadership on that. I think that speaks to the fact that all Members, Congresswoman Edwards, are following the leadership of this Special Order, which is to protect women from this devastating impact of sequester. Thank you so very much for the opportunity to speak today.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Many of my constituents ask the question of what work are we doing for them. I'm very glad this morning that we will finally end the long journey for the Violence Against Women Act and finally vote on a recognized compromise that the Senate has proposed. But I also say that I'm not here to talk about process and blame when it comes to this pending sequester, which most Americans do not understand. But I'm ready to work, and I believe we should stay and work. We should follow the Senate plan that follows the Buffett rule and provides for modest reductions in defense and does not provide for these devastating cuts until 2014. We can get this done, but we cannot have any compromise when one side refuses to acknowledge that it takes revenue to run this government to be able to ensure that people have the resources that they need when there's a natural disaster or that our military has the resources that they need. Or, for example, in Texas, for my colleagues who refuted the idea that I stand for children, where we're losing some 4,000 spots in Head Start, we can do something, Madam Speaker. We simply need to stay and work and follow the Senate plan.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the gentlelady, Congresswoman Moore, for her leadership, and thank her for bringing reality to this day. For the last 18 years, we have had the cover of the Violence Against Women Act, and I was glad to be here in the reauthorization timeframe. But I am also very glad to claim that the amendment that was offered by Congresswoman Moore and Conyers and Slaughter and myself in the Rules Committee prevailed, for we, in fact, introduced the Senate bill. But the leadership of the House, as it relates to the Democratic Members, was strong because we introduced a bill just like it. But let me tell you what is happening with the legislation from the House side. The substitute is fuzzy legislation. It is almost as if you name your son and daughter Jane and John, but you starting calling them girl and boy. You take away the definitiveness of who they are. Just a couple of months before, one of the coeds, a young college student, a young woman college student at the University of Virginia was murdered by her boyfriend. And so in the bill that we want to see passed, the Senate bill, we have protections for college students. We have definitive protection for Native American women, many of whom are married to non-Native Americans, and many times those cases are not prosecuted. And so you cannot expect the U.S. Attorney to follow fuzzy legislation. You have to define that they have the jurisdiction to prosecute these cases. With respect to immigrant women, isn't it ridiculous that you must contact the abuser and get the corroboration of the abuser. What does that say to that immigrant woman who needs to tell what is happening to her, how she is being held hostage because of her immigrant or nonimmigrant status. I say to you that every 9 seconds a woman in the United States is assaulted or beaten by stalkers or her partner. Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners even though we've made great strides in improving it under the Violence Against Women Act. One in five women have been raped in their lifetime. Four women have been the victim of severe physical violence. We need the Senate compromise. We need the Senate bipartisan bill. Don't vote for fuzzy legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican Substitute for S. 47, the so-called Violence Against Women's Reauthorization put forth by my House colleagues on the other side. This is essentially a closed-rule on a bill that for nearly two decades has been bipartisan and non-controversial. Today, the majority stands ready to ram a stripped-down version of VAWA down the throats of the American people. Unfortunately, the bipartisan version passed by the Senate with a vote of 78-22, including all of the women in the Senate, will not even see a vote in this body. It would have been logical, expedient, and sensible if the Majority had simply taken up the Moore-Conyers-Slaughter-Jackson Lee VAWA amendment, which is a comprehensive update to the successful law which offers protections for all victims of violence. Out amendment is the Senate-passed version which on behalf of Congressman Conyers and many of our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I put forth the case to take up this Senate version. Over the last 18 years, VAWA has provided life-saving assistance to hundreds of thousands of women, men, and children. Originally passed by Congress in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, this landmark bipartisan legislation was enacted in response to the prevalence of domestic and sexual violence and the significant impact that such violence has on the lives of women. Today, as I stand on the Floor of the House, I realize that the majority has made some changes to the Senate-passed bill---that point to a disturbing pattern since the tenor, tone, and overall thrust of this bill looks like a repeat of H.R. 4970, which we passed last year. This Act offered a comprehensive approach to reducing this violence and marked a national commitment to reverse the legacy of laws and social norms that served to excuse, and even justify, violence against women. Originally championed by then-Senator Joseph Biden and Judiciary Committee Representative John Conyers, Jr., the original VAWA was supported by a broad coalition of experts and advocates including law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, faith leaders, health care professionals, and survivors. The law has since been reauthorized two times--in 2000 and 2005--with strong bipartisan approval in Congress and with overwhelming support from states and local communities. If I were an outside commentator looking in, I'd be pressed to ask what Frankenstein Monster has overtaken the 112th Congress to the point that we cannot even pass this previously bipartisan bill without resorting to partisan posturing. I ask you who would be against giving protections to our most vulnerable. Just last month a co-ed at the venerable University of Virginia, my alma mater was convicted of murdering his girlfriend. This hits close to home. As well as Yvette Cade, who had acid poured over her face by an irate ex-husband. As well as the murder of Annie Le at Harvard University. And unfortunately, I could go on and on. These women were white, black, and Asian, living in different cities under different circumstances. They had one common denominator: victims of abject and perverse violence. Lives destroyed because of men-at-rage. With each reauthorization, VAWA has been improved in meaningful ways to reflect a growing understanding of how best to meet the varied and changing needs of survivors. Among other significant changes, the reauthorization of VAWA in 2000 improved the law with respect to the needs of battered immigrants, older victims, and victims with disabilities. The continuation and improvement of these programs is critical to maintaining the significant progress made in increased reporting and decreased deaths during the time VAWA has been in effect. Unfortunately, this version of S. 47 weakens vital improvements contained in the recently passed Senate VAWA bill, including provisions designed to increase the safety of Native American women and LGBTW victims. Further, S. 47 actually includes damaging provisions that roll back years of progress to protect the safety of immigrant victims. Specifically, H.R. 4970 will create obstacles for immigrant victims seeking to report crimes and increase danger for immigrant victims by eliminating important confidentiality protections. When millions of women and men need the protections and services it includes. Since it first became law in 1994, millions have benefited from VAWA. VAWA is working, while rates of domestic violence have dropped by over 50 percent in the past 18 years. There remains a lot of work to be done, still have a lot of work ahead of us. In December, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which found: 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetime and 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by a partner; Over 80% of women who were victimized experienced significant short- term and long-term impacts related to the violence and were more likely to experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and long-term chronic diseases such as asthma and diabetes. Every nine seconds a woman in the United States is assaulted or beaten by stalkers or her partner. Every year in the United States, 1,000 to 1,600 women die at the hands of their male partners, often after a long, escalating pattern of battering. In 2009, 111 women were killed by their former or current husband, intimate partner or boyfriend in State of Texas. