Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, decided this past Tuesday, the justification relied upon by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to strike down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act today essentially comes down to this: ``Times change.'' Chief Justice Roberts is right, times have changed. What he neglects to add is that the change is due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

In the same way that the vaccine invented by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 eradicated the crippling effects but did not eliminate the cause of polio, the Voting Rights Act has succeeded in stymying the practices that resulted in the wholesale disenfranchisement of African Americans in the southern region of our country but not in eliminating the motivations underlying them. And that is why the vaccine of the Voting Rights Act is needed as much today as Dr. Salk's vaccine is needed to prevent another polio epidemic.

In his opinion, the Chief Justice applauds this remarkable progress brought about by the Voting Rights Act and concludes it was so successful in preventing the states with the worst and most egregious records of voter suppression, intimidation from disenfranchising minority voters that those States should no longer be subject to the federal supervision responsible for the success he celebrates.

But in a record exceeding 15,000 pages in length compiled after holding 21 hearings and receiving testimony from more than 150 witnesses, Congress carefully and meticulously documented why the covered States could not yet be trusted to refrain from a return to their days of shame. And because of Section 5, they could not do so even if they tried.

Without Section 5, Congress recognized that many of the advances of the past decades could be wiped out overnight with new schemes and devices, such as the mid-decade redistricting conducted in my home State of Texas, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in part in LULAC v. Perry, 546 U.S. 399 (2006) or the attempt to eliminate the North Forest Independent School District in my congressional district.

I call upon the leadership of the Congress and President Obama to follow the example of their predecessors during the 109th Congress and begin immediately to work together to come up with the legislative remedy needed to repair the damage caused by the Supreme Court's misreading of history and disregard of its own settled precedents when it comes to Congress's power to protect the right to vote guaranteed by the 15th Amendment.

While the Congress works to come up with the pre-clearance legislative fix, the administration in the meantime should begin redirecting its resources to wage the many ``post-clearance'' battles that lay ahead.

Mr. Chair the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, which raises several issues important to every Member of the House:

Energy production and independence

Environmental protection and preservation; and

Job creation for minorities and women

Given the importance of these issues, I believe the House would have benefitted from a bill I introduced during the 111th and the 112th Congress. H.R. 3710--The Deficit Reduction, Job Creation and Energy Security Act of 2011 and of 2012.

My bill proclaimed a placement for the next generation. The introduction of H.R. 3710 indicated a collaborative approach in response of the call from Americans across the U.S., calling for jobs today. H.R. 3710 will do exactly that plus provide huge benefits to our national and local economies, and increase our energy supply and independence from foreign oil.

The energy bill I offered calls for the secretary of interior to increase the total lease acreage set forth in the proposed outer continental shelf oil & gas leasing program for 2012-2017 by an additional 10 percent.

This 10% increase shall be known as the deficit reduction acreage. As such, the secretary shall lease 20% of the deficit reduction acreage each year from 2012-2017. All proceeds from the deficit reduction acreage shall be deposited into the deficit reduction energy security fund.

For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or receipt of the first payment coming from the deficit reduction energy security fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing account for a period of 2 years. Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

The interest gained during 2 year period shall be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund (COSH);

And the principle from the deficit reduction energy security fund shall be deposited into the U.S. Treasury and applied directly toward deficit reduction.

The cosh fund will establish grants for States (coastal and disaster grant program an]) a national grant program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration, protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in coordination with State and local agencies.

My bill also establishes an Office of Ocean Energy Employment and Training at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, which shall be empowered and directed to oversee the efforts of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Ocean Energy Planning, permitting and regulatory activities to carry out the purposes, objectives and requirements of this act.

And my bill establishes the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that will require the Secretary to take affirmative steps to seek diversity in all levels of such department, and to be responsible for all matters of the Department of the Interior relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.

As a representative from Houston, Texas, representating the energy capital of America, I realize that energy is the lifeblood of every economy.

I also realize that the oil and gas industry provides many jobs for many of my constituents and opportunities for small businesses in my district.

Therefore, it is critical that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry that creates millions of jobs across the entire country.

My bill guarantees to pay down the deficit, create grant dollars for local government entities, and creates a job training and employment office for minorities and women at the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Mr. Chair, I ask the Chairman and the Ranking Member to work with me on my bill, H.R. 3710, to create a robust job creation bill that pays down the deficit, creates grant dollars and establishes an office for employment and job training for minorities and women.

H.R. 2231 touches the surface but does not penetrate into the crust of a real offshore job creation bill.

My bill, H.R. 3710 requires the department to utilize its authorities regarding the leasing and development of offshore oil and gas resources to accelerate job creation and economic revitalization to the fullest extent practicable, taking into account the department's responsibilities regarding conservation, safety and protection of the environment; promotes expansion of domestic employment opportunities; responds to the Nations increased need for domestic oil and natural gas resources; and supports the utilization of the outer continental shelf for oil and gas production and transmission.

H.R. 2231, does not provide the key components, in which I propose in H.R. 3710, and for these reasons, I am opposed to the bill and cannot support it.

I want to thank my colleague from Texas publicly for his commitment to the United States military and certainly for work that we collaborated on to work with a young soldier. We are always interested in making sure that our soldiers and their families have justice and access to justice. So thank you, Congressman, for your leadership on that issue.

And let me thank you for the brief time that I will utilize today and to indicate that I am so proud to be an American. I wish America, as we celebrate our birthday, that we become even more unified, more grateful of the red, white, and blue, and to take that day even to acknowledge our public servants, first responders, to acknowledge the men and women who serve in government, local governments, to those who serve in the United States Government and take every day and opportunity to celebrate those who are in uniform on this soil or places beyond. Let us congratulate them.

That causes me to indicate that the Voting Rights Act was a part of America. Many people are not aware that this Congress, with 398 votes- plus in the House and 98 votes in the Senate, reauthorized a bill that really means the right to vote for everyone. We take our instruction from the Supreme Court seriously, and what we will intend to do is seek a bipartisan effort to strengthen and to ensure that no vote is denied.

I do express great disappointment in the immediacy of the implementation of the Texas voter ID law and pray for the spiritual community to come together and pray for this Congress, of which we will do on this coming Sunday, June 30. We will pray for the Congress in Houston. And I ask that we pray across America that we will have the opportunity to do this very challenging effort together. The question of voting rights is not one of color; it is one of the freedom of this Nation.

I also want to add the recognition that all marriages are equal and free, and we ask that those who have been so positively impacted by the decision that the Supreme Court issued on DOMA likewise will continue to now recognize their freedom to find that marriage is in respect to all.

Let me conclude by raising this question so that you can see the reality of what the Voting Rights Act stands for. An immediate casualty of the elimination of the Voting Rights Act of 1965--when I say that, it's enforcement provision 4--was the closing of the last African American majority-minority school district, 50 years of history, teachers and workers and police officers and students who graduated and came back to contribute. The North Forest Independent School District, on the very day that the Supreme Court decision was rendered, had been in court ready to be protected by the Voting Rights Act, but now seven trustees of which this community voted for and cherished were eliminated on that Tuesday because of the undermining of the Voting Rights Act.

As a human factor, students who love teachers, teachers who love students, teachers were fired, doors were locked, administrators were thrown out, through no fault of their own. They had progress. They had, as many of us have had, years of some unfortunate history, but look at them now, because of the unfortunate history, the whole district, the community, the homes, the people who invested in this school district. Now, as I leave this podium to my good friend, I have to say that schoolteachers and others who are cut off from any form of health care, individuals who are on dialysis, kidney issues, of course, if they have diabetes, they are shut off, doors locked, papers thrown out, no ability to give recommendations for teachers. What a dastardly circumstance.

