Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we have a serious challenge in this country, a challenge that requires us to act with broadness, swiftness, and, of course, understanding. I rise today to introduce legislation, the Comprehensive Response to Fentanyl-Related Substances and Fentanyl-Laced Substances Act. Mr. Speaker, 8.4 million fentanyl-laced fake prescription pills exist. The seizures were directly linked to at least 39 overdose deaths. Between 2019 and 2021, more than 2,200 adolescents overdosed. Ninety-six percent of them were between the ages of 15 and 19. This legislation will look that squarely in the eye and demand that it cease and desist. We need to increase funding for prevention and treatment programs, programs that provide education and treatment for people who are at risk. Get them while they are subject to being enticed. We need more school-based programs and community-outreach programs. We need to expand access to naloxone, the medication that can reverse the effects, which should be in all schools. We need to crack down on trafficking the little pink pills. Mr. Speaker, we have to save our children, and we have to save them now. Join Congresswoman Jackson Lee and my original cosponsors to support this legislation, the Comprehensive Response to Fentanyl- Related Substances and Fentanyl-Laced Substances Act. Let's save our children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak on the Rule offered in consideration of H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, H.R. 3091-- Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, and H. Con. Res. 40--Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies. It is unfortunate that this Rule in particular does not include the many amendments that have been offered by my Democratic Colleagues. As it pertains to H.R. 2494--Protect Our Law enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act of 2023, this bill in particular is incredibly ill drafted and intended bill that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement-- rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them. This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported. It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation. Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States. We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States. Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I would hope they would be willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable. And so, my amendment offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer. As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards. If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense. People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable. Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable. The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended. This amendment would allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation. The official would be able to take into account: if there was intent to harm; the severity of offense; if the act resulted in harm; the individual's military service (if any); how long the individual has been in the United States; and the individual's ties to the community. These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues. We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include: A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable. Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill. As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable. In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime. However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill. We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses. If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill. Additionally, in speaking on the Rule for H. Res. 40, Expressing support for local law enforcement officers and condemning efforts to defund or dismantle local law enforcement agencies, let me just say that it is unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider amendments on this bills. Despite having the opportunity for open debate, the Committee regrettably chose to consider this legislation under a closed rule-- foreclosing any ability for us to make this Resolution one that we could come together on. Had the Rule allowed, I would have submitted an amendment to remove incendiary and vague language as well as false and misleading claims from this Resolution in an effort to gain agreement around what should be its central point--that we recognize and appreciate the service of all law enforcement officers and condemn all calls to abolish law enforcement agencies of any kind. First and foremost, my amendment would have removed the word ``local'' anywhere it appears because we should state unequivocally that we support all law enforcement officers--unconditionally. We know that all law enforcement--male, female, LGBTQ+, very experienced, rookie, patrol, or behind a desk--work tirelessly to protect us and keep us safe. Whether they are state, local, tribal, or federal agents or officers--we are grateful for their service. These are the individuals we rely on to stop a mass shooter as they opened fire on shoppers at a mall in Texas; to guard and police our borders; to seek out predators behind a computer screen; or to help us locate an elderly or disabled loved one who has wandered off. And so, this Resolution, as it is currently written, ignores a large portion of dedicated officers who do not fall within the definition of ``local law enforcement''--a term of art of which we legislators are well aware. My amendment would have corrected that omission and acknowledges the 137,000 federal agents and officers in the 50 states and the District of Columbia--including the United States Capitol Police. Secondly, my amendment would have eliminated problematic, unnecessary language and misleading claims. For example, my amendment would have removed the claim that leftist activists and progressive politicians actively encouraged resentment toward law enforcement, which casts a wide, unfair, and erroneous net. It would also eliminate the claim that language regarding funding police vilifies and harms local law enforcement. We can all agree that we need law enforcement. Of that, there is no doubt. But defunding the police means different things to different people. From completely abolishing or disbanding law enforcement agencies--as some of my Republican colleagues have proposed we do to ATF, FBI, and even DOJ--to adding resources to other programs or services that might have been neglected in the past or to lighten the load of officers who are called upon to respond to too much. That is why I believe my amendment would have allowed Congress to come together on this Resolution, using language on which we all can agree--that does not accuse, disparage, or attempt to shame. Resolutions like this one make it difficult for us to commence the truly difficult work of making policing safer for law enforcement officers and the communities they serve. I have worked for decades to adopt reasonable gun violence prevention legislation and to institute transformative policing reforms. All too often law enforcement officers are taken by the violence we expect them to prevent. And increasingly, officers and agents are losing their lives to gun-related violence--often times with handguns. Although the number of law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty decreased by more than 30 percent over the first six months of 2022 compared to that same period in 2021, the number of officers killed by guns increased by nearly 20 percent. And, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, for the whole of 2022, the number of officers killed decreased by roughly 61 percent--that is from 586 federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officers killed in 2021 down to 224. Despite this dramatic decrease in line-of-duty deaths, due almost entirely to the significant reduction in deaths resulting from COVID- 19, by the end of 2022, the same number of officers died by gunfire as in the previous year--reflecting a 21 percent increase over the historical average of firearms-related deaths between 2010 and 2020. This is unacceptable. Let's get back to the real work of Congress instead of engaging in partisan gamesmanship. Lastly, in speaking on the Rule for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act. Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, this legislation would allow federal agencies to sell those handguns to federal law enforcement officers in good standing--promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds. Although I support this underlying legislation, I would point out that the previous version of this bill, introduced by former Congresswoman Val Demings, included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not. Congresswoman Demings's bill also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund gun violence prevention or gun safety programs. These are both excellent ideas that we should add back into this legislation. While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting. Questions still remain and law enforcement continues to investigate the mass shooting that occurred in Allen, Texas. But we know that a Defense Department official said that Army staff ``quickly identified'' that the shooter ``was a problem.'' And the Pentagon confirmed that the shooter was terminated from the Army for mental health reasons--after only three months and without completing basic training. And yet, years later, he completed several firearms proficiency courses for his work as a security guard, amassed a cache of firearms and 13 large capacity magazines, and no one caught that this person probably should not have guns. Even law enforcement officers purchasing firearms for official use must provide a federal firearms licensee with a certification on agency letterhead that the officer will use the firearm in their official duties and that a records check establishes that the purchasing officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence--despite there being no requirement to undergo a background check. Background checks, and records checks in limited circumstances, are important because they help promote public trust. By ensuring that only responsible, law-abiding individuals, including law enforcement officers, can purchase firearms and are willing to undergo background checks to do so, this program could set the example and promote safer, more secure communities across the country. We can and we must do more when it comes to buying, selling, and trading firearms. That is why the proceeds derived from the sale of these retired, surplus handguns would be best spent on programs focused exclusively on gun violence prevention and gun safety education and training. The money earned from these sales could help us find solutions to end the bloodshed because far too many people have died.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support Federal, State and local law enforcement. I support those that are in my district right now. I would offer to say, aren't we examples for young people? Don't we want our children to raise up and support law enforcement and see all of us standing together and not dividing? Don't we want good policing, good police relationships? None of that is a divide. It is a unity, and it represents the Constitution of the United States of America. I tell you that the officers that I engage with believe in it. I ask my colleagues to decide to do something better than this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for being so eloquent on where we are today. Let me read the headline of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 40, expressing support for local law enforcement officers. Broadly supported all across America. Every day we are supporting our local law enforcement, but as well we are supporting our Federal law enforcement that are right in my district today holding a meeting, men and women who put their lives on the line. I don't know why we couldn't on this last day of National Police Week, as we began the week, as I indicated, and repeat over and over again, that I was there for this ceremony that I have gone to every year, which has honored those who have fallen in battle. They had everyone represented. Everyone was in brotherhood and sisterhood. Everyone was embracing families and those in law enforcement. No one asked for your Democratic ticket or your Republican ticket. All they were grateful for is you had come to honor and recognize the importance of the work that they do. This could have been a place where we showed to the Nation the reasoning of our hearts and our minds. I offered an amendment to include Federal law enforcement. How dare we ignore them on this day? We cannot ignore January 6. We cannot ignore the Capitol Police, along with those who came to help, who will always have the scars of that horrific day. Why? Because we have never seen in our modern-day eyes an attack on the United States Capitol that was not in war.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to say, yes, I support local law enforcement. Never have my lips ever said the words that would take dollars away from those personnel, their salaries, and all that they need to do. I don't know why in a resolution that speaks about honor that we have to mix not even apples and oranges but apples and stench. There is no reason to attack anyone in this. Put a resolution about how much you hate the folks on the other side of the aisle; we will debate that. I don't hate them. What we tried to do in committee is to say let us make this a resolution, Federal, State and local folk, and let us not talk about folk who are dismantling anything because I don't know Democrats who stood outside of a DA's office and tried to dismantle them. They have an independent decision, right, to make. They are elected by the people. If they are not at the level that the people want, they are gone. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend this from the floor. Let this be an amendment that we can all vote for. This is my last word: I support local and Federal law enforcement.