Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 310, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding Srebrenica. As a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Bosnia, I believe it is crucial to distinguish the Srebrenica massacres as genocide while honoring the thousands of innocent people who were killed in July twenty years ago. In the early 1990s, following Bosnia and Herzegovina's declaration of national sovereignty, Bosnian Serb forces attacked Eastern Bosnia in order to unify and secure Serb territory. During this struggle for control, those Bosnian Serb forces, also called the Army of Republika Srpska committed crimes of ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population. Approximately 8,000 Bosnian men and boys were systematically executed in 1995. The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina during this time was a failure on behalf of the international community. In 1999, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan acknowledged that the global community needed to accept responsibility for the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia and Herzegovina that killed thousands of unarmed civilians in a town designated as a ``safe area.'' For many years now, I have called on the United Nations to recognize Srebrenica as a genocide. Yesterday, I learned that Russia blocked the latest effort by the United Kingdom to recognize the Srebrenica massacres as a genocide, calling it ``not constructive, confrontational, and politically-motivated.'' I am disappointed that the UN is unable to formally recognize Europe's worst atrocity since World War II. Although the global community cannot and will not distinguish Srebrenica as genocide, I applaud my fellow Bosnia Caucus co-chair, Congressman Chris Smith, for introducing this important resolution. While the UN's hands are tied, I am proud that the United States continues to be Bosnia and Herzegovina's greatest friend and ally. I urge my colleagues to support Bosnia and Herzegovina by voting in favor of this resolution.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 2nd anniversary of the Shelby County v. Holder Supreme Court ruling. By declaring Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court dismantled a key provision to this pivotal voting rights protection. The importance of the Voting Rights Act to our American democracy cannot be overstated. This damaging precedent, set by the nation's highest Court has weakened a piece of legislation that was fundamental to the advancement of the American democracy. On June 25, 2013, when the Supreme Court decided that states with a history of discrimination against minority voters no longer needed clearance from the federal government to set new voting restrictions, it established a pathway for modern day discriminatory practices. Under this ruling, states across the Deep South, where vestiges of discrimination are still present, were able to enact stricter voting requirements for the first time since 1965. Many of these states, including my home state of Texas, are governed by Republican-led state legislatures that insist on the necessity of voter ID laws to protect the integrity of elections. However, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that these laws, which disproportionately affect African-Americans, Hispanics and poor people, are a political ploy to suppress voter turnout. This runs counter to the Constitutional right to vote, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. Recently, as a result of the Shelby County v. Holder ruling, Texas implemented restrictive voter ID laws that prohibit voting autonomy for many underserved minorities across the state. During the 2014 election, instead of being granted the opportunity to cast their vote of choice, many voters were turned away on the basis of technicalities. Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom how these actions would be permissible among any group of lawmakers. Today, I stand before you to call attention to this fact. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was implemented to ensure that all Americans have the ability to exercise their right to vote. This body should act in a bi-partisan fashion to ensure that this right is fully restored.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of a dear friend, Mr. Norcell D. Haywood who passed away on Monday, June 15, 2015. Mr. Haywood and I had a friendship that spanned forty years. We were introduced by another of my good friends, the late Congressman Mickey Leland who made significant contributions during his service to our country. Norcell Haywood was a pioneer in his own right. He was among the first seven African American students to be admitted to the University of Texas at Austin in 1954, the period that preceded the protections guaranteed by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He secured his spot by fighting against systematic discrimination and segregation. Despite the battle, he remained steadfast. He took on a gruesome 21-hour course load, fulfilled his obligations to the ROTC program and worked as a restaurant valet. His dedication and sacrifices paid off; he became the second African American to graduate from the University of Texas School of Architecture in 1960. Upon graduation, he served as a positive role model and instructor at Prairie View A&M University's school of Engineering. He later gained employment with the City of Austin's Planning Department. He also published a local Newspaper, ``The East Side Reporter,'' which distributed 20,000 papers weekly in the eastern section of San Antonio. In 1968, Norcell Haywood became the first licensed African-American Architect in San Antonio, Texas. He then founded a private architecture firm, Norcell D. Haywood & Associates (1968-71) and later in 1971, founded the firm of Haywood Jordan McCown SAT