Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I wonder: Does anyone know who Lisa Gray is? Or the many Lisa Grays across America? Lisa Gray is a woman who, as a small business owner, admitted that if it had not been for the Affordable Care Act, she would not have been able to get the chemo treatment for her leukemia.

Just think of the workers who are now getting affordable care access. Now, with this legislation, they will be cut to 39 or 38 or 32 hours, so as not to have the employee-mandated and responsible way of treating their health insurance.

This bill that is on the floor today will give us a $53 billion deficit. It will result in 1 million people losing their employee- sponsored coverage like Lisa Gray or families that I saw coming for enrollment in Texas.

It will increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the health insurance marketplace between 500,000 and 1 million and increase the number of uninsured by upwards of 500,000.

Do we realize what we have gained through the Affordable Care Act? According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health insurance rose just 3 percent. That is far different from 7.9 percent before the Affordable Care Act. Where is all this noise that our insurance premiums are going up?

I will tell you what will be going up: it will cause an additional 6.5 million workers to find that their employers have cut their hours, and it will result in $19.6 billion in additional costs to the Federal health care program.

Are we talking about deficit? I am talking about lives, Madam Speaker, and I am talking about the ability to save lives. This legislation is not interested in doing so.

What about my State of Texas? We have not opted in to the expanded Medicaid. Twenty-three States--what will that do to individuals below 100 percent of the Federal poverty line if they had any ability to access the marketplace? They won't have the ability to access the marketplace because they will be in those who are cut down.

Let me just say that we have the ability to realize and do better. Let me stop people from saying there is no Federal law that requires employers, Madam Speaker, to cover employees. You won't face penalties.

You can do better. I believe this bill does not answer our concerns. I don't want Lisa Gray to lose her insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 30, the so-called ``Save American Workers Act of 2014,'' which is the latest attempt by the House Republican majority to impede the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and deny Americans the security that comes from having access to affordable, high-quality health care.

At the start of the new Congress the American people expect the ``People's House'' to take up matters of central concern to their lives: jobs, affordable education; and initiatives to close the income gap.

I oppose this bill because its effect would be to deny employer provided health insurance to hard working employees who work more than 30 hours but less than 40 hours per week.

The majority is bringing before the House of Representatives a bill that was brought before the last Congress, and the Obama Administration said that it would be vetoed.

The majority has attempted over 50 times to end the Affordable Care Act with no hope of accomplishing their goal. Today's vote is no different from past attempts to take away Americans' right to affordable health care insurance.

Further, should the Republican majority in the Senate decide to take up this bill--they do not have the 60 votes to bring H.R. 30 before the Senate for a final vote.

If they could get H.R. 30 out of the Senate the President would veto the bill and neither the House nor the Senate has the two-thirds majority necessary to overcome a veto.

This is a waste of limited legislative days for 2015, and a poor start to the 114th Congress.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act would: Increase the federal deficit by $53 billion over the next decade; Result in one million people losing sponsoring coverage; Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, CHIP, and the Health Insurance Marketplaces by between 500,000 and one million people; and Increase the number of uninsured by up to 500,000.

Since 2013, over 10 million Americans now have health insurance because they took advantage of the Affordable Care Act.

An independent analysis conducted by the University of California Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education found that increasing the threshold from 30 to 40 hours would result in nearly three times as many workers, about 6.5 million in total, being vulnerable to hour reductions than under current law.

Premiums for employer-sponsored insurance grew in 2014 at the lowest rate on record back to 1999, tied with 2010. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation data, the average annual premium for employer- sponsored family health insurance coverage rose just 3.0 percent (1.2 percent adjusted for inflation) to $16,834 in 2out, far below the 7.9 percent (5.6 percent adjusted for inflation) rate seen from 2000-2010.

Our nation has taken a momentous step in creating a mindset that health insurance is a personal responsibility with the enactment of the Affordable Care Act. The law did not automatically enroll all citizens into the program because it was specifically designed to be an opt-in process.

This nation because of the Affordable Care Act has 7.3 million people signed up for Marketplace plans, paid their premiums, and accessed quality, affordable coverage.

An additionally, 8 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP since the beginning

2015 Open Enrollment--that's an increase of nearly 14 percent compared to average monthly signups before this year's enrollment period began.

Millions of young adults have gotten covered on their parent's plan, because the law says they can now do so until they turn 26.

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine found that 10.3 million uninsured Americans have gotten since the start of Open Enrollment.

In just one year (since the start of Open Enrollment), we've reduced the number of uninsured adults by 26 percent.

Americans have more choices. During Open Enrollment 21314, consumers could choose from an average of 47 plans. Contrast that to before the Affordable Care Act when many consumers had few, if any, real choices.

Today, we're able to announce that in 2015 there is a 25 percent increase in the total number of insurers selling health insurance plans in the Marketplace in 44 states.

Seventy-six million Americans with private health insurance can finally get preventive services such as vaccines, cancer screenings, and yearly wellness visits without cost sharing, because the law says your insurance company must provide you with these services with no copay or other out-of-pocket expense.

This includes nearly 30 million women and over 18 million children. Millions of families have real financial security because insurance companies can no longer deny them coverage because of a pre-existing condition or because they reach an annual or lifetime limit in coverage. Insurance companies must include things like prescription drugs and hospital stays in their coverage. And being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition.

H.R. 30 proposes to amend the Internal Revenue Code by redefining a full time employee for purposes of providing health insurance to only those workers who work a 40-hour workweek.

The bill would redefine ``full-time employee,'' for purposes of determining which employees an employer must provide health insurance coverage to only those hourly wageworkers who work 40 hours a week. The Affordable Care Act for the purpose of employers providing health care to workers defined a full time employee as any worker who works 30 hours a week or more.

Few hourly workers in low-wage jobs work a 40-hour work week. These employees often rely on government assistance, which amounts to a hidden tax break to employers. Low wageworkers often rely upon public housing assistance, SNAP, WIC or Medicaid to make ends meet.

In the 115th Congress wants to help Americans with access to affordable health care insurance they would address the issue of states that are not participating in the Medicaid expansion in states like the state of Texas where millions of uninsured low wage workers do not have access to health care insurance.