I'm prayerful that I can go to the commissioner of education to ask for a pause so that these individuals can continue their health insurance, so that mothers and fathers can get their students in regular order into another school system and so that we can find common ground just out of our own humanity.

I am prayerful as I leave this podium that one America will commemorate its great holiday together on July 4, and that when we come back, this Congress will expeditiously move to restore an anchor in the name of John Lewis, who shed his blood on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, who has continued to be a peacemaker in this Congress, that we reauthorize this wonderful legislative initiative so that incidents like North Forest Independent School District and others that have fallen victim to now this nonenforceability of the Voting Rights Act can be restored and we come together as a great and wonderful Nation.

With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following:

1. How did Congress conclude that Section 5 was still necessary in 2006?

Congress conducted 21 hearings and amassed a record of over 15,000 pages during the 2006 process. The bipartisan vote was

the largest to date: the House vote was 390-33 and the Senate vote was 98-0. President Bush signed the measure into law on July 27, 2006.

2. How did Section 5 work to prevent discrimination in 2012?

In South Carolina (Voter ID): The federal court approved the state's voter ID law in future elections only after DOJ's use of Section 5 ensured that the final law would not discriminate against African- American voters.

In Texas (Redistricting): The federal district court denied preclearance to Texas' redistricting plans for Congress, state Senate, and state House, and affirmatively found that the plans for Congress and state Senate were adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose.

In Florida (Early Voting): The federal court denied approval of a reduction in early voting until state agreed to implement plan that would not make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

3. How will Congress respond to the Supreme Court decision?

Congress will work in a measured bipartisan manner to conduct hearings and to deliberate in order to determine the appropriate legislative response to the Court's decision and to ensure that the voting rights of Americans are not violated.

At a threshold level, Congress must hold oversight hearings to determine the current scope of voting discrimination across the country. This bipartisan process would review not only voting discrimination in past covered jurisdictions, but voting discrimination in all other states. This oversight process will necessary involve the Department of Justice and all parts of the civil rights advocacy community.

We must be careful to maintain a deliberative and bipartisan oversight process. While the process may not yield immediate results, we must be careful ensure that it yields comprehensive a result that will survive legal scrutiny.

Until a new coverage formula is in place, the Section 5 ``preclearance'' remedy is inactive, as there are no covered jurisdictions. That will require each of us to maintain vigilance with respect to discrimination, particularly in formerly covered jurisdictions, as Section 5 protections will probably sent during the 2014 election cycle.

1. Supreme Court found the current Section 5 Coverage formula Unconstitutional:

The Court ruled that Section 5 cannot be enforced unless Congress crafts a new formula for determining which states and localities are covered by the ``preclearance'' mechanism. By a 5-4 vote, the Court found that Congress in the 2006 reauthorization relied on 40-year-old data that does not reflect racial progress and changes in U.S. society. The Court found that Congress must ``identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions.'' The Court recognized that ``voting discrimination still exists'' and remains a problem that Congress is constitutionally entitled to address through legislation.

The court did not strike down the ``preclearance'' approval requirement of the law that has been used, mainly in the South, to open up polling places to minority voters in the nearly half century since it was first enacted in 1965. However, the Court noted that Congress must update the formula for determining which parts of the country must seek Washington's approval, in advance, for election changes.

2. What did Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act require?

Required that all or part of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting submit requests to change election-related procedures for federal approval before they can be implemented.

Requests could be submitted to U.S. Attorney General or to the U.S. District Court for DC.

Freezes voting changes before implemented to stop voting discrimination before it begins.

Section 5 reauthorized by Congress in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006.

Requires covered jurisdictions to show that a voting change is not discriminatory.

Covers more jurisdictions than the South/Geographic Coverage of Section 5.

Entire State: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia.

Jurisdictions within a State: California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, South Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, this morning a number of members of the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, will speak on the emotions, the value and the gift of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

I thank our chairwoman, Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, and I'm delighted to lead that moment this morning. I will tell the Members of Congress you will hear us over the next couple of weeks and months as we proceed to do what the Supreme Court has said that Congress must do and has the authority to do, and that is to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I disagree with the court's decision, for that bill was firm. And just a few years ago, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, with 15,000 pages, 21 hearings, a vote of 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the United States Senate, we reaffirmed every American's right to vote. In fact, since that passage, Virginia has had 11 of its jurisdictions opt out. Many other jurisdictions have opted out or taken the bailout provision. But yet, that decision now has left bare the soul of so many voters who will now be unable to vote because of the Voting Rights Act elimination or striking down of section 4.

Mr. Speaker, if the Voting Rights Act is wrong, then Fannie Lou Hamer was wrong, the three civil rights workers were wrong, and Martin Luther King, Jr., was wrong.

Today we stand together to encourage our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to work with us to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1864. I stand today in support of women. I stand today in support of the armed forces, and in support of veterans, both male and female, all throughout this great country. As our armed forces fight everyday to protect us, serve us, and guarantee our safety, it is, in turn, our duty to do all that we can to protect them.

That is why I stand in support of H.R. 1864, and implore my colleagues to do the same. This bill not only ensures protection for whistle blowers and deters retaliation from complaints, but it also serves as an important step in guaranteeing the safety of those who protect us.

The Pentagon reported this spring that an estimated 26,000 troops experienced sexual assault last year. This number is an estimate because only 3,374 of the assaults were reported. Out of 26,000 assaults, only 3,000 were reported. That means that about 89% of all assaults went unreported. And that's only half the battle. Out of the more than 3,000 assaults reported, less than 10% of the suspects involved were convicted. Further, a report publicized by the San Antonio Express-News, detailed an investigation in May that found that half of the convicted offenders were allowed to stay in the military. This is outrageous. It is proof of a broken system, one that is doing our service women a complete disservice. It is a compound injury; beginning with assault, ending with underreporting.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be missing the point. Senator McCain would discourage women from enlisting until the military can clean up its act. Senator Chambliss attributes the problem to natural hormone levels in males, saying during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on sexual assaults in the military that: ``The young folks that are coming into each of your services are anywhere from 17 to 22-23. Gee whiz--the hormone level created by nature sets in place the possibility for these types of things to occur.''

This is not just a classic case of ``boys will be boys'' as Senator Chambliss suggests, this goes beyond a ``hook-up mentality'', and discouraging women from joining the armed forces is NOT the answer, as Senator McCain would suggest. The system is broken. And our service women are suffering as a result. This is a structural problem, and as such, requires a structural solution. By approving H.R. 1864, we begin to change the structure of the legal processes surrounding sexual assault.

The number of sexual assault victims in the military is intolerable, as is the rate of underreporting. Victims lack confidence in the military justice system, with good reason, and do not come forward because they fear that reporting a fellow service member will result in negative unintended consequences. This legislation strengthens existing protections and ensures victims do not suffer reprisal for reporting acts of sexual assault. It is important that we create the proper avenues for victims of sexual assault to avoid re-victimization through the legal process. This is the very least we can do for the service men and women who serve us 24/7,365.

I urge all members of the House to join me in voting to protect our protectors by voting ``aye'' on H.R. 1864.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1797, the ``Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.'' Last year I opposed this irresponsible and reckless legislation when it was brought to the floor under a suspension of the rules and fell well short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass. I opposed the bill, which arbitrarily bans a woman from exercising her constitutionally protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy after 20 weeks, last year for the same reasons I do now. This purely partisan and divisive legislation:

1. Unduly burdens a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy and thus puts their lives at risk;

2. Does not contain exceptions for the health of the mother;

3. As introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, unfairly targeted the District of Columbia; and

4. Infringes upon women's right to privacy, which is guaranteed and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Madam Speaker, the rule governing debate on this bill also set the terms of debate for the farm bill that makes drastic reductions in SNAP funding and nutrition programs that help women, children, infants, and the poor.

