Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Professor Emeritus Howard M. Rubin from DePaul University who speaks about sexual abuse. ``My wife, Barbara Blaine, knew the lasting damage that is caused when a child is abused having been a child victim.'' DePaul University College of Law, Chicago, Illinois, November 16, 2017. Re: SB.534/ HR 1973--Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act of 2017 Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator John Thune, Representative Susan Brooks, Representative Lois Frankel. Dear Lawmakers: I am writing to enthusiastically support S.534/HR 1973 and to express my appreciation for your work in drafting and advancing this legislation. In the wake of the deluge of sexual harassment scandals breaking on a daily basis, the American public is crying out for recognition of women's rights, and the rights of victims of sexual abuse and harassment. While there is no way to quantify the struggles of one victim against another a young victim's childhood is indelibly harmed by sexual abuse. My wife, Barbara Blaine, knew the lasting damage that is caused when a child is abused having been a child victim. For her entire adult life she fought selflessly and tirelessly to ensure the safety and well-being of survivors, to prevent children from suffering abuse, and to hold accountable those responsible. Abusers and their enablers utilizing their power and status as shields against prosecution and retribution were dragged out into the light of justice and accountability by Barbara's ceaseless crusade as advocate. One of Barbara's passions was confronting unfair statute of limitations. They protected abusers and punished young victims unable to confront their abuse till later in life. The language in S.534 that extends statute of limitations for victims of child sexual abuse pertaining to federal crimes is a tribute to her efforts. Barbara cast a bright light against the darkness, but tragically, her flame was snuffed out far too soon. She left this world suddenly and before she could finish her life's work. It is upon us now to stoke the embers left in the wake of that lifetime, that her legacy might live on forever through S.534, and cast such a spark so as to permanently light the way towards justice for those who have been abused. I would consider it an honor to be included in the list of supporters for S.534. Sincerely, Howard M Rubin, Professor Emeritus.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Children's Alliance, which has been working with other advocacy groups and, again, has done longstanding work against child abuse, supporting this legislation. National Children Alliance, Washington, DC, November 20, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, U.S. House of Representatives. Hon. John Thune, U.S. Senate. Hon. Susan Brooks, House of Representatives. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives. Hon. Steny Hoyer, House of Representatives. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate. Hon. Lois Frankel, House of Representatives. Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: Dear Congressman McCarthy and Congressman Hoyer: Dear Senator Thune and Senator Feinstein: Dear Congresswoman Brooks and Congresswoman Frankel: The National Children's Alliance, in cooperation with numerous other advocacy groups, encourages the House of Representatives to pass the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act (S.534). Having recently passed the Senate, this bipartisan legislation seeks to address the numerous reports of childhood sexual abuse that have occurred against our nation's young athletes. The recent press surrounding the United States' Olympic trainees only serves to heighten the need for a strong legislative response. The NCA's longstanding work on child abuse leads us to believe that this legislation will increase the accountability of U.S. Olympic organizations and help ensure that incidences of this nature are not repeated. In particular, authorization and funding for the U.S. Center for Safe Sport is one of the critical provisions of this bill that will actively enhance U.S. Olympic organizations' responsibility in these matters. It establishes an office for education and outreach to develop the appropnate training, policies, and procedures to combat and prevent the emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, of young athletes competing in athletic activities sponsored by national governing bodies and Paralympic sports organizations. We hope that the House of Representatives will take swift action and stand with us in ensuring that our young athletes are protected as they stave to compete on behalf of our nation. Thank you for your consideration of our youth. Sincerely, Teresa Huizar, Executive Director, National Children's Alliance.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. CHILD USA: Let's End Child Abuse and Neglect said in a letter, which I include in the Record: ``This bill would shine much needed sunlight on the problem of abuse in sports. It will protect children in the future.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the United States Olympic Committee, dated January 24, 2018. United States Olympic Committee, Colorado Springs, CO, January 24, 2018. To Team USA: The athlete testimony that just concluded in the Nassar hearings framed the tragedy through the eyes of the victims and survivors, and was worse than our own worst fears. It was powerful because of the strength of the victims, survivors and parents, who so eloquently and forcefully told their stories and so rightfully demanded justice. The USOC should have been there to hear it in person, and I am deeply sorry that did not happen. The purpose of this message is to tell all of Nassar's victims and survivors, directly, how incredibly sorry we are We have said it in other contexts, but we have not been direct enough with you. We are sorry for the pain caused by this terrible man, and sorry that you weren't afforded a safe opportunity to pursue your sports dreams. The Olympic family is among those that have failed you. I know this apology is not enough. We have been working on taking steps at the USOC and mandating changes among National Governing Bodies to ensure this does not happen again. Our next steps will be these: 1. We Must Change the Culture of the Sport. This was the primary recommendation of the independent Deborah Daniels Report on USA Gymnastics and the athlete testimony underlined its importance. We heard athletes describe being unsure or unaware of how to report abuse and to whom, and sometimes even what constitutes abuse. We heard athletes describe being afraid or discouraged from reporting abuse. We heard athletes describe feeling hurt, betrayed, discounted and alone. Since October of last year, we have been engaged in direct talks with USAG leadership on this fundamental point. New leadership at the board level is critical and you recently saw three USAG board resignations. Further changes are necessary to help create a culture that fosters safe sport practice, offers athletes strong resources in education and reporting, and ensures the healing of the victims and survivors. This includes a full turnover of leadership from the past, which means that all current USAG directors must resign. 2. We Must Change the Governance Structure of the NGB. We need to help USA Gymnastics better support its mission, which is to provide the best resources and safest environment for athletes to train and compete. We have strongly considered decertifying USAG as a National Governing Body. But USA Gymnastics includes clubs and athletes who had no hand in this and who need to be supported. We believe it would hurt more than help the athletes and their sport. But we will pursue decertification if USA Gymnastics does not fully embrace the necessary changes in their governance structure along with other mandated changes under review right now. 3. We Must Know Who Knew What and When. The USOC has decided to launch an investigation by an independent third party to examine how an abuse of this proportion could have gone undetected for so long. We need to know when complaints were brought forward and to who. This investigation will include both USAG and the USOC, and we believe USAG will cooperate fully. We will make the results public. 4. We Must Support Safe Sport Victims and Survivors. Team USA safe sport assault victims and survivors need access to testing, treatment and counseling. The USOC will devote substantial funds to help provide these resources to victims and survivors. We are working on the details of how this funding will become available to athletes and will communicate them soon. I hope that all members of Team USA remember that the USOC ombudsman office is always available to provide free, independent and confidential help to athletes with concerns or questions about safe sport or other matters. Contact information, along with other helpful athlete resources, are here. In order to bring even more focus and urgency to these important points, the USOC board of directors has mobilized a board-level working group chaired by independent board member Susanne Lyons. Finally, I invite any member of Team USA to communicate with me or Ms. Lyons directly if there is more that you think the Olympic family can or should be doing for you and your families. Sincerely, Scott Blackmun, Chief Executive Officer.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of hours ago, the Republicans on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence voted to release the Nunes report. At the same time, they voted not to allow the rebuttal offered by the Democrats to be released. