Eddie Johnson

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the one scientist we have with a Ph.D. in physics in our body who is retiring and, as of next year, will become the CEO of AAAS.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is ranking member on the Environmental Subcommittee.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Gosar's amendment. At least it clarifies the underlying intent of this bill in that this information relied on by the EPA should be thrown up on the Web site. The peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA often involves personal health information and other confidential data that is legally protected from disclosure. No legitimate researcher would violate the law and leak confidential information--for example, to make a trade secret or information protected by HIPAA accessible to anyone who has an Internet connection. This amendment only makes the underlying problems with the bill that much more obvious, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I am in its present form.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. I have already spoken at some length about the problems with the underlying bill. The bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public health. However, this motion to recommit highlights a specific and very troubling aspect of this bill. As written, the bill would prevent EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information. I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters. I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well- publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were not initially identified as Ebola. After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola. I have a picture displayed here. Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on its Web site. However, under this bill, the EPA could be prevented from disseminating this type of information because EPA-registered disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information or confidential business information. In my hometown, not my district, two nurses who work at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital contracted Ebola. As a former nurse who worked in Dallas, I think it would be appalling to put our frontline health care workers, as well as the general public, at risk of the deadly Ebola virus or any other infectious disease all so we can take a political shot at EPA. As another example of how this bill could affect emergency response, EPA could be prevented from providing guidance during toxic chemical spills like the one that occurred earlier this year in West Virginia. If that guidance to local emergency responders were based on confidential business information, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with registered chemicals, then the EPA would be prohibited from disseminating vital information to the local authorities. What is remarkable is that the Natural Resources Defense Council warned the committee of this exact issue in a letter back in February, but the majority chose to ignore those warnings. That is plain irresponsible. My amendment would fix this problem by exempting any response to an emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. The amendment won't fix all of the problems with this bill, but it will prevent one of the more morally objectionable outcomes of this legislation. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, I submit the following letters. American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, September 5, 2014. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, As president-elect of the American Statistical Association, with 19,000 members, I write regarding H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act.'' We generally applaud the idea that researchers and federal agencies strive to make data available to others--under strict pledges to maintain confidentiality of data provided by individuals and establishments where necessary--and to encourage reproducible research. Access to data and reproducibility of research are crucially important for science to advance. While H.R. 4012's intent is to make data more widely available, we have several concerns and urge the bill to be revised significantly before further consideration. Our concerns include those voiced by others (especially the American Association for the Advancement of Science) that the bill's statements do not account for the complexities common to the scientific process on research that involves biological materials or physical specimens not easily accessible, combinations of public and private data, longitudinal data collected over many years that are difficult to reproduce, and data from one-time events that cannot be replicated. The bill as written could have far- reaching consequences that would ultimately hamper or undermine the scientific process generally and EPA's work specifically. We also agree with the point that it would be prudent to see the EPA's data access policy--in accordance with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010-- expected by year's end before further action on H.R. 4012. Our nation should be striving for transparency in government and, as noted above, data accessibility, but these goals also must be balanced with the necessity to protect individuals' and businesses' privacy. The bill's language of ``publicly available'' except when ``prohibited by law'' acknowledges this balance, but that language is vague and may be insufficient to protect individuals and businesses. In particular, some data sets may not fall under ``prohibited by law,'' yet the data are still collected under a pledge to protect the identifiability and confidentiality of the reported values. For example, the government, as well as private and nonprofit sectors, routinely collects data-- including private business information and private health information--under strict pledges to protect confidentiality. In some studies, this is backed up with penalties for violating those pledges. Such data should not be publicly available to every person who might ask for them. Rather, data subjects' confidentiality should be protected, for example by policies and procedures that provide data access to trusted users (i.e., approved users committed to appropriate protections of the confidentiality of study participants) while discouraging breaches of confidentiality and/or by data redaction techniques developed in the statistical and computer science communities. Under the current wording, a choice may have to be made between maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed regulations. To emphasize the