Coupling these two bills together under one rule sends the uncaring message that it is right and good to force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and then withhold from her and her infant the support necessary for them to maintain a nutritious and healthy diet.

Madam Speaker, in 2010, Nebraska passed a law banning abortion care after 20 weeks.

Since then 10 more red states--Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Oklahoma--have enacted similar bans. None of these laws has an adequate health exception. Only one provides an exception for cases of rape or incest.

H.R. 1797 seeks to take the misguided and mean-spirited policy of these states and make it the law of the land. In so doing, the bill poses a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. It is these women who receive the 1.5 percent of abortions that occur after 20 weeks.

Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs.

In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22- week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. Danielle and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy but could not because of the Nebraska ban. Danielle had no recourse but to endure the pain and suffering that followed. Eight days later, Danielle gave birth to a daughter, Elizabeth, who died 15 minutes later.

H.R. 1797 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Because Vikki was able to terminate the pregnancy, she was protected from the immediate and serious medical risks to her health and her ability to have children in the future was preserved.

Madam Speaker, every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God.

That is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the nation's leading medical experts on women's health, strongly opposes 20-week bans, citing the threat these laws pose to women's health.

Madam Speaker, I also strongly oppose H.R. 1797 because it lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. In fact, the majority Republicans rejected an amendment offered by our colleague, Congressman Nadler, which would have added a ``health of the mother'' exception to the bill.

During the markup of H.R. 1797 in the Judiciary Committee, Republicans even rejected an amendment I offered that would have provided a limited exception in cases where ``the pregnancy could result in severe and long-lasting damage to a woman's health, including lung disease, heart disease, or diabetes.''

Imagine, Madam Speaker, an amendment permitting an exception in the case where a woman risked heart or lung disease was rejected by Judiciary Republicans as too lenient and compassionate toward women.

I offered my amendment again to the Rules Committee but again, Committee Republicans refused to make it in order.

Madam Speaker, it is an additional measure of just how incredibly bad this bill is that when it was introduced and considered in the Judiciary Committee, it did not even include an exception for rape or incest.

Madam Speaker, this may come as news to some in this body, but each year approximately 25,000 women in the United States become pregnant as a result of rape. And about a third (30%) of these rapes involved women under age 18.

Madam Speaker, last and most important, I oppose H.R. 1797 because it is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation.

By prohibiting nearly all abortions beginning at ``the probable post- fertilization age'' of 20 weeks, H.R. 1797 violates this clear and long standing constitutional rule.

In striking down Texas's pre-viability abortion prohibitions, the Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade:

With respect to the State's important and legitimate

interest in potential life, the ``compelling'' point is at

viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has

the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb.

State regulation protective of fetal life after viability

thus has both logical and biological justification. If the

State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability,

it may go as far as to proscribe abortion during that period,

except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of

the mother.

Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). Nor can the government restrict a woman's autonomy by arbitrarily setting the number of weeks gestation so low as to effectively prohibit access to abortion services as is the case with the bill before us.

If this bill ever were to become law, it would not survive a constitutional challenge even to its facial validity. A similar 20-week provision enacted by the Utah legislature was struck down years ago as unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit because it ``unduly burden[ed] a woman's right to choose to abort a nonviable fetus.'' Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 (10th Cir. 1996). And just last month, the Ninth Circuit struck down a 20 week ban on the ground that the U.S. Supreme Court has been ``unalterably clear'' that ``a woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable.'' Isaacson v. Horne,_F.3d_, No. 12-16670, 2013 WL 2160171, at *1 (9th Cir. May 21, 2013).

Madam Speaker, the constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. For this reason, I offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would ensure that the legislation before us is not to be interpreted to abridge this right. The Jackson Lee Amendment #2 provided:

SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this Act shall be

construed or interpreted to limit the right of privacy

guaranteed and protected by the United States Constitution as

interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the cases

of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt

v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113

(1973).

Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this amendment in order. Unregrettably, I strongly oppose H.R. 1797 and urge all members to join me in voting against this unwise measure that put the lives and health of women at risk.

Madam Chair, I rise to speak in support of Jackson Lee Amendment #94, which will be in the en bloc for H.R. 1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.'' My thanks to Agriculture Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas and Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson for including the Jackson Lee Amendment in the en block.

I appreciate the work of Rules Committee Chair and Rules Committee members Congressman McGovern for managing the debate on amendments to

Most of America would ask the question: What happened here today?

I can probably say that what happened here today is a little hand of a hungry child that was raised up, and the child said: What about me?

You can talk about farms--little ones and big ones. I am a big supporter of our agricultural production in this Nation--it is from the soil--but I am very glad that we stood up for the children who are faced and confronted with $20 billion in cuts from something that stamps out hunger. Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp benefits.

Mr. Speaker, we didn't want to just stop there.

We didn't want to just take food from 200,000 hungry children. We wanted to make sure that, if you are a disabled parent with a young child--and if you don't have child care and if you can't find a job-- your SNAP money would not be given to you by the State, and the State would be able to keep it. We didn't just want to take food out of a hungry child's mouth. We wanted to slap him down. We wanted to make sure that the State would be grinning by saying, Ha, ha, ha, not only do you not get food, but--in the same breath--we get to keep the money.

We are better than this as America. We can do better. This bill was defeated because the hand of a hungry child was able to be heard on the floor of this House. I am glad that I stood with the hungry child and stamped out hunger in that child's heart, stomach and mind. Today, a child's voice, as sweet and quiet as it is, Mr. Speaker, was loud and clear: don't take food from me.

Mr. Speaker, it's not often that one is able to come back to the podium as soon as I have, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.

I started to speak about unfinished business, but first I want to celebrate and acknowledge a day this week that many of us commemorate. In fact, it is moving to become nationally recognized. It's something that is called ``Juneteenth.''

Today is June 20. So yesterday, June 19, was Juneteenth. I didn't get a chance to explain what Juneteenth meant on the floor of the House, and I wanted to do so.

In 1865, the captain of a Union army arose and arrived on the shores of Galveston, Texas, to let the then slaves who had not been notified, who had not been freed in 1863, on January 1 when President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, finally the Union came to our shores in Texas and let a whole swath of slaves who were still working and toiling unpaid in conditions that were obviously unsatisfactory, because no one should hold slaves. Finally, in 1865, on June 19, those in Texas and places to the west were freed. So it is a day of freedom.

When I talk to children about Juneteenth, I say it is living freedom. It is accepting the values of this great Nation that has turned, I hope, forever against the idea of holding others as slaves. And it moved this Nation forward, even in difficulty, with women not being able to vote and African Americans moving from Reconstruction into Jim Crowism and the terrible times of the 1900s and, as well, moving into the time of second-class citizenship all the way through World War II as President Truman integrated the United States military. But it moved the country to a lust and a desire for freedom and opportunity.

So Juneteenth is a day of jubilation. It is a day when families gather together. But it is a very important historic time. It is a historic time, if you will, to be able to, in fact, acknowledge that what has been wrong can be fixed. It wasn't a pleasant time to, in essence, work as a slave, to be held as a slave, to be captured as a slave some 18 months to almost 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation.

I say that because I wanted to explain further why something that had traditionally been bipartisan--we love the farm life for those who have experienced it, those who read about it. Often in my tenure here in the United States Congress, urban Members and rural Members came together to pass a bill that generated not only food for America but food for the world. Let it be very clear that we took pride today to vote ``no,'' because sometimes you have to listen and understand that there are things greater than your own interests.

I don't know what reason caused the implementation or the addition of a $20 billion cut to the SNAP program. Who had to be satisfied to put that gigantic, unsympathetic, cruel taking of food from the plates of Americans on the floor? SNAP has no region, it has no racial identity, it has no age identity. It is, frankly, Americans who are in need.