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I thank the manager on the other side for their work. This is National Police Week. I started my week in joining a family from Houston whose husband and father had fallen as a police officer in the line of duty, but it was also with the throngs of men and women of law enforcement across America and families at the 42nd Annual National Memory Day for law enforcement officers. I spent quite a bit of time there, interacting with officers that were not only from Texas or Houston. I respect the service that they have given as we, as Members of Congress and Democrats and my friends on the other side of the aisle, should do. And as we interacted, the response was an appreciation, as I expressed, an appreciation for their service. We have done a number of bills on the floor, and I am glad that we had one that honored that day. I proudly managed that bill, as well as a number of others that were on previously. There are a number of bills that have been on the floor or are on the floor today, at least two. Before I speak of the underlying bill, let me acknowledge my support for H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which has previously been debated. I would say that this deals with Federal law enforcement officers in good standing. It is a smart way to deal with guns that have been retired. That will allow--rather than creating dust in the GSA, and as well, who knows, them falling in the wrong hands for whatever reason, you might say-- rather than destroying those guns, it would allow Federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to Federal law enforcement officers in good standing, promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer dollars. This is good legislation. I hope as it makes its way that they will add some form of a check--which all officers believe in background checks. Maybe they will take those resources and invest in bringing down gun violence, which we know, as of this week, two law enforcement officers were injured in New Mexico, as a young, underage teenager had an AR-15 and killed three innocent civilians. Mr. Chair, it would be nice if the legislation would use those resources to help bring down gun violence. H.R. 3091 is a good bill, and I intend to support it. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3091, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act (in its current form). When a federal agency has property it no longer needs, such as firearms, the property is declared excess and is reported to GSA to be screened for possible transfer to other Federal agencies with a need for such property. If no other agencies request the excess property, it is declared surplus--and in the case of firearms, required to be destroyed. Rather than destroying retired, surplus handguns, H.R. 3091 would allow federal agencies to sell the handguns used in the performance of their duties to federal law enforcement officers in good standing-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds. Although I support this legislation, I should point out that the previous version--introduced last Congress by my Democratic colleague-- included a requirement that any law enforcement officer making a purchase must pass a background check as part of the transfer. But this version does not. The previous version also wisely advised via a sense of Congress that proceeds from the sale of these handguns should be used to fund evidence-based gun violence prevention or gun safety programs. While we might assume that no problems could arise in the sale of a handgun to an officer in good standing, a background check or records check of some kind would ensure that vital information about that officer has not been missed, overlooked, or fallen through a gap in reporting. That is why I support the Jacobs' amendment that would further define the good standing requirement--ensuring that only responsible, law- abiding officers can purchase these firearms. However, because we too must be responsible, especially when it comes to setting policy for buying, selling, and trading firearms, I cannot support this bill if the Republican poison pills are adopted. This trio of amendments would destroy each of the foundational purposes of the bill that brought Republican and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee together during the markup of this bill-- promoting public safety, reducing waste, and recouping taxpayer funds. Together, these amendments would allow, not just handguns but military-grade weapons that have no business in civilian homes and communities, to be provided at little to no cost, to retired officers, without any means to determine their suitably for taking possession of these weapons. I am disappointed that we could lose the opportunity to pass this thoughtful legislation during National Police Week by attaching these reckless amendments. That is why I implore my colleagues to vote No to the Luttrell, McCormick, and Rosendale amendments. And I encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3091 and the Jacobs Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, we are now at a time when we are talking about H.R. 2494. I would say that when interacting with law enforcement officers, I have never heard one person raise this. I don't think we can condemn prosecutors across America that they are not willing to stand up and be counted when any assault occurs against an officer. Any such legitimate assault should be both an arrest and prosecution. That is not what we are saying. If it happens to be an LPR or green card holder or whatever status the person has--arrested and prosecuted. What we are saying is desperate people come to this country and they work hard to get a status, and if it is legitimate, they wind up in jail. That is where they can be. H.R. 2494 ignores that. One, it is not one that you have heard any officers asking for. Two, that person can be convicted and wind up in jail. I know there is an amendment to say if they are convicted that would be the case. Ordinarily, they would be able to serve their time. I don't think that we should use this hammer to tear families apart.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, this bill has been ill-drafted in harmful measure and does not seek to address a need that people are crying for. The bill insults prosecutors across America. You can't label them all. In essence, it insults law enforcement officers, who themselves know that somebody who is in distress might respond accordingly. It insults the long time it takes to become a citizen of the United States, and some of these individuals have been waiting and waiting and maybe had an unfortunate circumstance. We are talking about some of the incidents that Ranking Member Nadler cited. It is just unruly. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to consider thoughtfully that we are doing good in a bipartisan way. Let us continue to do that. Police like to see that. They like to see themselves being affirmed in a bipartisan manner. They don't like to see other people being scapegoats. Mr. Chair, we want them to be safe. We don't want violence. We don't want them to be injured. That is the statement we all should make. Let's find laws that will ensure that that will not happen. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2494, the Protect Our Law Enforcement with Immigration Control and Enforcement (POLICE) Act. This bill is an incredibly ill drafted and harmful measure that does not seek to address illegal immigration or support for law enforcement--rather it creates punitive deportation penalties to remove individuals who are lawfully here--cruelly scaling back on legal immigration pathways rather than increasing them. This bill is a solution in search of a problem--essentially seeking to expand the scope of people who can be deported. It is so broadly drafted that people who pose no real danger to law enforcement could be subject to deportation. Let's be clear, this is not about undocumented immigrants who are already removable. This is about people who have come lawfully and been admitted to the United States. We are talking about lawful permanent residents. People who have set down roots and established themselves here in the United States. Given that my Republican colleagues have been unwilling to add a conviction requirement or a requirement that the offense included the intention to cause harm or use violence, I had hoped they would have been willing to accept an amendment that allows an immigration judge or Department of Homeland Security adjudicator to look at variety of mitigating factors when assessing if someone should be deemed deportable. During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee hearing, offered in the Rules Committee would have allowed for mitigating factors to be taken into account before someone is deported as a result of an assault on a law enforcement officer. However, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter the vulnerability of their circumstances. As has already been discussed, this bill is attempting to add a new avenue to deport people with green cards. If we are going to deport these people, it should be for a serious offense and there needs to be serious consideration of the circumstances pertaining to the alleged offense. People who are convicted of serious assaults on law enforcement officers are already deportable. Under current immigration law, if an individual is convicted of a crime of violence and sentenced to a year or more in prison, that is an aggravated felony and that person is deportable. The same is true for someone who is convicted of a ``crime involving moral turpitude,'' where the crime is punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. Both of these deportability grounds are currently invoked when there is a conviction for a serious, intentional assault on a law enforcement officer, where bodily injury occurs or is intended. This amendment would have allow the official making the final determination on deportation the ability to examine additional mitigating factors as evidence weighing against deportation. The official would be able to take into account: if there was intent to harm; the severity of offense; if the act resulted in harm; the individual's military service (if any); how long the individual has been in the United States; and the individual's ties to the community. These factors are vitally important for an immigration judge or other adjudicator to consider in order to ensure that we do not end up with some of the absurd results which have already been outlined today by my colleagues. We should not be deporting long-term green card holders for minor offenses. Just as a reminder, these examples include: A green card holder in a fire who pushes a firefighter out of the way of a falling beam. This person would have committed assault and become deportable. Likewise, if a foreign student whose religion prohibits blood transfusions is receiving medical care from an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) and she swats the EMT's hand away because she is trying to give him a blood transfusion, that student will have committed assault on a law enforcement officer and become deportable under this bill. As another example, if a green card holder sees a fight on the street and attempts to intervene by getting between the individuals and pushing them apart. If one of the individuals was an undercover police officer performing his duties, the individual would have committed assault under this bill and become deportable. In all of these examples, one would hope the individuals would never be charged, let alone convicted of a crime. However, even without a conviction or intent to harm requirement, by admitting to actions that constitute assault, any of those individuals would have admitted to intentionally assaulting a law enforcement officer and would become deportable under this bill. We should not be deporting green card holders for such minor offenses. If the majority insists on doing so, they should at least allow adjudicators to look at mitigating factors to ensure that we are preventing good members of our society from getting swept up in this overbroad bill. Let me just say that it is truly unfortunate that the Rules Committee did not consider my amendment or that of my colleagues. We need to stop putting forth harmful and unproductive legislation and work on passing legislation that truly addresses meaningful immigration reform.