Health insurance should not be used as a status symbol, but a basic right for people who live in the world's most prosperous nation. I know that many predicted that the Affordable Care Act would cause havoc on the nation's health care system, but it is not the ACA that is causing havoc--it is a small vocal minority within the majority party that is causing headaches and heartaches to doctors and their patients.

I ask that my Colleagues vote against the rule for H.R. 30.

[From The Ledger.com, Jan. 8, 2015]

Stories Behind the Legislation: Woman--Obama's Health Coverage Saved Me

(By Noam N. Levey)

Alexandria, VA.--Like many working Americans, Lisa Gray

thought she had good health insurance.

That was until she was diagnosed with leukemia in mid-2013,

and the self-employed businesswoman made a startling

discovery: Her health plan didn't cover the chemotherapy she

needed. ``I thought I was going to die,'' Gray, 62, said

recently, recalling her desperate scramble to get lifesaving

drugs.

Through a mix of temporary measures, doctors and patient

advocates managed to keep Gray stable for a few months.

But it was a new health plan through the Affordable Care

Act that Gray credits with saving her life. The plan, which

started Jan. 1, 2014, gave her access to the recommended

chemotherapy. Her cancer went into remission in the fall.

It's been one year since the federal law began guaranteeing

coverage to most Americans for the first time, even if they

are sick.

Some consumers pay more for insurance. Some pay less.

Doctors, hospitals and businesses are laboring to keep up

with new requirements. And across the country, ``Obamacare''

remains a polarizing political issue.

For many Americans like Gray--who were stuck in plans that

didn't cover vital services or who couldn't get insurance

because of a pre-existing medical condition--the law has had

a personal, even life-changing impact.

``A couple years earlier, I think I would have been done,''

Gray said.

Even the law's supporters concede more must be done to

control health care costs and ensure access to care.

But the insurance guarantee--which includes billions of

dollars in aid to low- and middle-income Americans--has

extended coverage to about 10 million people who previously

had no insurance, surveys indicate.

That cut the nation's uninsured rate more than 20 percent

last year, the largest drop in half a century.

The law also changed coverage for millions more people who

were in plans like Gray's that capped or excluded benefits.

Gray thought little of these potential changes when

President Barack Obama signed the health law in the spring of

2010. She'd had health insurance for decades.

With a monthly $1,095 premium, the Kaiser Permanente plan

that she had gotten through her husband's employer wasn't

cheap.

But it was her only option. As a breast cancer survivor,

Gray probably wouldn't have been able to find a new plan.

On the morning of May 20, 2013, Gray skidded off the road

driving to her vacation condominium on Maryland's Eastern

Shore. Aside from a few bruises, she was unhurt.

But she had a bigger surprise at the emergency room. A

routine blood test showed an unusually high white blood cell

count.

Gray had chronic myeloid leukemia, a relatively uncommon

form of cancer that starts in the bone marrow and leads to

the production of abnormal blood cells.

The disease is now considered highly treatable. Gray's

oncologist at Kaiser prescribed the standard oral

chemotherapy, a medication known as Gleevec.

Gray called her pharmacy to pick up the prescription.

There was a pause on the line. The pharmacist asked Gray

whether she knew the drug would cost $6,809 per month.

``I freaked out,'' she recalled. ``Why would they even make

this drug if people can't afford it?''

Neither Gray nor her doctor realized her Kaiser plan

covered only $1,500 worth of prescription drugs a year, a

provision spelled out in small type in Appendix B of her 80-

page plan brochure.

Gray's family explored going to Canada, where

pharmaceuticals are often less expensive. They finally found

a clinical trial closer to home at the University of

Maryland, Baltimore, where researchers were testing an

alternative to Gleevec called ponatinib.

Gray's cancer quickly responded. The relief was only

temporary, however. The next month, Gray had to stop the

ponatinib. Without access to either drug, she was again

scrambling.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, which provides cancer patients with a

temporary insurance card for a 30-day supply of yet another

cancer drug, seemed to offer hope. But the card wasn't

accepted at the Kaiser pharmacy where Gray had to get her

prescriptions.

American Cancer Society advocate Brandon Costantino

persuaded a company sales representative to give Gray a

month's supply anyway.

Even the promise of a new insurance plan under the

Affordable Care Act seemed elusive at first. Gray, like

others, battled through the problems that hobbled

HealthCare.gov after it opened.

Finally, on Dec. 2, 2013, she selected a new Kaiser

Permanente health plan for $780 per month. That was $315 less

than her current plan. Most important, the plan covered

Gleevec for a $30-a-month co-pay.

Gray broke down in the pharmacy when she picked up her

first prescription.

She admits she's ``kind of a crier.''

Nine months later, a bone marrow biopsy showed no further

sign of leukemia.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to begin this new opportunity of service to the American people, clearly we want to emphasize to them that we take this responsibility seriously and, as well, that we know that we represent our constituents. These are districts that are between thousands of people that are in our congressional districts, but we realize that the broader sense of what we do is to represent our Nation and the values and needs of the American people.

Over the last 2 days, as we begin this legislative process, I have been concerned about two issues in particular that I believe do not, if you will, provide for the overall sensitivity to the American people. We were discussing a major financial services bill that will be coming up. Many elements are in this bill, but I want our constituents and, more importantly, our colleagues to realize that you have a bill that will diminish what we call the Volcker rule.

What that is is a protection to make sure if banks want to dibble and dabble in risky ventures or risky investments, that they do so with the money that is private and separate from money that is protected by the FDIC. That is your savings accounts. That is the money you socked away. In the instance of this legislation, they want to take that protection away so that banks can dibble and dabble in accounts that are protected by the FDIC, meaning that you pay for mistakes; you pay for collapse; you pay for the wrong decisions that are made; and you lose. I don't want the American people to lose.

It is something that has touched my heart because I represent a vast amount of constituents: those who are quite well-endowed, if you will, quite wealthy, such as major corporations and neighbors and others who are doing quite well; and then, of course, I represent children and widows who are dependent on something called SSI, or those who are disabled who are dependent on SSI. And I cannot, for the life of

me, understand why we would pass legislation that would, in essence, indicate that we are not going to continue supporting SSI, in fact, that we may call for either the elimination or the decreasing of benefits under SSI.