Let me share with you some numbers. Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp benefits. That immediately quashes the stereotype that deadbeats get food stamps. Twenty-three percent of households include a disabled person. Eighteen percent of households include an elderly person. The food stamp program increases household spending. The increase is greater than would occur with an equal benefit in cash. These people are not asking for cash. They're asking for you to allow them to be able to buy decent food so there is nutrition and nourishment.

But again, what motivated a $20 billion cut that had never been implemented in an agricultural bill that many of us voted on in a bipartisan manner? Did anybody listen to the chairman of the Federal Reserve? The

Chairman of the Federal Reserve said just yesterday that the economy is percolating, that it's doing all that it needs to do, that they're not going to reduce interest rates yet, and they're monitoring it because jobs are being created--not enough--but the economy is finding ways to restore itself.

It was good news for some of our college students, finding more jobs than they found last year as a college graduate.

So the idea that we need to continue to punish the American people, to wound ourselves because there is something out there called the deficit, this imaginary ``continue to undermine the government'' standard bearer that everyone wants to use--there is a deficit, but it has been steadily coming down because of the belt tightening.

Now we want to go beyond the belt tightening. We want to go beyond the family of four that says, We are not going to go out as much. We aren't going to have more cereal than we used to have. No, we are going to tell the family of four, You're not going to have any cereal. Just wake up in the morning and drink water. We're going to take everything away, and maybe you'll have one meal a day.

This is absurd, and it is not the American way.

Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much-- $9.20--in total community spending. The economics of SNAP and food support programs benefit everyone by preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable. We'll have areas of grocery stores and supermarkets, more jobs for people. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the cost of food for everyone less expensive.

It is clear that the SNAP program is a valuable program. In fact, SNAP is the largest domestic program in the American domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service program supported by SNAP works with State agencies, nutrition educators and neighborhoods, as well as faith-based organizations, to assist those eligible for nutrition assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State partners in the retail community to improve program administration and work to ensure the program's integrity.

Let me tell you beyond the $20 billion what else occurred. Not only did it involve the $20 billion in the underlying bill, but that wasn't enough. They offered an amendment on the floor to make it an estimated $31 billion in cuts. If that isn't outrageous, I don't know what is. Literally, not only have they taken the food, but they've taken the table, the utensils, and are leaving you with a good-looking floor, if that's what you have, or rough floor, to simply go there and admire food.

This is an outrageous addition. Cutting off benefits of 2 million Americans extra who struggle to find work, severing the tie between LIHEAP and SNAP, which is the dollars that supplement those who are not able to pay their energy bills in the cold of the winter, how could you? Penalizing those who don't abide by an unnecessary, burdensome job search if you have a disabled child, this is what was on the floor. Not just taking food away, but literally dismantling the table.

Oh, that wasn't enough. Then they wanted to do this. This looks like a great idea. As you well know, varying States have different economic positions. Some States are thriving because of the industry they have. A State like Texas has an energy-based, oil-based economy. Some States have other kinds of economies, and those economies are coming back, but there are still poor people and people without jobs. And this is what the SNAP program is for. It is not for fraud, waste, and abuse. I don't have any problem with oversight. But how dare you take food away from children, cutting out school lunches, cutting out school breakfasts that sometimes are the difference between a child learning and surviving.

But that wasn't enough. Listen to another amendment that was offered and passed on the floor of the House. It makes the SNAP policies, this amendment, even worse than what I've just discussed. It would allow States to pocket, put in their pocket, smack their lips, roll their hands, the savings if they cut people off of the Supplemental Nutrition program. That means the disabled, parents with young children who don't have child care, those who are unable to find work in the area they're in because there are no jobs available in that community. And there are census data and census tracts where you cannot find jobs. This amendment would find no funding for job search or job creation to help recipients of the SNAP program find work, and it places no restrictions on what States can use the bonus moneys that they put in their pocket for.

Oh, they can throw it for all kinds of unnecessary extras, if you will. Maybe they can do extra security for roaming elected officials. And when I say that, my State is quarreling over whether it should pay security costs for our Governor. Maybe it can throw a few extra parties. Maybe it can build another bridge to nowhere. What will they do when they take money--money--out of the mouths of babes into their pocket?

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

I applaud the gentleman for his honesty and for his work, because as I began this debate, we have always voted in a bipartisan manner on the farm bill. For those of us in the urban areas that touch a little rural area or live in States that have large pockets of rural areas, we are well aware that we are the breadbasket of the world. When we travel the world, we are always eager to see the food products. That has been our nomenclature. That has been our name. That's been what America is known for, not only its generosity and its heart, but its willingness to feed the hungry.

As I indicated, who could craft an amendment that would deep-six this bill, adding insult to the $20 billion that I know the gentleman indicated we were looking to compromise on in the conference. But to say to the gentleman, we all would hope the bill will come back. Maybe it might even come back with the recognition that the $20 billion is spiking too high. But certainly the Southerland amendment, and the one previously that did not pass that wanted to cut even more from the $20 billion, if I might say, it's an oxymoron between the farm and those who need to eat. We always work together, and we were able to produce products and enough food to give those who were hungry and those who could not find work.

I want to make mention of the fact, as the gentleman said, that included in taking their food away from them, as the gentleman said, was the disabled and the parents with young children.

And so I want to thank the gentleman for his words and, of course, for his leadership for his area and also on this topic.

So that is two Members from two distinct places, Democrats, who would have been able to come and find a reasoned way to address this bill.

Might I also say that I do thank the committee for acknowledging an amendment to be able to reach out, my amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment that was included; but I'm willing to sacrifice that amendment that was to reach out and create opportunities for minority businesses, women-owned businesses, family farmers, Black farmers who have been discriminated against for eons under the Agriculture Department. My amendment would have caused a specific outreach to these individuals, and I'm glad for it.

I was able to support the McGovern amendment, which had an offset that I believe was a proper offset that would have put the money, $20 billion, back in.

Again, I want to remind my colleagues, our deficit is going down. Our economy is percolating. I didn't say it was perfect. I didn't say everyone had a job. But what I did say is we're making progress. Why are we continuing to do injury for those who cannot speak for themselves? I do not know.

Again, I was eager to see in this bill, to be able to work with more urban gardens, community gardens, what we call victory gardens.

They've been successful in the city of Houston, in Acres Homes, in fact, in Fifth Ward. I see them as progress, the growing of food, the putting food on the tables, healthy food, of people who don't have the means to get good vegetables and to be able to use those urban gardens to teach children to help families come together and to be able to take home good food.

I want to pay tribute to the Houston Food Bank in my congressional district that has brought so many people together. But I can tell you that they're not lacking in business, and the $20 billion of this SNAP program going down, meaning, being taken away, one of the largest food banks in America, would have been impacted negatively by the idea of the lack of the supplemental nutrition program.

I wanted to also make sure that we had an assessment of helping the older Americans have accessible and affordable nutrition, one of my amendments that did not get in. But when we see older Americans, we can tell sometimes that they're making choices between food and, obviously, their medicine, their prescriptions.

I wanted to make sure that we had had a special commitment to helping them build up their access to nutritious food, along with those who suffer with disabilities. I wish that had gotten in.

And then I wanted to make sure that we did not turn our backs on obesity and juvenile obesity. Just this week the medical community has joined and named obesity as a disease; and my amendment would have had a sense of Congress that encourages food items being provided pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and school lunch program, and that the kind of nutritious items should be selected, and so we can bring down the incidence of juvenile obesity and maximize nutritional value and take away the possibility of our children not having the right kind of nutrition.

So I am eager to get back to the drawing board. But I walked through neighborhoods that suffer from the lack of access to food, and, as well, I'm aware of something called food deserts, where the only place that you can buy is the local gasoline, gas station location.