challenges and importance of confidentiality protection, we note that simple but necessary de-identification methods--like stripping names and other personally identifiable information (PII)--often do not suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and computer scientists have repeatedly shown it can be possible to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with PII removed. Thus, allowing unrestricted public access without appropriate controls could result in unintended disclosures. These could cause significant harm to the advancement of science and the federal government--especially the federal statistical system--as people may be less willing to provide their data if highly publicized breaches occur. In short, any requirements for making data available should carefully consider the complexities, challenges, and potential ramifications. We hope you will address these concerns, which would require major modifications to the bill. We would be happy to be of any assistance. Sincerely, David Morganstein, President-Elect, American Statistical Association.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member. I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. H.R. 1422 is a continuation of the majority's anti- science agenda. It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health. The bill before us today ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board not for the better, but for the worse. The supposed intent of H.R. 1422 is to improve the process of selecting advisers to serve on the Agency's advisory board, but, in reality, H.R. 1422 will allow the board to be stacked with industry-affiliated representatives while making it more difficult for the experts from academia to serve on the board. The role of the board is to provide independent scientific analysis and advice to the EPA, which includes reviewing the quality and relevance of scientific information used as the basis for regulations. My Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of scientists from our Nation's universities because these researchers, the ones with the most relevant expertise to EPA's mission of protecting public health, are denied the opportunity to provide EPA with their advice under H.R. 1422. It is difficult to understand how anyone could object to the most expert academics in the country being called on to offer their expertise to EPA. Who would know better whether EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the people who are leaders in their respective fields? The board is supposed to be composed of experts, including those who may have, literally, ``written the book'' on a matter. What is the alternative? Should we find people to serve who are less expert? Equally troubling, H.R. 1422 goes out of its way to guarantee that industry-affiliated experts are the dominant voice on the board of experts. An expert with an industry association is far more likely to find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial impact on the employer. Academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest with the board's advice or EPA's actions. To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should have no representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board. Their insight is valuable. But I do not support stacking the board with industry representatives, as would be the outcome if this bill passes. Another goal of H.R. 1422, as stated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is to ``improve the science that goes into EPA regulations.'' H.R. 1422 falls shorts of that goal as well and, instead, weakens and delays the scientific review process, putting the health of every American at risk. As a former nurse, I cannot support legislation that endangers public health, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1422. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill came out of committee without a single Democratic vote.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight our Nation's struggle to achieve a more perfect Union. As we look upon the political landscape this fall, it is impossible to ignore the backward steps we have taken. In years past, elections signaled a time of hope and renewal: Hope that partisan politics would be put aside and renewal of our working relationships across the aisle and across the Capitol. However, even as election results were being tallied earlier this month the new Republican majority was already highlighting the divisive actions they planned to undertake in the next Congress. Among these plans are efforts to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and to shutdown the federal government or impeach President Obama over his immigration reforms. Mr. Speaker, I see nothing but divisiveness and partisanship in these plans. In fact, investigations into the creation of the Affordable Care Act or the President's immigration policy do nothing to advance the needs of everyday Americans who continue to struggle making ends meet. I urge my Republican Colleagues to abandon these frivolous efforts and instead focus on expanding opportunities for every American and creating a more perfect Union.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Rex Tillerson. As the former President of the Boy Scouts of America and the current Chief Executive Officer of Exxon Mobil, Mr. Tillerson has touched countless lives and impacted them in a positive way. A Native of Wichita Falls, Texas, Mr. Tillerson attended the University of Texas at Austin and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in civil engineering. He is one of the nation's most successful business leaders, but has always recognized the importance of charitable giving and community development. Mr. Tillerson's contributions to Texas and the country as a whole cannot be ignored. He served as the past national president of the Boy Scouts of America and is a former director of the United Negro College Fund. In those roles he influenced countless lives and provided a positive example for our nation's youths to follow. Under his leadership, Exxon Mobil has contributed greatly to K-12 STEM outreach programs, engaging students from all backgrounds in the STEM disciplines. Mr. Tillerson understands the importance of providing students with math and science skills, ultimately preparing them for competition in a 21st century global economy. I ask that my colleagues join me in celebrating Rex Tillerson's accomplishments.