Do we realize, does this Republican leadership realize, that those who receive SSI are the most vulnerable, the poorest, the children who are in great need, the sick who are in great need, people who have worked and who have fallen upon times in which they need that kind of support? Why would we, in the thinking of representing the core of American values, lifting all people, believing in the equality of all, why would we do this? And so my voice is going to be heard loudly and clearly. I call upon, as my Democratic colleagues have so aptly noted, that we raise our voices and that we get in the way and that we stop this kind of intrusion on those who cannot, in some instances, speak for themselves.

I want to rise today as well to acknowledge my deepest sympathy to the people of France for the heinous and tragic incident which has just occurred. When I left, there were 12 dead, including two police officers in the line of duty. We pray for their families, and we stand up against this vile act of franchise terrorism.

As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am grateful to serve on that committee with the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and Chairman McCaul. I hope that we can work in a bipartisan manner to confront this kind of dangerous terrorism, recognizing that we do not label people by their faith, but we label them by their actions.

Might I also say that I express, again, on the floor, a sympathy for the tragic execution of the NYPD law enforcement officers. We do not stand for that. That individual has been determined to be disturbed, crazed, and does not represent any value of America. We offer our deepest sympathy to those shot recently in the line of duty. Hopefully we will continue working in the Judicial Committee to look at the criminal justice system that really involves a whole number of elements, such as the grand jury system, the special prosecutor system, the constant traffic stops in many instances that are done on a racially profiled scenario, and the uplifting of training and community-oriented policing.

Mr. Speaker, we can do all of these things if we work together, but I did not come to this Congress to undermine the criminal justice system or to undermine people who are in need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 37, The Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act of 2015.

This Trojan Horse legislation is actually a combination of eleven separate bills, ten of which were authored by Republican members of the Committee.

I believe that Members should be afforded the opportunity to offer amendments and have a full and fair debate on these bills. However, by considering this package under Suspension of the Rules, Republicans begin the new year by denying Members the opportunity to thoroughly debate a measure that will have far-reaching impact.

Let's be clear: regulators have made tremendous progress in implementing the Dodd-Frank Act. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has already returned $4.6 billion to 15 million consumers who have been subjected to unfair and deceptive practices, some of whom live in my Congressional District in Houston.

The CFPB has established a qualified mortgage rule, ensuring that borrowers who are extended mortgage credit actually have the ability to repay the loan, and has established new rules-of-the-road for mortgage servicers.

In addition, the CFPB has worked with the Department of Defense to develop financial protections for service members and veterans, and established a national database to aide consumers with complaints about debt collectors, credit card companies, and credit rating agencies, among others. Let us not turn back the clock on American consumers who already have seen the benefits of the CFPB's efforts.

The Volcker Rule has forced banks to sell-off their standalone proprietary trading desks, and banks have shifted away from speculative trading to investments in the real economy. Shareholders of U.S. corporations now have the ability to have a ``say-on-pay,'' voting to approve or disapprove executive compensation.

In addition Mr. Speaker, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has recovered more than $9.3 billion in civil fines and penalties since 2011, leveraging enhanced authorities provided by Dodd-Frank. The SEC has also established an Office of the Whistleblower to aid them in policing securities market violations, which has already received more than 6,573 tips from 68 countries. Further, private funds are making systemic risk reports to regulators, helping them to understand previously opaque risks.

To implement the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFTC has completed 65 final rules, orders, and guidance documents resulting in the registration and enhanced oversight of 102 Swap Dealers, two Major Swap Participants, 22 Swap Execution Facilities, and four Swap Data Repositories. In addition, the CFTC has established rules governing mandatory clearing, exchange trading, and reporting of the entire $400 trillion notional swaps market.

It should also be noted that since Dodd-Frank's passage, stability in the market has led to significant economic growth. Nearly 9.7 million private sector payroll jobs have been created since February 2010.

There are now nearly 900,000 more workers employed in the private sector than before recession-related job losses began in early 2008. The unemployment rate has fallen by 3.9 percentage points since its peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 and currently stands at 6.1 percent--its lowest level since September 2008. Real GDP has grown 10.2 percent since its trough in 2009, and now stands 5.5 percent higher than its pre-recession peak in late 2007. That in and of itself is news that the media should be discussing.

Moreover, the housing market is recovering, with home prices rising, negative equity falling dramatically, and measures of mortgage distress improving. The S&P 500 has risen by 85 percent since July 21, 2010 and has recently reached new peaks.

However, this progress has been regularly stymied by a concerted effort by the Majority to underfund regulators' operations, relentlessly pressure them to weaken regulations, and otherwise erect roadblocks to implementation. As a result, the progress regulators have made to implement the law remains precarious.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and have a full debate on its merits.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, we have seen tragic incidents occurring against innocent people, today in particular, the tragic killing of journalists and police officers in Paris, France, terrorist acts against innocent persons and persons who we know in the United States have the right to the First Amendment and freedom of expression that is the very core of the principles of this Nation of which we value and which our soldiers have gone to faraway wars to fight for.

At the same time, Boko Haram, a terrorist group that has plagued the African continent, mainly in Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and around the areas of Niger, have taken a city near Lake Chad. They have seized that city. They have taken over the military base. They are continuing to kill thousands and causing 1.5 million to be displaced.

Again, we have to fight terrorism in a universal manner, both in terms of our attitudes and values, but more importantly, in the organizing of African nations to stand up against these heinous terrorists, who have stolen children, 300 girls and boys, and taken them from their families and lives. Boko Haram cannot be in control. We must, in a united way, stand against them and provide for the peace and tranquility of the people of the continent where they are.

Mr. Speaker, as you notice, Members who are on the floor today have come from a variety of States, a variety of political philosophies and positions. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge Congresswoman Barbara Lee for galvanizing Members on both sides of the aisle on an important and enormous leap of change that we have made over the years by her determination and persistence and knowledge. So I thank her very much for that kind of leadership, allowing many of us to travel to Cuba on any number of occasions, meeting with Fidel Castro, speaking about issues of government and the needs of the Cuban people and the needs of the American people.

To my colleagues, everyone who has visited, they have found the Cuban people hospitable and friendly, desiring peace, and respecting America. If there is ever one impression that you have when you leave Cuba, it is the desire for strong relationships and the connectedness between Cubans, Cuban-Americans, and Americans.