And maybe you can find an apple or a banana, but mostly what you're going to find is a lot of, if you will, the other kind of food. Some have called it junk food. Pretty tasty. Make sure there's a market for it. It's always good to have fun, but it's not what you have to raise children, to provide for those who are ill, disabled, parents who cannot work. That's not where they should be shopping.

Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading, as a result, fewer farms, as well as fewer places to access fresh fruit, vegetables, proteins and other foods, and that's why this bill is important, to help our small farmers, but also to help those get assistance.

And by the way, the supplemental nutrition program is not welfare, because there are many people who are working who are on food stamps, but their income is such that they cannot provide the nutritious food for their children.

But the main insult is the loss of these dollars for our breakfast and lunch program, that no matter whether you're living in rural America or urban America, your child has the ability to have a good, warm, hot meal for lunch and for breakfast to get them started and ready to learn.

And, therefore, it avoids the metabolic function that comes from malnutrition that causes the breakdown in tissue. For example, the lack of protein in the diet leads to disease and decay of teeth and bones.

Another example of health disparities in food deserts are the presence of fast-food establishments. Again, it's good to have fun; but if that is all that you eat, then you know that that is not going to make for a healthy young person, child, in the growing years, the maturing years, the years that their cognitive skills are growing, the years that they're strengthening their physical being in order to grow into an adult that will be healthy.

And so many of us took the SNAP challenge, the supplemental nutrition challenge, to live on $4.50. And I went to the grocery store, and I was so scared about going over. I bought one apple, one banana, two apricots. I bought an avocado and a tomato and two potatoes, and I was calculating in my mind, because this was $4.50 for the day.

And I went to the meat area and looked at, of all things, chopped meat, hamburger meat. I couldn't find anything that would even fit. They were all $5, $4.

I kept looking, cheese, too expensive. And I found something in a package called smoked chicken. And in this store, they had it for 58 cents, processed smoked chicken. And I said that I can use for protein.

And so the meal, in my mind, was going to be an apricot, and a banana for breakfast; lunch, you boil a potato with sliced tomatoes, which you would save for your big meal, your dinner.

But every day, a family has to look at $4.50 to have their meals. And so for anyone that thinks that this is a bunch of folk who enjoy getting these food stamps to have a jolly good time, I'm glad that I experienced that purchase and what you get for $4.50.

And yet on the floor of the House today, there were those who were willing to put up a bill that would take $20

billion and, literally, as I started to say, and have said, dismantle the kitchen, dismantle the table, take the utensils and just say, plop down on the floor.

And as we came to the end of the bill, that was not enough. The Southerland amendment came forward and said, not only are we going to insult you and take all the utensils and table away, but we're going to make it a boondoggle.

We're going to give incentives. We're going to make it a gambling opportunity for our States. We're going to let them throw the dice. How many can you get off of SNAP? And if you get them off, you'll be able to pocket the money.

We don't want to control what you do with it. We're not going to suggest that you put it in education, or maybe give back to the schools so they can get a different kind of meal for the child that's lost the breakfast program. No, we don't care.

You're just going to pocket the money and run off into the hills.

States have many burdens. I'm a champion of our States. I love my State. But I've seen the tough debates that my State legislators have had, fighting to get a few parcels for food, for education dollars, for infrastructure dollars.

So I know it's tough; but as I said, some States are a little bit more better off than others. It's all about priorities.

And I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that today we didn't commend ourselves well. I want to go back. I want to be able to, if you will, I want to be able to put the table, the utensils back, the table cloth.

I want to be able to have a poor family have a nutritious meal. I want to be able to have a child have a lunch or breakfast. I want a disabled person to be able to have the right kind of food to help them in their illness. I want an elderly person to be able to have their prescription drugs and, as well, to be able to have food that will nourish them.

I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I spoke about unfinished business. And as we go forward, I join my colleague from New York, call upon the good people of this House, who represent the good Americans of this Nation, to come back together and find a way that passes a farm bill that does not put on the sacrificial table of destruction poor people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or disabled, or have children, or are only able to support the children and provide for them in this way because they live in an area where there are no jobs.

They hope there'll be jobs. They want there to be jobs but, at this point, it hasn't come.

I conclude my remarks by saying in a list of things that we must do as unfinished business, I look forward, as well, to our being able to join some mothers that stood with me earlier this week, mothers that demand action, and they ask me about the idea of protecting their children with sensible gun legislation that would prevent gun violence. I hope, among other initiatives, a universal background check will also look to laws that will require the storage of one's guns, none of which impact or take away from the Second Amendment.

Then I hope in unfinished business that we will continue to find, in a bipartisan way, a pathway forward for helping those individuals who came to this country, through no fault of their own, who come to this country and are working and don't want to do us harm, but simply want to find a way to stay in a country that they love, and, as well, to say to the American people that we take no shortness in your need and commitment for border security.

I don't see why we can't do it all. That is not unheard of. It is not impossible. It frankly is something that we can go do.

I want to close by saying that I am a person that loves the Constitution, believes in the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment, the freedom of press, speech, the Fourth Amendment that protects you against unreasonable search and seizure, the Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court case along with the Ninth Amendment on the question of privacy. So I'm going to make a commitment to my colleagues that we work together on the issue of ensuring the American people's civil liberties while we ensure our national security. We can do both.

I have introduced legislation that would ask for a study of all of the outside contractors that are in the intelligence business and to present that study to the United States Congress and ensure that all those who have top-secret clearance are doing it in the name of this Nation, otherwise to present a plan to reduce that usage by 25 percent by 2014. That is only the fair way because certainly we must have oversight to who has access to your private information and is it access in order to secure this Nation. I stand with them if that is the case.

But I ask the question, why are persons far-flung and unsupervised with top-secret credentials such as the individual who has decided to leak information that is now being assessed? We have to ask the question, are credentials, do they meet the test? Are private contractors making a review of these individuals and assessing them and giving them clearance or if not, not supervising them? I have to ask that question.

And then I would say that it is important that where you can be presented opinions that deal with something we call the FISA court, which is the court that we go into to protect your rights and to be able to go into and make determinations about whether or not there is surveillance, I would say to you that opinions that will not impact on national security or classified information can be shown to the American people. There's nothing wrong with that.

So I am looking forward to working in a bipartisan way on unfinished business. And I can only say, Mr. Speaker, in my final entreat to this body, the one thing that we should not do is to take the little hand of a child and to push it back from the table or from food. And what we did today was just that.

I want a farm bill, but today I was proud to stand with the children of America who are better off because they've been able to stamp out hunger through a program called SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and will continue to do so until we get it right. Our children are our precious resource.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues in the House of two very important words for the American people: unfinished business. The American people, by their voices that we hear as we go back to our district, challenge us in unfinished business.

Two days ago, I stood with mothers that demand action in my district, to stand with their children, their babies in strollers--these mothers who love America, who are patriots--to stand alongside of the mourning families of Sandy Hook and to read the names of the 26 who died more than 6 months ago, to ask for the passage of universal background checks; and to ask the question why the Armed Citizens Project needed to arm citizens in Houston. We know that the area that they are arming is an area where they felt intimidated--not by their government to take over, but because of crime.

I look forward to meeting with those citizens to be able to address the issue of crime in their neighborhood. But we stood against the kind of arming citizens as a response to gun violence. I have no qualms of standing against that and working with my neighbors to ensure the safety of their neighborhoods, but to move forward on sensible gun legislation to prevent gun violence--unfinished business.

And then the question of the National Security Agency and the phone calls and numbers of our American citizens.

We in Congress must be challenged to rein that in and balance it with the need for national security, which I promote and support as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

I will be introducing legislation to assess the use of outside contractors--70 percent of Federal dollars going to that in the intelligence community--and reduce those numbers by 2014; establish more openness on the FISA court, but making sure that we don't interfere with operations and operatives that are making our country secure. And to be able to say to Mr. Snowden, I won't call you a name, but I know what you did in certain instances is wrong, and you must stand up under the laws of this Nation.