Inc. (``HJM''). He operated three offices throughout the state of Texas: San Antonio, Houston and Dallas. Under Norcell's leadership, HJM has been the recipient of the numerous prestigious Merit Design Awards. He received awards for his design of The University of Texas--Dallas's Student Union Center and numerous housing developments in Houston, Austin, Dallas and San Antonio areas, including the Texas Southern University Physical Education Building and Business Technology Building in Houston, Texas; Lincoln Magnet High School in Dallas, Texas; Alamo Dome Stadium and the Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center both in San Antonio, Texas. He was the first African American to be appointed to the Texas Board of Architectural Examiners and served as Vice Chairman of the Board. Mr. Haywood has received widespread acclaim for his exceptional accomplishments. He was chosen by President Clinton to serve as a delegate on the White House Sub-Committee on Small Business in 1995. Mr. Haywood is the recipient of the 1997 Bank of America--San Antonio, Black History Chronicles Trail Blazer Award and a 1997 Texas Legislative Black Caucus Outstanding Texans at Large Honoree. Mr. Haywood used his life experiences, especially those that molded his tenacity at the University of Texas to direct his professional pursuits and community involvement. His most passionate interests lie in early child training and development. He actively supported the YMCA, Boy's and Girl's Club of San Antonio and many other local youth organizations. He established the National Association of Minority Architecture to encourage and mentor young African-American architects and is a life member of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. This bill is, of course, to name the U.S. courthouse in Charleston, South Carolina, after Judge Julius Waties Waring. During Judge Waring's time as a Federal judge in the Eastern District of South Carolina, he was a trailblazer in pursuit of justice for African Americans. Judge Waring consistently ruled for African American plaintiffs in cases involving voting rights, unequal pay, and civil rights. Before Judge Waring was named to the Federal bench, he served as assistant U.S. attorney and as corporation counsel for the City of Charleston. He is most famously remembered for a 1951 landmark school segregation case. Judge Waring wrote in his dissent on a three-judge panel that racial segregation in public schools was ``per se inequality.'' He became the first Federal judge to take that position since Plessy v. Ferguson ruled for separate but equal. In his dissent, he went further to denounce segregation as an ``evil that must be eradicated.'' His dissent is commonly understood to provide the intellectual underpinning of the Supreme Court outlawing school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. Because Judge Waring's decisions were considered controversial at the time, he endured threats of violence and was alienated from most of Charleston. Soon after Judge Waring's momentous decision, he retired from the Federal bench and moved to New York, where he later died. Fifty years after his death, this legislation naming the Federal courthouse in Charleston in his honor is appropriate because of Judge Waring's courageous judicial service in the face of fierce opposition to the bedrock American value of ``justice for all.'' I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2559, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill designates a 10-mile segment of Interstate 10 between milepost 535 and milepost 545 in Kendall County, Texas, as the PFC Milton A. Lee Medal of Honor Memorial Highway. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bill along with my colleagues from Texas. Private Lee was a hero who tragically lost his life at the age of 19 while fighting for his country in Vietnam. Milton A. Lee was born February 28, 1949, in Shreveport, Louisiana. He later moved to Texas and attended Harlandale High School in San Antonio before enlisting in the Army. The actions preceding his death were nothing short of heroic. While serving as a radio operator with the 3rd Platoon, Company B, the platoon was surprised by hostile fire by the North Vietnamese Army. Private Lee moved through the heavy enemy fire to give lifesaving first aid to his wounded fellow soldiers. As the platoon was advancing to reorganize, Private Lee noticed four hidden North Vietnamese soldiers with automatic weapons and a rocket launcher ready to attack the lead element of the platoon. He selflessly charged through the enemy fire and overran their position, killing the attackers and capturing their weapons. His actions saved the lives of his fellow soldiers and were instrumental in the destruction of the key position of the enemy defense. Private Lee died April 26, 1968. He was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1970 for his gallantry at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we can come to the floor of the House today and celebrate this young man's courage and conviction by naming a portion of Interstate 10 in his honor. This bill is a fitting tribute. Before I close, I would like to remind my colleagues that there are only 23 legislative days left before highway and transit program authorizations expire. Here we are again on the brink of yet another extension in the middle of the summer construction season. I strongly urge my colleagues to take up the charge to restore our Nation's infrastructure. If we do not act quickly, we will soon not have any miles of road left worthy of naming after any great American. I support this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary leadership of Dr. James Hadley Billington, the 13th Librarian of Congress and renowned scholar of Russia. Following 28 years of tireless service, Dr. Billington announced that he will be retiring