As a Representative from Texas, I can assure you that over the years I have heard often from members of my agricultural community about their desire to begin engaging with trade in Cuba. And they do so as proud Americans, as Americans who have sent young men and now young women to faraway shores in military uniform to defend this Nation.

What they see in Cuba, as has been indicated, is a friend with which we had disagreements, but a friend with which we now can find a pathway forward. As was mentioned, we had engaged in a war in Vietnam, we have engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers coming home now with few soldiers left behind. And, Mr. Speaker, we are engaging in diplomatic relations with Iraq, Afghanistan, and certainly Vietnam. How in the world can an island 90 miles away be held in such contempt that we cannot find a pathway forward.

So I strongly support the executive order of this President, and I will tell you why in just a few minutes of the time that I have remaining. I serve on the Homeland Security Committee, and previously on Judiciary, on which I continue. My colleague is correct. At the time of the young boy by the name of Elian Gonzalez, who was found near the shores of our great Nation, his mother deceased trying to escape, of course, from Cuba with a number of others, there was this custody fight, if you will, about whether or not his relatives here or his father should have custody over him, his father being in Cuba. What a sensitive question for a very young boy who could not make a decision on his own. What a traumatic experience in those difficult waters watching his mother not survive.

So as a member of that committee, working with my fellow colleagues and working then with the Clinton administration and then Attorney General Janet Reno, though it was not, if I might say, a clear and pretty scene, we knew that in the best interest of the child the parent was the best custodian or guardian, whether or not that child was, in fact, having to go to Cuba.

But as I said earlier, the Cuban people are peaceful people. Every country has had a revolutionary path, and Cuba has as well. But it was a right decision for Elian, who is now a young man, and to all accounts is performing his duties as a responsible adult. But that was a very tough incident in our political life, if you will, to see a child snatched by officials of this government to take him home to Cuba. Maybe that was, in fact, the first statement of an altered policy.

Let me close by saying why I believe the President's executive order is legitimate in the context of his legal authority, and I am excited about the beginning of the change in diplomatic relationships between Cuba and the United States.

Mr. Speaker, would you not want to know who is 90 miles away from you in this time of franchise terrorism? Wouldn't we want to know who our allies are in the Caribbean, or who our allies are in fighting horrific drug trafficking? Well, I think we can find that in the entity of the Cuban government. We know that we have not seen a terrorist incident in that particular country. That is why we need to normalize relations.

I am grateful for Mr. Gross' return, who was brought out by many Members of Congress, including my colleagues here, including Congresswoman Lee, and as well some of the other political prisoners who have been released, including some in recent days.

And then lastly let me say, let us celebrate the Cuban people for the magnificent export that they have: medicine, medical research, and physicians. Everyone knows that in the Ebola fight, the largest contingent, or one of the largest contingents of medical professionals, doctors fighting against Ebola on the continent of Africa, is and has been Cuban doctors alongside of the international workforce of medical professionals, Good Samaritans who sacrifice their lives to fight this deadly disease. But every single medical crisis in the world, you can count on Cuban doctors being there, as well as in conflicts and wars, such as over in the Mideast, Cuban doctors go to save lives.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for this Special Order. I look forward to joining her in further codels to visit and to be part of the continued normalization. I say this not out of disrespect of the feelings of others who have experienced a crisis in their relationship with Cuba, but only to say that now may be the time for peaceful reconciliation, for families to be reconciled and for us to begin this peaceful journey with the nation of Cuba. Let me thank you, thank President Obama, and thank those who are very much a part of this.

Having written a letter to join with other colleagues for the release of Alan Gross, I want to make sure the record said Alan Gross and not Alan Grossman. Best to his wife and him at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2901, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2014, which makes the provision of safe water and sanitation a stated goal of U.S. foreign assistance policy and requires the President, through the State Department, to develop and implement a strategy to further such efforts in developing countries.

Safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene are among the most basic needs a person can have, yet 748 million people in the world do not have access to safe water; roughly 1/10 of the world's population.

In countries such as Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger and Papua New Guinea, less than 50% of the population has access to safe water.

More than 2.5 billion people in the world lack access to adequate sanitation, which is approximately 35 percent of the global population.

The lack of clean water and basic sanitation facilities leaves millions trapped in a cycle of poverty and disease, costing the lives of around 500,000 children per year--dying from diarrhea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation.

The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act will make better use of existing WASH (``Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene'') funds, strengthen accountability for WASH programs already underway, and ensure the greatest impact on communities worldwide without spending new money or creating new bureaucracy.

For every $1 invested in WASH, $4 is returned in increased economic productivity, making WASH one of the most effective and efficient choices we can make for global child health, nutrition, resource conservation, women's empowerment and education.

Specifically, H.R. 2901, the Water for the World Act, will:

1. Institutionalize existing capacity in the U.S. government to ensure WASH remains a political priority and expertise is available at USAID and State Department headquarters to guide strategic implementation of effective and sustainable WASH programs

2. Enhance criteria for choosing high-priority countries to ensure that limited funds are directed to the countries and communities most in need

3. Advance best practices of effective aid, such as improved monitoring and evaluation and a focus on leveraging non-Federal partnerships and funds

4. Improve the strategic approach to international safe water, sanitation, hygiene, and water resources management by providing smart guidance that builds off USAID's own strategy

The bill before us today also provides for a Global Water Coordinator to be designated to oversee water, sanitation, and hygiene assistance, and to develop a complementary strategy to further the U.S. foreign assistance objective to provide affordable and equitable drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in developing countries.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2901 will provide effective, long-term, sustainable impacts by improving coordination and oversight of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene projects and activities.

By voting in support of this act, we have the power to improve the well-being, education, economic opportunity, safety and dignity of the 2.5 billion people in the world who live without a basic latrine every day.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the Water for the World Act to save lives, reduce poverty, and help drive economic growth by bringing safe drinking water and improved sanitation and hygiene to those most in need.

Mr. Speaker, access to clean, potable water will be one of the world's most pressing problems over the next century and further contribute to instability within and between nations as is the case in the Darfur conflict.

In the developing world, water-related diseases kill 5,000 children every day.