Then to be able to say that, today, as we go forward on the farm bill, to be able to ask the question: Why are we taking $20 billion away from the supplemental nutrition program, from seniors, from young children, from babies, when this is a lifeline for those in the United States military who are on food stamps?

I also want to say to my community that we need to get ready to enroll in health care, which is going to be a major step in making America healthy.

To the small business community, this is going to help you provide your employees--your one employee, your two employees--health care. That is unfinished business.

Then I want to thank the U.S. Postal Service--the letter carriers, the people who put our mail through--who help small businesses. We've got to fix this problem with the U.S. Postal Service, make sure that they're stable, financially able. The rural post offices, let's not close any more. This is the infrastructure of America. It's a job creator.

And then to our students, many of them who have graduated, we have got to fix the problem of the increasing, or the major increase, in student loan interest rates that are going to burden our parents and students, 6.8 percent by July 1. Congress can do better. We need to be able to join in the legislation that I've signed on to, to be able to keep that interest rate at 3.4 percent. Unfinished business, Mr. Speaker.

The American people want jobs. They don't want sequestration. They want the right kind of comprehensive immigration reform that has reasoned border security but not to criminalize those students who wanted to do nothing else but to go into the United States military, called ``DREAM children,'' who wanted to be able to serve the Nation, who wanted to work and give back to this country. Let us not go down that pathway. Let's have the kind of value-based comprehensive immigration reform and border security legislation that was passed out of the Homeland Security Committee, of which I was proud to be an original cosponsor, coming out of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. Unfinished business.

Guns. Preventing gun violence.

Reining in the issue of intelligence, balancing it with civil liberties, putting back in the supplemental nutrition some $20 billion, making sure that Americans are enrolled in health care under the Affordable Care Act, supporting the Postal Service. And, Mr. Speaker, finally, supporting our students. Unfinished business. It's time to get to work creating jobs in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Jackson Lee amendment #94, which will be in the en bloc for H.R.

1947, the ``Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013.'' My thanks to Agriculture Committee Chair Frank D. Lucas and Ranking Member Collin C. Peterson for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc.

I appreciate the work of Rules Committee Chair McGovern and Rules Committee members for managing the debate on amendments to H.R. 1947.

I offered amendments to H.R. 1947 for deliberation by the Rules Committee for approval for consideration by the Full House. Only one of my amendments was made in order and will be included in the en bloc for the bill.

Jackson Lee #94 will be included in the en bloc and is a sense of Congress that the Federal Government should increase business opportunities for small businesses, black farmers, women and minority businesses.

Small farm businesses, black farmers, women and minority agriculture related businesses could benefit from partnerships with federal office location in receiving support for farmers markets. This would assist with eliminating food deserts, which are urban neighborhoods and rural towns without easy access to fresh, healthy and affordable food. These communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores.

Other amendments, I request that the Rules Committee favorably consider included Amendment #1, the McGovern amendment, which was joined by over 80 members of the House. This important amendment would restore $20.5 billion in cuts in SNAP funding by offsetting the Farm Risk Management Election Program and the Supplemental Coverage Option.

Jackson Lee amendments not included in the Rule for the bill include:

Jackson Lee amendment #182 was a sense of Congress that the Federal Government should increase financial support provided to urban community gardens and victory gardens to heighten awareness of nutrition.

The knowledge shared with urban dwellers can have a long term benefit to the health of our nation by increasing awareness regarding the link between what we eat and health. This would also be a means of expanding the diet options for persons who live in areas where the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables can be prohibitive.

Jackson Lee #183 is a sense of Congress regarding funding for a nutrition program for disabled and older Americans. Accessible and affordable nutrition is especially important when dietary needs change or must accommodate life's changes. Older Americans and persons with disabilities often must live with restricted diets.

Jackson Lee Amendment #184 was a sense of Congress that encourages food items being provided pursuant to the Federal school breakfast and school lunch program should be selected so as to reduce the incidence of juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value.

This amendment passed the House by a substantial margin in the 110th Congress by a recorded vote of 422 to 3. The inclusion of this amendment in the Rule for 1947 would affirm congressional commitment to fight juvenile obesity and to maximize nutritional value. The amendment should have been made in order considering the epidemic of juvenile and adult obesity.

Finally, I sought support by the Rules Committee of an amendment offered by Congresspersons Kildee, Fudge, Peters, Tim Ryan, and Jackson Lee amendment #53.

This amendment was not included in the final Rule for the bill. This amendment would have brought healthy food to those with limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables through a public-private partnership. It would increase funding for SNAP incentive programs for fresh fruits and vegetables by $5 million per year, which is offset by decreasing the adjusted gross income limit for certain Title and Title II programs.

Food is not an option--it is a right that all people living in this Nation must have to exist and to prosper. The $20.5 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program also known as SNAP would remove 2 million Americans from this important food assistance program, and 210,000 children would lose access to free or reduced price school meals.

The course of our Nation's history led to changes in our economy, first from agricultural to industrial and now technological. These economic changes impacted the availability and affordability of food. Today our Nation is still one of the wealthiest in the world, but we now have food deserts. A food desert is a place where access to food may not be available and certainly access to health sustaining food is not available.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines a food desert as a ``low- access community,'' where at least 500 people and/or at least 33 percent of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store. The USDA defines a food desert for rural communities as a census tract where the distance to a grocery store is more than 10 miles.

Food deserts exist in rural and urban areas and are spreading as a result of fewer farms as well as fewer places to access fresh fruits, vegetables, proteins, and other foods as well as a poor economy.

The results of food deserts are increases in malnutrition and other health disparities that impact minority and low income communities in rural and urban areas. Health disparities occur because of a lack of access to critical food groups that provide nutrients that support normal metabolic function.

Poor metabolic function leads to malnutrition that causes breakdown in tissue. For example, a lack of protein in a diet leads to disease and decay of teeth and bones. Another example of health disparities in food deserts is the presence of fast food establishments instead of grocery stores. If someone only consumes energy dense foods like fast foods, this will lead to clogged arteries, which is a precursor for arterial disease, a leading cause of heart disease. A person eating a constant diet of fast foods is also vulnerable to higher risks of insulin resistance which results in diabetes.

In Harris County, Texas, 149 out of 920 households, or 20 percent of residents, do not have automobiles and live more than one-half mile from a grocery store.

At the beginning of the third millennium of this Nation's existence we should know better. Denying a higher quality of life that would result from better access to healthier food choices is shortsighted--it is also economically unsound and threatens our national security.

Social stability is threatened when people's basic needs are not met--food, clean drinking water and breathable air are the least of the requirements for life. Denying access to sufficient amounts of the right kinds of food means people will become less productive, more prone to disease and will not be able to function as contributing members of society.

For one in six Americans hunger is real and far too many people assume that the problem of hunger is isolated. One in six men, women or children you see every day may not know where their next meal is coming from or may have missed one or two meals yesterday.

Hunger is silent--most victims of hunger are ashamed and will not ask for help; they work to hide their situation from everyone. Hunger is persistent and impacts millions of people who struggle to find enough to eat. Food insecurity causes parents to skip meals so that their children can eat.

In 2009-2010 the Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown area had 27.6 percent of households with children experiencing food hardship. In households without children food hardship was experienced by 16.5. Houston, Sugar Land and Baytown rank 22 among the areas surveyed.

In 2011, according to Feeding America:

46.2 million people were in poverty;

9.5 million families were in poverty;

26.5 million people ages 18-64 were in poverty;

16.1 million children under the age of 18 were in poverty;

3.6 million (9.0 percent) of seniors 65 and older were in poverty.