from his post as the Librarian of Congress. During his tenure, Dr. Billington made significant contributions by providing visionary leadership as he ushered the Library of Congress into the digital age. Since being unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 1987, Dr. Billington has overseen the expansion of the Library's collection size. It has roughly doubled, from 85.5 million items in 1987 to more than 160 million items today. Dr. Billington dedicated much of his efforts to ensuring that our nations historic items and collections be made readily available to the American public. In his early years, at the dawn of the internet age, he worked to facilitate an innovative program for the Library of Congress known as the National Digital Library (NDL) Program, which ensured that American historical and cultural information was available online. As a result of his efforts, projects such as the NDL, Congress.gov, and numerous pieces of information from the U.S. Copyright Office have become frequently used in K-12 education systems across America. In addition to efforts ensuring the spread of the richly diverse history of the United States, Dr. Billington is also responsible for the development of the World Digital Library. A project similar to the NDL, the World Digital Library compiles cultural materials from the 193 countries listed in the UNESCO into one database for public access. I can say without question that throughout his decades of service, Dr. Billington has been firmly dedicated to the spread of information. Dr. Billington has been an outstanding leader and educator to both our nation and the world. I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. I have no doubt that his contributions to our global society will have a significant impact on scholastic achievement for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the service and sacrifice of Dr. James Hadley Billington.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the FY16 Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. In short, this bill is shortsighted and fraught with handouts to special interests at the expense of the safety of the American people. Once again, the Majority in this body has squandered an opportunity to invest in our nation's crumbling roads and infrastructure, and it has squandered an opportunity to combat homelessness and provide access to safer, affordable housing for millions. Our future prosperity and economic growth depend on the investments we make now to ensure America remains the most competitive nation in an increasingly global economy. Instead of investing in safer rail to prevent accidents like the recent and fatal derailment of Amtrak in Philadelphia, this bill cuts Amtrak's budget by nearly $290 million and subsequently hampers its ability to implement proven technologies that would have prevented this tragedy and countless others. Instead of supporting the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to implement NextGen technologies to keep our skies the safest in the world, this bill cuts the agency's capital investment program by $100 million from the FY15 enacted level and $355 million below the President's budget request. This bill cuts funding to programs like Choice Neighborhoods and the Community Development Block Grants that would revitalize our communities, the Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes programs that would keep our families safe from harmful materials, and programs such as Housing for the Elderly that helps deliver the dignity and assistance for our most vulnerable populations. This is just a bad bill, Mr. Chair, and these are just a few of the reasons why this is a terrible bill, and one that will surely be vetoed by the President. I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and bring this legislation back to the drawing board.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is intended to ensure that the important forensic standards work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, is fully funded. The criminal justice system relies on forensic science to identify and prosecute criminals and to exonerate the falsely accused. Justice is not served by either the falsely accused or the victims and their families when the wrong person is imprisoned. In a series of investigations over the last few years, The Washington Post, the Innocence Project, and the FBI itself have reported on a flawed forensic work that may be responsible for wrongful convictions in thousands of criminal cases. Innocent people have spent decades in prison, and our State certainly knows about many of them--my home county, as a matter of fact. Some may have already been put to death while the guilty have gone free. These investigations have covered hair analysis, bite mark analysis, and even DNA, which most people previously believed to be 100 percent accurate and reliable. In short, there has been a steady stream of bad news about flawed forensic work being used in criminal court. And I worry that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. In a year 2009 report, ``Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward,'' the National Academy of Sciences found that the interpretation of forensic evidence is severely compromised by the lack of supporting science and standards. Many forensic techniques and technologies lack a scientific foundation. Operational principles and procedures are not standardized, and there are often no standard protocols governing the reporting of forensic evidence. Since then, I have worked with colleagues in the Senate to develop legislation that would strengthen forensic science and standards. The administration also took notice and has initiated several activities, even without direct action from Congress. The Department of Justice and NIST have become strong partners in this effort. Now, some of my