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, indicate that today is the National Fraternal Order of Police 42nd Annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Service, which I will make comments on throughout my discussion and debate of other bills. It is important to note the hundreds and hundreds of police officers that are here to honor those who have fallen in the line of duty and the many families who are here, as well, mourning and receiving recognition today. At the same time, I render my sympathy and concern for Congressman Gerry Connolly and two staff members who have been violently attacked in his congressional office in Virginia and indicate our prayers and best wishes for these particular staff persons' speedy recovery. I know that we all are stunned, but we also offer our concern to our colleague and wish him safety, along with his staff. Mr. Speaker, I now rise to offer strong support for H.R. 3089, the NDO Fairness Act, the crucial bipartisan surveillance reform legislation that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last week on a voice vote. I thank Mr. Fitzgerald. I thank Mr. Nadler, the ranking member, for his leadership in working together with Mr. Fitzgerald and, of course, all of us on the committee that saw the rightness and reason for this legislation. The NDO Fairness Act is a simple, straightforward bill that addresses a narrow problem by establishing essential guardrails for when the government seeks to assess someone's electronic communications without that person's knowledge. This legislation would insert balance into a system that, for too long, has been a free-for-all for government prosecutors. Let me be very clear: Nothing that we are doing is intending to undermine the fair prosecution of those who have done wrong, those who are criminals and otherwise who warrant the prosecution of the Federal Government. It is, as we debated right after 9/11, an attempt to uphold the values of this Nation. I remember the intense discussions we had on the PATRIOT Act when the inclination after the heinous, devastating murder of 3,000-plus Americans on 9/11 was that we needed to do everything to insist that no one had even an inch of freedom. I am glad that, in the Judiciary Committee, of which I was a member at that time, we saw the rhyme and reason, and we worked in a bipartisan way to establish a PATRIOT Act that could, in fact, fight terrorism, as it has done, but also protect the constitutional rights of Americans. I see this in this NDO Fairness Act today. Under current law, after the government obtains a court's permission to search the contents of a person's electronic communications, a wish they would not know, prosecutors must then compel the email service provider to produce the relevant data. To avoid having the service provider turn around and tell its customer about the search, the government can also ask the court to grant a nondisclosure order, or NDO, colloquially referred to as a secrecy or gag order. You are gagging the American citizen. There is no time limit for these orders. There is no standard to meet. Today, all the government needs to do is cite one of five potential adverse results, without showing that it is necessary, and the court may grant the request. Prosecutors frequently seek these secrecy orders in cases where there is clearly sometimes no need and in situations where the government alone benefits. In many instances, there is no need. Unlike when a physical search order occurs and a person has the right to go to court to dispute the warrant, NDOs can keep the subject of the search in the dark until the court reverses the order. The NDO Fairness Act would do away with the rubberstamped process that governs gag order requests by ensuring that courts apply a strict scrutiny standard to government requests with a written determination explaining their reasoning. By time limiting nondisclosure orders, raising the standard of review, and ensuring that service providers have standing when they object, H.R. 3089 inserts transparency, reason, and balance into a system and fairness and justice on both sides that far too long has been a free-for-all for government prosecutors simply by virtue of it being just too easy to overuse. In the 21st century, Federal prosecutors no longer need to show up to your office. They just need to raid your virtual office. Unlike physical searches, they can search an email in secret. The House surveillance laws have not kept pace with rapidly changing technology. Mr. Speaker, just wait on the march of AI. I think this bill is extremely timely because we have to be engaged with our constitutional values no matter what the level of technology is. It is imperative that the House of Representatives act to ensure that Americans are still protected as everyday life moves increasingly online. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Fitzgerald for introducing this bill and Ranking Member Nadler, again, for his leadership on this issue. I also thank Chairman Jordan for moving this bill swiftly through the Judiciary Committee and Senator Lee for his leadership in the Senate. I was glad to serve as the ranking member of the subcommittee dealing with this bill, as well. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to pass this important legislation today, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let me cite an example that I think is worthy of my colleagues hearing. Between 2016 and 2021, Microsoft received between 7 and 10 NDOs every day. That is, on average, from 2,400 to 3,500 secrecy orders a year. Apple has received roughly 13,200 requests with secrecy orders from Federal agencies over the past 5 years, which is approximately 2,600 requests annually or the equivalent of 7 to 8 requests per day that are accompanied by a gag order. Just think of how many Americans that impacts. They are not the only service providers to feel the legal burden. Google has about 130,000 secrecy orders right now. Meta averages more than 100,000 requests per year. For example, in the first half of 2021, 70 percent of the 63,657 search requests Meta received included gag orders. That is an enormous tally. That is a lot of Americans. To be very clear, as I conclude my remarks, this is in no way attempting to thwart the important prosecution of individuals who are intending to do harm in any way to the United States by way of criminal acts. Certainly, we believe in justice for any person who is accused. They have a right to due process, a trial by their peers and otherwise, but we do believe that it is important to protect the vast number of Americans who would not know what is happening to their online searches or their online privacy. Mr. Speaker, the NDO Fairness Act would insert process and deliberation into gag order requests and make it more likely that Americans whose electronic communications are searched can assert their rights in court. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3089, the ``NDO Fairness Act,'' crucial bipartisan surveillance reform legislation that passed out of the Judiciary Committee last week on a voice vote. The NDO Fairness Act is a simple, straightforward bill that addresses a narrow problem. By establishing essential guardrails for when the government seeks to access someone's electronic communications without that person's knowledge, this legislation would insert balance into a system that for too long has been a free-for-all for government prosecutors. Under current law, after the government obtains a court's permission to search the contents of a person's electronic communications, prosecutors must then compel the email service provider to produce the relevant data. To avoid having the service provider turn around and tell its customer about the search, the government can also ask the court to grant a nondisclosure order, or NDO, colloquially referred to as a ``secrecy'' or ``gag'' order. There is no time limit to these orders. There is no standard to meet. Today, all the government needs to do is cite one of five potential adverse results--without showing that it is necessary--and the court may grant the request. Prosecutors frequently seek these secrecy orders in cases where there is clearly no need, and in situations where the government alone benefits. Unlike when a physical search occurs, and a person has the right to go to court to dispute the warrant, NDOs can keep the subject of the search in the dark until a court reverses the order. The NDO Fairness Act would do away with the rubber stamp process that governs gag order requests by ensuring that courts apply a strict scrutiny standard to government requests, with a written determination explaining their reasoning. By time-limiting nondisclosure orders, raising the standard of review, and ensuring that service providers have standing when they object, H.R. 3089 inserts transparency, reason, and balance into a system that for too long has been a free-for-all for government prosecutors, simply by virtue of it being too easy to overuse. In the 21st century, federal prosecutors no longer need to show up to your office. They just need to raid your virtual office, but unlike physical searches, they can search an email in secret. Our surveillance laws have not kept pace with rapidly changing technology. It is imperative that the House of Representatives act to ensure that Americans are still protected as everyday life moves increasingly online. I thank Congressman Fitzgerald for introducing this bill, and Ranking Member Nadler for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank Chairman Jordan for moving this bill swiftly through the Judiciary Committee and Senator Lee for his leadership in the Senate. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to pass this important legislation today. Mr. Speaker, the NDO Fairness Act would insert process and deliberation into gag order requests and make it more likely that Americans whose electronic communications are searched can assert their rights in court. This is good bipartisan legislation, I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, this is good bipartisan legislation, and I urge all of the Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier today, and I will say again, there are thousands of police officers and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of families who are here for the National Fraternal Order of Police, 42nd Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service, and their families that are obviously in pain today. This legislation is appropriately debated today to be able to express and recognize our support for National Police Week. In this little book are the names of the people from State after State who have fallen while on duty. In visiting and participating in the ceremony just a few hours ago, we met the families of those who had fallen in the line of duty: those officers who died of COVID, who were on the front lines protecting our communities; and the wife of Sean Rios, who was with the Houston Police Department who lost his life. There were many, many others who we could personally meet or engage with. The Houston Police Department, the Harris County Sheriff's Department, as well as members of other departments from Atlanta to Los Angeles were there. I am proud to say that Houston's Honor Guard was there, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 363, expressing support for recognizing National Police Week. Today, there are more than 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving in the United States. Each day, in every corner of this country, these brave men and women risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe. From responding to 911 calls, to investigating wrongdoing, to securing our public spaces, to being a friend to a lost 3-year-old, we call on our law enforcement officers to help us in times of need. During National Police Week, we recognize the sacrifices that officers make in serving their communities, and we thank them for their service. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the expression of support is neither Democrat or Republican, it is, as we stand here today, as Americans. On this day, Peace Officers Memorial Day--and every day--we especially recognize the brave men and women who have perished in the line of duty. Each year, the National Law Enforcement Memorial must bear the names of more fallen heroes who have given their last full measure of devotion to the communities they swore to protect and serve. This year that number is 556. This includes men and women--and increasingly women are joining the many law enforcement agencies locally across America. There are even women police chiefs and heads of police organizations. We applaud that reach, that welcoming, and that diversity of law enforcement officers, it makes a community better. H. Res. 363 honors those who have lost their lives in service to their communities. This resolution includes my amendment, which clarifies that of the 556 law enforcement officers honored at Peace Officers Memorial Day this year, 224 were killed in the line of duty in 2022, 332 were killed in previous years but their stories had been lost until now. While every officer named in this resolution deserves our respect and their families are owed both gratitude and sympathy, it is important to make clear that we have not allowed more than 500 officers to die on our watch for a second consecutive year. The country is still reeling from the loss of 586 officers who died in the line of duty almost entirely because of COVID-19 in 2021. They never stopped. They never went home. They were in the line of duty, and they died. It is important to make that note so their story is not lost. Although America's law enforcement officers continue to battle the effects of the pandemic, there has been a significant reduction in such deaths--due in part to reduced infection rates and the widespread availability and use of vaccinations. Last year, of the 224 officers killed in the line of duty, 70 officers died after contracting the disease while carrying out their official duties. That is down from 405 officers in 2021--a decrease of 83 percent, for which we should be forever grateful and thankful-- despite COVID-19 remaining the number one cause of law enforcement death in 2022. It is important to acknowledge every line of duty death. I met a family, a mother, whose son died of COVID after 37 years on the force. That is why I am glad we have come to know of the sacrifices made by the remaining 332 officers, some who gave their lives as far back as 1857. Their courageous stories have finally been brought to light. Just as this resolution notes, law enforcement officers across the United States serve with valor, dignity, and integrity, and we must do the same--ensuring that we maintain the public trust and the integrity of this body--by legislating with specificity and transparency and making sure that each officer be honored in their loss and our loss of them. It is equally important to fully and accurately understand the challenges that law enforcement officers are facing so that we make sure officers have the equipment, training, resources, and support they need to remain healthy and safe while they endeavor to keep us safe, as this resolution also recognizes. The law enforcement trust and integrity legislation that I introduced deals with equipment and training for law enforcement agencies from very small to the major cities. If we truly care about the well-being of America's law enforcement officers, we must also work to end gun violence, particularly by keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people, where they endanger officers and the communities they serve. Mr. Speaker, it is important to take note that, unfortunately, today in New Mexico, three civilians are dead, and two cops were injured in a New Mexico shooting. The suspect opened fire in Farmington, New Mexico. Several were injured and there