Sick children miss nearly 300 million school days a year from water- related causes, and an estimated 320 million productive work days are lost to illness--with much of the burden carried by girls and women.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, Senator Paul Simon's successor and the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate companion to H.R. 2901, that:

Water access is no longer simply a global health and

development issue; it is a mortal and long-term threat that

is increasingly becoming a national security issue. The

United States needs to do much more to ensure that global

water access is protected and expanded.

Passing H.R. 2901 is an essential first step in ensuring that global water access is protected and expanded.

I urge all members to join me in supporting this important legislation and fitting memorial to the late great Senator from Illinois, Senator Paul Simon.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Madam Speaker, it has been a long day, and I believe the American people have seen the best of what America is in the vigorous debate and review of the future of this Nation. Yes, there were some positive aspects to the appropriations bill--the $5 billion in funding for Ebola treatment and the $2.2 billion for the rural development account which will help my constituents in Jacinto City, helping them rebuild a burned-down police station, which I hope to work on, and yes, the $18.1 billion for NASA, $363.7 million more than in 2014.

But I believe that out of good conscience, I would not want to stand in support of again going backwards in allowing banks to be engaged in derivatives and having American taxpayers pay for their actions. I believe in opportunities and banks and investment, but not the derivative work that causes them to be able to have the taxpayers pay for their mistakes.

Finally, I believe there is too much money in campaigns and politics; and now in this bill that will be signed by the President, $300,000 will be allowed to be given by one individual as opposed to the $97,000. Get money out of politics. Let's get back to legislating for the people, and we can all join together united for good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as well to come to the floor of the House and pay tribute to our outgoing chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Before I do that, however, I believe it is important to say to this body that our charge and responsibility is to ensure the governance of this Nation. As the appropriations omnibus unfolded, I believe the continuing resolution that has been put forward is evidence of the nonresponsibility and the nonthought of those who have the obligation to govern this Nation. I believe it is important to raise the question of where is the objectivity.

The continuing resolution is to fund the Nation's homeland security. That means that we are saying to those who just lost their lives in Yemen, to the Americans who have been seen being beheaded by ISIL, to Boko Haram, al Shabaab, to al Qaeda, and many other franchise terrorists that America will stand bare and unprepared, that her national security will be in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we speak against a continuing resolution that funds homeland security partially.

Let me also say that I believe in this great Nation. I believe in the Constitution, and I fully realize that the executive order that was issued by the President dealing with the humanitarian relief and the discretion by agencies, prosecutorial discretion, is within the context of his authority under article II.

I am fully aware that the President's executive order was well vetted by constitutional specialists, White House counsel, and the Department of Justice, objectively looking as to whether or not the President was making new law. In this executive order on immigration, no immigration status was conferred, no citizenship was conferred. The only thing that was determined in those executive orders is prosecutorial discretion on deporting individuals and deferring deportation.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the response is extreme. Not funding Homeland Security is extreme. I join with Secretary Johnson in standing against this discriminatory practice on an agency that is crucial to the security of airports and ports and the borders and protecting the American people.

As I ask for a reconsideration, it allows me to speak of a lady who represents the best of the Constitution, and that is Chairwoman Fudge, who understood the quality of all and the importance of guiding this caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, around the issues of justice. Let me thank her for the considerations made during tragedies like Trayvon Martin, as we began with briefings and involvement in that case, and looked to support members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were fighting in their districts to bring about justice; her continued support of Members when the tragedies of Michael Brown and Eric Garner occurred, and many other incidents; her balance, as we all have, respecting and appreciating the service of law enforcement officers, including those whom we oversee on the Judiciary Committee: the DEA, the FBI, the ATF, and many others, but recognizing that the Constitution, as she so understands it, must be a document for all.

Let me, particularly, thank Chairwoman Fudge for her dedicated commitment to the nutrition of children across America. She is almost like Shirley Chisholm, who came to the Agriculture Committee. People wondered what she would do there. But she understood, as a local elected official, that food stamps were not a handout, they were a hand-up. I thank her for that.

And then to lay a marker for the issues of all Members, her understanding of the energy industry, particularly in States like Louisiana and Texas, where she encouraged Members to introduce the energy industry to the Congressional Black Caucus in terms of giving information. That is what we are: we learn, we get information.

And then, of course, her commitment to having an international presence, that people would know that the Congressional Black Caucus cares about the international community. That is an important step.

As we move forward in 2015, I wish the incoming chair much success. I think it is extremely important that we say thanks where appreciation is due, and I want to say, ``Thank you.''

Many people claim friendship, but I will say to you, Chairwoman Fudge, you have now gotten 40-plus new friends to your portfolio, and we will claim you as a friend because, as we worked together in this last Congress, as we worked with the United States President, President Barack Obama, as we worked with the Senate, as we worked with Federal agencies, as we worked with our community, you became a friend to us.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for his leadership as ranking member and formerly chair, and Mr. Hudson. Let me also acknowledge Mr. Richmond, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation Security.

It is clear that this committee, Homeland Security overall, has worked together for the betterment of the national security of this Nation, and these legislative initiatives in particular. I remember distinctly the hearings, the collaboration with a number of groups, and so I rise today to speak on the transportation security bill regarding best practices to improve transparency with regard to technology acquisition programs, and for other purposes.

The Transportation Security Administration, now under Homeland Security, is one of our vital organs that relates to the security of America. We only need look at special holidays throughout the Nation and throughout the year and realize how vital the aviation system is and how important it is to work together with the Transportation Security Administration, covering TSOs and certainly a large component of research and technology dealing with the security of our airports.

This initiative is an important one. It is almost unspeakable to have this size of inventory, some $185 million in assessment, languishing in warehouses under the name of the Transportation Security Administration.

Over the years as a ranking member and chairwoman on Transportation Security and now Border Security, likewise I have joined my colleagues in fighting for small businesses because there lies technology.

So this initiative to open the doors for the idea of a multiyear technology investment plan and underutilized innovation opportunities that can be provided in this area of security I believe is very important, and then of course to insist that 16 percent not be the number that we rely upon in terms of investment and opportunity for minorities and small businesses.

I support this initiative, and I must at this moment add my support for the legislation dealing with insisting on an aviation security advisory committee. I want to congratulate Mr. Thompson on that and indicate that the issue of aviation security matters needs collaboration.

Let me finish by saying, as we experienced over the last year, a decision to add or take away what item you could bring through security--we found out that collaboration on this is crucial.