colleagues on Appropriations would like to gut one of these core activities, the standards development work managed by NIST. For reasons that I cannot comprehend, the report language accompanying this bill would forbid NIST from continuing the voluntary consensus standards development work already underway through the forensics scientific area committees. These committees coordinate development of standards and guidelines for the forensic science community to improve the quality and consistency of forensics evidence used by our justice system. These committees were established according to the longstanding and well-respected NIST process for developing voluntary consensus standards. As such, the membership of these committees represent the full breadth and depth of stakeholder organizations, including forensic science practitioners, as well as academic scientists and engineers, law enforcement, and others. To the best of my knowledge, these committees have the support of the full range of stakeholders. Why would we stop, in its tracks, a voluntary consensus standards process that has proven itself effective time and time again? I can see no justifiable reason for trying to keep sound science out of the courtroom. Mr. Chair, since the language in question is in the committee's report rather than the bill text and will not be sufficiently addressed with this amendment, I plan to withdraw this amendment but seek the approval of both the chair and the ranking member to help correct this language as we move toward the conference report. My colleagues, I hope, will work with the Senate to rectify this unjustified and unjust restriction.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me express my appreciation and respect for the chair as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee. I really do respect the work, but I do rise in opposition to H.R. 2578. It represents a missed opportunity to help the Nation's research and innovation enterprise at a time when that help is urgently needed. Until the mismatch between the House budget resolution and the needs facing our country is addressed, we are going to continue to fall behind, both in our efforts to maintain our global competitiveness and our efforts to maintain R&D capabilities we need right here at home. As ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I would like to use some of my time to address some specific concerns that I have with the bill, which I elaborate on in my statement for the Record. In short, the bill's report language would make arbitrary and ideologically driven cuts to NSF social sciences and geoscience research programs. In addition, the bill's funding would put NSF's new headquarters building at risk, adding cost growth and schedule delays. With respect to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, in addition to the funding cuts, I am particularly concerned about the report language that would gut the critical forensic standards activities already underway at NIST, as well as the bill's language that would covertly, without any hearings, debate, or authorizing legislation, eliminate an entire agency, the National Technical Information Service. The bill would also make significant cuts to NOAA's budget, including climate research and NOAA's Polar Follow On weather satellite program. Finally, the bill would make deep cuts to NASA's Earth Science Program, disrupting activities that will help us better understand our home planet and the climate change that is occurring right now. Mr. Chairman, in closing, as I said before, the bill is a missed opportunity, and I cannot support it in its current form. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2578. While I respect the work put into the bill by my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I am afraid that it represents a missed opportunity to help the nation's research and innovation enterprise at a time when that help is urgently needed. As other speakers have noted, this bill is the result of a fundamentally flawed House budget resolution that provides insufficient allocations for critically important activities of the federal government, including investing in our future. Until that mismatch is addressed, we are going to continue to fall behind, both in our efforts to maintain our global competitiveness and our efforts to maintain the R&D capabilities we need here at home. As Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I would like to use my remaining time to address some specific concerns I have with the bill. With respect to the National Science Foundation, I have two specific concerns beyond the overall funding level. Following the direction contained in the report accompanying this bill would result in a 15-20% cut to each of the social sciences and geosciences directorates at NSF. Let me be clear. These are arbitrary and ideologically-driven cuts that reflect a lack of understanding of how science works, and a lack of understanding of the great importance of these fields of research to our national interests. Moreover, with these cuts we stand to lose a generation of talent and expertise in fields essential to the wellbeing of this nation, and we may never recover from that loss. Second, I must comment on the flat-funding for the NSF operations account. NSF is already in the midst of building a new headquarters in Alexandria, and the funding provided to NSF in this bill may very well result in delays and therefore increased cost for that building. This is a clear-cut case of the Congress being penny-wise and pound foolish. With respect to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I am concerned about the funding cuts to all of the accounts. I am particularly concerned about the report language that would gut the critical forensics standards activities already underway at NIST, and the bill language that would covertly, without