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury for women in America. According to a study, there are more victims of domestic violence than victims of rape, mugging and automobile accidents combined. VAWA was designed to address these gruesome statistics. VAWA established the National Domestic Violence Hotline, which receives over 22,000 calls each month. VAWA funds train over 500,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, and other personnel each year. This landmark legislation sent the message that violence against women is a crime and will not be tolerated. States are taking violence against women more seriously and all states now have stalking laws, criminal sanctions for violation of civil protection orders, and reforms that make date or spousal rape as serious of a crime as stranger rape. Moore-Conyers-Slaughter-Jackson Lee VAWA amendment to S. 47-- Representative Moore's VAWA reauthorization bill is an excellent companion to the Senate-passed version. Why are we not discussing this legislation--using it as a launching point to get where we need to go. Destroying VAWA Confidentiality. Since 1996, VAWA has contained strong confidentiality provisions to protect victims and prevent abusers from using the immigration system against their victims. When this Committee expanded those protections to trafficking victims in 2005, Chairman Sensenbrenner's report noted the importance of preventing abusers from ``using DHS to obtain information about their victims, including the existence of a VAWA immigration petition'' and preventing agents from ``initiat[ing] contact with abusers.'' This bill destroys confidentiality by authorizing immigration agents to contact abusers and tip them off to victims' efforts to leave. This puts domestic violence victims at risk of severe retaliation and makes it far less likely that they will seek protection in the first place. Requiring the Consideration of Uncorroborated Abuser Statements. It is well-established that abusers will say and do almost anything to prevent a victim from seeking protection or corroborating with law enforcement. As the 2005 Committee report makes clear, abusers often ``interfer[e] with or undermin[e] their victims' immigration cases, and encourag[e] immigration enforcement officers to pursue removal actions against their victims.'' For this reason, the Committee specifically allowed DHS to consider evidence presented by abusers, but only if corroborated. The Cantor/ Adams bill would now undo that protection and require agents to consider uncorroborated statements, even though abusers have every incentive to lie. This will delay or deny protection, essentially giving abusers veto authority over certain victims. The Jackson Lee amendment will reauthorize the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program through 2017. The program has been effective in reducing rape kit backlogs and would help law enforcement better collect and use evidence in sexual assault cases, and help all levels of the criminal justice system work together to ensure that rape kits are tested. In addition, my amendment increases the percentage of grant funds available for use in testing the backlog of rape kits from 40 percent to 70 percent. As many of my colleagues will recall, we considered this issue in May of 2010 in response to widespread reports in the media of backlogs. This is simply unacceptable. Consider the fact that in the time it will take for us to conduct this hearing, 60 individuals in the United States will be sexually assaulted. The Violence Against Women reauthorization contains many of the provisions that make important changes to the current law, such as consolidating duplicative programs and streamlining others; providing greater flexibility for how communities utilize resources; and including new training requirements for people providing legal assistance to victims. While the amendment wasn't included in the final Senate version of the VAWA reauthorization bill, or the House version which passed out of the Judiciary Committee last week, it was endorsed by the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence which represents over 1,000 organizations across the nation. Over the past three years, a series of embarrassing investigations into major police departments in Texas and other cities around the country revealed an appallingly large backlog of untested rape kits. Backlogs of thousands of untested kits have made headlines in Houston, San Antonio, Fort Worth and Dallas, prompting efforts in those cities to finally test the evidence. Last year, the Texas Legislature passed a law--Senate Bill 1636, authored by Democratic Sen. Wendy Davis of Fort Worth--to mandate examination of evidence from rape cases statewide, requiring even the smallest law enforcement agencies to report how many rape kits they've left untested, then submit them to a crime lab. These being lean times in Texas, the Legislature passed the bill without allocating new funding to the cause. It's up to crime labs and police departments to raise money to test the old evidence. ``One of the solutions offered by 1636 is that we'd get a complete picture,'' says Torie Camp, deputy director of the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. Law enforcement agencies were required to report their rape kit backlogs to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) by mid- October of last year. That hasn't happened. DPS records obtained by the Observer show that as of January 23-- three months after the deadline--just 86 of the state's 2,647 law enforcement agencies had reported their backlogs. As many of us know, rape kit collection and testing is important in moving cases through the criminal justice system. Approximately 200,000 incidents of rape are reportedly in the United States annually. A vast majority of these sexual assault victims consent and undertake medical examination immediately following the attack, thus enabling hospital/ clinic personnel and police officers to collect evidence for a rape kit. Studies have repeatedly shown that incidents where rape kit collections contain DNA are more likely to move forward in the criminal justice system than cases where no rape kit is collected. Testing the evidence collected in these rape kits enable officers to identify the attacker, confirm that sexual contact occurred between a suspect and a victim, corroborate the victim's account of the sexual assault, and exonerate innocent suspects. Testing the evidence collected in the rape kits also helps prosecutors in deciding whether to pursue a case and likewise, help juries in deciding whether to convict an alleged perpetrator. While national statistics have not confirmed the exact number of untested rape kits, it is estimated that approximately 180,000 of these rape kits remain untested. Two years ago I met with one of our witnesses at the Crime Subcommittee Hearing on Rape Kit Backlogs, Ms. Valeria Neumann, a 24 year old young woman who was the victim of rape nearly four years ago. During our meeting, Ms. Neumann informed me that although a rape kit was performed the same night that she reported the incident, the rape kit has never been tested. According to Ms. Neumann, the prosecutor in the case has not brought an action against her alleged perpetrator after questioning him, even though crucial evidence could have been obtained had the rape kit been processed. When considered in light of the glaring statistics, Ms. Neumann's story seems all too common. According to a Human Rights Watch research, the United States boast an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 untested rape kits which are sitting in police storage facilities and crime labs across the nation. Mister Chairman, untested rape kits represent lost justice for rape victims and a potential threat to public safety and society in general. The United States has repeatedly implemented several legislative initiatives aimed at bringing the rape kit backlog to an end. We began with the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, followed by the Debbie Smith Act. We then transitioned to the Justice for Survivors of Sexual Assault Act. In spite of these measures, I believe that the United States can do a better job of providing redress for victims, bringing offenders to justice and protecting society from future and/or reoccurring crimes of rape. Several preliminary initiatives can be implemented toward this goal of eliminating rape kit backlog. First, recognizing that rape has the lowest reporting, arrest and prosecution rates of all violent crime in the U.S., I believe that the revolution in DNA technology could move many of these rape cases forward in the criminal justice system. I urge my colleagues to reject this flawed bill and call upon this body to work with the Senate to pass bipartisan legislation that helps women--and does not go back on decades of work. VAWA was created because Congress recognized that immigration was being used as a weapon by abusers. S. 47 would return that weapon to abusers. H.R. 4970 would roll back years of progress and bi-partisan commitment on the part of Congress to protect vulnerable immigrant victims of domestic violence, stalking, sex crimes, other serious crimes, and trafficking. H.R. 4970 would place victims of domestic violence in danger, deter victims of crime from cooperating with law enforcement, and hold victims of abuse to a higher standard than other applicants for immigration benefits. In short, H.R. 4970 denies victims protection and even helps perpetrate the very abuse from which they are seeking to escape. S. 47 would place immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek lawful status in the U.S. at risk. VAWA ``self-petitioning'' was created in 1994 to assist immigrant victims of domestic violence obtain status on their own when their U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident spouses, as part of the abuse, refused to petition for them. H.R. 4970 would roll back these protections. Section 801 permits the abuser to manipulate the victim's immigration process by allowing USCIS to seek input from the abuser as part of the VAWA self-petition process. Commonly, abusers resort to more violence when they learn that victims have sought protection from law enforcement. H.R. 4970 would put the lives of victims in even greater jeopardy. S. 47 creates extra hurdles for victims to jump through, making lawful status even more difficult for victims to attain. Section 801 of H.R. 4970 would make it more difficult for victims of abuse to obtain lawful status by requiring VAWA applicants to establish their eligibility for lawful status by ``clear and convincing'' evidence--a higher standard than most other applicants applying for relief before USCIS. Many domestic violence victims have been waiting for lawful status for years because their abusers refused to file spousal visa petitions for them, using control over the victims' immigration status as a tool of abuse. The VAWA self-petition process was created to provide victims with a means of obtaining the status for which they were eligible under the law and which they would have obtained but for the abuse. Section 801 establishes an unnecessarily high standard that will deprive many victims of protection. S. 47 would punish victims more harshly than other