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we join in congratulating our friends in Taiwan on the occasion of their 103rd National Day, I think the best way to celebrate the tremendous progress Taiwan has achieved over the past decades, and its contributions to the world, is through the continuation of our efforts to support Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organizations. Twenty years ago, in the 1994 Taiwan Policy Review, the Clinton Administration declared that it would support such participation, a pledge which successive Administrations have upheld. Ten years ago, the House passed legislation in support of Taiwan's efforts to gain observer status in the World Health Organization. Last year, this House passed bipartisan legislation to secure observer status for Taiwan at the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO. Taiwan has enjoyed observer status at the World Health Assembly every year since 2009, and was invited last year to be a guest at the ICAO triennial Assembly by the ICAO Council President. As Taiwan is a key security and trading partner of this country, it is vital for the House to continue its support of Taiwan by bolstering its standing and meaningful participation in international bodies. Taiwan is a democracy of 23 million people who are highly educated, and highly skilled. It is to the benefit of all the world's peoples that experts from Taiwan engage with their colleagues in the international forums that seek to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Taiwan and its people on this issue, and on the other issues vital to our shared values, security, and prosperity. Meanwhile, I also wish the people of Taiwan a happy Double Ten Day and continued success and prosperity.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2015 with the McKeon Amendment, which would allow for the training and equipment of Syrian opposition. Should a clean continuing resolution to provide finding to the United States government come to the floor, I would support it. However, I cannot support an authorization for war. Since this body did not pass a budget on time, our only option is to vote to keep the government open and operating until December 11, 2014. Funding our government should not hinge on a controversial amendment added at the last minute that provides the opportunity for an open- ended war. I am not in favor of unilateral action or troops deployed to the region and I am committed to resolving this conflict through diplomacy. I fully support any efforts by our country to provide humanitarian aid to the countless innocent civilians displaced and injured by this conflict. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and push for a clean continuing resolution. Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) is a growing regional threat that presents greater instability and turmoil across the Middle East. Today ISIL does not pose a credible strategic threat outside of the Middle East. So the U.S. response must reflect that reality. We cannot allow the Dick Cheneys of the world to use the horrific beheadings by ISIL as a call to war, just like the Gulf of Tonkin incident or the alleged weapons of mass destruction capabilities of Saddam Hussein. I am voting against this authorization to equip and train as yet unknown, perhaps non-existent ``moderate'' Syrian opposition forces to combat ISIL. The three most successful ground forces fighting in Syria are ISIL who has ties with Saudi Arabia, the Syrian army backed by Iran, and Al Nusra which has ties to Hezbollah. The alliances between these forces are constantly shifting. One day ISIL and Nusra make common cause against the Syrian army and the other day they are all fighting each other. These sectarian wars are based on thousands of years of history and the U.S. has no role in sorting them out. Congress is being asked to vote today on arming Syrian rebels that are yet to be vetted by the U.S. In fact, the text of this authorization requires the administration to report to Congress within 15 days on the plan for providing this assistance. Congress should know what the plan is before we vote on it. We should come back in 15 days or however long it takes for the administration to determine the scope and plan of this operation and who it is that the U.S. is going to arm in Syria. It is an abdication of our constitutional duties to vote on a vague authorization today instead of waiting and passing judgment on a more detailed assessment on this operation and an updated authorization for use of military force (AUMF). If you turned to any of my colleagues today and asked the basic question who are the 5,000 fighters that the U.S. will train and equip in Syria, they could not give you an answer. Not even our intelligence agencies know who we can trust. Before granting authorization, Congress should at least know who it is we are giving U.S. weapons to and what their ideology and political goals are. This is a complex mess of various actors, many of whom cannot be considered trustworthy allies. The Syrian opposition is made up of hundreds of thousands of fighters from various factions that are also fighting amongst each other. In Iraq, the U.S. is looking to form an alliance with a new government whose current Prime Minister has yet to prove he will bring Sunnis back to their proper place in an inclusive society. At the moment the Iraqi army barely exists on paper. It is extremely disturbing that the main Iraqi force currently fighting ISIL, Asaib Ahl al-haq, is incredibly hostile to the U.S. and was attacking our troops up to the last day of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. That is why it is so critical that Congress be presented with a detailed plan of this ``train and equip'' operation including who it is that we are arming before we vote and this amendment fails to do that. Most importantly what we are voting on today is a small part of President Obama's larger strategy to go to war with ISIL. No President can declare war without Congressional authorization. If the U.S. is going to war with ISIL as it appears that we are, then my colleagues need to stay here and debate and vote on an AUMF. It is our constitutional duty and to leave town without a vote on the overall military strategy is disgraceful. The American people did not elect us to punt the responsibility for matters of war and peace to the President. The purpose of an AUMF is to lay out in detail the scope, plan, purpose, and duration of a military operation and to provide both classified and non-classified briefings to Congress and allow them to debate and express their opinions on the merits of this. Absent an AUMF from Congress, we are committing ourselves to an open ended war, declared by the President about which we have little to no details. Lastly, history has shown that U.S. involvement in sectarian as well