any hearings, debate, or authorizing legislation, eliminate an entire agency, the National Technical Information Service. NTIS performs both essential and perhaps nonessential activities. This bill would throw out the baby with the bathwater without any consideration given to the consequences. The CJS bill we are considering today fails short in a number of ways in its treatment of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It cuts the NOAA budget 5 percent below current spending and more than 13 percent below the President's request. This cut will have a significant impact on NOAA's ability to provide local communities and decision-makers with the information they need to effectively manage the nation's resources and protect the lives and property of every American. I am especially concerned about the lack of support for NOAA's efforts to maintain continuity in our polar observing capabilities. The President's budget request included $380 million to fund a Polar Follow-on program. This program would help mitigate a potential gap in this critical data by building robustness into our satellite constellation. As many of you know, accurate weather forecasts and warnings are vital for the economic security of the United States, and we must ensure NOAA has the resources it needs now to ensure the long- term health of our satellites. Additionally, I am concerned about the bill's $30 million dollar cut to NOAA's climate research activities. Addressing climate change is our most pressing environmental challenge and NOAA's climate research furthers our understanding and the implementation of effective adaptation and mitigation strategies. We should be doing more to combat climate change, not less. Finally, with respect to NASA, while I'm pleased that the Committee on Appropriations has proposed a strong top-line for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that is consistent with the President's overall request, I am troubled by the way that funding is allocated. In particular, I cannot support the deep cuts made to NASA's Earth Science program. Given the leadership role NASA plays nationally in studies of the Earth system, including climate change, these cuts will do serious long term damage if enacted into law. In addition, I question the proposed reduction to the Orion crew vehicle program from the FY 2015 funding level, especially given the concern expressed in the report language about NASA's ability to test all human-rated systems on the first Exploration Mission-1. I also question the proposal to fund the Safety, Security, and Mission Services account, which is critical to maintaining a world class workforce and infrastructure, below the President's request. Mr. Chairman, in closing, as I said before, this bill is a missed opportunity, and I cannot support it in its current form. I yield back.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the remarkable career of Mr. Bob Schieffer who retired yesterday from CBS. For more than half a century, Bob Schieffer served the nation by covering the most pertinent issues with candor and journalistic dexterity. For the past 24 years, he served as the anchor of what is reported as the most watched news show in America, `Face the Nation.' Prior to his work with CBS, Mr. Schieffer served in the U.S. Air Force for three years. As a native Texan, he began his career in journalism as a reporter at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, where he became the first reporter from a Texas newspaper to report from Vietnam. He is also one of only a handful of journalists in Washington to have covered the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the State Department. Mr. Schieffer has obtained nearly every journalism award imaginable, including: eight Emmys; the Overseas Press Club Award; the Paul White Award presented by the TV News Directors Association; and the Edward R. Murrow Award from Washington State University. Mr. Schieffer and I both attended Texas Christian University. In 2005, our alma mater named its journalism school in Bob Schieffer's honor; and in 2013, they followed by establishing the Bob Schieffer College of Communication. The list of accolades goes on. Mr. Speaker, to refer to Mr. Schieffer as a living legend somehow falls short. Mr. Schieffer is an unparalleled journalist and a pillar of American television. His method of journalism will serve as a model for aspiring journalists for years to come. I am happy to congratulate him on his retirement, and I wish him many enjoyable years ahead. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the career and accomplishments of one of America's finest journalists, Mr. Bob Schieffer.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to income inequality in the United States. As millions of Americans remain without work, while others are underpaid or underemployed, it is imperative that we address the growing threat to our country that is income inequality. Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a dangerous trend develop where wage growth for middle and lower income households has become stagnant while incomes at the very top continue to rise sharply. From 1973 to 2005, real hourly wages for the top 10 percent rose by 30 percent or more, whereas the bottom 50 percent of all Americans experienced only marginal real wage increases of a little more than 5 percent. The income gap is further amplified when comparing races. Overall, Caucasian males earn a median income of more than $40,000 per year while African American males average roughly $30,000 during the same time period. Hispanic Americans average just over $26,000 each year. These discrepancies by race are particularly alarming, considering that these figures are even lower for women. The percentage of wealth controlled by the richest Americans is another disturbing fact that is often overlooked. The top 1 percent of Americans own 40 percent of our entire nation's wealth, while the bottom 80 percent of Americans share only 7 percent of the nation's wealth. In historical terms, the last time our nation faced such a wide income gap was during the 1920s leading up to the Great Depression. Mr. Speaker, while Congress struggles with raising the minimum wage, millions of working individuals and families across the country continue to struggle with stagnant pay and rising inflation. Until we take a serious look at comprehensive reform to curb income inequality, the consequences will continue harming our communities of color, and prove catastrophic for our nation's economy.