applicants for providing incorrect information, regardless of intent or knowledge. (Section 801) The INA already makes someone ineligible for relief if they commit fraud or willfully misrepresent a material fact when seeking an immigrant benefit. However, under the guise of fraud prevention, H.R. 4970 would go much further by requiring the removal, on an expedited basis, of a victim where there is any evidence of any material misrepresentation at any point during the process, regardless of whether the victim had any intent to defraud the government. H.R. 4970 would also permanently bar the immigrant from any future immigrant status, without any possibility of a waiver. Finally, H.R. 4970 would require that these applicants be referred to the FBI for criminal prosecution. Thus, an innocent mistake by a victim when completing the application could result in victims and their children being subject to expedited removal and permanently barred from the U.S. S. 47 would unduly restrict U-visas and undermine the safety of our communities. (Section 802) Currently, to obtain a U-visa (for victims of serious crime), a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer must certify that the applicant has, is, or is likely to be helpful in investigation or prosecuting the crime perpetrated against them. H.R. 4970 would restrict law enforcement agency certification only to victims who reported the crime within 60 days. Many victims of crimes-- especially victims of sexual abuse, child abuse, and rape--are too traumatized or too afraid to come forward immediately. A 60-day time limit for reporting crimes would silence many immigrant victims. H.R. 4970 would deprive victims of protection, discourage them from reporting crimes, and make all of us less safe. S. 47 would deny victims the opportunity to apply for a green card. In 2000, the ``U'' Visa was created as part of VAWA to encourage vulnerable victims of particularly serious crimes to come forward and report those crimes by removing the fear that they, rather than the perpetrator, would wind up in immigration detention or deported. When victims of crimes are afraid to go to the police, we are all less safe. H.R. 4970 would undermine the U-visa process by making the U-visa only temporary, with no eligibility to apply for future lawful permanent residence status. The S. 47 Republican substitute retains a few of the helpful provisions included in S. 1925. These include: Permitting children of VAWA self-petitioners to obtain derivative status if the petitioner passes away during the application process; Eliminating the public charge ground of inadmissibility for VAWA self-petitioners and U-visa holders. Age-out protections for children of U-visa holders who were under 21 at the time that the parent applied for U-visa status and age-out protections for U-visa holders who were minors at the time of application for U-visa status so that their relatives can still join them. I call on the Members of the House to vote down this nefarious, ill- conceived piece of legislation. Re: Opposition to House Substitute to VAWA Reauthorization February 25, 2013. Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Conyers, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Re: Opposition to House Substitute to VAWA Reauthorization Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: I write on behalf of the ------ Tribe to voice our strong opposition to the House of Representatives proposed Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to the Senate-passed S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA). The House VAWA Substitute would only serve to aggravate the onslaught of violence that Native women suffer on a daily basis. The House Substitute would remove the ONLY tool available to tribes to stop non-Native abuse, further complicate the maze of injustice that exists on Indian lands, and exacerbate the epidemic of violence against Native women. The current justice system in place on Indian lands handcuffs the local tribal justice system. As a result, some non-Native men, target Indian reservations for their crimes, and hide behind these loopholes in federal laws and court decisions, walking the streets of Indian country free of consequences, while denying justice to Native women and their families. The result: nationally, Native women are raped and assaulted at 2.5 times the national average. More than 1 in 3 Native women will be raped in their lifetimes, and more than 3 in 5 will suffer domestic assault. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has found that when misdemeanor acts of domestic and dating violence go unaddressed, offenders become emboldened and feel untouchable, and the beatings escalate, often leading to death or severe physical injury. A National Institute of Justice-funded analysis of death certificates found that, on some reservations, Native women are murdered at a rate more than ten times the national average. S. 47 would crack down on reservation domestic violence at the early stages before violence escalates. The problem of violence against Native women is longstanding and broad, extending beyond domestic violence to gang violence and infiltration of drug trafficking organizations. However, the proposals included in S. 47 are well-reasoned and limited in scope. They extend only to reservation-based crimes of domestic and dating violence that involve individuals who work or live on an Indian reservation or who are in a serious relationship with a tribal citizen from that reservation. S. 47 also provides the full range of constitutional protections to abuse suspects who would be subject to the authority of tribal courts. The House VAWA Substitute rejects the bipartisan and narrowly tailored approach adopted by the Senate. The most offensive provision in the House Substitute would remove the ONLY tool currently available to tribal governments: the ability to issue and enforce civil orders of protection against non-Native men who abuse Indian women. The House Substitute irresponsibly cuts back on this existing authority. Instead of focusing on the protection of Native women, the House Substitute focuses on protections for suspects of abuse. The House Substitute establishes seven (7) avenues of appeal for suspects of abuse to challenge their prosecution; limits punishment of non-Indian offenders convicted of domestic violence to misdemeanor level punishment, regardless of how savage the beating or their status as a repeat offender; and authorizes suspects of abuse to bring lawsuits against tribal law enforcement--which will only serve to further deter protection of Native women. The gaps in criminal jurisdiction on Indian lands have haunted Native women and tribal communities nationwide for more than 35 years. Time has come for Congress to act. The bipartisan Senate-passed VAWA bill, takes reasonable well- tailored measures to fill the gap in local authority. Conversely, the House Substitute would cut back on existing protections and aggravate the epidemic of violence that Native women face on a daily basis. We urge you to oppose the House VAWA Substitute and restore the Senate-passed provisions in Title IX of the House VAWA Reauthorization. Sincerely,

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman very much, and thank him for convening this historic special order. It's historic because it is led by the Honorable John Conyers, who has actually walked the historic steps that generated the actual passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I think it is appropriate to put on the record again, as we've done often, that Mr. Conyers is the only elected official, certainly Member of the United States Congress, that can claim that they were endorsed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I know that the Honorable Bobby Scott and myself admire that and have benefited from the deep knowledge that John Conyers has on these important issues. And I would offer, in my brief commentary this afternoon, to try to track the vitality of the Voting Rights Act in its series of reauthorizations so that people can actually see that this is not legislation of whiners, this is not a legislation that is not in love with America, does not believe in the freedom of America's values and choice and being able to vote unencumbered, or not view the integrity of State election officials throughout the country. But it really is, if you will, a testament to the fact that laws can make things better. In actuality, the Voting Rights Act is a codification of the 15th Amendment that no one shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. That was a necessary amendment and followed in the tradition of the 13th and 14th Amendments, which provide for due process and equal treatment under the law. Then, of course, the 15th Amendment, which says that the vote is precious. It's so precious, and sometimes we forget that it was actually embodied in the Bill of Rights or in the context of the Constitution, that the 15th Amendment was, in fact, protecting the right to vote. So the Voting Rights Act came as the leaders of this Nation watched the deterioration of the right to vote in certain parts of this Nation. And I would argue that that is true even today. We heard on the floor that there is a way to, in essence, move yourself out of the Voting Rights Act by showing 10 years of, might I say with all due respect, good behavior. But as we have watched over the last few years, let me recount for you, Mr. Speaker, that we have had incidences that impact school boards to governorships, if you will, or school boards to statehouses, and school boards to congressional seats, where there have been instances that have required the intervention of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act of section 5. I would venture to say that no one has been hurt by that, that it has only enhanced the opportunity to vote. In the State of Texas, for example, in the last 2 years, there was an issue of purging voters. It so happened that those who were being purged were predominantly Hispanic and African American. In the last election of 2012, the State of Florida was poised to purge some 1 million voters, and through oversight of the Department of Justice that was, in