as civil wars raging in the Middle East does not benefit our interests. ISIL would not exist today if it were not for the unnecessary U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which I voted against. ISIL is a regional threat and it is time for Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, and other so- called ``partners'' to step up and fight this war themselves. They have no incentive to do it if we keep fighting it for them. Additionally, arming Syrian rebels could drag the U.S. into the Syrian civil war. General Martin Dempsey said yesterday in his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he would put U.S. troops on the ground if he felt it was necessary despite the President's numerous statements that he would not put boots on the ground. Already you can hear the march to war. In fact, it is easy to argue that continued U.S. military actions in the Middle East only create more hatred directed at our nation and increase the risk of terrorism both here and abroad.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2996, the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014. When it comes to job-creating bills, many of our promises these days can seem empty. But the bill before us today will deliver results, not just rhetoric. This bill, if enacted and funded, will do more than any other measure this Congress has recently debated to revitalize American manufacturing and create high-skill, high-paying jobs in communities across the country. The decline in U.S. manufacturing has been a threat to middle class jobs and to our entire economy for decades. Many of those jobs, however, were low-skilled jobs, never to return. But we have also seen a large number of higher-skilled jobs move offshore, along with the supply chain that supports manufacturing. The good news is we experience a rebound in good-paying, high-skilled jobs as our economy continues to recover and manufacturers realize the advantages of remaining close to the world's greatest scientific and technological talent. However, these gains remain modest. In the meantime, our international competitors are busy implementing and funding policies that will further threaten the American manufacturing base and send our best talents overseas. I am deeply concerned that we could reach a tipping point beyond which it will be nearly impossible to rebuild a vibrant manufacturing sector here in the U.S. We must act now to ensure that American companies and factories maintain their capacity to be the most sophisticated in the world and that American colleges and universities graduate the workforce to fill advanced manufacturing jobs on our shores. The Revitalize American Manufacturing Innovation Act, or RAMI, is a critical step toward this goal. This bill makes strategic investments in advanced manufacturing research, development, and education across our Nation. In keeping with our entire history of innovation, this bill creates partnerships involving the public sector, the private sector, and our great research institutions for the benefit of Americans. However, even if this bill gets enacted this month, our job is not done. Specifically, I am concerned about an unnecessary obstacle we have added to the bill that could make it difficult to stand up and sustain this program. To meet majority rules about offsetting all new authorizations, the bill that passed out of committee contained language that by some subsequent interpretations looked like appropriating on an authorization bill. I want to assure my appropriations colleagues that if I had my way, we would have written a straightforward authorization as we have always done throughout this committee's history. Clarifying language has been added to the bill, but we now look to the appropriators to take the next step necessary of standing up for this program in fiscal year 2015. In that regard, I look forward to working with my appropriations colleagues to ensure that this program gets funded next year and for the duration of the authorization. I would like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Reed, for their bipartisan work to develop this legislation and determination in moving it forward. I would also like to thank Chairman Smith for his efforts to bring this bill to the floor. Finally, I am also pleased that this legislation includes the manufacturing strategy introduced by Mr. Lipinski and the reauthorization of the Regional Innovation program introduced by Mr. Hultgren and Mr. Kilmer. These are important steps in the right direction. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Ron Anderson, my dear friend, who passed away on September 11, 2014. I am humbled to have shared in his successes and to have been able to support his vision for transforming public health in Dallas County. Dr. Ron Anderson served as the CEO and President of Dallas' Parkland Memorial Hospital for twenty-nine years. I am deeply saddened by his passing, but I am honored to celebrate his legacy and contributions, not only to Dallas County, but to the global health community. During my career as a psychiatric nurse with the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center and as a state and federal legislator, I have never known a public health official who treated his patients with as much compassion as Dr. Anderson. His passion and commitment to treating each and every individual who visited his hospital is unparalleled. He dedicated his life to healing people, regardless of their race, economic class, ethnic origin or immigration status. He was steadfast and visionary. Through his years of service to Dallas County's only public hospital, Dr. Anderson's name has become synonymous with Parkland. Dr. Anderson's tenure at Parkland began in 1973 as an intern seeking training in a large city. He grew up in poverty in Chickasaw, Oklahoma and was able to connect with the high population of low-income patients who sought health care at Parkland. Not only did he help to treat the underserved in Dallas County, he led the charge in advocating for every individual to receive the best care possible. After he became President and CEO in 1982, Dr. Anderson lobbied tirelessly to stop patient dumping, or the practice of transferring unstable patients from private to public hospitals because of the patient's inability to pay. In 1986, federal legislation was passed and signed into law prohibiting patient dumping. Dr. Anderson also fought to allow Parkland's physicians to treat every patient, no matter their citizenship status. In the mid-1990s, Dr. Anderson became a national spokesperson when welfare reform proposals threatened to force health care providers to report