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2262, the SPACE Act of 2015. This bill amends the Commercial Space Launch Act, which is one of the seminal achievements on this committee. That act opened the doors to establishment on the commercial space industry, which is poised to become a major part of the 21st century economy. I agree that both our committee and the Congress as a whole need to address the Commercial Space Launch Act. We haven't comprehensively addressed these issues since 2004. I also want to be clear that I am a strong supporter of the commercial space industry. I think Members on both sides of the aisle want this industry to succeed because this industry's success is good for our Nation. However, the issues being dealt with in this bill are not straightforward. They are complex and require thoughtful consideration. Unfortunately, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hasn't given these issues thoughtful consideration. We have not held any hearings so far this Congress to examine the issues being debated today. We also haven't had a subcommittee markup to try to work through some of the underlying issues in the legislation. That is really very unfortunate, because we could be considering a bipartisan piece of legislation today if the majority had simply laid the proper groundwork for moving complex legislation. Instead, we have rushed this bill to the floor to meet some arbitrary timetable established by somebody, perhaps the Republican leadership. So what does this bill do? In every possible measure, H.R. 2262 gives maximum preference to the priorities of the commercial space launch industry--at the expense of the safety of the general public and the safety of the future customers of this very industry, and it does so at the expense of the American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, this bill proposes to provide the commercial space launch industry with another decade--decade--of regulation-free operations with respect to protecting the safety of spaceflight passengers. There won't be any passengers when they find out that they have no protection. Some will state that the industry does not yet have enough experience to establish these regulations. That is rubbish. Both the United States and Russia have been launching humans into space for more than five decades. There has been literally hundreds of space launches on numerous different types of spacecraft during this time. The FAA has had more than enough data to rely on to set commonsense regulations on spaceflight passenger safety. In addition, this bill also provides a lengthy 9-year extension of commercial space launch indemnification provisions. Congress has extended these provisions many times since they were originally crafted in 1988. Since 1988, the liability exposure of the U.S. Government under this regime has grown each and every year. What began as an approximately $1 billion backstop for the industry has now grown to more than $2.5 billion, and this will continue to grow for 9 more years under this bill. I think this is something that deserves a little more attention. Generally, as an industry matures, you would think their reliance on the U.S. Government for subsidies would decrease rather than increase. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this bill takes steps into the uncharted waters involving space property rights. I am not against asteroid mining or space resource utilization. Those activities will come in time. However, I am for getting any legislation that addresses these areas right. We are not at all close to resolving the many unanswered questions and issues concerning space resource utilization and property rights. At the single hearing the majority held on this topic last Congress, several of the invited witnesses expressed their views that there were many unsettled issues with the majority's draft legislation. Moving this legislation without really ever addressing these issues is, I believe, negligent on the part of the Congress. Some on the other side of the aisle may point to the fact that the administration's Statement of Administration Policy did not include a veto threat against this bill. But I would note that the administration's statement also had serious concerns about sections of the bill and notably did not endorse the bill. With respect to the asteroid mining provisions, the statement noted: ``the administration is concerned about the ability of U.S. companies to move forward with these initiatives absent additional authority to ensure continuing supervision of these initiatives by the U.S. Government as required by the Outer Space Treaty.'' Mr. Chairman, Ms. Edwards will be offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute that I will speak on one more time later. It may not have everything that industry desires, it may not reflect all of our priorities for commercial space launch policy, but it is a clear route to getting a balanced, bipartisan, bicameral commercial space launch bill enacted into law, because ultimately that is what we are trying to do is get a bicameral agreement. We can argue over differences, or we can just join together to pass bipartisan, bicameral commercial space legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 2262 in its present form and instead take a bipartisan approach to enacting commercial space launch legislation.