essence, stopped. In addition, we've had a series of what we've called voter ID laws, which came about and were born post, if you will, the election of 2010. Those voter ID laws were determined through preclearance to have a deteriorating effect on the vote of those who were needed to carry forth a vote. And so I would make the argument that the voter ID laws were, in essence, prevented from taking the vote away under the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, because we had section 5. And so the Texas voter ID law was declared to not meet the standards under section 5 preclearance, that it would hamper people from voting. And, in essence, it hampered people from voting because it did not have the process to get your voter ID in all the counties in the State of Texas. So if you were in a county without a place to get your voter ID, if you didn't have the money, you clearly were prevented from voting. And that covered voters from all different races--voter ID laws that happened in Mississippi, voter ID laws that happened in Ohio. Some of them were undone through election processes, but the preclearance truly impacts real lives. I remember as a junior member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which I work for, doing registration in the Deep South, as it was defined in those years, in South Carolina, going onto plantations where sharecroppers worked and the intimidation of the process of not only registering, but voting. We were there to register to vote. The reason why I know there was intimidation is because as I was approaching a voting station, which was a tattered area--when I say tattered, the voting booth was a tattered cloth from an old general store. My commentary is not to speak of that particular era of voting, but it was to say to you that I was promptly shot at for approaching. I was a stranger. And the next thing I knew we were running for cover. But all I was coming to do was to check the voting process out to ensure that the employees of that plantation, sharecroppers, were coming and could vote unencumbered. So the Voting Rights Act is about unencumbered voting. What person would want to deny that? Tomorrow, we will have a hearing before the United States Supreme Court in the Shelby case. And my argument--I'm not making the argument before the Supreme Court as we speak today--but my argument is that facts will speak for themselves. The courts will address the question of law, and they will listen to the proponents and the opponents. I hope and pray that the Justices will understand that the underpinnings of the argument are based upon fact. And in the last election of 2012, there was an enormous mountain of facts that showed that in the nooks and crannies of America there were voters who were denied the right to vote. In 2008, voters were denied the right to vote--issues such as moving various polling places that were in minority neighborhoods, the misrepresentation of the message going out about felons would be arrested at the polls, as if the felons who could not vote would be showing up at the polls, or others being determined to be a felon and not be a felon, the misidentification of voters, sending them away. I would just make the argument that this is a factual basis for which we need this. The fact that we have had these kinds of incidences shows the value of the Voting Rights Act section 5 preclearance. We show the value through 15,000 pages of documentation in the 2006 reauthorization, which was led by this Judiciary Committee, of which those of us on the floor today are members, led by John Conyers and, of course, Mr. Sensenbrenner. So let me conclude by thanking the chairman for his very kind yielding. I'll indicate that we can speak about the four corners of section 5, Supreme Court case that has reaffirmed it, but this is a question of fact. Until we eliminate the facts across America that people are denied the right to vote on the basis of their color and/or their race, then we have a reason for section 5 preclearance. With that, I yield back in the name of freedom, in the name of justice, and in the name of those who lost their lives fighting for such and fighting for America. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege. If you are a Constitutional Scholar this is an exciting time because the United States Supreme Court has a very active docket this term, deciding on matters which have great import to every American. And pursuant to that, in less than two days the Supreme Court will hear the case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder. The issue in this case is whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 in this case was brought by Shelby County, Ala., which is a majority white suburb of Birmingham. In rejecting the County's arguments Judge Bates agreed with an earlier unanimous decision, by a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court, which likewise upheld the constitutionality of Section 5, in a case brought by a local Texas utility district, which is my home state. That earlier decision, however, was vacated in 2009 when the Supreme Court decided that the utility district could pursue a statutory ``bailout'' from Section 5 coverage. Unlike the Texas utility district, Shelby County freely admitted that it has a recent history of voting discrimination that disqualified it from ``bailing out.'' I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution. I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy. As a Member of this body and of the House Judiciary Committee which has primary jurisdiction over voting matters, I firmly believe that we must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades, minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter Id'' requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century, these efforts continue. Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982. This legislation is considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress-there is no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the future. The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to citizens of all U.S. states. By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting- rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act. Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to respond in a way that the VRA did. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327- 28: Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country. Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights legislation because they could lose more of the African American and liberal votes. No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and freedoms. Third, State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Because they have no voting rights, a group that we don't hear a lot about is children. On Friday, March 1, our children will be in the eye of the storm. The sequester that will occur will impact children, particularly Head Start. So many of my Head Start organizations have cried out for relief and Title I funding, so I want to say to them that we are going to come together. It may not be on Friday, but we know that we're going to look forward to overturn what has been a process that was put in place because President Obama and the Democrats were ready to make sure the government was going to run and others were not. Now we have a crisis, but that crisis will not last long because we Democrats will put children first and find a solution to ensure that the American people have the resources that are necessary to provide services to ensure the quality of life that their tax dollars pay for. We must have revenue and, yes, we must have spending responsibility, but we cannot undermine the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my dear friend from Florida for the leadership on the issue, the number of Members who have already spoken, and my good friend on the Rules Committee who is the manager of this particular rule and, in essence, bringing this bill to the floor of the House, and that is what you hear the discourse about. Many times this discourse, this debate becomes confusing because we are trying to compare apples and oranges. And so let me first own up to the fact that a congressional pay freeze is already in place. Our salaries have been frozen. When it expires, we'll rise to the occasion and freeze it again. We're elected by the people, and those decisions can be made on behalf of the people. We're not talking about congressional salaries today. They're in place. They exist. What we're talking about is the ICE officer that I'm meeting with in the Rayburn Room who works everyday to protect this country and has seen that, because of the $103 billion that Federal employees have already given to reduce the deficit, necessities of work are being challenged. Customs and Border Protection, DEA officers, FBI, Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control physicians, research at NIH and those scientists, all of those persons are working for the greater good--those who had to address the West Nile virus, FEMA employees who are right now on the ground with Hurricane Sandy. I have no question that there are private sector employees that are addressing this question, but they've gotten a 4.7 percent raise. Let me tell you what the issue is. Let's stop fooling around and address the question of sequester. Protect those who need a social safety net and Social Security and Medicare. Realize that if you dice and cut and slash under the sequester, that will be the issue. None of these amendments were allowed in.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. Last night at the Rules Committee, there were amendments to bring forward the right way of addressing the question, and they indicated that was not germane. I know these words are confusing, but that could have been a waiver. We all know what that means. It doesn't match, it doesn't fit, but we waive you in. That could have been debated on the floor of the House. My amendment said that we should take a pause. I simply said this bill shouldn't be brought up. I struck the entire language of the bill so that we could get to the point of providing a debate on the sequester to make sure that the American people's voices are heard. They don't want an across-the-board cut when you begin to cut the resources that they need. But we can do better. And let me just say to you, in Texas, there are 251,000 Federal employees; California, over 400,000. These are not folks inside the beltway. They're the ones that are in the Nation's national forests, on the border, in hospitals, dealing with drug cartels. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not what we should be doing today. This is unfair to our Federal workers, and I won't stand for it. Vote against the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my amendment #5 to H.R. 273, ``to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees and to reject this frontal assault on federal employees.'' My amendment would have struck the entire text of this bill. Why? Because the premise underlying the bill, to freeze federal salaries, is flawed. And let me be clear: this bill does not add a dime to deficit reduction efforts. Yet my friends on the other side insist on this game of charades, pretending to be concerned with deficit reduction, but the folly of it all is that it's only a not-so-well-disguised game of political one-up man ship. If you are really looking to cut government spending you should have made the Amendment submitted by my colleague, Mr. Van Hollen of Maryland in-order. Mr. Van Hollen's amendment was not perfect as it cut subsidies for large oil companies, among other things; but it represents a balanced approach to deficit reduction. And as we look for ways to address our fiscal issues we cannot continue to use the salaries and retirement options of federal employees as our Congressional Savings and Loans. Federal employees have contributed more than their fair share to addressing this problem. We need creative and long term solutions with a heavy emphasis on job growth. H.R. 273 continues to freeze the salaries of federal employees who are vital to implementing the very laws and regulations that are generated by Congress and federal agencies. As the Ranking Member on Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I can attest that it is in our national security interest to have the ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest employees to keep our borders safe from harm. As a Representative from Texas, I can further attest that is again in our nation's best interest to have qualified high skilled professionals reviewing drilling applications for off shore well sites. Federal employees help to ensure that the air we breathe, the airways that we travel upon, and the food we eat are safe. Most Americans encounter their first federal employee when they meet their postal carrier. Men and women who faithfully deliver the mail: rain or shine. After 911 with our need to improve airline security, we turned to federal employees . . . the very employees who are amongst the first to react when there is an attack on our soil. Federal employees operate in every state cross our nation with only 15% of all federal employees working in Washington D.C, continuing to freeze their compensation is not a long term solution to our fiscal problems. Our long term fiscal problems will not be solved by cutting Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare. Our problems will not be solved by freezing the pay and benefits of federal employees. Our problems will not be solved on the backs of seniors, low and middle income Americans, or the disabled. Our problems can be solved by putting forth legislation that will put hardworking Americans back to work, advance training for high skilled and high wage jobs. By putting forth legislation that inspirers innovation, and through addressing the long term needs of all Americans rather than a few. Most federal employees are not living the lifestyles of the rich and famous. The majority of Federal employees are middle class Americans. Over 60 percent of all federal employees make less than $75,000 a year. According to the Federal Salary Council (FSC) annual report federal employees are paid 34.6 percent less in salary than their private-- sector counterparts. There are those who have cited a study by the Congressional Budget Office which found that federal workers on average earned slightly more than private-sector workers; however, that study did not take into account the level of job responsibility, specialized training, or length of tenure of each employee. Which we all know should be taken into account. There are those who claim that the federal government is too large. In reality, the federal government is smaller today that it was in 1968. The IRS has 20,000 fewer employees than they did in 1995, yet are required to process 236 million more complicated tax returns. The Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid has 7 percent fewer employees serving 64 percent more enrollees. Most growth in the number of federal workers has been in Homeland Security and Defense as a result of 9/11. From 2001 to 2010, employment in non-security federal agencies as a percent of population actually fell by 4 percent. Even though overall there are less federal government employees serving each American today than there were 30 years ago. They have still contributed $103 billion worth of budget savings since the beginning of 2011. $60 billion from a federal pay freeze in 2011 and 2012. $15 billion from increased retirement contributions for newly-hired federal employees. As a result new hires will not receive 2.3% less compensation than their federal counterparts. $28 billion from a pay increase of .5 percent which is well below the Cost of Living Adjustment of 1.7 percent. Additional funds will also be generated as a result of a mandatory reduction in the Department of Defense civilian work force. Federal Employees have given enough. They have not seen a cost of living adjustment in going on 3 years. There appears to be a growing attitude that this freeze should go on indefinitely. The freeze was originally enacted to cover only 2011 and 2012; however, it was extended through late March as part of a temporary budget measure. Again, this was supposed to be a temporary solution not a permanent cure. We must do more to recruit and retain the best and brightest. We must do more to inspire innovation and job growth. We must do more to protect middle income Americans, like federal employees. The way to address our long-term fiscal problems is not be using federal employees as a Congressional Savings and Loans. Again, it is not through cuts to Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. It is by advancing creative long-term solutions that encourages jobs growth and innovation that will allow us to fix our current fiscal issues.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, more and more, the voices are being raised about the devastating impact of a sequester, a self- inflicted wound of this Congress because we could not come together as the American people have directed us to do. The security of the United States will be in jeopardy if we have the sequester. Men and women who stand on the front lines in protecting this Nation will be in jeopardy. All of those who depend upon Head Start funding, early education funding, title I funds and housing funds, and opportunities for young people to go to college will be in jeopardy. And so I think it is unfortunate that we are discussing and debating on the floor today H.R. 273, to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for federal employees. All of those people who put themselves on the line for us and have already had a pay freeze; all we're talking about is 0.5 percent. None of that will bring down the debt or help the deficit. We're just making noise. What we should be doing is focusing on coming together around a growth and innovation budget and bringing the deficit down. What we should be doing is honoring the Sandy Hook and other victims and passing real gun violence prevention like universal background checks and storing guns. Madam Speaker, let us do the job the American people sent us to do.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I've always had such great respect for this distinguished body, the holder and interpreter of democracy, the institution that proudly protects the Constitution that was written by those who saw in this land this bright and shining sun from sea to shining sea, enormous opportunity for freedom. So many people came to this Nation, and they came in many different ways. We don't carry the way we came into the future, as much as the fact that we are grateful of the opportunity that this Nation has given us. The Nation has been able to turn the tide on embracing democracy in its fullest because of the Constitution and the laws, because we adhere to the three branches of government. So although my ancestors came to this Nation in bondage that lasted for hundreds of years, slavery, that has its remnants continuously as we move throughout society, there are now laws that can ensure, no matter how you came to this country, no matter what language you spoke, you are, in fact, deserving of the protection of the Constitution. And so out of that protection came the 14th and 15th Amendments. Those amendments provided that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and not deny any person in the jurisdiction equal protection. The 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of its race, color, or previous servitude. And, finally, each amendment allows this Congress to enforce laws; and that was the basis of the authority of the President that came from Texas, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who joined with a young, brilliant minister of the gospel, a man who ultimately sacrificed his life, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to engage in debates and discussion that resulted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And here we are today with the opportunity for people from all walks of life and all communities to be able to vote and to have, as of September 28, 2011, the upholding of the pre-clearance provision, a very special provision of the Voting Rights Act by a district court, Federal court in the District of Columbia. Shelby v. The United