In the State of Texas:

34% of children live in poverty in Texas;

21% of adults (19-64) live in poverty in Texas;

17% of elderly live in poverty in Texas.

In my city of Houston, Texas the U.S. Census reports that over the last 12 months 442,881 incomes were below the poverty level.

In 2011:

50.1 million Americans lived in food insecure households, 33.5 million adults and 16.7 million children;

households with children reported food insecurity at a significantly higher rate than those without children, 20.6 percent compared to 12.2 percent.

Eighteen percent of households in the state of Texas from 2009 through 2011 ranked second in the highest rate of food insecurity--only the state of Mississippi exceeds the ratio of households struggling with hunger.

In the 18th Congressional District an estimated 151,741 families lived in poverty.

There are charitable organizations that many of us contribute to that provide food assistance to people in need, but their resources would not be able to fill the gap created by a $20.5 billion cut to Federal food assistance programs.

Food banks and pantries fill an important role by helping the working poor, disabled and the poor gain access to food assistance when government subsidized food assistance or budgets fall short of basic needs. Food pantries also help when an unforeseen circumstance occurs and more food is needed for a family to make it until payday or government assistance arrives. However, food pantries cannot carry the full burden of a community's need for food on their own.

During these difficult economic times, people who once gave to food pantries may now

seek donations from them. Millions of low income persons and families receive food assistance through SNAP. This program represents the Nation's largest program that combats domestic hunger.

For more than 40 years, SNAP has offered nutrition assistance to millions of low income individuals and families. Today, the SNAP program serves over 46 million people each month.

SNAP Statistics:

Households with children receive about 75 percent of all food stamp benefits.

23 percent of households include a disabled person and 18 percent of households include an elderly person.

The FSP increases household food spending, and the increase is greater than what would occur with an equal benefit in cash.

Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates almost twice as much ($9.20) in total community spending.

The economics of SNAP food support programs benefit everyone by preventing new food deserts from developing. The impact of SNAP funds coming into local and neighborhood grocery stores is more profitable supermarkets. SNAP funds going into local food economies also make the cost of food for everyone less expensive and assure a variety and abundance of food selections found in grocery stores.

SNAP is the largest program in the American domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service programs supported by SNAP work with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood as well as faith-based organizations to assist those eligible for nutrition assistance. Food and Nutrition Service programs also work with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and work to ensure the program's integrity.

Yes, more can be done to assure that food distribution from the fields to the tables of Americans in most need can be improved. The process of improving our nation's ability to more efficiently and effectively meet the food needs of citizens must begin with understanding the problem and acting on facts. I strongly support hearings on the subject and encourage all oversight committees to consider taking up the matter during this Congress.

However, we cannot ignore the safety process in place to prevent abuse or misuse of the program. The Federal SNAP law provides two basic pathways for financial eligibility to the program: (1) Meeting federal eligibility requirements, or (2) being automatically or ``categorically'' eligible for SNAP based on being eligible for or receiving benefits from other specified low-income assistance programs. Categorical eligibility eliminated the requirement that households who already met financial eligibility rules in one specified low-income program go through another financial eligibility determination in SNAP.

However, since the 1996 welfare reform law, states have been able to expand categorical eligibility beyond its traditional bounds. That law created TANF to replace the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which was a traditional cash assistance program. TANF is a broad-purpose block grant that finances a wide range of social and human services.

TANF gives states flexibility in meeting its goals, resulting in a wide variation of benefits and services offered among the states. SNAP allows states to convey categorical eligibility based on receipt of a TANF ``benefit,'' not just TANF cash welfare. This provides states with the ability to convey categorical eligibility based on a wide range of benefits and services. TANF benefits other than cash assistance typically are available to a broader range of households and at higher levels of income than are TANF cash assistance benefits.

Congress cannot afford to forget that by the year 2050, the world population is expected to be 9 billion persons. We cannot build our nation's food security on an uncertain future. Domestic food production and access to healthy nutritious food is essential to our Nation's long term national security.

Until we see the final farm bill, including the amendment adopted by the Full House, I cannot offer my support for the legislation as it is written.

The bill is too shortsighted about the realities of hunger in our Nation--the fact that it proposes to cut $20.5 billion from the SNAP program is of great concern. We should work to create certainty for farmers who run high risk businesses that are vulnerable to weather changes, insects or blight.

We should be equally concerned about providing long term food security for all of our Nation's citizens, which include rural, suburban and urban dwellers.

I thank the Agriculture Committee for including the Jackson Lee amendment in the en bloc for the bill. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the McGovern amendment to prevent the $20.5 billion in cuts to the SNAP program. I urge all members to vote in favor of the en bloc and the McGovern amendment.

Madam Speaker, to those who are gathered here today, I have already heard my leader indicate partly why we are here, taking away from the serious work of this place in trying to provide jobs for the thousands and millions of Americans who are unemployed, but I have another question.

I want to know why we are on the floor of the House, debating a dangerous and inhumane legislative initiative. I also want to know why there are those who would rise presumptuously and arrogantly to suggest they know my heart. Why is there someone suggesting in this body that I have not experienced pain or do not know pain or do not know the pain of my constituents?

The same question can be asked, How do they know what a mother, whose health is in jeopardy, is feeling?

Why would they be so presumptuous as to suggest that we could not, or that we are saying to some woman that you can't do with your body as you desire? It is between your God, your doctor and your family.

How outrageous this legislation is. It is patently unconstitutional. Griswold says it's a violation of the right to privacy. Doe v. Bolton, which was passed on the same day as Roe v. Wade, specifically said that the health of the mother had to be taken into consideration. This violates any kind of adherence to the health of the mother.

For us to refer to the heinous, disgusting actions in Pennsylvania suggests that I don't care about it. I am glad that the justice system persecuted and prosecuted this villain and sent that doctor to jail, but I don't want America's doctors and mothers and people of faith to be sent to the jailhouse because we are so presumptuous and arrogant.

Let's be very clear about a young woman by the name of Vikki Stella, a diabetic who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and who had no chance of survival. They wanted to induce labor or perform a Caesarean section, but her physician said she could not survive it, and they had to use another procedure. If they had not used a procedure like an abortion, she would not be able to have children again.

Do we want to go back to the time when women were running into back alleys?

Mr. Chair, I rise to speak on House consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

I thank Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith and the Rules Committee, and the Armed Services Committee for their work on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

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 our work 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 faithful service.

This is the 52nd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, which speaks to the long-term commitment of the Congress and successive Administrations to provide for National Defense. This 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.

We do live in a dangerous world, where threats are not always easily identifiable, and our enemies are not bound by borders. The recent Boston terrorist attack reminds us of how fragile our nation's security could be without a well trained and equipped military.

The definition of war has changed and with it our understanding about what is needed to combat a unique type of enemy that fights under no flag or for any nation.

U.S. Special Operations Command, a vital part of our military, provides much of the special skills needed to defend our nation today. This legislation continues to build on previous efforts to support their important work.

I am still deeply concerned about the President's authority, as stipulated by the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, AUMF, to indefinitely detain individuals apprehended in the United States--including citizens of the United States--without due process and with little independent review or oversight. As a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee, I am committed to making sure that the Constitution and its protections are enforced. The purpose to defend this nation is not just on the grounds of this Capitol, but also the foundation that supports the principles of liberty, freedom and democratic values.

The bill includes several provisions that recognize the strain of more than a decade of war has placed on our troops and the equipment, technology, and tools that they use. It supports a 1.8 percent pay raise. I had wanted a 2 percent raise for our troops.

This Congress must communicate its wholehearted support for the security of the nation by addressing mindless cuts created by sequestration, the $174.6 billion in operation and maintenance funding the bill provides will help mend some of the damage that has been done to overused equipment and neglected facilities. It also strengthens our ability to confront cyber threats, and provides important authorities to protect vital information. The bill also continues to lay the foundation for enabling competition in military space launch.