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman. I rise in strong support of Ms. Edwards' amendment. This amendment offers the possibility of actually accomplishing something worthwhile today and is an amendment that should garner bipartisan support. Just last week, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee reported out H.R. 2262 and H.R. 1508 on party-line votes. Of course, we had moved to markup without any hearings on commercial space issues in the 114th Congress, nor a legislative hearing on either bill, nor a subcommittee markup. It is, thus, not surprising that they could not garner any significant bipartisan support for these bills. And yet, now here we are on the floor, with these same bills. If we take the same path we took in yesterday's consideration of the COMPETES legislation, we will get a similar result, a partisan vote, and a bill that will never become law. Ms. Edwards offers us another way forward. Just yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee favorably reported out S. 1297, the Senate's bipartisan commercial space bill, a bill introduced by Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Nelson. As I said, it is a bipartisan bill that was endorsed by a large segment of the commercial space industry when it was introduced. The gentlewoman from Maryland's (Ms. Edwards) amendment simply incorporates provisions of S. 1297 into her amendment. Mr. Chairman, instead of engaging in a meaningful exercise, we could vote today to approve bipartisan legislation that Senate Democrats and Republicans are supporting. While the Senate bill is not the bill I would have written, it is a vast improvement over the bill we have before us today. As the gentleman said earlier, America is exceptional. And that is why we have a Congress. That is why we have committee structure. That is why we have subcommittees that examine issues and listen to witnesses. That is why we have committee work. It provides really a means for us to come together. The bill that is in the Senate provides constructive updates to the Commercial Space Launch Act. I know that some Members want to go further than the Senate bill in some areas, but the reality is, there is no bipartisan consensus to doing so. And if we proceed to pass H.R. 2262, we will have passed a bill that the Senate probably will not take up. We did that with the COMPETES bill yesterday. Do we really want to continue to waste our time in the same way again this morning? Holding out hope that somehow these contentious provisions will find favor in a House-Senate conference is also an exercise in futility. Time is not on our side in dealing with the two expiring authorities in this bill, and we know from experience that Congress can act to extend them without passing a commercial space bill. I think that outcome would be unfortunate, but I see little likelihood that the Senate will do anything with H.R. 2262 in its current form. And in a conference, I think that House Democrats will be disinclined to support provisions that we are opposing today. Ms. Edwards' amendment offers us an opportunity to avoid months of pointless back-and-forth between the two Chambers. We can pass legislation that we already know has bipartisan support in the Senate, and if we do, we can look forward to seeing a bill head to the President's desk within weeks. All it takes is my Republican colleagues being willing to forgo the temptation to posture for that last extra bit of advantage and, instead, accept a reasonable compromise bill that will do much to meet the legitimate needs of the commercial space launch industry.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to respond to the statement that we have to rely on Russia. We are relying on Russia because we won't pay for it in this country, but we are willing to allow a private commercial spaceship to fly at the expense of the government and at the risk of every person who would hire a trip. We are paying them to take supplies to a space station because we refuse to fund space station flight for human flight from this country.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, I must unfortunately rise in opposition to the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. It is unfortunate because I was a strong supporter of both the original COMPETES Act, as well as the 2010 reauthorization. Both of those bills passed with bipartisan support, and both bills reflected the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences' groundbreaking 2005 report, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' It is worth reflecting on what the National Academy's panel found and why they made the recommendations they did. First, the panel that wrote the report was composed of a distinguished group of individuals from industry, academia, and science; and it was headed by the former Lockheed CEO Norm Augustine. The panel noted that much of America's economic growth and success in the decades following World War II was the direct result of our Nation's sustained investment in research and development. However, they noted that a gathering storm was approaching. America's economic and military competitors around the world had begun to catch up with our Nation's technological lead. Moreover, research and development budgets in the United States were stagnating. The panel determined that America was sorely in need of a recommitment to research and development in order to maintain our competitive edge. The Augustine panel gave specific recommendations that we increase R&D spending, revitalize STEM education across the country, and also create and support a new ARPA-E for breakthrough energy research modeled on the