States now is before the Supreme Court. And my argument, Mr. Speaker, is that this is no time to eliminate pre- clearance. I'm reminded of a letter that I wrote to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Attorney General Eric Holder, just in my city alone, the city of Houston, to report 15 voter abuse cases. Without the pre-clearance, where would we be? Or the proposal to eliminate the North Forest Independent School District Board of Trustees over a school district that has worked hard to survive which will be subjected to the pre-clearance to determine whether not only the students will be denied their rights to learn in a school district they love and is fighting for their education, but that elected persons will be denied the right to serve and others denied the right to vote for them. The Voting Rights Act protects all voters. It gives them all the right to vote--one vote, one person. And Shelby County has raised issue that they should not be subjected to pre-clearance, that they are beyond that. The district court, the Federal court decided, in Washington, D.C., that they were wrong, that pre-clearance is constitutional. And we know that well because when we had the privilege of reauthorizing section 5 in 2006, building on the leadership of my predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, who came to the United States Congress only because, along with Andrew Young, the first who came out of the Deep South since Reconstruction, only because America had seen fit to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, because I can assure you, with personal stories from the Honorable Barbara Jordan told to us in her lifetime, that she ran and ran and ran and ran and could not be elected in Houston, Texas. The Barbara Jordan that was admired by many could not be elected until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act because there were abuses and prohibitions and intimidation of African Americans being able to vote. And so today I believe it is extremely important that, as the Supreme Court takes this case up on February 27, that we stand in the midst of the 15,000 sheets of documentation, when I had the privilege of joining with my Judiciary Committee colleagues to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act and, specifically, section 5, and writing amendments to ensure its sanctity and security for a period of years, that we did not do it frivolously. We did it with authority, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking that America stand against the elimination of the Voting Rights Act. Join us on February 27. I rise today to speak about the need to protect democracy, to protect the voice of the American people, and to ensure the right to vote continues to be treated as a right under the Constitution rather than being treated as though it is privilege. If you are a Constitutional Scholar this is an exciting time because the United States Supreme Court has a very active docket this term, deciding on matters which have great import to every American. And pursuant to that, in less than two weeks the Supreme Court will hear the case of Shelby County Alabama v. Holder. The issue in this case is whether Congress' decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution. The challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 in this case was brought by Shelby County, Ala., which is a majority white suburb of Birmingham. In rejecting the County's arguments, Judge Bates agreed with an earlier unanimous decision, by a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court, which likewise upheld the constitutionality of Section 5, in a case brought by a local Texas utility district, which is my home state. That earlier decision, however, was vacated in 2009 when the Supreme Court decided that the utility district could pursue a statutory ``bailout'' from Section 5 coverage. Unlike the Texas utility district, Shelby County freely admitted that it has a recent history of voting discrimination that disqualified it from ``bailing out.'' I am joined by my colleagues here today to call on all Americans to reject and denounce tactics and measures that have absolutely no place in our democracy. I call on African-Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, as well as Asian-American voters to band together to fight for their right to vote and to work together to understand their voting rights which are granted to citizens of our nation by our laws and our Constitution. I call on these citizens to stand against harassment and intimidation, to vote in the face of such adversity. The most effective way to curb tactics of intimidation and harassment is to vote. Is to stand together to fight against any measures that would have the effect of preventing every eligible citizen from being able to vote. Voting ensures active participation in democracy. As a Member of this body, I firmly believe that we must protect the rights of all eligible citizens to vote. Over the past few decades, minorities in this country have witnessed a pattern of efforts to intimidate and harass minority voters through so-called ``Voter Id'' requirements. I am sad to report that as we head into the 21st century, these efforts continue. Never in the history of our nation, has the effect of one person, one vote, been more important. A great Spanish Philosopher, George Santayana once said ``Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Our history has taught us that denying the right to vote based on race, gender or class is a stain on the democratic principles that we all value. The Voting Rights Act was a reaction to the actions of our passed and a way to pave the road to a new future. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was adopted in 1965 and was extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982. This legislation is considered the most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the United States Congress. Contrary to the prevailing rumor that the Act is due to expire, leaving minorities with no rights, the Act is actually due for reauthorization in the 2nd session of the 108th Congress--there is no doubt about whether it will continue to protect our rights in the future. The VRA codifies and effectuates the 15th Amendment's permanent guarantee that, throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on account of race or color. Adopted at a time when African Americans were substantially disfranchised in many Southern states, the Act employed measures to restore the right to vote to citizens of all U.S. states. By 1965, proponents of disenfranchisement made violent attempts to thwart the efforts of civil rights activists. The murder of voting- rights activists in Philadelphia and Mississippi gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act. Congress adopted this far-reaching statute in response to a rash of instances of interference with attempts by African American citizens to exercise their right to vote--a rash that appears to be manifesting itself again in this nation. Perhaps a legislative measure is needed to respond in a way that the VRA did. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the VRA in 1966 in a landmark decision--South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 327- 28: Congress had found that case-by-case litigation was inadequate to combat widespread and persistent discrimination in voting, because of the inordinate amount of time and energy required to overcome the obstructionist tactics invariably encountered in these lawsuits. After enduring nearly a century of systematic resistance to the Fifteenth Amendment, Congress might well decide to shift the advantage of time and inertia from the perpetrators of the evil to its victims. It seems that the ``obstructionist tactics'' that threatened the aggrieved parties in Katzenbach have returned. The advantages of ``time and inertia'' that were shifted from bigoted bureaucrats to minority victims are slowly shifting back against their favor when educators, government leaders, and agencies are allowed to contravene the policy and legal conclusions given by the highest court in the country. Several factors influenced the initiation of this civil rights legislation. The first was a large shift in the number of African Americans away from the Republican Party. Second, many Democrats felt that it was a mistake of its Southern members to oppose civil rights legislation because they could lose more of the African American and liberal votes. No right is more fundamental than the right to vote. It is protected by more constitutional amendments--the 1st, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th--than any other right we enjoy as Americans. Broad political participation ensures the preservation of all our other rights and freedoms. 3 State laws that impose new restrictions on voting, however, undermine our strong democracy by impeding access to the polls and reducing the number of Americans who vote and whose votes are counted.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his kindness. Let me thank the ranking member very much. I think we can make this work. And I also want to just mention an anecdotal story: when we had Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the places of worship opened their doors to the surviving members out of Louisiana or survivors out of Louisiana and just opened their doors. They had leaking roofs. They were damaged. But in Texas, they opened their doors. We took a quarter of a million, and they opened their doors. They put cots up, and they fed them. All of those items could not be reimbursed. We saw places of worship--no matter what their faith--literally shut down. They just could not survive because they had given their all with their leaking roof, their non-resources to give food in a place that these people could stay. So in this instance, having walked through a number of disasters, from the tragedy of 9/11, a heinous manmade disaster, to every hurricane that we've had, including the tsunami way across the ocean, to see what a natural disaster can do and to preclude these places who can legitimately document--I would even suggest that it be on a reimbursement form. But we can work together so that we can document that what these dollars are used for will be used for the restoration of the physical plant that houses or allows those who are Americans, who pay taxes, and are contributing to this Nation. I ask my colleagues to consider H.R. 592 and how we can make it better so that it can go forward and help the places of worship.