So this is an important initiative, and I thank both the managers on the floor, and I support both of these initiatives and congratulate them for moving the security of America further.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to this season of joy, I am always committed to wishing all of my colleagues of this body, this government, and our people a happy holiday.

We are on the brink of the release of a report that talks about issues of torture which America has stood against. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to communicate that any report of past practices which we abhor does not indicate our lack of respect for the men and women of the CIA, nor does it give excuse to any international provocateur or terrorist to do violence to their own people.

This is a deliberative assessment of how we can go forward, how we can continue to protect this Nation, and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, it is important to protect our Nation. But we should not yield to those who will use this recklessly and violently to do terror around the world.

Let me thank our marines who are on high alert. Let me also bring to the attention of my colleagues that tomorrow is Human Rights Day, and I hope that we will stand on this floor and promote the values of human rights.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I challenge and charge those who would use this in a violent way: you are wrong, you are wrong, and you are wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for holding this Special Order for a very dear friend to all of us, Ralph Hall.

I guess my opening remarks would be that, if you took the greater percentage of all of us Members of the House of Representatives, everyone would rise up and say ``my good friend Ralph Hall'' and really mean it, for he was a good friend and is a good friend to all of us on both sides of the aisle.

When I came to the United States Congress, I went to the Science Committee, and there was Ralph Hall, fighting for the issues that were not only impacting the Nation, but were impacting our great State. No one could doubt that Ralph Hall was a champion for Texas, a champion for the space exploration program.

I used to love getting with him on the floor of the House and strategizing how we could continue to make sure that our human space exploration, our astronauts, and the great research that is done by NASA carries on.

Certainly, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was astutely concerned about the issues of energy, but also health care and many others.

He loved his family, and he forever reminded me of a time when he came to Houston and he had to see his grandson, who is now grown, and I am sure one of Ralph's favorite grandsons, if you will--he loves his family--when he had to get a ride to the hospital where his grandson was, and of course we are so grateful that he recovered. He always tells everyone that I went 30 miles out of my way to take him to that hospital, and I can say to you I did it with joy.

He was always grateful and thankful for friendship and kindness, and he was kind. And I must say that, if he didn't have a career in the United States Congress, he could be a stand-up comic because his timing was everything; his jokes were unique. I don't think they were written anywhere, and of course he was always saying them.

Let me also say, since he has had such a long history, he reminded me of his friendship with the Honorable Barbara Jordan and his friendship with Mickey Leland, two of the predecessors of my particular district.

And then I would offer to say the same remarks that were mentioned just earlier about how excited he was to be in Normandy for the 70th commemoration and have our own special iconic hero, Ralph Hall, who was honored by the French and honored by many. He was a regular hero and a dynamic hero as we went about the town.

My hat is off to Ralph. I know that he will be well. I know that he knows that we love him. But, more importantly, let me salute him as a great American who has served his Nation with dignity and honor and respect and integrity, and who walks the pathway of a congressional person that respects the dignity and integrity of this House and, as well, the friendship of Democrats and Republicans because he calls everyone an American.

I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Rush, and I thank Mr. Pallone for convening this Special Order and all of the members of this committee and Members of this House of Representatives that have come on the floor today with joy.

It is often said, ``It is not how long you serve, but how you serve.'' For John Dingell, that is not mutually exclusive. He served six decades, and he served it greatly and grandly and with distinction.

I am reminded of a description of him as a 6-foot-3-inch distinguished gentleman, towering over witnesses, but having the biggest of hearts, coming from the best of legacies in his father that served 22 years, reminded of his commitment to the Clean Air Act, safe drinking water, the endangered species.

John has always reminded us new ones, relatively speaking, that his greatest love was to provide affordable health care to every American.

Decades after his father introduced such a bill, he never gave up.

So I stand here today to thank you, John Dingell, for the Affordable Care Act. They call it many things--``ObamaCare''--but I am getting ready to call it ``DingellCare'' because you worked without ceasing. Thank you for your service to this Nation, where you stood in the shadows of World War II and stood as an American, willing to serve.

I am grateful for the service that he has given and for his long years of service as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Let me conclude by saying that there is much more that all of us can say, but you can see so many Members have come to the floor. On a personal note, there are two items that I want to acknowledge:

Thank you, John Dingell, for recognizing my voting rights--my opportunity to vote as an African American--and those of the thousands of millions that you helped in 1965. I will never forget your willingness to sacrifice personal political stature to do what is right. I also want to thank you so very much for being the kind of person on the floor of the House who asked about every Member. For every Member who came to your attention, you asked them how they were doing.

I conclude with these remarks, his final words about the Civil Rights Act. He said that he was glad to vote for a bill that solved a problem that was eating at the soul and heart and liver of the country.

Only John Dingell.

John Dingell, I salute you as a great and a grand American.

Thank you, Debbie Dingell. I will continue to look forward to your service.

John, we are going to look forward to your service and, of course, to your long life here in this great country and in your great State of Michigan. Again, John, thank you so very much.

Serving nearly six decades in the House of Representatives, John Dingell has earned the distinction of being both the longest-serving Member of Congress in U.S. history and one of the most influential legislators of all time.

After serving his country in the Army during World War II, John was first elected to Congress in 1955--representing the people of southeastern Michigan in a seat previously held by his father.

In Washington, John risked his seat to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought to pass Medicare in 1965, and penned legislation like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act that have kept millions of Americans healthy and preserved our natural beauty for future generations.

But of all John's accomplishments, perhaps the most remarkable has been his tireless fight to guarantee quality, affordable health care for every American.

Decades after his father first introduced a bill for comprehensive health care reform, John continued to introduce health care legislation at the beginning of every session.

And as an original author of the Affordable Care Act, he helped give millions of families the peace of mind of knowing they won't lose everything if they get sick.

One of the proudest moments in my career in the House was watching the distinguished gentleman from Michigan preside over debate on the rule for the Affordable Care Act.

Today, the people of Michigan--and the American people--are better off because of John Dingell's service to this country.

Ending a career that is among the most singular in congressional history, U.S. Rep. John Dingell--who helped pass, if not author, many of the most iconic legislative achievements of the last 60 years is, concluding a term of service to metro Detroit, Michigan and the nation unprecedented in its length and remarkable in its scope.