were three dead civilians. Officers shot and killed the gunman. Two officers were wounded, and they have been taken to a local hospital. They are, hopefully, listed in stable condition, and, hopefully, will survive and recover. It is so very important that we realize that there is more that we can do in honoring these officers. Tragic, another shooting. We should also continue to hear from law enforcement about the other dangers they face and work to improve their ability to respond to new challenges while also identifying opportunities to simultaneously promote the safety of law enforcement officers and improve public safety. Though we do not have legislation before us today that addresses the needs of all law enforcement, I will continue to support bills that provide for the equipment, training, resources, and how to interact through community-police relationships to strengthen ties between law enforcement and the communities they serve. We need to provide them with the ability for intervention to bring down gun violence in our communities and all kinds of violence, and particularly give them the tools to help with a mental health crisis, so that they are not the only ones that are called when a family has a mental health crisis. Mr. Speaker, I commend Representative Guest and the bipartisan coalition of Members, including Ranking Member Lofgren and Chairman Issa, for introducing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. We will see many of our local police officials and officers this week. I acknowledge that the week of May 1 through May 5, the city of Houston and the Houston Police Department had our own annual Police Week. I acknowledge publicly our great concern as a community in honoring police. We had, of course, the Police Week award ceremony that was held on May 2. We had a day of prayer that was held on May 3 in front of the police corporate headquarters where our Houston area clergy came together to reinforce the partnership between community and the police. We had the annual Police Week memorial service that was held on May 5 at a very important memorial in our city where candlelight and the placement of the wreath occurred, as well as the roll call and ``Taps.'' We are excited that the HPD honor guard will participate this week in the National Police Week ceremony. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled ``HPD to Host Police Week 2023 Events.'' [From City of Houston News, Apr. 28, 2023] HPD To Host Police Week 2023 Events The Houston Police Department invites the community to observe and participate in National Police Week from this Monday (May 1), through Friday (May 5). This annual event allows our city to celebrate the contributions police officers make to our communities and honor those officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. This year's activities for HPD include three important events: The Police Week Awards Ceremony Luncheon will be held on Tuesday, May 2, at noon, at Hilcorp--Headquarters, 1111 Travis Street. The ceremony will feature the reading of the Mayor's Proclamation and award presentations to HPD employees. This event is by invitation only. The Day of Prayer Ceremony will be held at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, May 3, at the Edward A. Thomas Building, 1200 Travis. Houston-area clergy members will gather to reinforce the partnership that exists between the community and the department. The public is invited to attend. The Annual Police Week Memorial Service will be held on Friday (May 5), at 7 p.m., at the Houston Police Officers Memorial site at 2400 Memorial Drive to honor those officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. A procession of police officers will walk down Memorial Drive. A candlelight vigil will be held and include the placing of a wreath on the Houston Police Officers Memorial, a roll call of deceased officers, a 21-gun salute, the playing of TAPS and a fly-over by HPD helicopters. The public is invited to attend. The HPD Honor Guard will participate in the National Police Week Ceremony in Washington, D.C., from May 11 through May 15. Please join the Houston Police Department in commemorating the law enforcement officers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, selflessly dedicating their lives in the line of duty while serving to protect the citizens of our great city. All officers and citizens are encouraged to drive with their headlights on, in remembrance of the peace officers who have sacrificed their lives in the line of duty. Major Susan Cotter Honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. NLEOMF candlelight vigil. HCSOTexas motors honored to assist with escorting the families of the fallen. Sgt Gutierrez, Deputies Almendarez & Howard gone but not forgotten. SheriffEd HCSO, HCSO ChiefLee, HCSOChiefTommyD Houston Police ``We honor the heroes and heal their families' heart'' ChiefTroyFinner, HPD commanders and officers joined thousands tonight to honor the memory of HPD Sgt. Sean Rios, one of 556 recent fallen officers at the NLEOMF Candlelight Vigil in Washington, D.C. NationalPoliceWeek Troy Finner I am proud to be in Washington D.C. during National Police Week to recognize & honor the first responders who paid the ultimate sacrifice including the 121 men & women from the houstonpolice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I acknowledge the words of our chief, Chief Troy Finner: ``We honor the heroes and heal their families' heart.'' Chief Troy Finner said that HPD commanders and officers joined thousands tonight with a candlelight vigil in Washington, D.C., to honor the memory of HPD Sergeant Sean Rios, one of 556 recent fallen officers, to recognize from the sheriff's department, Major Susan Cotter, honoring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and to honor their families, including Sergeant Gutierrez, Deputies Almendarez and Howard. Gone but not forgotten. I honor those words, and I honor those leaders coming from my local community. Whether they are State, local, Tribal, or Federal agents or officers of any of those agencies, we are grateful for the service of all law enforcement. We thank them and their families. Many families and children were there today at this memorial on the grounds of the United States Capitol. I also wish to thank the many law enforcement officers who serve in my district working to keep Texans safe. I was proud to see the Houston Police Department and Harris County Sheriff's Office participate in this year's observances here in Washington, D.C. To the Capitol Police who protect the people, Members of Congress, our staff, and the work we do, I thank them for protecting our democracy. I am proud to support and recognize law enforcement officers for the tremendous work they do each day and to uplift in special reverence the names of all of those men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and the Nation. May I offer these names to be held in high esteem and reverence who have passed away: Charles Eudell Galloway, Harris County Constable's Office. He died January 23, 2022. We honor Jennifer Lauren Chavis, Constable's Office, who died on April 2, 2022; Darren Almendarez, who died on March 31, 2022; and Ramon Gutierrez, who died on January 24, 2022; Harris County Sheriff Robert Adam Howard, who passed away in recent years. Ramon Gutierrez and Darren Almendarez, I mentioned. And, of course, Sean Sebastian Rios in the Houston Police Department died on November 9, 2020. They are the names of those who have passed over the years. Mr. Speaker, I support passage of this resolution without question, and I hope my colleagues will do the same. At this moment we are not different, we are the same, and we mourn for those who have fallen. We pray for those officers in the hospital in New Mexico. Protecting the American people, and we can do it together. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 363, Expressing support for recognizing ``National Police Week.'' Today there are more than 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers serving in the United States. Each day, in every corner of the country, these brave men and women risk their lives to keep the peace and keep us safe. From responding to 911 calls, to investigating wrongdoing, to securing our public spaces, we call on our law enforcement officers to help us in times of need. During Police Week, we recognize the sacrifices that officers make in serving their communities, and we thank them for their service. On this day, Peace Officers Memorial Day--and every day--we especially recognize the brave men and women who have perished in the line of duty. And each year, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial must bear the names of more fallen heroes who have given their last full measure of devotion to the communities they swore to protect and serve. This year that number is 556. H. Res. 363 honors those who have lost their lives in service to their communities. This resolution includes my amendment, which clarifies that--of the 556 law enforcement officers honored on Peace Officers Memorial Day this year--224 officers were killed in the line of duty in 2022 and 332 officers were killed in previous years, but their stories had been lost. Until now. While every officer named in this Resolution deserves our respect and their families are owed both gratitude and sympathies, it is important to make clear that we have not allowed more than 500 officers to die on our watch for a second consecutive year. The country is still reeling from the loss of 586 officers who died in the line of duty almost entirely because of COVID-19 in 2021. Although America's law enforcement officers continue to battle the effects of the pandemic, there has been a significant reduction in such deaths--due in part to reduced infection rates and the widespread availability and use of vaccinations. Last year, of the 224 officers killed in the line of duty, 70 officers died after contracting the disease while carrying out their official duties. That is down from 405 officers in 2021--a decrease of 83 percent for which we should all be thankful--despite COVID-19 remaining the number one cause of law enforcement death in 2022 . It is important to acknowledge every line-of-duty death. That is why I am glad we have come to know of the sacrifices made by the remaining 332 officers--some who gave their lives as far back as 1857. Their courageous stories have finally been brought to light. And just as this Resolution notes, law enforcement officers across the United States serve with valor, dignity, and integrity, we must do the same--ensuring that we maintain the public's trust in the integrity of this body--by legislating with specificity and transparency. It is equally important to fully and accurately understand the challenges that law enforcement officers are facing so that we make sure officers have the equipment, training, resources, and support they need to remain healthy and safe while they endeavor to keep us safe--as this Resolution also recognizes. If we truly care about the well-being of America's law enforcement, we must also work to end gun violence, particularly by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, where they endanger officers and the communities they serve. We should also continue to hear from law enforcement about the other dangers they face, and work to improve their ability to respond to new challenges while also identifying opportunities to simultaneously promote the safety of law enforcement officers and improve public safety. Though we do not have legislation before us today that addresses the needs of law enforcement, I will continue to support bills that provide the equipment, training, and resources that strengthen the ties between law enforcement and the communities they serve. I commend Representative Guest and the bipartisan coalition of members, including Ranking Member Lofgren and Chairman Issa, for introducing this important resolution. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Whether they are state, local, tribal, or federal agents or officers--we are grateful for the service of all law enforcement. We thank them and their families. I also wish to thank the many law enforcement officers who serve in my district, working to keep Texans safe. I was proud to see the Houston Police Department and Harris County Sheriffs Office participate in this year's observances here in Washington, D.C. And to the Capitol Police, who protect the people, members of Congress, our staff, and the work we do--thank you for protecting our democracy. I am proud to support and recognize law enforcement officers for the tremendous work they do each day, and to uplift in special reverence the names of all of those men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for us and the nation, including: Harris County Constable's Office: Charles Eudell Galloway, Jr. Jennifer Lauren Chavis Harris County Sheriffs Office: Robert Adam Howard Darren Almendarez Ramon Gutierrez, Jr. Houston Police Department Sean Sebastian Rios I support passage of this resolution without question and hope my colleagues will do the same. Mr. Speaker, at least 3 civilians dead and 2 cops are injured in a New Mexico shooting. The suspect opened fire in Farmington, New Mexico. Several injured & 3 dead civilians. Officers shot & killed the gunman. Two officers were wounded & have been taken to a local hospital where they are listed in stable condition.