renowned DARPA program at the Department of Defense. The original COMPETES Act implemented these recommendations across the board. Supporting this bill was one of the highlights of my two decades of service here in Congress. I have highlighted this history because it is important to understand what we are doing here today and why these issues are so important. Since 2010, when we passed the last COMPETES reauthorization, R&D spending in America has begun to stagnate again and, by some measures, even declined. In the meantime, our economic competitors have doubled down on their investments in research and development. Over the past decade, China has averaged a 23 percent increase in R&D spending each year. Perhaps, not surprisingly, in 2014, China overtook the United States to become the world's largest economic power. The crisis that the Augustine committee warned us about in 2005 has now arrived. What is the response of our majority to this crisis? Absolutely nothing. That is what is in H.R. 1806: absolutely nothing. H.R. 1806 completely abandons the recommendations of the Augustine committee and the original COMPETES Act. It abandons the legacy of COMPETES by flat-funding R&D investments. It abandons the legacy by slashing funding for the very ARPA-E program envisioned by this committee, the Augustine committee. It abandons that legacy by politicizing the scientific grant-making process and pitting different research disciplines against each other. I want to be clear about what it is that this majority is abandoning. They are abandoning our future. America is the greatest nation on Earth, but our greatness is not guaranteed. We have to work for it. We have to do the things that are necessary to ensure a bright future for our country. That means making the same kinds of investments in science and technology that previous generations made. Our predecessors understood what was at stake. They made a commitment to invest in research and development and science education, and we still benefit from those past investments today. The world is not standing still. If we do not recommit to our investments in science education, research, and development, we will be surpassed. The bill before us fails to secure our Nation's future, and for that reason, I must strenuously oppose it. I am not alone in my opposition. We have received more than 40 letters or statements of concern or outright opposition from over 70 different groups, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Coalition for National Science Funding, the STEM Education Coalition, the Truman National Security Project, and many, many others. I will put the full list of these organizations in the Record at this time. 75 organizations in opposition to h.r. 1806, the america competes reauthorization act of 2015 1. Alliance to Save Energy 2. American Academy of Political and Social Science 3. American Anthropological Association 4. American Association for the Advancement of Science 5. American Association of Petroleum Geologists 6. American Association of Physics Teachers 7. American Educational Research Association 8. American Geophysical Union 9. American Geosciences Institute 10. American Institute of Biological Sciences 11. American Institute of Physics 12. American Meteorological Society 13. American Physical Society 14. American Political Science Association 15. American Psychological Association 16. American Society for Microbiology 17. American Sociological Association 18. Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies 19. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography 20. Association of American Universities 21. Association of Population Centers 22. Association of Public and Land-grant Universities 23. AVS: Science & Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing 24. Biophysical Society 25. Business Council for Sustainable Energy 26. Center for Small Business and the Environment 27. Clay Minerals Society 28. Coalition for National Science Funding 29. Computing Research Association 30. Consortium for Ocean Leadership 31. Consortium of Social Science Associations 32. Council of Undergraduate Research 33. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz 34. Earth Day Network 35. Ecological Society of America 36. Energy Sciences Coalition 37. Environment America 38. Environment and Energy Study Institute 39. Environmental Defense Fund 40. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 41. Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences 42. Geological Society of America 43. Incorporated Institutions for Seismology 44. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 45. Law and Society Association 46. League of Conservation Voters 47. Learning and Education Academic Research Network 48. Michigan State University 49. National Association of Geoscience Teachers 50. National Association of Marine Laboratories 51. National Cave and Karst Research Institute 52. National Ground Water Association 53. Natural Resources Defense Council 54. Nobel Laureates 55. Ohio State University 56. Paleontological Research Institution 57. Pew 58. Population Association of America 59. Princeton University 60. Research!America 61. Seismological Society of America 62. Sierra Club 63. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc. 64. Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists 65. Soil Science Society of America 66. STEM Education Coalition 67. Taskforce on American Innovation 68. The Optical Society 69. Truman National Security Project--Operation Free 70. Union of Concerned Scientists 71. United States Permafrost Association 72. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 73. University of Colorado at Boulder 74. University of Michigan 75. Wayne State University.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Again, I strongly, strongly oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.