John Dingell's length of service stretches back to before Alaska and Hawaii were states and his father, John Sr., sat in the seat for 22 years before him.

Last June, he became the longest-serving member of Congress.

John David Dingell, Jr., was 29 years old when the Detroit native was elected in a 1955 special election to serve out the remainder of his late father's term.

Since then, he has cast tens of thousands of votes and played a role in everything from the Civil Rights Act and Medicare to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and, in 2010, the Affordable Care Act.

Known throughout Washington as Big John--at 6-foot-3, he literally towered over many witnesses before his House Energy and Commerce Committee--John Dingell cut a distinctive figure in the Capitol.

A progressive when it came to workers' rights, he is also a staunch defender of Michigan industries, including its automakers, and at times ran afoul of environmentalists.

He counts as among his most important accomplishments the creation of the Detroit International Wildlife Refuge and the River Raisin Battlefield.

In 1964, he voted for the Civil Rights Act. He called that vote the most important one he ever took--one that ``solved a problem that was eating at the soul and heart and liver of this country.''

John Dingell vastly expanded the scope of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's purview during his first stint as chairman--which lasted 1981-95--to the point where it was said it handled four out of every 10 bills in the House.

By example, he had a photo of the Earth from space behind his desk and when anyone asked him to define the committee's jurisdiction, he would point to it.

House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to say ``All politics is local'', but in John Dingell's case, all politics has always been personal. It is only when you have a personal relationship with someone that you establish trust, even when you're on opposite sides of an issue.

Through 60 years of public service, John fought for what he believed in, and got things done through relationships and his deep respect for others.

And there was no one he respected more than his constituents. He respected their hopes, their dreams, and their values. He has been relentless in his efforts to secure for them the right to live a decent middle-class life.

He has always been a staunch advocate for health care for every American, and he has been a player on every significant piece of legislation that has helped make America a more just, fair, and free country for over half a century.

It has been a privilege to walk the Halls of Congress with John Dingell.

I have never known a person who has been a better champion of the American worker, and he deserves a great deal of credit for the resurgence of the iconic American automobile industry.

The House and the American people are losing a great public servant.

But John is gaining a well-deserved retirement, and I wish him many happy years with his family.

John Dingell has always been more than Mr. Chairman to me.

He has been Dean, the longest serving Member of Congress and one of the most effective in our history.

There has never been a colleague I have admired more.

Happy retirement, John, and thank you for your service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with a House Amendment to H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

This legislation authorizes $495.5 billion in discretionary spending for the base budget for the Department of Defense and $17.9 billion in discretionary spending for the defense-related activities of the Department of Energy in Fiscal Year 2015, totaling $513.4 billion, which is $31 billion less than authorized in Fiscal Year 2014.

The legislation also authorizes $63.7 billion in Fiscal 2015 for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and the members of the Armed Services Committee for their work on this important legislation.

I especially wish to thank Chairman McKeon for his friendship and his service to the nation as he concludes his long and distinguished tenure as a member of the People's House.

The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the threats our nation must deal with not just today, but into the future. This makes the work on this bill vital to our national interest and it should reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their unwavering service to this great nation.

This is the 53rd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, which speaks to the long term commitment of the Congress and successive Administrations to provide for the defense of our nation.

The bill encompasses a number of initiatives designed to confront sexual assault in the military, making more efficient the work of protecting America, addresses the mental health needs of men and women in the armed services, and extends economic opportunity to small minority and women owned businesses.

There is much in the legislation before us that I strongly support. For example, the House-Senate agreement:

1. Significantly improves readiness by restoring $818 million in cuts made by House Republicans to the readiness accounts below what was requested by the President;

2. Supports a 1.0 percent pay raise for the troops for FY 2015, equal to the President's request;

3. Authorizes the awarding of the Purple Heart Medal to those killed domestically as a result of a foreign terrorist attack like the tragedies that occurred at Fort Hood in my home state of Texas;

4. Creates a flexible $1.3 billion Counter Terrorism Partnership Fund that supports partner nation operations and U.S. Building Partnership Capacity programs to combat terrorism in the Middle East and Africa and bring to heel notorious terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram;

5. The bill also addresses serious health and well-being challenges faced by our men and women in the armed services such as post-traumatic stress disorders by requiring the Department of Defense to report on improvements in the identification and treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of the Armed Forces, as well as providing a person-to-person mental health assessment for active duty and selected reserve members each year and, through 2018, a person-to-person mental health screening once during each 180-day period in which a member is deployed;

6. Requires the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Military, eliminates the ``good soldier defense,'' which allows alleged attackers to avoid charges by showcasing a positive military record in court, and builds upon the provisions included in the FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014 Defense Authorization bills that contained dozens of provisions, including stripping commanding officers of the unilateral authority to dismiss a finding by a court martial; prohibiting commanding officers from reducing guilty findings by a court martial to guilty of a lesser offense; and requiring that service members found guilty of sexual offenses, including rape or sexual assault, be dismissed or honorably discharged;

7. Authorizes $622 million for Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs, which is $349 million more than the President's request, a total that includes $350 million for Israel's ``Iron Dome'' short-range rocket defense system, which is $175 million more than the President's request;

8. Includes provisions to allow the Department of Defense to reprogram funds to carry out both the Syria train-and-equip program and the Iraq Train and Equip program to combat ISIL; and

9. Creates the National Commission on the Future of the U.S. Army, which will have four members appointed by the President and four appointed by Congress that is tasked to report back to Congress with recommendations for optimizing Army and National Guard Force Structure by February 1, 2016.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important lessons we learned from the long war in Iraq is the importance of military readiness which imposes on the Congress the obligation of ensuring that every woman and man sent into battle in defense of our nation must be properly trained and equipped.

This is why I will not forget the troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan when their vehicles were attacked by ``improvised explosive devices.''

To ensure that the Armed Forces of the United States remains the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world, we must provide them the resources needed to adapt and meet any challenge they may face, from global military conflicts to an Ebola virus outbreak.

I am also pleased that the bill includes authorization for awarding the Purple Heart Medal to those killed or wounded in domestic terrorist attacks, like the attack at Ft. Hood.

The Army National Guard is a critical component of our national defense structure.