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleagues of the necessity of an absolute firewall around the protection of the First Amendment. And I do believe that Members understand the sacred aspect of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. But I rise today to support H.R. 592, and I support it so that it can be considered by the Senate and that we can reinforce the distinctive separation between church and state. But coming from Hurricane, if you will, Valley, coming from the gulf, living through Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina, the pain I saw that places of worship, of any kind, were devastated, the members are taxpayers. And for all that we could do, we could never get those places to be restored. The small business loan program does not work because many of our churches are just that, they give their money to the poor. They are not rich institutions. That is the bulk of places of worship no matter what your faith may happen to be. And as the Federal Emergency Management Agency does, in fact, support nonprofits, I would argue to the authors of this bill whether or not they would be open to ensure that the funding is specifically for the devastation that occurred on that specific natural disaster, that there was a time limit, that there were specific items of which the church-- or the place of worship, let me be general--could utilize it for. I come to the floor because I have lived the pain of pastors, I have lived the pain of rabbis, imams and priests who have suffered the devastation of their faith. It is not a fault of their own.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We had a historic occasion last evening, but I rise to comment on a number of issues. I first want to acknowledge and pay tribute to a Texan who was buried yesterday in a tragic incident, Chris Kyle, a Navy SEAL who had served this country, loved this country, and came back to his family and children and took as his cause to help serve troubled veterans. As he was doing so, along with his friend, Chad, one of those troubled veterans shot both him and his friend. What a tragedy. I think it is important to note the thousands who mourned him and the procession that took him to his burial ground yesterday and to say thank you for not only serving this Nation, but coming home to care about those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That leads me to bring up this whole question of sequester. In my own city of Houston, I was able to, some 4 years ago, establish the first post-traumatic stress disorder center in a hospital that was not a veterans hospital. The Riverside General Hospital for a period of years continued serving our post-traumatic stress disorder veterans in a small, attentive setting where they could sit with others who were troubled as well. I've become a champion of the needs and the purpose of post-traumatic stress disorder medical services and beg and cry to the Department of Veterans Affairs and to the Pentagon from where this grant came. We cannot abandon our soldiers who have served us well. And I would hope that the grant for this hospital will be continued because Texas has been known to have the largest number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan troops. Mr. Speaker, that speaks loudly to the question of sequester. I'm delighted that the President last evening could not have offered more olive branches on economic reform and tax reform. His idea is that we can do this budget together, not a sequester and not a self-inflicted wound, which is what we did to ourselves, but, more importantly, to talk about innovation and growth. This is something that I've spoken about over and over again as a member formerly of the Science Committee and now Homeland Security. Where is America's genius? Right outside the beltway. Why are we dividing ourselves along Democrats and Republicans, refusing to put revenue alongside of cuts? Mr. Speaker, we're at the bone, almost, and sequester that is across-the-board cuts will literally destroy us and put us in a recession. All the talking heads that are suggesting that the President was not bipartisan and how there was nothing that they heard, well, Mr. Speaker, may I ask them to take some cotton out of their ears. Because in actuality, the President extended his hand of friendship. We want to get down to work. We can pass comprehensive immigration reform. We can pass in tribute and recognition of Sandy Hook, Hadiya, and Aurora and our Congresswoman, our former colleague, Congresswoman Giffords, and Virginia Tech and many places, and Lone Star College in my district and the tragedy at the University of Maryland that just occurred in the last 24 hours. People are mourning. We have to stop gun violence. So I don't want to hear the fact that the President is divisive. The President is leading, and he has led well. The American people are listening. When are our friends on the other side of the aisle going to listen? And when are the American people going to raise up beyond the maze of television commentary and see that your voices can be heard? If you raise up literally in the houses of worship and civic clubs and say that Congress must do its job for our soldiers who are coming home and for those children who are the future and for the opportunity for growth, you bring down the debt by growing the economy and innovating. Congratulations, Mr. President, for the research and manufacturing centers--15. Let's do more of them. I hope that we can get summer youth jobs, a program of private and public cooperation. When does a youth take up a gun? They take it up when they don't have a summer job and when they don't have an opportunity. So I want to challenge this body to be the kind of Lincolnesque attitude, as yesterday was the official birthday of President Lincoln, February 12. And although it was a tragic time in our history, I can assure you that it showed the greatest promise of America when people could come together and do something great. I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together. Are we going to be able to do it today to free America?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I join with my colleagues to say that sequester is not the answer. When I begin to look at my district and I see high school students and middle school students and elementary school students, I say sequester is not the answer. Yes, we can look reasonably at how we improve reducing the debt, but not on the backs of seniors, not eliminating the social network. And then, with respect to our children, do we tell them we close the doors on summer jobs, we close the doors on the best teachers, innovative teaching, science labs? Absolutely not. So I join with the President to say that it's an inflicted wound we gave. Let's be better. Let's be adults. And, finally, Madam Speaker, let's do our job on gun safety. Let's ensure universal background checks. Let's have registration of those guns that are owned by gun owners like we register a car. And let's make sure that, as my legislation introduced, that we secure the guns in our homes so that children or those who are disturbed cannot access your guns because you left them around. I am not interested in coming into your home and taking your guns, but you have a responsibility to be able to secure them. That law was passed in the State of Texas, a State that prizes its guns. Let's be a group, a Congress that can work together. We can do this.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 225, the ``National Pediatric Research Action Network Act of 2013.'' This legislation would authorize the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish an up to 20 national pediatric research consortia. Each consortium will be a collaborative effort involving a leading pediatric medical center and numerous supporting institutions, and each will focus on both basic and translational research as well as training for new researchers. Additionally, this Act seeks to bring much needed attention to pediatric rare diseases. The intent is to expand, enhance, and improve coordinated NIH pediatric research. As the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus I have been a tireless advocate on behalf of our nation's children for decades and an avid supporter of children's health. Improved coordination under the guidance of the NIH will only enhance the communication and collaborative efforts between leading regional pediatric medical center and supporting smaller community centers. This will enable researchers to develop and hone their research on rare pediatric diseases such as spinal muscular atrophy, in addition to serving as training centers for new cutting edge research in this field. Researchers like those who work for the Pediatric Research Center. Located in Houston, TX, the Pediatric Center is the premier research center within the University of Texas Health Science Center. Researchers who work at the center are currently working diligently to identifying the causes of disorders that affect children. They are experts in their fields and working on a variety of issues. One of which is trying to identify genes that result in birth defects. Across our nation, birth disabilities, developmental disorders, and prematurity are leading cause of death in children, affecting nearly 25% of both newborns and children. We must support efforts to improve research. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services as of 2009, over 19,000 Texas babies are born each year with one or more major structural malformations or chromosomal anomalies. For every 10,000 live births, about six births are affected by neural tube defects; 11 babies are born with cleft lip, and 13 are born with Down syndrome. Approximately 28.9% of all babies born from 1999-2008 with birth defects have more than one major birth defect. Certain birth defects exhibit higher rates in some racial/ethnic groups than others. Birth defects are also the leading cause of death among infants in Texas. From 1999-2008, 5.3% of all live born babies delivered with a birth defect died; most died before their first birthday (4.6%) and 29% of all deaths to live born babies before their first birthday occurred among babies with a birth defect. In 2010, birth defects resulted in nearly 42,000 hospitalizations among infants in Texas, with total charges over $2.2 billion, based on hospital discharge data. The average length of stay was 6.2 days and the average cost was $53,000 per hospitalization. While the average cost per hospitalization is comparable to national data, due to the large population of Texas relative to other states, total cost of hospitalization for infants with birth defects is high. Texas has unique concerns about some of the potential causes of birth defects such as those concerning environmental pollutants (hazardous waste sites, air pollution, drinking water contaminants), health disparities (income, ethnicity), and maternal factors (diabetes, obesity). Effective collaboration with the NIH could result in finding cures and treatments to prevent these deaths. Treatments of diseases like Spinal Muscular Atrophy. Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) Types I, II, and III are a group of hereditary diseases that cause weakness and the destruction of voluntary muscles in the arms and legs of infants and children. An estimated one in 40 people are carriers of SMA and if both parents are carriers, there's a 25 percent chance of their child having SMA. Most babies born with SMA Type I, die before their 2nd birthday. It is the number 1 genetic killer of children under the age of 2 in the United States. As it stands, there is no cure for SMA; however, I hope the research that is generated as the result of this bill will lead to great strides in tackling this devastating illness. As we consider this measure, let us reflect upon the thousands of children's lives that might be saved as a result of this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest appreciation for the life, legacy, and actions of Mrs. Rosa Parks on what would have been her 100th birthday. Our society today, is a far cry from the one into which Mrs. Parks was born. We are now living in a time that is a direct reflection of the efforts of the trailblazers who came before us. Trailblazers like Rosa Parks, Shirley Chisholm, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Barbara Jordan and Walter Fauntroy whose actions transformed history and paved the way for a brighter future for all of us. Remembering these remarkable trailblazers is just one way to demonstrate not only our appreciation for their efforts but also to ensure that we continue to move forward in society. While I believe that our fight is not over and that we must continue to address civil rights issues; I am still in awe of the progress that has been made as the result of decades of work, diligence, sweat and tears of our country's civil rights trailblazers. One century ago, today, Mrs. Parks was born in Tuskegee, Alabama. As many of you already know, on December 1, 1955 Mrs. Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery city bus. At that time in our nation's history as an African American woman in Montgomery, Alabama Mrs. Parks was actually risking her life by sitting in a seat that was denied to her because of the color of her skin. Although she knew she risked being beaten, insulted, bullied, and jailed that did not stop her from sitting down in order to stand up against injustice. The arrest of Mrs. Parks led to the NAACP's boycott of the Montgomery, Alabama bus system. The boycott began on the first day of Mrs. Parks first court hearing on December 5, 1955, and did not end until December 20, 1956. It marks the first of many large-scale demonstrations against segregation. For 381 consecutive days, men, women, and children stood up against injustice. In lieu of taking the bus, in many instances they elected to walk for miles to work, school, or for errands. Just for a moment envision that amount of dedication and commitment it takes in the hot days of a Alabama summer to opt to walk rather than take the bus for over a year. Rose Parks by taking a seat was just the public spark needed to bring international attention to the civil rights movement and is in no small measure the genesis for the beginning of desegregation. Again, because of the fearless actions of women and men, like Rosa Parks, the face of leadership in our nations is now more diverse than at any other point in our nation's history. This change has been seen here within our own walls as well. Members of Congress are now a stew pot of races, ethnicities, cultures, sexual orientations, religions, and genders. This has only allowed us to have a diversity of perspective and has enabled us to better address the needs of our constituencies. Today, Congress in many ways reflects the America, what we represent. The actions of Rosa Parks and thousands of other proud Americans and their supporters fueled the civil rights movement that advanced the principles upon which our nation was built. As I have stated before, although, we have come a long way we still have a long way to go. As we honor the life and legacy of Rosa Parks. As we reflect upon those who lost their lives standing up against injustice. As we celebrate what was almost unimaginable in 1955, the second inauguration of our nation's first African American President. We must also look again at our democracy and how in a time when we are making so many steps forward there is still an attempt to limit the votes of Americans. Given the progress that we have made as a result of the civil rights movement it is still incumbent upon each of us to continue to fight for the rights of all Americans. Recently, there have been systematic attempts to limit the rights of Americans to vote. Last year we celebrated the 47th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, amid efforts by certain states to erode the right of Americans. Today, most Americans take the right to vote for granted. We assume, as citizens of this fine Nation, that we can register to vote if we are over 18. Most of us learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil War. We celebrate moments like today, Rosa Parks birthday, that stands as a reminder of our Nation's honored and sometimes troubled past. Yet, at the time Rosa Parks sat down on that bus, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most African Americans. And, until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot. Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political participation for decades. Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make the right to vote a reality for all Americans. And the Voting Rights Act has made giant strides toward that goal. Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. The Voting Rights Act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. And Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. We must not forget the importance of protecting this hard-earned right. I believe that the courage that Mrs. Parks displayed throughout her life helped shaped the United States. I believe that the courage she showed that day, changed our society. I believe that it is our duty to honor the Constitution and to honor the civil rights of all those who stand upon our shores. Today, as we celebrate the life of Rosa Parks, we must continue to push forward in ensuring that all those who have a right to a voice in our society have one. The right to vote is the great equalifyer, one person--one vote. Yet, there are those who are attempting to impinge that right by requiring the use of Voter ID cards. Now these photo ID proposals have a forceful momentum that have not seen in years past, as part of broader legislative movements to limit access to the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen since post-reconstruction era laws that implemented poll taxes and literacy tests. In just over the first two months of 2011, photo ID proposals were introduced in 32 states and passed out of one legislative chamber in twelve states. Lawmakers across the Nation have pinpointed photo ID as a top legislative priority. The Governor of Texas designated photo ID as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast-tracked through the legislature, photo ID proposals were pre-filed before legislative sessions began in half a dozen states, and secretaries of state in a number of states have listed photo ID as a top priority. I was pleased when the Department of Justice took action to stop that flowed piece of legislation. Photo ID proposals have garnered significant momentum in more than a dozen states and opponents are having difficulty waging effective counterattacks to curb movement on these bills. The time is now to stand up to protect the rights of the disenfranchised, the elderly, the disabled, and college student access to the right to vote. Now is the time, to remember the courage of those who participated in the bus boycott, recall their willingness to walk in the hot southern sun for over a year to stand up for their belief is justice, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now is the time to truly honor the life of Rosa Parks, who by sitting down, stood up for justice. We must continue to move forward rather than backwards in this country. We must honor our past by standing up to protect every one's right to vote. Today I remember Mrs. Parks for her courage and for everything she has done to advance civil rights movement. And to remember that although much progress has been made there remains much more to accomplish.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, I don't think anyone on this side of the aisle is not prepared to work collaboratively on the question of the deficit, on the question of growing America's economy and working with our children. Can we find common ground that indicates that we must invest in our children at the same time that we are likewise talking about debt and deficit? And that's what the Democrats are talking about, investing in our children, making their lives better.