I am also pleased that so much has occurred to improve the bill during its consideration on the House Floor, including the adoption of seven amendments that I offered. Combined, these amendments will help our military families have access to mental health counseling when needed and that contracting opportunities with the Department of Defense are extended to women and minority owned businesses. In addition, the bill has been improved to include provisions that are critically important to women, including provisions to prevent and respond to sexual assault and research to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer.

The bill amended on the House floor now also contains provisions that will help secure our borders and make the defense logistics management system more efficient.

Let me discuss briefly the amendments I offered that were adopted by the House and included in the final version of the bill.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 directs the DoD and NIH to collaborate be to combat Triple Negative Breast Cancer. The amendment directs the Department of Defense to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for TNBC.

Triple Negative Breast Cancer is a term used to describe breast cancers whose cells do not have estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors, and do not have an excess of the ``HER2'' protein on their cell membrane of tumor cells. This makes commonly used test and methods to detect breast cancer not as effective.

This is a serious illness that effects between 10-17 percent of female breast cancer patients and this condition is more likely to cause death than the most common form of breast cancer. Seventy percent of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not live more than five years after being diagnosed.

Jackson Lee Amendment #1 will help to save lives. TNBC disproportionately impacts younger women, African American women, Hispanic/Latina women, and women with a ``BRCA1'' genetic mutation, which is prevalent in Jewish women. TNBC usually affects women under 50 years of age and makes up more than 30 percent of all breast cancer diagnoses in African American. Black women are far more susceptible to this dangerous subtype than white or Hispanic women

Jackson Lee Amendment that #2 directs the Department of Defense to post information on sexual assault prevention and response resources online for ease of access by men and women in the armed services.

There is no greater crime that an individual can commit than the crime of sexual molestation and sexual assault. The perpetrators of these crimes rob victims of their dignity and sense of wellbeing. Victimization is not easily relieved by treating the immediate physical injuries that may result, but can last for years. Moreover, victims of sexual assault are profoundly affected for the rest of their lives often with PTSD or other medical conditions. As elected officials, we have an obligation to condemn this violence, work for stronger enforcement of laws and provide adequate funding for programs to assist individuals who may have experienced such abuse.

In 2012, we know that victims of sexual violence or abuse among civilians are routinely under reported. The Defense Department report states that of the 26,000 estimated victims only 3,374 crimes were reported and just 302 of the 2,558 incidents pursued by victims were prosecuted.

Jackson Lee Amendment #2 will make sure that information is available and easily accessible to military personnel for the purpose of raising awareness, promoting education and the long term goal of influencing organizational culture around the issue of sexual violence.

Many in the military are just learning that there is a huge difference between sex and sexual violence. Jackson Lee Amendment #3 would educate both victims, potential victims, witnesses or victimizers that these are acts of violence and should be treated as such. It may also help influence thinking among military leaders on the nature of these crimes and promote changes in policy to aggressively provide support to victims and judicial remedies to prosecute and punish criminal behavior.

Jackson Lee Amendment #4 expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Defense should develop a plan to ensure a sustainable flow of qualified mental health counselors to meet the long-term needs of

members of the Armed Forces, veterans, and their families.

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. For the brave men and women who have been wounded in combat, help is on the way.

Although some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye they are still wounds that should be properly treated. One of the best ways to increase access to treatment is to increase the number of medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to serve the needs of men and women currently serving and those who have become veterans.

Jackson Lee Amendment #5 will improve the efficiency of the management system and how the Department of Defense inventory will support modernization that uses technology to tag and track items purchased to increase transparency to the agency on what it has and where it is located. This change could mean tens of millions in savings if implemented DoD wide by reducing labor cost for tracking and moving equipment, but more important prevent repurchasing of items that agency already owns, but may not be able to locate.

The private sector has leaped forward in using inventory tracking technology and protocols to monitor large and small products from the time they leave manufacturing facilities until they are sold at retail or wholesale stores.

The DoD is one of the largest customers for products in the nation and should have the benefit of the best knowledge and technology available to more efficiently manage its inventory.

The most advanced warehouse inventory management systems are fully automated and biometrically controlled to track items and create records of people who make request to transport items from storage to use. These systems make sure that persons seeking to move items have the authority to do so and that the requests create records that can be tracked as well as track the items moved. These fully automated warehouses have no staff, but rely upon technology that is designed to store and retrieve items in the most cost effective and efficient manner possible.

Jackson Lee Amendment #5 will extend economic opportunity to small businesses by requiring DoD to small business concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities before conversion of certain functions to contractor performance would aid the economy. Federal contracting can be an important revenue source for businesses of any size. In fiscal year 2011, federal agencies obligated a total of around $537 billion in government contracts to businesses. However, federal agencies' goal for contracting with women and minority owned businesses is five percent.

The Department of Defense is a major consumer of products and services that range from office products to military specific equipment. The wide ranges of business opportunities provide ample reasons to engage women and minority owned businesses as contractors or subcontractors.

In addition to the Jackson Lee Amendments offered to this bill, I joined my Colleagues on the Committee on Homeland Security in supporting an amendment to promote collaboration and cooperation between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security regarding the identification of equipment, either declared excess, or made available to DHS on a long-term loan basis that will help increase security along the border.

I also request that my colleagues support another amendment that I joined in sponsoring along with the leadership of the House Committee on Homeland Security which would allow the transfer of technology from DoD to state and local law enforcement. Before the creation of DHS a program was created to facilitate this type of equipment transfer and this amendment adds the Secretary of Homeland Security in a consultative role in the equipment transfer process. This amendment also gives applicants seek DoD equipment for use in border security preference in this statute. This will facilitate expedited transfer of equipment that Federal, state and local first responders can use to strengthen our border security efforts.

I do have grave concerns about some features of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014. For example this bill assumes adoption of the House Budget Resolution framework, which would hurt our economy and require draconian cuts to middle-class priorities. This is a serious concern for me because of how it would impact my constituents in the 18th Congressional District.

The Administration has communicated that it would veto this bill in its current for and I hope that the conference process will resolve the issues that are the most troubling like the treatment of the Guantanamo detainees. This issue is a mark against everything the United States stands for and it is damaging our reputation and credibility around the world.

The detentions should end and people properly processed to other facilities or tried in courts of law to address charges or crimes against the United States. My hope is that this provision will be dropped from the bill as the legislative process goes forward.

We must continue to direct our efforts as a body to ensure that our troops remain the best equipped and prepared military force in the world. They are not just soldiers they are sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters--they are some of the people we represent as members of Congress. Support of them is a sacred obligation of Congress both to those who are at risk on battlefields and serving as the guard against threats around the world, but they are also those who have returned home from war.

I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their work on this bill.

I am very pleased today to say that Members have joined me in introducing H. Res. 268, which is observing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day, which is going to be this Wednesday, June 19.

I hope that all of those across America will understand the meaning of Juneteenth, which is to express a celebration for the freeing of the slaves, which did not come to the southwestern States, like Texas, until almost 2 years later. That was 1865 after 1863.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly change the topic and indicate that I believe it's important to get an understanding of the individual who has allegedly been providing the leaks from the NSA. I have been restrained as to call him anything until the laws determine who he is, but I do believe that we are now tipping the scales of fairness when more and more is coming out in a foreign country, and I do believe something has to be done.

I will be introducing legislation on the reduction of private-intel utilization, an explanation of FISA Court opinions and strengthening the FISA Court because I believe that it is extremely important in strengthening the public trust and in strengthening the rights of the American people. We have to do it, and we have to be able to find this gentleman quickly so that the intelligence that will protect Americans will be done.