The men and women of the National Guard serve our nation as a reserve force in times of military conflict and at home in responding public emergencies natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by the terrorist organization Boko Haram be addressed before it becomes become a problem of the level of ISIS to our national interests.

For this reason I offered an amendment to the House version of this bill that was adopted as Section 1266, which would have required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the nature and extent of the crimes against humanity committed by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

I am disappointed that Section 1266 of the House bill was not included in the final version of the bill but I am pleased the legislation reauthorizes the Africom command and recognizes the importance of combating terrorist activity on the continent of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is serious and real and the President has reached out to Congress to work with him to develop a unified and international response to meet the threat.

For this reason I support the provision in the legislation authorizing $3.4 billion for sustaining U.S. personnel forward-deployed to the Middle East, providing enablers such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, replenishing munitions expended while conducting airstrikes against ISIL, and financing operations and maintenance costs for air, ground and naval operations to date.

Specifically, I support the provision authorizing the President's $1.6 billion request to train and equip Iraqi security forces to re- build the capability and capacity of our Iraqi partners in the region so they can sustain the long-term fight to defeat ISIL and provide security and stability to the Iraqi people, so that large numbers of U.S. combat forces are not required.

The $1.6 billion is being provided to fund a two-year program with robust oversight and notification requirements to support Peshmerga, Sunni tribes, and other forces beyond the traditional Iraqi Security Forces.

The legislation also extends the McKeon Amendment, which I supported, that provides funding to train and equip moderate Syrian forces to combat ISIL.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that nothing in the legislation before authorizing the training and equipping of Iraqi and Syrian forces by U.S. advisors to combat ISIS derives from the 2002 Iraq AUMF.

The decision to send American men and women into harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in the President and the Congress.

For this reason, the Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I remain strongly opposed to the deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces inside the territorial borders of Syria without a vote of Congress explicitly authorizing such action.

Moreover, any vote regarding the authorization to use military force against Syria must be preceded by meaningful, substantive, and thoughtful dialogue and robust debate governed by a rule that affords Members of the House the opportunity to offer and debate amendments.

I must stress that before any vote is held, Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide requested information.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq taught this nation the importance of having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting precipitously.

We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake.

That is why it is essential that all Members of Congress have access to the relevant information and the responsible Administration officials before any vote to authorize the use of military force to defeat ISIS is scheduled.

Mr. Speaker, the health and well-being of our men and women in uniform on and off the battlefield is of critical importance.

The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act included an amendment I introduced authorizing an increase of $10 million in breast cancer research funding and directing the Department of Defense to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC).

I am disappointed that the Jackson Lee Amendment was not included in the final version of the legislation because my amendment would save lives that may otherwise be lost.

Mr. Speaker, breast cancer has been as brutal on women in the military as combat.

More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011, and according to that same study, more are suspected.

The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, provided funding for the additional research that is desperately needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership.

Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer.

Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well.

With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians-- including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story.

Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer because life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer.

With the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely important that more funding be allocated for research for early detection, treatment, and cure of breast cancer, including TNBC.

I will continue fighting until this objective is achieved.

I strongly support the provisions in the legislation before us intended to combat the epidemic of sexual assaults in the military, including the elimination of the ``good soldier defense,'' which is defined as a consideration of general military character toward the probability of innocence in sexual assault prosecutions.

Houston is home to one of the largest populations of military service members and their families in the nation.

There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye they are still wounds that should be properly treated.

Another important component of the legislation that I strongly support is are the provisions designed to increase the number of medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to serve the active duty personnel and veterans.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me express again my appreciation to Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their work in crafting a Defense Authorization bill that strives to enhance the readiness of our troops, provides for the care of our military personnel and their families, and authorizes the investments needed to keep our nation strong, safe, and respected in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R 5683, the ``Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims Against the United States Act.''

I support the bill because it amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500 to remove the prohibition depriving the United States Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over any civil action against the United States pending in, or on appeal from, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) in cases in which the plaintiff also has pending in another federal court a civil action that includes a claim against the United States arising from the same set of operative facts.

Under current law, the Court of Federal Claims is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over any claim in which the plaintiff has pending in any other federal court a lawsuit against the United States arising out of the same incident even if the lawsuit in the CFC seeks different relief.

When combined with other jurisdictional limits on the Court of Federal Claims and the court's statute of limitations, this prohibition forces plaintiffs to pick and choose among potentially meritorious claims against the United States and leads to plaintiffs being denied relief for unlawful government actions.

As Justice Sotomayor has observed, this jurisdictional bar imposes an unfair burden on plaintiffs by forcing them to ``choose either to forgo relief in the district court or to file first in the district court and risk the expiration of the statute of limitations on their claims in the CFC.''

The Administrative Conference of the United States has identified several examples of potentially meritorious claims against the United States that have been adversely affected by the jurisdictional prohibition contained in Section 1500:

1. A federal employee who sued the government in district court under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her Equal Pay Act claim was transferred to the CFC and was dismissed under Section 1500;

2. Property owners who sued in the CFC, claiming the government had taken their property without just compensation. Their claim was dismissed because they had previously sued in district court on a tort theory;

3. A local government that was sued by the United States in district court over taxation of certain federal office buildings filed a counterclaim against the United States for the taxes it believed it was owed. The counterclaims were transferred to the CFC and dismissed under Section 1500; and

4. An Indian tribe that sued in the CFC for breach of trust. Its claims were dismissed because it sued on similar claims in district court on the same day.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before remedies the deficiency in Section 1500 by striking the jurisdictional bar and replacing it with a presumptive stay provision.

Under the presumptive stay provision, a plaintiff could file and maintain actions arising out of a single incident in both the CFC and the district court at the same time, but the action that was filed second would be stayed until the first action is no longer pending.

The stay could be lifted by the agreement of the parties or upon a finding by a judge that the stay is not in the interest of justice.

This presumptive stay provision provides judges with flexibility to manage potentially duplicative litigation against the United States in a manner that is consistent with modern judicial practice.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5683, the Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims Against the United States Act, eliminates wasteful obstacles to justice and inefficient use of scarce judicial resources while at the same time protecting plaintiffs' ability to seek complete relief when actions of the federal government violate their legal rights.

I support this legislation and urge all members to join me in voting for H.R. 5683.