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today I managed on the floor of the House a legislation that would honor the fallen of our many, many police officers, some 800,000 across America. I had the privilege of joining many, many families and police officers in the National Fraternal Order of Police 42nd annual National Peace Officers Service to hear the names, one after the other, of the many States of those who lost their lives. As I said earlier in debate, the Houston Police Department was present, along with the Harris County Sheriff's Office, and we recognized those who had fallen in those two departments. It was a time when I even said to the families: Never let them walk alone. I honor them. I will take a moment because I recognize the importance of children, and I am asking the Department of Justice and the Department of Education to help us stop the hostile State takeover of the Houston Independent School District. It is urgent and imperative that this district survives, and we need Federal Government intervention now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for gathering us this evening. As I have often said, this is National Police Week. Today, we honor those who have fallen in battle. That is why I think this debate on the debt ceiling is so crucial, and it is really important to have the American people recognize, particularly those impacted in the African- American community, as the Congressional Black Caucus rises today to specifically focus on the, if you will, economic infrastructure around a community that has in its history in this country been deprived of economic wealth and has a wealth disparity between Anglo Americans of $174,000 versus about $17,000, which leads us to understand how important it is to have a stable economic structure and for the country to pay its bills. Madam Speaker, what is the debt ceiling? It is simply a procedure that has been designated as required for the Nation to pay her bills. Every single family, independent, working person, and people who are in need understand the need to pay bills. They understand the crisis of not paying bills. Tonight, I just want to briefly discuss some of the challenges that will be faced by poor people, people of color, but also by our law enforcement. Tragically, we see circumstances when law enforcement on the front lines are in jeopardy. As we see that, we are hearing about who is for the police and who is not for the police. Let me tell you what the default on America bill that has been passed by my Republican friends will do. Frankly, that bill is what we are being held hostage for. They want to move the default on America bill before we do the right, constitutional, and definitively important act of raising the debt ceiling simply to pay the bills, simply to have America continue to be rolling on all wheels, simply to make sure that the military is paid, and the massive numbers of law enforcement are paid. With this bill, the Department of Justice budget will be cut by over $8 billion and threatens nearly 30,000 law enforcement jobs. The default on America bill cuts nearly $1 billion in grants for State, local, and Tribal law enforcement. That includes $150 million in the bill that I wrote, the Violence Against Women Act, and it cuts the programs created by the Violence Against Women Act, which will especially harm women in Native communities. The bill cuts $1 billion in FBI funding that the agency uses to conduct background checks to solve violent crimes and combat terrorism. This is protecting individual family members and neighborhoods. By cutting these dollars, you are putting them in jeopardy. It eliminates $564 million in funding for the Drug Enforcement Agency. We are trying to stop fentanyl which, by the way, has been brought in by U.S. citizens through legal points of entry. It eliminates $384 million more from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. We have seen what guns can do to law enforcement officers on the front lines. I am stunned that we are where we are today. It has already been noted that, in fact, under the past administration, the Trump administration, if I might say, the debt ceiling was raised in a collegial, responsible way by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority with the Trump administration doing what is right. The only thing that undermined a strong economy was the major deficit and debt that was created by the Trump tax cuts. So, here we are today. Why, I ask, are we, in essence, being stumbling blocks instead of building for eternity, instead of working together, instead of finding common ground? If we voted today, we would be voting to honor those who have fallen, we will be voting to honor those who serve. We need to provide those funds to local, State, and Tribal Governments to ensure that we have law enforcement, that 800,000 police are not diminished but they are enhanced with skills, training, and funding that we are able to do in the Federal Government. Let me add, this will be making poor people poorer. Food stamps and other nutritional programs will be cut by $14.7 billion in August and September; Pell grants that cover higher education--which is the underpinning of creating a new America, an America that is an opportunity for all of us--for low-income students will be cut $8.8 billion. Educational programs designed to improve academic achievement for disadvantaged children, will be cut $2.5 billion by August and September; early childhood development services for low-income children--these are lifelines for these children--will be cut by $1.3 billion. All of these are very special and close to my heart, but job training programs for dislocated workers, youth employment services-- which directly relate to young people having an opportunity in the summer, not being distracted, not being subjected to potential violence or loss of life because they are not being constructively engaged--will be cut by $800 million. I am wondering, can we not work together as we did under the Democratic majority, working with a Republican President? Can't we work with a Democratic President and a Republican House and do what is right for the American people and ensure that the poor don't get poorer, and that people of color don't get thrown, not just off the rails but out of the train and out of the bus to be rolled over? We have got to be able to respond to our early histories, many of us know what being poor is, but most of us know what it is to come up without much, but because of education and opportunities, we are here in this Congress today. I see that in my constituents. I see that in the high schools I go to. The graduating classes I went to over the weekend where I saw the graduates who individually had stories where their original beginnings were not the best, but look at them, graduating with an undergraduate business degree, graduating from law school, graduating with associate degrees, making life better because part of that was funded by Federal resources. We need to raise the debt ceiling, not by being held hostage, but by doing the responsible thing. We need to pay America's bills and to make sure that the American people who are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps have the shoes to be able to pull themselves up. We need to make sure during this very special week that we honor police officers by providing those local police departments, State departments, Tribal departments the resources that they need, and particularly that we don't underfund the Violence Against Women Act--some of the most violent calls are domestic violence calls--by $150 million. We need to make sure that we do not take money away from police officers, $8 billion, with 30,000 law enforcement officers lost. How outrageous are we going to be? Raise the debt ceiling and do what is right for the American people and our children. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and on the House Budget Committee, it is my duty to speak on the Republican manufactured debt crisis and the devastating impacts of the failure to lift the debt ceiling would have on Black families. Breaching the debt limit would provoke unprecedented economic damage and instability in the U.S. and around the world. Every single American would feel the effects of a first-ever default: An estimated 8 million people would be out of work and the unemployment rate would double; Social Security checks would be halted to 67 million Americans; Medicaid services would be in doubt, affecting 75 million people's health coverage; The average worker close to retirement could see their retirement savings decrease by $20,000 due to Republican brinksmanship impacting the stock market. Republicans suspended the debt ceiling three times under President Trump. In fact, the massive Republican tax cuts over the last 25 years have cost $10 trillion to date and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase to the debt ratio since 2001. Instead of investing in America, Republicans would rather focus on holding our economy hostage to advance unpopular and dangerous right- wing priorities. Their plan would expand so called ``work requirements'' in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Everyone needs enough resources to afford the basics including food, a roof over their heads, and healthcare. Taking food, health care, or income support away from people who do not meet work-reporting requirements causes harm and does not increase work. SNAP already has a requirement for some participants and it's a failure--it takes basic food assistance away from people who need it and doesn't boost their employment. Most people who get help affording food or health coverage do work. But this proposal will cause many working people to lose assistance. Not only would their unpopular policies negatively impact millions of people across America, their proposed spending cuts would specifically have devastating impacts on thousands of hardworking families across Texas. Republicans are threatening food assistance for up to 855,000 Texans with their proposals for harsh new eligibility restrictions in SNAP. This proposal would also mean 139,000 women, infants, and children would lose vital nutrition assistance through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), increasing child poverty and hunger. This proposal would not only eliminate Pell Grants altogether for 6,800 students in Texas, but it would also reduce the maximum award by nearly $1,000 for the remaining 581,100 students who receive Pell Grants--making it harder for them to attend and afford college. Under this proposal, 39,700 families in Texas would lose access to rental assistance, including older adults, persons with disabilities, and families with children, who without rental assistance would be at risk of homelessness. Under this proposal, people applying for disability benefits would have to wait at least two months longer for a decision. With fewer staff available, 5 million seniors and people with disabilities in Texas would be forced to endure longer wait times when they call for assistance for both Social Security and Medicare. This proposal would mean 46,100 fewer veteran outpatient visits in Texas, leaving veterans unable to get appointments for care like wellness visits, mental health services, and substance disorder treatment. The proposal would mean 17,500 children in Texas lose access to Head Start slots and 9,900 children lose access to childcare--undermining our children's education and making it more difficult for parents to join the workforce and contribute to our economy. The proposal would deny admission to opioid use disorder treatment for more than 1,100 people in Texas through the State Opioid Response grant program--denying them a potentially life-saving path to recovery. More specifically, the impacts on my home district, Texas-18, would be catastrophic: Kill 7,300 jobs in TX-18; Jeopardize Social Security payments for 61,000 families in TX-18; Put health benefits at risk for 242,000 people in TX-18 who rely on Medicare, Medicaid, or Veterans Affairs health coverage; Increase lifetime mortgage costs for the typical homeowner in Texas by $50,000; Threaten the retirement savings of 81,400 people near retirement in TX-18, eliminating $20,000 from the typical retirement portfolio. There never has been and never will be anything fiscally responsible about refusing to pay America's bills, risking millions of jobs, or threatening economic ruin.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, people are, in fact, alarmed. They need to know that the migrants coming in are from Mexico. We do have an OTM, other than Mexican, people already going back--India, China, the Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Korea. It is widely diverse, based upon the persecution that people are feeling or the economic lack of life. As we proceeded to do this work, do you know, as I leave this podium, that if you are an overstay in a hospital, you can automatically be criminally charged? In an amendment, I said: What is the intent? Do you know whether they were in a hospital, or they had a funeral, that they were, in essence, near death? There is no mercy. Mr. Speaker, this legislation needs to go back to the drawing board. Americans and Houstonians are asking for us to do the right thing and to get security at the border and not have a bill that does nothing. That is what it does--absolutely nothing. Mr. Speaker, I am here today o reassert my opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 2--Secure the Border Act of 2023, and to again assert the need for strong reconsideration for the harm and damage this bill will do to the American people and those seeking citizenship into our country. I do believe America must have a secure border! I, along with my colleagues, have attempted to address some of the most glaring challenges this bill poses by offering common sense amendments, yet Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. Let's work together for a secure southern and northern border. H.R. 2 is in no way a serious measure that is being offered to resolve our current and ongoing dire needs to resolve immigration challenges and demands here in America. We need the American people to understand that this is merely an unfortunate patchwork of extreme anti-immigrant proposals that would only add to more chaos at the border. It includes a variety of illogical measures that would shut down the U.S. asylum system and target families and children for the cruelest forms of treatment. One measure would make overstaying a visa a crime--for the first time in our history. During the Judiciary Committee markup and the Rules Committee hearing, my Democratic colleagues and I could not get any Republican to roll back their punitive and damaging intent to harm any and all individuals seeking refuge and citizenship here in the U.S.