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, as a Member who has been through impeachment of the Federal judiciary and a President, not one time did I see any sidetrack opportunities or efforts to dismantle that ongoing investigation. We are not in an impeachment proceeding. We have a special counsel that is attempting to provide for the American people a detailed and thoughtful investigation. Why the rule of law has been so obliterated by our Republican friends and the idea of democracy and the protection of the institutions of this Nation have been undermined, I am shocked. The American people are not clamoring for the destruction of the FBI, nor are they clamoring for the destruction and undermining of Special Counsel Mueller's report. Let us stand for the principles of democracy and the Constitution. This kind of undermining is dastardly and embarrassing.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership in galvanizing all of us, and I thank my colleagues for very eloquent messages on the floor of the House regarding Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. Let me acknowledge Lee Saunders and the AFSCME family, who have been champions in fighting for the rights of all labor, and that is why we are on the floor of the House today, because we wanted to, in our way as legislators, join in this magnificent fight for constitutional rights of the First Amendment. And let me take issue with the 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and turn the Fourth Amendment back to supporting those workers who, in fact, want to associate and participate in unions. Let me also thank my colleague Chairman Richmond of the Congressional Black Caucus for galvanizing us as well in this effort. We offered a resolution to honor Echol Cole and Robert Walker. On February 1, 1968, it will be 50 years that these two sanitation workers in Memphis were killed in a horrific accident when the compactor on their sanitation truck malfunctioned. The key is that these individuals had no rights, no benefits. They had no death benefits. They had no protection for their families. They had nothing. And that is why this Supreme Court decision is so crucial and why I hope that the Supreme Court of the United States will rule in favor of AFSCME against this wrongheaded approach to those who are trying to speak on behalf of those who support the rights of workers. The Supreme Court cases did the flip of the First Amendment and suggested that the First Amendment of those who disapproved unions was being violated. I believe that the Supreme Court got it completely wrong and that the First Amendment rights of those who move positively to be part of a union could be argued vigorously that their rights are being violated. Not only their rights are being violated, but their rights to have a liveable wage and to work in a safe and protected workforce and workplace. That is what I think the real question is as to why those who want to be in a union must be defeated by the constitutional premise of the First Amendment. My First Amendment is to join the union and to secure the rights and benefits of those. I hope that the Supreme Court will look to the fact that union members who desire to have fees selected and utilized for the union deducted from their salary have every much a right to the First Amendment. You can opt out, but you should not deny those members the right to the First Amendment to have their voices heard. In particular, it is important to note the benefits that have come about to the African-American community. And that is the African- American community has seen increasing wages. African-American union workers earn up to $10,000 or 31 percent more a year than nonunion workers. In 2011, nearly 20 percent of employed African Americans worked for the State, local, or Federal Government compared to 14 percent of other groups. And African Americans are less likely than other groups to work in the private sector. So let me say this about why I stand here to support the unions and their right to the First Amendment to deduct fees to be able to express their rights. Let me just quickly say as I close: Do you know among the many things that unions have helped us get are weekends, all breaks at work, paid vacations, family medical leave, sick leave, Social Security, minimum wage, civil rights, overtime, child labor laws, and workman's comp? Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is an important discussion because so many good elements of saving lives, so much so that those dear sanitation workers would not have lost their life, came about from the sacrifice of unions, and we should provide them with the First Amendment right. Let me salute Clara Caldwell who will be honored by our union brothers and sisters in Austin, Texas, and let me say the right thing for the Supreme Court to do is rule on behalf of the unions and their rights to the First Amendment. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record points about African Americans and Labor Unions, facts about Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, and 36 reasons to thank the union movement. African Americans and Labor Unions 1. Historically, the path to the middle class for African Americans was through a union job. 2. African-American workers are more likely to be union members. 3. Unionized workers promote greater income equality and prevent wage discrimination. 4. African American union workers earn up to $10,000 or 31% more per year than non-union members. 7. Few African Americans are self-employed--only 3.8% reported being self-employed in 2011--making them almost half as likely to be self-employed as Whites (7.2%). 8. Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, more likely to have employer-provided health insurance, and are more likely to be in employer-provided pension plans. 9. Unions play a pivotal role by ensuring workers have continued educational access for their current roles as well as encourage workers to pursue higher education. 10. Nationally, 77 percent of union employees in 2009 were covered by pension plans that provide a guaranteed monthly retirement income. Only 20 percent of non-union workers are covered by guaranteed (defined-benefit) pensions 20%. 11. Union workers are 53.9% more likely to have employer- provided pensions. 12. When unions are strong and able to represent the people who want to join them, these gains spread throughout the economy and the overall community. 13. Workers who form unions are able to boost wages, which helps attract and retain staff. 14. When non-union companies increase their wages, it gives all workers more purchasing power. 15. Communities with a strong middle class have sufficient tax revenues to support schools, hospitals and roads. 16. Historically, pensions, social security and personal savings ensured that workers could retire with dignity. 17. With the current recession and the attack on pensions, many workers are left to depend on social security and their personal savings alone. 18. Many African American elders find themselves in a precarious situation after decades of work. 19. Union members played a critical role in the civil rights struggles of the past and that involvement continues today. 20. When Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed for civil disobedience, unions and union members frequently came to his aid with the legal and financial help he needed. 21. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin both union leaders help to organize the March on Washington in 1963 and in countless cities around the country. 22. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed while in Memphis to aid striking sanitation workers. 23. Today, labor unions are still on the forefront of efforts to ensure that the gains of the past are maintained and to fight for those still denied opportunity and equality. Facts About Janus v. AFSCME Council 31--Source: AFSCME Facts of the Case In 1977, the Supreme Court, in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, upheld against a First Amendment challenge a Michigan law that allowed a public employer whose employees were represented by a union to require those of its employees who did not join the union nevertheless to pay fees to it because they benefited from the union's collective bargaining agreement with the employer. Illinois has a law similar to that upheld in Michigan. The governor of Illinois brought a lawsuit challenging the law on the ground that the statute violates the First Amendment by compelling employees who disapprove of the union to contribute money to it. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the governor lacked standing to sue because he did not stand to suffer injury from the law, but two public employees intervened in the action to seek that Abood be overturned. Given that Abood is binding on lower courts, the district court dismissed the claim, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for the same reason. Legal Question Presented: Should the Court's decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overturned so that public employees who do not belong to a union cannot be required to pay a fee to cover the union's costs to negotiate a contract that applies to all public employees, including those who are not union members? Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 threatens our union and all working families. This case, which will come before the Supreme Court in February, represents a huge threat to our union. As a local leader, you are critical to how we defend and protect our union, our members and public services in the face of this threat. This lawsuit aims to take away the freedom of working people to join together in strong unions to speak up for themselves and their communities. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and a decision is expected by the summer. What are fair share fees, and why are they important? Unions work because we all pay our fair share and we all benefit from what we negotiate together. Fair share fees provide public service workers with the power in numbers they need to negotiate better wages, benefits and protections that improve work conditions and set standards for everyone. Each public service worker chooses whether or not to join a union, but the union is still required by law to represent and negotiate on behalf of all public service workers-- members and non-members alike. All employees receive the wage increases, benefits and workplace rights negotiated through the union. The corporate special interests behind this case want to take away our ability to build strength in numbers. That is why they want the Supreme Court to rule that workers can receive all the benefits of a union contract without contributing anything in return. All workers should chip in their fair share to cover the cost of representing them. Is anyone ever forced to join a union or pay for politics? No. The simple truth is that no one is forced to join a union and no one is forced to pay any fees that go to politics or political candidates. That is already the law of the land. Nothing in this case will change that. This case is about taking away the freedom of working people to join together, speak up for each other and build a better life for themselves and their families by undermining their ability to form strong unions. What is the real impact of this case? When working people have the freedom and opportunity to speak up together through unions, we make progress together that benefits everyone. The wealthy elite behind this case are trying to use the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to create the power in numbers to secure better lives for ourselves, our families, our communities and our country by undermining our ability to form strong unions. If fair share fees are struck down, employees who benefit from the gains that the union makes will not have to pay anything toward the cost of that representation. If the billionaires and corporate CEOs behind this case get their way, they will take away the freedom of working people to come together and build power to fight for the things our families and communities need: everything from affordable health care and retirement security to quicker medical emergency response times. What is this case really about? The case aims to erode the freedom to form unions to improve our lives and the communities we serve. Real freedom is about making a decent living from our hard work; it's also about having time to take a loved one to the doctor, attend a parent-teacher conference and retire in dignity. The corporate special interests behind this case do not believe that working people should have the freedom to negotiate a fair return on their work. Who is behind this case? The National Right to Work Foundation is part of a network funded by corporate billionaires to use the courts to rig the rules against working people. For decades, these wealthy elites have used their massive fortunes to gain outsized influence to chip away at the progress unions have won for all working families. Now they want the highest court in the land to take away our freedom to come together to protect what our communities need: a living wage, retirement security, health benefits, the ability to care for loved ones and more. How do unions benefit our communities? People in unions continue to win rights, benefits and protections for all working people and their communities. When public service workers belong to strong unions, they fight for staffing levels, equipment and training that saves lives and improves the public services our communities rely upon. And when union membership is high, entire communities enjoy higher wages. 36 Reasons To Thank the Union Movement 1. Weekends 2. All breaks at work, including your lunch breaks 3. Paid vacation 4. FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) 5. Sick leave 6. Social security 7. Minimum wage 8. Civil Rights Act Title VII (prohibits Employer Discrimination) 9. 8-Hour work day 10. Overtime pay 11. Child labor laws 12. Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) 13. 40 Hour Work Week 14. Worker's Compensation (Worker's Camp) 15. Unemployment Insurance 16. Pensions 17. Workplace Safety Standards and Regulations 18. Employer Health Care Insurance 19. Collective Bargaining Rights for Employees 20. Wrongful Termination Laws 21. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 22. Whistleblower Protection Laws 23. Employee Polygraph Protect Act (Prohibits Employer from using a lie detector test on an employee) 24. Veteran's Employment and Training Services (VETS) 25. Compensation increases and Evaluations (Raises) 26. Sexual Harassment laws 27. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 28. Holiday Pay 29. Employer Dental, Life, and Vision Insurance 30. Privacy Rights 31. Pregnancy and Parental Leave 32. Military Leave 33. The Right to Strike 34. Public Education for Children 35. Equal Pay Acts of 1963 & 2011 36. (Requires employers pay men and women equally for the same amount of work) 37. Laws Ending Sweatshops in the United States

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule suspending the rules providing legislation be considered in regular order, what is frequently referred to as a ``martial law'' rule. I oppose the rule because it is irresponsible and further confirmation of the inability of this President and congressional Republicans' inability to govern. In accepting his party's presidential nomination, the current President loudly, boldly, and ridiculously declared: ``I alone can fix it!'' One year later, on the anniversary of his inauguration, which by the way was witnessed by one of the smallest crowds in history, the verdict is in. The President cannot fix anything; he is not leading the nation and he has failed at his primary and most basic obligation: managing the executive branch of the government and taking care the laws be faithfully executed. But the President's failure is not his alone, it is shared with Republican acolytes in the House and Senate, who from Day 1 of this Administration has lived in fantasy world where facts and truth and science and good public policy do not matter. This President and our Republican friends across the aisle persist in the mistaken and false belief that the American people are clamoring to take away affordable quality healthcare for millions of Americans, to virtually eliminate taxes on the multinational corporations and the top one-percent, to deprive 9 million children of health insurance, and to deport 800,000 law-abiding and patriotic Dreamers from the land they love and only country to which they have ever pledged allegiance. Mr. Speaker, the reason we are now in this mess of the Republicans' making is because they consciously chose not to work with Democrats to come to a necessary bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year funding bills. The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way. Yet, even with the extra time, Republicans made no progress during any of the previous extensions. This should not be surprising; the House GOP is carrying the water for the president, who a few months ago said ``we need a big beautiful shutdown.'' Mr. Speaker, I will not support a CR that does not include full funding for disaster recovery for the areas affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and the California wildfires, extends additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions. And most important, I will not support a CR or budget agreement that does not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has inflicted on 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 Dreamers in my home state of Texas. Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans continue wasting time. Mr. Speaker, the CR proposed by Republicans included a six year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017. This is not a meaningful extension. In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. CHIP, which enjoys broad public, could have been reauthorized months ago in a stand-alone bill but Republicans chose instead waste months on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enact unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy. I know firsthand about the important work done through CHIP. My state is home to the Texas Children's Hospital, and any of my colleagues who believes it is acceptable to play politics with children's health clearly does not appreciate the work done there. This CR included additional tax cuts totaling over $26 billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax. At the same time, the CR failed to address numerous other expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals. Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, even though we are already four months into the fiscal year. Democrats, meanwhile, have done the work with which we were tasked. I am a member of the Budget committee and we Democrats proposed a budget that: Respected the needs of all Americans, including those who serve bravely in the Department of Defense; Honored the sacrifice of our heroes in uniform; Protected programs like CHIP, made investments in infrastructure and ensured that Americans have access to quality healthcare. Because the President and congressional Republicans refused to work with Democrats and compromise on how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, they are lurching from CR to CR-- degrading the readiness of our military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the American people. This is not a responsible way to govern. Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps. I urge all Members to reject this Rule and start focusing on the real needs and interests of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, day three of this shutdown, thousands and thousands of Federal employees not working. The leader of the Republicans in the Senate has moved with some offer that would hopefully be something to start with, but I applaud the Democratic leadership in the other body because they have been focusing on what we want, and that is parity, national security parity for children's healthcare and federally qualified health clinics and veterans. But the people who have imploded this, of course, are the President and his staff, with vulgarity and then breaking up a deal last Friday. So, if we are serious, we need to be able to work on what the issues are, and that is domestic spending to have parity to ensure that the families of our soldiers are, likewise, provided for. I support the national security needs of this Nation, as a Homeland Security member since the tragic and heinous terrorist act of 9/11. I believe national security goes with providing for their families. When are we going to do that and provide for innocent DREAMers who have done nothing but come to this country to be able to do what is right? Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution that would immediately open and reopen the government with a clean CR while negotiations continue on a budget agreement that adheres to the parity and on other critical issues so that we can end the Trump shutdown.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary inquiry is the utilization of the words ``illegal immigration'' being used against the well-stated policies of the United States dealing with respecting people who come to this country. My question is the terminology being used to indict Democrats, the Democratic Party, and it is maligning hardworking Americans who came from an immigrant background.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the men and women of the United States military, how shameful it is to use you. You will be paid. And it is important to note that the Democratic Party, our leadership, is focusing on making sure your families are taken care of. This is a debate about ensuring domestic spending so that you have education dollars for your children--sadly, some of our soldiers are on food stamps--the CHIP program to be fully funded and made permanent, and veterans benefits to continue. It is shameful. When I was growing up, the way to use language against a person running for office was for them to be called an ``N lover'' or for them to advocate for integrated schools or use the race card. Now, today, the person who has the highest office in the land is using the race card; and, sadly, congressional Republican Members and leadership are using it by way of illegal immigration in a political ad that has just come out to say that we are responsible for killings by illegal immigrants. DREAMers are not illegal immigrants. They are Americans. They are soldiers. They are doctors and lawyers. They are my neighbors. They are my interns. And I am saddened by this. I want the American people to know that the best moral stance to be is where the Democratic leadership is because we are standing for all of America, and we will continue to do so. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 4872, the End the Shutdown Act of 2018, a continuing resolution that would immediately reopen the government through Tuesday while negotiations continue on a budget agreement that adheres to parity and on other critical issues to stop the Trump shutdown.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, maybe my good friend was not able to keep his eyes awake last night to see that a bipartisan group of Members in the other body voted resoundingly to defeat this insignificant and this shallow CR that you sent to the other body. Maybe you were not able to see that. So what I will say to you is that I join with my whip in a 4-day CR, because maybe you have just forgotten the fact that the most catastrophic storm hit Texas, and then others went on to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and Florida. No one has heard one word about those who are suffering with housing that still looks like this, or those houses that are under water. Maybe you don't know that the children who need children's health insurance need the clinics that you gutted. I would ask you, if you really have any kind of compassion, to read Mr. Steele's comments, who indicated, as a former chair of the Republican National Committee, that those who are at fault for shutting down the government is a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate. You can't do your job. Democrats are trying to do their job for the American people. You shut the government down. Worry about those who are suffering from hurricanes. Where is your compassion?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, passing by the Capitol Police, it made me think of my own law enforcement officers in Houston, Texas. Because we do not have a budget, we do not have appropriations, we are about to shut down the government. We have a CR. There is no funding for police officers. There is no funding for the desperate people who have been impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, and Irma. No funding whatsoever. I salute the Senate and the Senate Democrats for standing firm for those people. There are no moneys for federally qualified health clinics. There are no moneys for children's health insurance. You are not doing your job, and here we are trying to create mandatory minimums on a bill that is not necessary. I believe we should try to keep this government open with the right kind of law. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4712, the ``Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.'' First of all, the majority's failure to govern and address the priorities of the American people is staggering as we are faced with a fourth continuing resolution finding ourselves four months into the fiscal year. The majority has yet to come up with a long term spending bill rather than an incomplete stop gap that only covers the government until February 16. Republicans have wasted time creating the GOP Tax Scam and now Republicans are still wasting time debating this anti-women bill once again while there is no DACA solution and hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have grown up in this country and greatly contribute to society are facing unfair deportation. I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions. H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law that the pro-choice community did not oppose. This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes. Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some babies ``survive'' abortion procedures. They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as their evidence. Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal abortion care and infanticide. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement. Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law. If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of course, it should be investigated and prosecuted. No such case exists here. That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to intimidate doctors out of practice. This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show no signs of ending. The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice. This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in heartbreaking cases. We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other medical specialty; abortion care is no different. Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper context. We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti- choice base. Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems. The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government. The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion. Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the fail range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms. But we know that's not really the case. If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion. That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics. Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance. Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not. A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue. Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement. In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation service and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers. The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement. It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades. Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases. One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year. The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue. When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided. Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country. It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country. Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia. Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety. Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country. To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year. They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood. Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly. The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood. It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board. Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation. My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family-planning and private health services. I urge all Members to vote against this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in serving on this committee, and I thank Mr. Cohen for his very eloquent explanation. Let me say that I stand with these women, Jenny R., Kathy L., Lindsey, and Taias, women who have experienced the tragedy of losing a child, wanting a child, and wanting the protection of Roe v. Wade. I stand with these women. I rise today to again ask the question: Why do we divide over the wonderment of birth? I am reminded of H.R. 2175, passed in 2002, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was widely supported. Now, we come on the eve of a failed administration in its first year to stand as if we are doing something for those who are coming here-- and I have great respect for their position of pro-life--but it doesn't mean that we must undermine the Constitution, add mandatory minimums, make up needs where there are no needs. That is what this particular bill does. This amendment to H.R. 4712 is clearly involving and intruding into a process between the mother, the doctor, the family, and her God. There is no evidence of lawbreaking that has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement. Abortion is a proven safe, legal, and humane practice. It has to be that way under the law. But we are in the middle of violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court cases by passing this legislation: up to 5 years in prison, a threat of financially crippling lawsuits, and, of course, shutting down those health facilities that we absolutely need. Let me be very clear: we should be dealing with this shutdown that the Republicans are planning and moving forward. The reason we should be dealing with the shutdown is because law enforcement officers have no money, our clinics have no money.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear to my colleagues and the American people why there is a major debate in the other body. This is not a shutdown campaign. What we need to understand is that this is not a shutdown for illegal immigration. I am offended by that terminology. The DREAMers have status. Their status was taken away by the President. What we are trying to do is ensure individuals who are in the United States, in the United States military, teaching, and committed to this Nation, have dignity. Relatives of my friends on the other side of the aisle may have come in undocumented or without status. Therefore, this is not about illegal immigration. It is about dignity and respect for people here in the United States. It is about my constituents who are suffering after Hurricane Harvey with no heat and their homes not being rehabilitated because we do not have disaster supplemental funding. It is about federally qualified health clinics, Mr. Speaker, that will be shut down because we have no funding--zero--in the CR so babies can go and get care. Finally, it is about the Department of Education, teachers, and our law enforcement, whom we have such respect for. This shutdown is not a campaign; it is a high calling to save this Nation. I stand with them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Oklahoma--and he is a good friend. We have seen each other often in the Rules Committee-- protests too much. This is not a bill, and the American people should know that it is not a bill. It is an affirmation of the inability of Republicans to govern. Republicans have the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. A few months ago, their President indicated that we need a good, beautiful government shutdown. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the President of the United States. This is not an appropriations bill. This is a stopgap emergency method in order to save ourselves from collapse. That is the Republican's responsibility. Democrats, so many months ago, passed a budget, as a member of the Budget Committee, a budget that respected the needs of all Americans, including the United States Department of Defense. It provided funding for ordinary men and women who put on the uniform, some of them on food stamps. It provided for veterans health. It provided for the children's health insurance. It provided for infrastructure, and it provided for ensuring that Americans could have good healthcare. That was the Democrat's budget. The Republican budget was a $2.4 trillion, and counting, cut to the needs of the American people. It threatened Medicaid and Medicare, quite contrary to Democrats. Now, we find ourselves in the midst of those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands who barely got lights or power during the holiday season or thereafter. It is dealing with Texans who have no power in their homes, living in shells. They have no heat. They are waiting on disaster supplemental relief that is not coming. And, of course, what about CHIP? I represent the Texas Children's Hospital with my colleagues. My district surrounds that area. I have been to that hospital. I have seen what the Children's Health Insurance Program means to saving lives. What does that mean? Six years, that is nebulous. What about permanent? What about passing Mr. McEachin's bill on working with seniors and children? That is serious. And I don't know what my friends heard, but earlier this morning, I heard the President say: Snatch CHIP out of it. They want to be in negotiation. I just want to be mean. And you know how you are being mean? You are not here seriously dealing with this. You are going off on a rally so that you can support the man that is running in the Pennsylvania suburbs who loves the President. That is not democracy. Whoever is running, let them run. Right now, in here, we need some help and we need to work on these issues for the 700,000 near-Americans. They are DREAMers, but they serve in the military. They are in medical school. They are Ph.D.s. They are teachers, and we have them suffering. Some of them have committed suicide because of the ugliness of this body controlled by Republicans in the House and the Senate. Finally, let me say that any President who can call something an s--- hole is not a serious negotiator. I believe it is the Republicans' responsibility to put a bill on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule, which makes in order legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect for another month, or until February 16, 2018. This resolution is yet another short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) to extend government funding for a few weeks, this time until February 16th. This is the fourth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year funding bills. The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way. Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress during any of the previous extensions. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a rule that does not make in order legislation that provides full funding for disaster recovery, extends additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions. Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring to the floor and request support for a fourth CR extension that does not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has inflicted on 800,0oo Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 Dreamers in my home state of Texas. Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans continue wasting time. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us includes a six year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017. In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans are only just now getting around to reauthorizing the program because they wasted months on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enact unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy. This resolution includes additional tax cuts totaling over $26 billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax. At the same time, the resolution fails to address numerous other expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals. Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, even though we are already four months into the fiscal year. Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the American people. This is not a responsible way to govern. Therefore, I cannot support the Rule or the underlying bill. Instead, Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. * * *

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1660, Global Health Innovation Act, because it encourages the continual research and development of new global health strategies and promotes transparency between our Federal agencies and the United States Congress. Under H.R. 1660, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) would be required to report to Congress on the development and use of global health innovations in USAID programs, projects, and activities. This annual report would have to include a thorough description of: The extent to which global health innovations include drugs, vaccines, and mobile technologies, as well as related service delivery improvements and behavior changes; How innovation has advanced USAID's efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, end preventable child and maternal deaths, protect communities from infectious diseases, and further its Global Health Strategic Framework; Progress made toward health product development goals; How USAID's investments in innovation relate to its goals; How USAID leverages investments to improve health innovation, develops affordable global health products, and advances health innovations in development; USAID's collaboration with other federal agencies; and How USAID is coordinating global health innovation activities between its Global Development Lab, Center for Accelerating Innovation and Impact, and Bureau for Global Health. The report would have to be submitted within 180 days of the bill's enactment, and then annually for four years. The critical research and development of global health technologies has facilitated the development of life-saving technologies saving countless lives across the globe. Ultimately, the goal of H.R. 1660 is to support a long-term program to develop these much needed health technologies and innovative easy- to-use health solutions for low resource environment. I have always been an advocate for the protection of women and children. This bill would help to stifle the spread of infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries, and work to find new and improved ways to fight infection for those who cannot fight themselves. So I stand for H.R. 1660; and I ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of this bill, and the pursuit of improved global health.