undocumented immigrants to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He advocated for the preservation of the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship. Under Dr. Anderson's dynamic leadership, Parkland's system expanded to include twelve local primary care clinics and twelve school-based clinics. The Homeless Outreach Medical Services branch was also established, providing care in more than twenty homeless shelters in Dallas County. Hospital administrators travelled from all over the world to see Parkland and to learn from Dr. Anderson's visionary and compassionate leadership style. In 2005, Dr. Anderson's colleagues recognized his leadership by awarding him the Dallas County Medical Society's Max Cole Leadership Award. He is responsible for the new $1.8 billion Parkland facility across the street from the original campus. Mr. Speaker, my friend, Dr. Ron Anderson, dedicated his life to improve the lives of countless thousands of people. He exemplified the virtues of a true care-giver and was an exemplary model for other physicians. I urge my colleagues to celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Ron Anderson.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 78, Designating the facility of the United States Postal Service Located at 4110 Alameda Road in Houston, Texas, as the ``George Thomas `Mickey' Leland Post Office Building.'' I had the pleasure of serving with Congressman Leland and even taking my first oath for public office together, along with Congressman Leland's successor, Congressman Craig Washington. Congressman Leland, my friend and mentor, made a lasting impact on Congress that has helped bring focus to aid parts of the world that suffered from extreme hunger and poverty. Congressman Leland was a transformative leader not only in our home state of Texas, but throughout the world. Congressman Leland was elected to Congress in 1978 to represent the 18th Congressional District of Texas, filling the seat vacated by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan when she retired. He was a progressive leader that twice chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. Congressman Leland helped to form the House Select Committee on World Hunger in 1984 which generated awareness within Congress regarding national and international hunger and prompted a bipartisan effort to find solutions to end hunger in the U.S. and around the world. Congressman Leland made a lasting impact that can be felt today through the Congressional Hunger Center. Former Democratic Congressman Tony Hall, a close friend of Congressman Leland and former chair of the House Select Committee on Hunger, joined Republican Representative Bill Emerson to form the bi-partisan Congressional Hunger Center in 1993. Soon after its formation, the Congressional Hunger Center established the Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows Program to serve as a living legacy to Congressman Leland and his world-changing work to end hunger. The Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows Program trains emerging leaders during a two-year period to eradicate hunger worldwide. Congressman Leland's legacy continues to thrive in Congress. I urge my colleagues to support Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee's legislation to designate the U.S. Post Office in Houston, Texas as the Mickey Leland Post Office building as a tribute to my dear friend and former colleague.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5309, the ''Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2014''. First, I want to thank the Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Bonamici, for her work on this legislation and her commitment to maintaining the health and vitality of the Nation's oceans and coastal communities. I would also like to thank Mr. Rohrabacher for joining her in this bipartisan effort. And finally, I want to thank the Chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Smith, for helping to move this bipartisan bill to the floor today. Over 120 million Americans call the United States coastline their home. These coastal communities--from major cities to small towns--play a vital role in sustaining the American economy, supporting commercial fishing enterprises, tourism, and maritime commerce. In fact, approximately one-third of the U.S. gross domestic product has its origins in coastal areas. That is why the bill we are considering today is so important. It would reauthorize the Tsunami Warning and Education Act of 2006, and allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue to protect Americans and our coastal economies from the threat of tsunami. This legislation is a perfect example of a familiar saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our tsunami warning program has been effective over the last eight years, but we must remain vigilant in our preparedness and continue to invest in the research and development, and education and outreach, necessary to improve the resiliency of our coastal communities to these destructive waves. We were reminded in 2004 in Sumatra, and again in 2011 in Japan, of the devastation that can be caused by a tsunami. Since the United States has not been struck by a major tsunami since 1964, I think it is useful to put the potential threat into perspective. I know I do not have to remind anyone of the amount of damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. A single tsunami event in the United States could dwarf the devastation caused by either of those disasters. Billions and billions of dollars in economic damages and countless lives are at risk if we do not maintain, and improve, our tsunami detection and forecasting capabilities. H.R. 5309 advances NOAA's research efforts to do just that and may ultimately add minutes of critical response time to tsunami warnings. The bill also recognizes that the results of NOAA's research must be translated into outreach and education activities at the state and local level. The effective and timely communication of threats is critical in mitigating the impacts of a natural disaster. Increased warning times are only effective if people know how to respond. I am pleased that this legislation emphasizes and supports local community preparedness. Resiliency to natural disasters is an important part of strengthening the nation's economic security. I want to ensure that our coastal communities have the resources and tools they need to minimize the loss of life and property caused by a tsunami. Reauthorizing NOAA's tsunami activities by passing H.R. 5309 is a key step in helping to do just that. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.