--no matter the vulnerability of their age or their circumstances. One of my amendments in particular would have added a mens rea requirement such that in order to be criminally liable, a person must ``knowingly and willingly'' overstay their visa. It is important to remember that an individual can make an honest mistake about when they need to depart the country, be physically incapable of departing the country, or unable to return because of circumstances beyond their control in their home country. Yet this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. For example, a person who has a medical emergency in the United States and cannot leave within 10 days of their visa expiring would violate this new law and face up to six months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. Or if a natural disaster prevents an individual from returning home for more than 10 days past the expiration of their status, they would be guilty of this crime and face 6 months in federal prison. It is also important to remember that if a person overstays their visa, they are already subject to removal. The addition of a criminal penalty is both cruel and unnecessary. This bill is extraordinarily punitive, with far-reaching implications that may go beyond what my colleagues intended, unless they wanted to make following current immigration a crime punishable by up to 6 months in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. Our immigration system needs reforms, and we are absolutely interested in bold new ideas to fix it, but this is not one of them. That is why I also offered another amendment that would have simply created a critical exemption for Temporary Protected Status holders who overstay their visas. If this bill had been in place last year, a Ukrainian student would have broken the law and faced a fine and jail time if they had been approved for Temporary Protected Status after Russia invaded their home, and then stayed in the US in Temporary Protected Status for longer than the validity of their student visa. Perhaps if the majority had held a hearing on this topic, as they are supposed to under the regular order they love so much, they would understand the substantial problems with this legislation; perhaps we could have explored more realistic changes to our legal visa system. I also offered another commonsense amendment during the Judiciary Committee Markup to the provision of H.R. 2 restricting parole. H.R. 2 seeks to drastically limit the use of parole power but contradicts itself about how parole can be granted. The bill claims that it limits DHS from granting parole based on eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients. Immediately following this prohibition, the bill outlines the eligibility criteria for two classes of people it deems worthy of receiving parole: the spouses and minor children of active duty servicemembers and certain Cuban family members of US permanent residents. The provision allowing parole for Cubans is modeled after Cuban Family Reunification Parole, which was created in 2007 to allow Cuban nationals with pending immigrant visa petitions to join their sponsoring family members in the United States. This program was suspended during the Trump administration in 2017, but processing resumed in September 2022. I am thrilled that Republicans have deemed this program worthy of keeping in place. Their previous anti-parole bills certainly didn't seem to think it was worth saving. However, I'm confused. There is another parole program, the Haitian Family Reunification Parole, which was created in 2014 and modeled after the Cuban program. This program carries nearly identical eligibility requirements, with more limitations. The Trump administration announced that it would terminate this program in 2019, about a year and a half after calling Haiti a ``s--- hole country.'' Fortunately, the administration was unable to do terminate the program before leaving office and the Biden administration reversed this decision. The ongoing situation in Haiti is dire. Earlier this month, human rights groups released figures showing that kidnappings in the country had dramatically increased in the first three months of the year. The risk of kidnapping for Haitians is just one small piece of a wider crisis with escalating gang violence, a food shortage, a constitutional and law enforcement crisis, and a Cholera outbreak. I cannot think of any legitimate reason why we would keep the Cuban parole program, but not the Haitian program. My amendment simply would have added a provision to the parole section of this bill exempting this population from restrictions. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country. H.R. 2 is simply just another incredibly misguided Republican bill that further includes nonsensical and harmful changes to the current system for unaccompanied children (UACs) crossing the border. Under this bill, all unaccompanied children would be subject to a summary removal process, which would give them even fewer protections than current law provides for unaccompanied minors from contiguous countries like Mexico. H.R. 2 would eliminate the right of many children to seek protection in immigration court from human trafficking and other dangers, leaving them with only cursory screenings by law enforcement personnel lacking child welfare expertise. The incredulous bill would also bar existing efforts to provide government-paid counsel to unaccompanied children and subjects all unaccompanied children to an expedited screening and removal process, giving them just 14 days to prepare their case without a government- provided attorney. Additionally, the bill prohibits anyone who entered the United States between ports of entry (unless they were interdicted at sea) from being able to seek asylum--notwithstanding the Majority's rejection of multiple amendments that would have exempted unaccompanied children from this restriction. Whereas, Democrats have proposed a range of solutions to address the humanitarian crisis at the border and improve protections for unaccompanied children. These proposals include increasing funding for HHS and DHS to ensure that unaccompanied children are properly cared for, and their sponsors are thoroughly vetted, expanding access to legal counsel for these children, and addressing the root causes of migration from Central America through diplomatic and development initiatives. Democrats also support comprehensive immigration reform that would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and improve border security measures while respecting the rights and dignity of all individuals. In March 2021, President Eiden signed a memorandum creating a task force to reunite families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border during the Trump administration's ``zero tolerance'' policy. The task force is composed of officials from several agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Democrats have proposed legislation, such as the Dream Act and the American Dream and Promise Act, that would provide a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, also known as Dreamers. In July 2021, the House passed a bill that would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented farmworkers and their families, called the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. This would protect workers from exploitation and abuse and would provide stability for the agricultural industry. Democrats have advocated for a comprehensive immigration reform package that would address the root causes of migration, improve border security, and create legal pathways for people to enter the U.S. lawfully. In September 2021, the Biden administration announced plans to increase the number of refugees admitted to the U.S. annually, following a historic low under the previous l administration. This move would provide opportunities for people who are fleeing violence and persecution to find safety and stability in the U.S. Over the years, the Democrat party is making sure that these unaccompanied children stay safe and have a legal documentation in the United States, while the Republican party sadly has steadfastly opposed all the legislation that benefits these children. I ask my colleagues to come together and move past the discord and to stand true to our ideals as Americans and protect our most vulnerable-- to protect all children who come to us in need.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we take a look at what we are doing here today. It is very obvious that we are addressing this question from the perspective of punishing families and punishing our children--yes, the children. The children are of all of us because we know that no matter what country, the children are our future. This legislation is supposed to be a border security bill done without bipartisanship and extensively rejecting thoughtful amendments given by the members of the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Homeland Security. In Houston, this is to create an added nightmare in order not to be able to help those who are in need because they are coming. In fact, there are processes where they are able to access the process of asylum. The fear that is made and given to the American people is to create hysteria rather than reason. I don't know what happened to the very reasonable, comprehensive immigration reform led by the late John McCain. Republicans ditched it, leaving DACA recipients, people who are EMS, doctors, and lawyers, still in limbo. Here we come again with this bill that is the child deportation bill. It says in Houston to Catholic Charities, or the National Association of Christian Churches that is helping in New York, that they will be made criminals because we will not allow them to help those who are coming forward who have status with paperwork for asylum, but yet, they are still unstatused and undocumented. It makes it absolutely impossible to come to the border to seek asylum. It upends the process and protections in place for unaccompanied children and requires all migrants seeking admission without a visa either to be detained or subjected to a program that Trump had. We know if we have someone who is going to, in essence, pardon all the January 6 persons, that is not a reliable policy. It is clear that mandating indefinite detention for all asylum- seeking families and children is a deportation bill for children. Allowing children to be detained in Border Patrol facilities for an entire month is a cruel and inhumane act. Hold a 9-month-old baby in your arms who was separated from their family, and maybe then, as I did almost more than 6 years ago, almost 10 years ago--this has been ongoing through all administrations. The only reason that the past administration had a title 42 is because of the pandemic. We need not to have that patchwork of disaster. We need to be able to ensure that we are working studiously to ensure it. Let me share with you these numbers.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I believe in border security at the southern border. I also believe in the fact that we are a land of immigrants, as well as a land of laws. Here we have two bad bills that don't fix the immigration and border security problem, and in this bill, we are not fixing any problem with fraud. Let me explain to my colleagues and also the American people: This takes away $400 million that we use to eliminate fraud. How does that work, in H.R. 1163? This bill is to claw back funds that people allegedly received accidentally. This is what will happen. Let me tell you what they are going to do. They are going to make sure that law enforcement and first responders, who were out in public during the pandemic every day, will receive a bill because they accidentally received an overpay. I had an amendment to exempt law enforcement which was rejected. They wouldn't take that amendment. We are, in fact, coming upon National Police Week next week when we honor and memorialize law enforcement. They wouldn't take the amendment to exempt firefighters. I saw them out in the community when I was out in my district, testing, administering vaccinations, tending to people in crisis during the pandemic. They were out in our communities. Additionally, they wouldn't take an exemption of schoolteachers. This is a bad bill. Why are you punishing our law enforcement, first responders, fire fighters, teachers, and others? Let us take this bill off the table and go back to the drawing board. We are losing. We are not gaining. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reassert my opposition to the proposed legislation H.R. 1163--Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, and to again assert the need for strong reconsideration for the harm and damage this bill will do to the American people. H.R. 1163, the Protecting Taxpayers and Victims of Unemployment Fraud Act, quite simply a harmful bill that would strip state Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs of essential resources to fight fraud, combat identity theft, and recover overpayments, and would set back the goals of strengthening program integrity and combating systemic fraud. H.R. 1163 would undermine the integrity of the UI system and allow states to send surprise bills to workers for overpayments of unemployment benefits paid during the pandemic as long as 10 years after the overpayment occurred. This bill takes no consideration into the fact that the overpayments were made to workers who did nothing wrong, did not know they were overpaid, spent the money on necessities, and returned to work as soon as they could. Workers did not know they were overpaid at the time (and will not know until they receive a surprise bill). This ``anti-fraud'' legislation would do more harm than good, penalizing America's essential workers who did nothing wrong while slashing funding from programs holding criminals accountable. It makes no sense that we would not do everything we can to protect special populations of workers and continue to support them as essential workers--as those who hold the fabric of our communities together, especially in our most desperate and fragile times of need. In fact, I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills this bill purports by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. My first amendment for H.R. 1163, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 41, would have required states to waive overpayments of pandemic unemployment benefits that were made to law enforcement personnel and security in 2020 or 2021 who were without fault in the UI overpayments. My second amendment for H.R. 1163, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 42, would have required states to waive overpayments of pandemic unemployment benefits that were made to firefighters and emergency personnel in 2020 or 2021 who were without fault in the UI overpayments. And my third amendment for H.R. 1163, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment No. 43, would have delayed enactment until the Secretary certifies that no provision would result in school personnel--including teachers and support staff--in 2020 or 2021 without fault in the UI overpayment would be forced to repay overpayments due to state error. These are common-sense amendments that have been repeatedly disregarded by my colleagues across the aisle who have instead chosen to put forward legislative attacks on our most vulnerable populations. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coining together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country. This bill is largely opposed by Americans who see right through the misguided language purporting to go after fraud but really goes after hardworking American citizens. In my home state of Texas and across the country labor unions have reached out to urge a no vote on this bill and I stand with them in strong opposition to this wayward measure.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 2--the Secure the Border Act of 2023. I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. I would like to highlight some of my amendments that were offered in both the Judiciary Committee Markup and the Homeland Security Committee Markup for H.R. 2. In addressing H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, we need the American people to understand that this is an unfortunate patchwork of extreme anti-immigrant proposals that would only add to more chaos at the border. It includes a variety of illogical measures that would shut down the U.S. asylum system and target families and children for the cruelest forms of treatment. One measure would make overstaying a visa a crime--for the first time in our history. I offered amendments to H.R. 2 along with many of my Democratic colleagues both during Homeland Security Committee markup and for consideration by the House Rules Committee for inclusion for consideration during this bill--but all Democratic amendments were rejected by the Republican majority. As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary, I have a well-established public record for working to address our nation's most pressing immigration issues through sound government policies. Immigration is not a criminal matter but categorized as a civil claim because seeking to travel, requesting refugee status, or attempting to make a better life in another country should not result in criminal prosecution. There are nations who do seek to punish U.S. citizens who are traveling abroad through criminal prosecution with tragic consequences. I have worked on the issue of unlawfully detained U.S. citizens who are held in other countries for a host of reasons that come down to the politics of a country and not due to a defendable immigration policy. The conduct of the previous Administration in the forced separation of families I offered what would have added a mens rea requirement such that to be criminally liable, a person must knowingly and willingly overstay their visa. It is important to remember that an individual can make an honest mistake about when they need to depart the country, be physically incapable of departing the country, or unable to return because of circumstances beyond their control in their home country. Yet this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. It is also important to remember that if a person overstays their visa, they are already subject to removal. The addition of a criminal penalty is both cruel and unnecessary. Our immigration system needs reforms, and we are absolutely interested in bold new ideas to fix it, but this is not one of them. My first amendment for H.R. 2 was offered to require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide Congress with a plan for implementing--within one year--the use of body-worn cameras by its agents and officers who are engaged in border security or immigration enforcement activities. Any implementation of a plan for body-worn cameras would require additional Congressional Action. Both CBP and ICE have already begun deploying body-worn cameras to their frontline officers and agents to provide greater transparency into interactions with the public. In the event there are allegations of excessive force or other misconduct by an officer or agent, footage from body-worn cameras can enhance the agencies' ability to investigate. Several studies on the effectiveness of body-worn cameras have found that police officers wearing cameras generate significantly fewer complaints and ``use of force'' reports relative to officers without cameras. And savings from reduced complaints against officers, and the reduced time required to resolve such complaints, can result in substantial cost savings. It is troubling that the underlying bill seems to seek cost savings at the expense of ensuring orderly and fair processing of asylum seekers; it would make more sense to save money by investigating complaints more quickly and preventing misconduct in the first place. My second amendment for H.R. 2 was offered to clarify that the official policy of the United States as implemented by the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security shall be to keep families together and not remove children from parents or responsible adults unless the safety or welfare of the child is at risk. The official policy of the Trump Administration was to separate children from their parents. No child--no matter where they are born-- should be separated from their family, particularly after surviving the harrowing journey to the U.S. border. My amendment was offered to stand firm in our principles that should bar CBP from separating children from their families unless there is evidence that the child is being trafficked. It further directs the DHS, in coordination with the State Department and HHS and the Attorney General to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the status of efforts to reunify migrant families and prevent future family separations. Never again should we allow families to be ripped apart. These are common-sense amendments that have been repeatedly disregarded by my colleagues across the aisle who have instead chosen to put forward legislative attacks on our most vulnerable populations. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this wrong minded legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, if enacted, it would prohibit DHS from contracting with any nongovernmental organization to transport or shelter ``inadmissible aliens.'' What is that? This language would prevent ICE from being able to contract with private companies that facilitate deportation or provide detention space because they are nongovernmental organizations. Ironically, it seems that this child deportation act may actually undermine our friends on the other side's MAGA deportation agenda. Why are we not more committed, Mr. Speaker, to coming together around the ideals of the Statue of Liberty? Bring us your forlorn, your worn, your desperate. Yes, they are coming in droves, but the President has a plan. There will be more interaction with Guatemala. There will be processes in Mexico. There will be more officers at the border for those who are seeking asylum. Why should we reject that? Why don't we come and find a way to stand up the infrastructure because a border wall that is $45 million per mile is not going to be the only solution. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to take this bill off the floor, go back to the drawing board, work with those of us in the Homeland Security Committee, with all the amendments we offered, and make a reasonable difference in the lives of Americans. Mr. Speaker, might I put back on the table, because they are all in my office all the time, that the DACA recipients need a response. They are paramedics, doctors, lawyers, teachers. How dare we ignore the talent that is here that wants to be patriotic Americans. I only ask for mercy. Take the bill back. Help our children. Make a difference. Honor the Statue of Liberty and protect the national border of this United States of America. We can do it, and it is not being done either by Texas or by the United States of America. We want to do it. The people in Houston want to be humanitarian, and they want to be safe. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 2-- Secure the Border Act of 2023. I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration. I would like to highlight some of my amendments that were offered in both the Judiciary Committee Markup and the Homeland Security Committee Markup for H.R. 2. In addressing, H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, we need the American people to understand that this is an unfortunate patchwork of extreme anti-immigrant proposals that would only add to more chaos at the border. It includes a variety of illogical measures that would shut down the U.S. asylum system and target families and children for the cruelest forms of treatment. One measure would make overstaying a visa a crime--for the first time in our history. I offered amendments to H.R. 2 along with many of my Democratic Colleagues both during Homeland Security Committee markup and for consideration by the House Rules Committee for inclusion for consideration during the of this bill--but all Democratic amendments were rejected by the Republican majority. As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary I have a well-established public record for working to address our Nation's most pressing immigration issues through sound government policies. Immigration is not a criminal matter but categorized as a civil claim because seeking to travel, requesting refugee status, or attempting to make a better life in another country should not result in criminal prosecution. There are nations who do seek to punish U.S. citizens who are traveling abroad through criminal prosecution with tragic consequences. I have worked on the issue of unlawfully detained U.S. citizens who are held in other countries for a host of reasons that come down to the politics of a country and not due to a defendable immigration policy. The conduct of the previous Administration in the forced separation of I offered would have added a mens rea requirement such that to be criminally liable, a person must knowingly and willingly overstay their visa. It is important to remember that an individual can make an honest mistake about when they need to depart the country, be physically incapable of departing the country, or unable to return because of circumstances beyond their control in their home country. Yet this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to overstaying a nonimmigrant visa. It is also important to remember that if a person overstays their visa, they are already subject to removal. The addition of a criminal penalty is both cruel and unnecessary. Our immigration system needs reforms, and we are absolutely interested in bold new ideas to fix it, but this is not one of them. My first amendment for H.R. 2, was offered to require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide Congress with a plan for implementing-- within one year--the use of body-worn cameras by its agents and officers who are engaged in border security or immigration enforcement activities. Any implementation of a plan for body-worn cameras would require additional congressional action. Both CBP and ICE have already begun deploying body-worn cameras to their frontline officers and agents to provide greater transparency into interactions with the public. In the event there are allegations of excessive force or other misconduct by an officer or agent, footage from body-worn cameras can enhance the agencies' ability to investigate. Several studies on the effectiveness of body-worn cameras have found that police officers wearing cameras generate significantly fewer complaints and ``use of force'' reports relative to officers without cameras. And savings from reduced complaints against officers, and the reduced time required to resolve such complaints, can result in substantial cost savings. It is troubling that the underlying bill seems to seek cost savings at the expense of ensuring orderly and fair processing of asylum seekers; It would make more sense to save money by investigating complaints more quickly and preventing misconduct in the first place. My second amendment for H.R. 2, was offered to clarify that the official policy of the United States as implemented by the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security shall be to keep families together and not remove children from parents or responsible adults unless the safety or welfare of the child is at risk. The official policy of the Trump Administration was to separate children from their parents. No child--no matter where they are born-- should be separated from their family, particularly after surviving the harrowing journey to the U.S. border. My amendment was offered to stand firm in our principles that should bar CBP from separating children from their families unless there is evidence that the child is being trafficked. It further directs the DHS, in coordination with the State Department and HHS and the Attorney General to provide quarterly reports to Congress on the status of efforts to reunify migrant families and prevent future family separations. Never again should we allow families to be ripped apart. These are common-sense amendments that have been repeatedly disregarded by my colleagues across the aisle who have instead chosen to put forward legislative attacks on our most vulnerable populations. Border security can be done in Bipartisan solutions. It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country and the security at the southern and northern border. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this wrong minded legislation. Section 115(c)--Deportation & Detention Mr. Speaker, I urge Republicans who support detaining and deporting more migrants to take a look at section 115(c) in Division A. If enacted, it would prohibit DHS from contracting with any ``nongovernmental organization'' to transport or shelter QUOTE ``inadmissible aliens'' UNQUOTE. This language would prevent ICE from being able to contract with private companies that facilitate deportations or provide detention space because they are nongovernmental organizations. Ironically, it seems that the ``Child Deportation Act'' may actually undermine the extreme MAGA deportation agenda.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bears an important, absolute, and imperative necessity of a little walk down memory lane. In actuality, the American people really want to uphold her values, the values that they have come to understand as a core of who we are. The Homeland Security Committee traditionally, as the chairman and I have seen over the years, worked in a bipartisan manner. A little history is that just more than a decade ago, there was a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill led by the late John McCain. Unfortunately, interestingly enough, the Senate moved, and the House simply imploded that dream, the dream that those who came to this country without anything and did not know they had come wrongly, if you will, young people, could be DACA recipients and ultimately work their way toward citizenship. It was an effective asylum process, and we argued vigorously for legal immigration. People dutifully got in line, but consistently, as we refused to build on the comprehensive immigration structure, even though Democrats supported heavily enhancing the border--my bill some years ago provided enormous new equipment and technology. One of our colleagues even explained, by the way, this new border wall that everyone wants to talk about is not a border wall because it is indented onto U.S. soil. Once you get over the wall, you are already eligible to apply for asylum. Most of the people who come, come through legal points of entry, so why the cruelty of this bill? I can be for legal immigration, and I can be for securing this Nation, and I don't have to take a sledgehammer and bloody the very fabric of this Nation. It is interesting that we offered 43 Democratic amendments. None were accepted. Is there something wrong with body cameras for our officers at the border? Not accepted. Is there something wrong with refusing to separate 9-month-olds and 5-year-olds from their families, family unification, committing to not separating families? Is that something wrong? I work with NGOs. I am in Texas. I am in Houston. We are getting some of those migrants in Houston, and there will be an NGO that will be dealing with individuals who are not statused. What you want to have happen, as is happening in El Paso because of the overwhelming, is that you want no resources, people on the street, and, I am so sad and ashamed to say, the loss of individuals in Brownsville in what seemed to be a murderous rage. We cannot do this. Mr. Speaker, I urge Republicans who support detaining and deporting more migrants to take a look at section 115(c) in division A.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me express my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Florida for her grand leadership and the gentleman from Illinois. They have been dynamic. I acknowledge our chair, Congressman Horsford, of the Congressional Black Caucus, who had a very powerful morning this morning, and as well continues to lead us in the right direction. I was late today because I could not leave the pain of Texas without standing with those in a press conference in the Mickey Leland Federal Building to express both our outcry, our pain, and our outrage. Last evening, MSNBC had a headline show that said the ``Lone Star Hate.'' I stand here today to say there are good people in Texas. There are people who are demanding that there be action in the aftermath of the worst couple of days that we have had in a long time. The parents of the Uvalde children waited 13 hours in the State legislature just to be heard on raising the age of those who could purchase weapons of war. In the midst of that, a family who simply wanted their baby to sleep was slaughtered and murdered, in the midst of that, by a person shooting an AR-15. A veteran explained to me that that is an M16, a weapon of war, which maims and kills the enemy so that they cannot rise, not be taken care of, and not move away from other gunfire. Of course, though not by guns, in Brownsville, Texas, some eight or so people were killed who were simply trying to make sure that they had a peaceful place to be. I come here today to insist on my own State taking a stand to ensure that the people who are crying cry no more. The individual who killed the people in the mall in Allen, Texas, family members removed him from their house. He was tattooed with huge Nazi and white supremacy insignia. My bill that I introduced, H.R. 61, indicates that white supremacy is hate, it is a hate crime, and I amended the hate crime bill to ensure that if you die because of white supremacy, they get an enhanced sentence due to hate crime legislation. He only lasted 3 months in the United States military. We have to do a better job communicating about individuals--not brave soldiers who have PTSD, but individuals like this who didn't even last because of his views and attitudes and behavior. He obviously hated viciously, but he was able to get an AR-15. After Uvalde, the State of Texas, the Governor's office, established a DPS task force that was supposed to monitor social media. Why wasn't this individual monitored, with all of his hate? Underlying all of that are guns. That is what we spoke about today, guns. We asked the State of Texas, the legislature, my friends, and those who work with Republicans, we asked them to be sure to move this bill to raise the age to 21. The Uvalde parents waited 13 hours. It came out of committee. It has to go to the House and Senate. I stood there today and asked for universal background checks, and I asked the State of Texas why--with the Safer Communities Act, where we had the red flag laws and, of course, Congresswoman McBath, we led in the House to protect our kids. It was mandatory. It was mandatory. But in the Safer Communities Act, it was optional--our State has not taken advantage of it? They squeaked through and got a few dollars for the veterans court. I am asking the Governor to opt in to the red flag law, universal background checks, the Kimberly Vaughan gun storage legislation, the ban on assault weapons, and raising the age. These are all items that Texas and other States can do without violating the Second Amendment. I uphold the Second Amendment. Standing with me today, with Moms Demand Action, a young man by the name of Jay Love, who is marred for our lives; along with Captain Phillips, a police officer, who says that 3,200 guns are stolen or taken in Houston, Texas, as the ATF says, out of people's cars. Yet, we can't get Texas to act. Rhonda Hart, whose daughter was killed in Santa Fe, who is begging for relief. With that kind of pain comes the ability to act. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus who have been at the forefront of leadership. My colleague Robin Kelly has mentioned over and over again the absolute violence that kills children and others. I close with this simple acknowledgment. There were eight people who died, I believe, in Allen, Texas, three family members, left a little 6-year-old with no one; two sisters. This is what this sinister, evil man did. With evil in his evilness, he did it with a gun. We must come back to this Congress and do something that is going to make a difference. I hope the Senate can pick it up and realize that we cannot live in this country anymore with the reckless killing and violence that is perpetrated on our loved ones and on Americans.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of H.J. Res. 39-- Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Commerce relating to ``Procedures Covering Suspension of Liquidation, Duties and Estimated Duties in Accord with Presidential Proclamation 10414''. This joint resolution nullifies a final rule submitted by the Department of Commerce and was published on September 16, 2022. H.J. Res. 39 permitted the suspension of tariffs on specific solar panels, also known as crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules. The regulation specifically applied to solar panels made in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, or Vietnam using parts and components made in China that are not previously covered by an antidumping or countervailing duty order. Orders for antidumping and countervailing duties are put in place to combat unfair trade practices, such as when a foreign government gives domestic companies subsidies to give them an economic advantage over competitors from abroad. The restriction that was repealed served to relieve businesses who import solar panels from these nations and make use of Chinese-made parts and components that are exempt from such orders. By placing large and potentially retroactive duties on some imported solar panels, H.J. Res. 39 would obstruct the supply of solar products to the United States. President Biden declared an energy emergency on June 6, 2022, to guarantee consistent and inexpensive access to renewable energy. Following that, the Department of Commerce published a rule to establish a temporary, 24-month freeze on the collection of specific tariffs on solar cells or modules. The U.S. solar industry was given the opportunity and time to realign supply chains away from China due to this rule and the new domestic manufacturing incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act. Without a temporary bridge, the price of solar installations will rise dramatically, and less solar project development will be planned. The shift to clean energy will lead to an increase in employment, manufacturing, and wages here in the United States. The Inflation Reduction Act represents the single biggest investment in clean energy in American history. The IRA is starting the nation on the road to sustainable, responsible energy independence. Additionally, approximately 100,000 jobs for American mechanics, electricians, construction workers, technicians, support personnel, and other professionals have been created as a result of the green tax credits in the IRA. Ninety new sustainable energy projects have been announced in 31 states in the first half of the year of the law. Manufacturing facilities for batteries, electric vehicles, and wind and solar energy systems are among these initiatives. The move by President Biden is a one-time fix to realign American supply lines. Initiating high, retroactive tariffs right away, harming solar growth, raising energy prices, and reducing supply at a time when we need to ramp up would be the results of ending the President's interim suspension. By 2030, carbon emissions are expected to be reduced by 40 percent thanks to the clean energy credits provided by the Inflation Reduction Act, providing us a real chance to achieve the Paris Climate Agreement's objectives. The bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which will make unprecedented investments in American workers, communities, and businesses, was signed into law by President Biden last August. The CHIPS Act will improve American semiconductor development, research, and manufacturing, among other things. The CHIPS Act forbids recipients of funds from increasing chip manufacture in China and other nations that are legally deemed to pose a threat to American national security. These historic policies, along with the CHIPS Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, have encouraged businesses to invest more than $200 billion in American manufacturing. According to Uyghur Human Rights Project (UGRP), a rise in solar imports from Chinese solar manufacturers--regardless of whether such imports come from China or Chinese-controlled facilities in Southeast Asia--directly encourages the Chinese solar industry's use of Uyghur forced labor. According to UHRP, imports of solar cells and modules from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam have increased by 69 percent during 2019. In addition, UHRP argues that it is intolerable to think that the United States should rely on goods produced by filthy ``coal plants and China's genocidal forced-labor inputs'' to sustain the transition to renewable energy. Priorities for the environment and a commitment to uphold human rights must go hand in hand. As a member of the House renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 39 because it will harm solar growth and raise energy prices. I strongly urge all my colleagues to come in stand in the opposition of H.J. Res. 39, because it is the Republicans' effort to roll back the Inflation Act. We should stop these attempts to undermine our hard- earned win.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the month of May, I remind everyone that we honor our mothers of this Nation--mothers who have nourished, calmed, encouraged, celebrated, cheered; those who have made their way in life; mothers who have had difficult times, challenges, yet continue to be there. I honor mothers who are taking care of children who are not their own. In this month of May, I will select mothers from my congressional district and some from around the Nation to honor and thank them for what they do. That is why, as well, I voted against the draconian Republican budget that wanted to cut SNAP, supplemental nutrition, to help our children; wanted to cut veteran benefits for women veterans who are in desperate need; and wanted to again squash women's rights and reproductive rights. Mothers are, in fact, the anchor of this Nation. I celebrate them and will celebrate them this coming month with cheer, applause, recognition, and honor.