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3445, African Growth and Opportunity Act and Millennium Challenge Act (``AGOA and MCA Modernization Act''), because it provides assistance to certain sub-Saharan African countries to improve their economies and foster trade with the U.S. I have long supported trade ties between the United States and sub- Saharan Africa, as I believe this trade relationship would be mutually advantageous for both parties involved. In 2016, 39 of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa were designated as AGOA-eligible, according to the House Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the bill. Top imports to the U.S. under AGOA include energy products, transportation equipment, and textiles, according to the International Trade Administration. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is a foreign aid agency that provides grants to lower-income countries for specific projects to promote economic growth. It invests in countries through compacts--which have ranged from $66 million in Cape Verde to almost $700 million in Morocco and Tanzania-- as well as smaller ``threshold agreements'' that help countries become eligible for a compact, according to the committee report. It has distributed $10.8 billion through compacts and $583.6 million through threshold agreements. With Africa's consumer spending expected to reach one trillion dollars, now is the time to accelerate this important trade relationship. The AGOA program and the MCC would have new responsibilities and reporting requirements under an amended version of H.R. 3445. Under H.R. 3445, the president would have to establish a website for AGOA that includes information about technical assistance provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development's regional trade hubs and links to U.S. embassies in AGOA countries. After each U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum, H.R. 3445 would require the president to publish the outcomes and an assessment of progress made by members and the private sector toward meeting previous commitments. Under H.R. 3445, the State Department would have to direct U.S. embassies in sub-Saharan Africa to promote AGOA and link to the AGOA website on their websites. The president would be directed to: Develop policies and encourage the provision of technical assistance to facilitate trade cooperation among AGOA countries; Train businesses and government officials on how to access AGOA benefits; and Provide capacity building for African entrepreneurs and trade associations. H.R. 3445 would set new requirements for AGOA's website and outreach work. H.R. 3445 would modify country eligibility criteria for MCC compacts and allow countries to enter into concurrent compacts. According to a committee summary, H.R. 3445 would redefine and stabilize movement between the low income and lower middle income candidate country pools, consistent with authorizing language that has been carried in annual appropriations bills since FY 2012. According to the committee report, countries would be eligible for assistance if their per capita income does not exceed the lower middle income country threshold established by the World Bank's International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is $4,035. Countries would be eligible for low income assistance if their per capita income is among the 75 lowest countries. Otherwise, they would still be eligible for lower middle income assistance. The formula under current law is not based on an income ranking. If changes in a country's income caused it to move between categories, its assistance level would change after two subsequent fiscal years. H.R. 3445 would also require countries to demonstrate a commitment to supporting civil society to be eligible for participation. Before being selected for participation, the MCC would have to report to its governing board on the country's treatment of civil society and any laws it has that regulate the freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and internet use. The reports would be required before the board approved compacts for the next seven years. A country's improvement on criteria that were relevant to its initial compact would be considered when determining eligibility for a subsequent, non-concurrent compact. We should support the efforts of the AGOA program as it provides assistance to sub-Saharan African countries, improves these countries' economies, and helps to facilitate trade between these countries and the U.S. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3445.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong and unwavering support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) and unyielding opposition to the President's decision, announced by the Attorney General, to rescind a policy that liberated 800,000 young persons--124,000 of them in Texas--from the shadows of life, welcomed them into the mainstream, and encouraged them to realize their potential and achieve the American Dream. At the heart of the Trump Administration's cruel and heartless and misguided decision to rescind DACA is the specious claim that President Obama lacked the constitutional and statutory authority to take executive actions to implement the DACA policy. That is why I offered an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018, (Division C of Rules Committee Print 115-31) that would have prohibited the Administration from using appropriated funds to implement its decision to rescind DACA. Specifically, that Jackson Lee Amendment provided the following section at the end of Division E of the bill: Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the Memorandum of September 5, 2017, from the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security pertaining to ``Rescission of the June 15, 2012 Memorandum Entitled ``Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children.'' Regrettably, this Jackson Lee Amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee. There was no need for the President to make any decisions about DACA; there was no real deadline pending, no actual court case, no legal requirement. And in my congressional district, we are still mourning the loss of the heroic DREAMER, Alonso Guillen, who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a child, and died here when his boat capsized while he was rescuing survivors of the flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area. The President and Attorney General should not have created a crisis just because they appear not to like the ethnic groups from which most DREAMERS come. Not to mention the so-called President, who called ``shithole countries'' the places he finds undesirable, likely because of his racist ways. There is no heart in ending DACA and leaving the fate of 800,000 young persons in limbo and at the mercy of a Republican Congress that has passed no major legislation and has no guarantee that the President would even sign a bill if they do. Republicans in Congress need to bring H.R. 3440, the Dream Act of 2017, to the floor right now and vote for it so it can pass both houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority. Mr. Speaker, now let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Pursuant to Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the ``Take Care'' Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the inherent power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Thus, enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), properly may exercise their discretion to devise and implement policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize our nation's resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Mr. Speaker, deferred action has been utilized in our nation for decades by Administrations headed by presidents of both parties without controversy or challenge. In fact, as far back as 1976, INS and DHS leaders have issued at least 11 different memoranda providing guidance on the use of similar forms of prosecutorial discretion. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' and the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written by Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law-- embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.'' Exercising thoughtful discretion in the enforcement of the nation's immigration law saves scarce taxpayer funds, optimizes limited resources, and produces results that are more humane and consistent with America's reputation as the most compassionate nation on earth. Mr. Speaker, a DREAMER (an undocumented student) seeking to earn her college degree and aspiring to attend medical school to --better herself and her new community is not a threat to the nation's security. Law abiding but unauthorized immigrants doing honest work to support their families pose far less danger to society than human traffickers, drug smugglers, or those who have committed a serious crime. President Obama was correct in concluding that exercising his discretion regarding the implementation of DACA enhances-the safety of all members of the public, serves national security interests, and furthers the public interest in keeping families together. Mr. Speaker, according to numerous studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Administration, and Council of Economic Advisors, the DACA generates substantial economic benefits to our nation. For example, unfreezing DAPA and expanded DACA is estimated to increase GDP by $230 billion and create an average of 28,814 jobs per year over the next 10 years. That is a lot of jobs. Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama did nothing was novel or unprecedented. Let me cite just a few examples of executive action taken by American presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. In 2010, the Obama Administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Speaker, because of President Obama's leadership and visionary executive action, 124,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas have received deferred action. Ninety-one percent of these immigrants are employed or in school and contribute $6.3 billion annually to the Texas economy and $460.3 billion to the national economy. Mr. Speaker, let me note that DACA was and is a welcome development but not a substitute for undertaking the comprehensive reform and modernization of the nation's immigration laws supported by the American people. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. Comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed to ensure that Lady Liberty's lamp remains the symbol of a land that welcomes immigrants to a community of immigrants and does so in a manner that secures our borders and protects our homeland. Instead of wasting time scapegoating DREAMERS, we should instead seize the opportunity to pass legislation that secures our borders, preserves America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world, and will yield hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the opposing of the rule and opposing of H.R. 4712 to support the right of a woman to choose and to support loving families. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying bill. I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to limit women's rights to safe and legal abortions. H.R. 4712 amends the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act--a 2002 law that the pro-choice community did not oppose. This bill, however, adds penalties to the law and an entirely new section in which Congress attempts to intrude directly into medical practice of abortion care for anti-choice ideological purposes. Anti-choice lawmakers say this new bill is necessary because some babies ``survive'' abortion procedures. They cite the now-discredited videos attacking Planned Parenthood as their evidence. Of course, such allegations are untrue: newborns already have many legal protections, and there is no similarity between safe, legal abortion care and infanticide. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. No evidence of lawbreaking has been uncovered that necessitates congressional involvement. Abortion practice is safe, legal, and humane; any evidence of wrongdoing can and should be handled under existing law. If there is ever a case of harm or mistreatment of newborns, then of course, it should be investigated and prosecuted. No such case exists here. That makes it even clearer that H.R. 4712 must have other purposes; we believe the bill's true goals are to inflame the public with outrageous accusations, to interfere with medical care, and to intimidate doctors out of practice. This legislation is consistent with the assaults that the Trump Administration and anti-abortion members of Congress in both the House and Senate have been undertaking throughout the 115th Congress and show no signs of ending. The bill intrudes into medical practice, its mandate is so broad and the penalties so severe--up to five years in prison and the threat of financially crippling lawsuits--that one can only conclude that H.R. 4712 hopes to intimidate abortion providers out of practice. This interference in medical care could also cause tremendous additional grief to some families making difficult decisions in heartbreaking cases. We would not tolerate similar intrusion by politicians into any other medical specialty; abortion care is no different. Finally, it is important to put this legislation into the proper context. We are in the midst of an unprecedented assault against reproductive rights: this bill is just one in a litany to restrict a woman's right to choose while using women as political pawns with an extremist, anti- choice base. Instead of spending time attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our truly broken immigration and criminal justice systems. The bill before us is offered for a simple purpose; to sensationalize opposition to abortion and serve as a political decoy to shut down our government. The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion. Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of California. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in those same terms. But we know that's not really the case. If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are attacking Planned Parenthood in a back-handed attempt to ban abortion. That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics. Just as the 1988 Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel (or the Blue Ribbon Commission) sought to separate the question of ethics of abortion from the question ethics of using fetal tissue from legal elective abortions for medical research when laying the foundation for the 1993, NIH Health Revitalization Act (which passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support), we must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues of federal compliance. Namely, the NIH Health Revitalization Act prohibits the payment or receipt of money or any other form of valuable consideration for fetal tissue, regardless of whether the program to which the tissue is being provided is funded or not. A limited exception, and crux of the applicable issue of legality, lies with the provision allowing for reimbursement for actual expenses (e.g. storage, processing, transportation, etc.) of the tissue. Planned Parenthood repeatedly maintains and supports that their affiliates involved with fetal tissue research comply with this requirement. In fact, of the 700+ affiliate health care centers across the country, only 4 Planned Parenthood affiliates currently offer tissue donation services and of those 4, only 2 (California and Washington) offer fetal tissue donation services--that's 1 percent of all Planned Parenthood service centers. The California affiliate receives a modest reimbursement of $60 per tissue specimen and the Washington affiliate receives no reimbursement. It is worth noting that fetal tissue has been used for decades. Since the 1920's researchers have used fetal tissue to study and treat various neurological disorders, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, immune deficiencies, cancers and life-threatening blood diseases. One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year. The most widely known application in the field of human fetal tissue transplantation has been the Treatment of Parkinson's disease. Many of our other common vaccines, such as polio, measles, chicken pox, rubella and shingles, have been developed through the use of fetal tissue or cell lines derived from fetal tissue. When looking at the 1 percent of health care providers involved in fetal tissue donation and research, and no clear credible proof of illegal activity, it is obvious that attacks on Planned Parenthood are wholly misguided. Planned Parenthood has one of the most rigorous Medical standards and accreditation processes in the country. It is the only national provider that has developed a single set of evidence-based Medical Standards and Guidelines that define how health care is provided throughout the country. Guidelines are developed and updated annually by a group of nationally-renowned experts, physicians, and scientists, including medical experts from Harvard and Columbia. Planned Parenthood affiliates must submit to accreditation reviews that include 100 indicators (or high level areas of review) and over 600 individual Elements of Performance (or measures for review). Half of these relate to the provision of medical care and patient safety. Planned Parenthood has strict requirements regarding compliance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. A specific area of compliance is with mandatory reporting laws and regulations regarding reporting in instances where the welfare of a minor is endangered. All staff with patient contact are rigorously trained regarding compliance with federal, state and local laws and regulations governing service to minors. Violations of mandatory reporting regulations are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. It is no secret that the Center for Medical Progress is an extreme anti-choice organization with a goal of outlawing legal abortion procedures in this country. To achieve that goal, they have shamelessly targeted Planned Parenthood and the funding that provides healthcare services to millions of women every year. They continue to use deceptive tactics and secret videos to try and undermine Planned Parenthood. Just like Live Action, the Center for Medical Progress is not a group that can be taken credibly. The Center for Medical Progress is simply recreating a history of doctoring and manipulating video intended to create misimpressions about Planned Parenthood. It is a coordinated effort by anti-choice forces--not only on Planned Parenthood or a woman's right to choose, but on women's health care across the board. At the same time, national media is reporting about a major coordinated push by anti-choice groups and Members of Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. This coordinated effort to defund Planned Parenthood is an assault on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this country. The public is standing by Planned Parenthood, which plays a vital role in defending women's health and rights. Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation. My colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, rather than restricting their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health services. I urge all Members to vote against the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Rules Committee Print 115-55, legislation extending the Continuing Resolution now in effect for another month, or until February 16, 2018. But before I proceed further, I want to note--and Americans needs to know--that this is not a spending bill; it is instead an affirmation of the House Republicans' inability to govern. This is the fourth time House Republicans have chosen to kick the can down the road rather than work with Democrats to come to a necessary bipartisan agreement to lift the Budget Control Act (BCA) spending caps, giving appropriators the direction they need for full-year funding bills. The reason given for passing each of the prior Continuing Resolutions was that the extra time was needed to reach a comprehensive agreement to fund government operations in a fair and balanced way. Yet, even with the extra time, House Republicans made no progress during any of the previous extensions. This should not be surprising; the House GOP is carrying the water for the president, who a few months ago said ``we need a big beautiful shutdown.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot support a CR that does not include full funding for disaster recovery, extends additional health access for veterans, provides funding to combat the opioid epidemic, and protects pensions. Most important, it is outrageous that House Republicans would bring to the floor and request support for a fourth CR extension that does not address and resolve the crisis the Republican Administration has inflicted on 800,000 Dreamers and their families, including 124,000 Dreamers in my home state of Texas. Instead of acting responsibly to address these issues and fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, House Republicans continue wasting time. This is not appropriations; this is a stop-gap funding measure to save ourselves from collapse. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us includes a six year reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides health coverage to nine million children, and which Republicans allowed to lapse on September 30, 2017. This is not a meaningful extension. In contrast, making CHIP permanent would not only provide long-term stability for families, providers, and states, it would save $6 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Republicans are only just now getting around to reauthorizing the program because they wasted months on efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and enact unpaid for tax cuts for the wealthy. I know firsthand about the important work done through CHIP. My state is home to the Texas Children's Hospital. Any Republican who believes it is acceptable to play politics with children's health clearly does not appreciate the work done there. This CR includes additional tax cuts totaling over $26 billion, including a two year delay of the medical device and Cadillac taxes, and a one year delay of the health insurance tax. At the same time, the resolution fails to address numerous other expired and expiring health priorities, from funding for community health centers to waiving caps on therapy services for seniors on Medicare, to preventing cuts to safety net hospitals. Mr. Speaker, despite controlling the House, Senate, and the White House, Republicans have not funded the government for the entire year, even though we are already four months into the fiscal year. Democrats, meanwhile, have done the work with which we were tasked. I am a member of the Budget committee and we Democrats proposed a budget that: Respected the needs of all Americans, including those who serve bravely in the Department of Defense; Honored the sacrifice of our heroes in uniform; Protected programs like CHIP, made investments in infrastructure and ensured that Americans have access to quality healthcare. Because Republicans refuse to work with Democrats and compromise on how to provide relief from the BCA's sequester level spending caps, they are lurching from CR to CR--degrading the readiness of our military and preventing government agencies from properly serving the American people. This is not a responsible way to govern; therefore, I cannot support this bill. House Republicans need to work across the aisle with Democrats and get our work done--including upholding the long-standing precedent of agreeing to parity when providing relief from sequester caps.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what we did not do today for the American people's enhancement. What we did not do today is provide for enlisted men and women. We need to increase compensation for their families who are on food stamps. We did nothing for them today. We did nothing for Rose Escobar and her husband. Her husband was departed to El Salvador, a place where he has never been. They have two children and live in Houston, Texas. We have been pleading for his case to be reviewed. He is a DREAMer. He is DACA-eligible. He was managing a paint store. He was buying a house. We did nothing for him today. Who else did we not do anything for? The millions of people who use community health clinics and whose funding will expire. For 25 years, Central Care has been the facility that has served African Americans, Hispanics, and others for fee-for- service and Medicaid. We did absolutely nothing for them. So we should not be afraid of stopping this government, if we have to do it, because we need to do something for the DREAMers. We need to do something for people who don't have healthcare and have to use federally qualified health centers. My God, we need to do something for the enlisted men and women whose families are on food stamps and whose salaries are not commensurate with the sacrifice they make. I am standing, Mr. Speaker, with each and every one of them.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to save lives. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the CR for its repetitiveness and its inability to save lives, frankly, the lives of DREAMers or the lives of those who depend upon the Children's Health Insurance Program. In the vulgar statement that was made by the White House, how shocking this week of Dr. King's birthday of the deafening silence of my Republican friends and the faith community, the broad-based faith community. Let me read from the network: The slave codes created servitude for natural life for African laborers. 250-plus years slave labor of millions of African and Black people was the foundation of the American economy and global force that it eventually became. On the eve of the Civil War, Black slaves were valued at an estimated $3.5 billion--and that is scaled for modern inflation--and none of the Black slaves were able to cash in on that value. That is the vulgar statement about Africa from which many of us have come. And so I would argue that it is time, now, for this House to stand up for people such as those who are starving in Somalia, those who are starving in Sudan and Nigeria, those who have been called a vulgar word. Where is the morality of this Congress, the morality of this administration, the morality of this Nation? Enough is enough.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Royce, Mr. Engel, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Bass for establishing a real, viable African policy, a policy that I have had the privilege of being part of for all of the years that I have served in the United States Congress. I remember making the first inaugural trip to do the research and to meet with heads of state in Africa on the question of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. Over the years, we worked with the Bush administration on the Millennium Challenge Corporation. So I am delighted that we have a bill that improves the benefits. It is even more important, in this time, to make sure that the policies of the United States toward Africa and the African countries are clear and precise. They are strong allies and a very viable trade partner. This, of course, Mr. Speaker, is crucial in the backdrop of very vulgar statements that, unfortunately, have come from the Commander in Chief. Therefore, this is the policy that is real, an ongoing partnership, the fact that Africa represents a growing population of 1 billion people. When we last traveled with a President of the United States--which then was President Barack Obama--and visited a number of African countries, in particular Kenya, we were there to look at the rising population of small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs, young millennials, and others who were eager to engage in business. The African Growth and Opportunity Act will be a pathway for sub- Saharan African countries in that area that will create the pathway for trade for the goods of those produced on the continent. Peace and the economy go together. If we have an economic engine partnership with the United States, looking at good quality investment, and if we have the work of the Millennium Challenge to challenge countries to become more democratic, to open the doors of opportunity, to have a better fiscal system, and to be a real partner in these improvements, that is a real African policy. So I rise to support the underlying bill, H.R. 3445. I rise to support it because it is an advancement to the work that has been done over the years by the United States Congress and the many partners that we have had. I am a student of Africa, having gone to school in Accra and Kumasi in Ghana and, of course, in Lagos and Ibadan in Nigeria. I have traveled often, and I understand the ingenuity, the eagerness, and the commitment to democratic principles and, of course, the opportunities for their young generation. So I rise today to support the bill. I thank the sponsors for this very excellent legislation. It is good work. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it is appropriate, but I ask unanimous consent to cosponsor the legislation at this time.