Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for his distinguished leadership as the manager on this floor and, certainly, the proponent of this resolution. I know it came with good intentions. Let me indicate the wisdom of a young college student some many years ago when I offered to my college for my winning traveling fellowship that I would go to the continent of Africa. Everyone else would go to places well defined and well recognized. I told them that I wanted to take the fellowship that I had received to travel to West Africa, and I did, from then-Togo-and-Dahomey--obviously, changed names to Cote d'Ivoire--to Ghana and Nigeria, and I studied, seeing the potential even then. I am gratified to be in this Congress to be able to have the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member on the Foreign Affairs Committee to recognize the cruciality of our purpose on the continent. It was members of the Congressional Black Caucus who organized to say how important it was under the George W. Bush administration that the Africa Command be set up. It was crucial in the bloody fight in Liberia for that command to be set up, and only without shooting one gun were they able to begin to bring peace. So, I rise with great concern and opposition to H. Con. Res. 30 because I have realized the importance of the Africa Command because it has elements of diplomacy. I am glad that President Biden reversed Trump's get-out-of-town and get-out-of-Dodge-quick resolution to, in fact, leave a footprint of 500, who are helping us bring down Al-Shabaab, bring down al-Qaida, and boost up the Somalian partners of which our soldiers are working through and working to degrade Al-Shabaab's ability to plot external operations while building the capacities of our partner. The rest of Africa is watching. If they try to be peaceful and to stand up a democratic entity, do they have a powerful force like the United States? I, too, want a full debate on the Authorization for Use of Military Force. I have been here for 9/11 and afterward, and I, too, believe that it is our duty. What I will say at this time is that we should not remove those troops from Somalia. I ask my colleague to join with his committee and engage in debate on the AUMF, but I want to protect the Somalian people, Africa, and I want to protect the interests of democracy and the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.Con. Res. 30--Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove all United States Armed Forces, other than United States Armed Forces assigned to protect the United States Embassy, from Somalia. This concurrent resolution directs the President to remove all U.S. Armed Forces from Somalia, other than those assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Somalia, within 365 days of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. Premature withdrawal would risk reversal of critical counterterrorism and governance gain. Al-Shabaab is al-Qaida's largest and best--financed affiliate in the world and has repeatedly demonstrated its intent and capability to launch lethal and complex attacks against U.S. citizens in east Africa and beyond. Al-Shabaab has killed more than a dozen U.S. citizens since 2014-- more than all of al-Qaida's other affiliates combined during the same period. U.S. forces, 500-900 working through Somali partners, seek to degrade Al-Shabaab's ability to plot external operations while building the capacities of our partners. The small but effective U.S. military presence supports a critical counterterrorism mission by working with partners forces. There is no legal basis for this legislation. The resolution is based on section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution. But section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution applies only when our forces are engaged in hostilities without statutory basis. In this case, there a statutory basis for U.S. actions in Somalia, as U.S. forces are supporting hostilities against Al-Shabaab and al-Qaida in Somalia--both of which are covered by the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force. Since July 2022, the Federal Government of Somalia has retaken more territory than the previous five years combined. U.S. military presence is a vital component of efforts to improve local partners capacity and local conditions to the point that our presence is no longer needed. The persistent presence of a modest number of U.S. forces increases the effectiveness of the DoD's training efforts and bolsters its credibility as a consistent and durable partner for Somali forces. The DoD's presence in Somalia forms the backbone of a whole--of-- government approach that layer's diplomacy, security assistance, stabilization programing, and intelligence operations to counter Al- Shabaab and address the conditions that have allowed it to thrive. I urge all my colleagues to oppose H.Con. Res. 30.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been here in the United States Congress, which is more than two decades, we have been fighting to add to the Constitution a perfectly sensible amendment, one that does not offend the American people. It simply says that the equal rights amendment declares that women are equal in this Nation from the early suffragette days to the days of Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, and Susan B. Anthony. That is only a fair statement, that the rights of women should be considered part of the Constitution. Unfortunately, today, the United States Senate voted it down when 51 of our Senators, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, whom I met outside the Senate Chambers, wanted to make sure that the Constitution stood on its four points of equality, justice, opportunity, and democracy. We will continue to fight until the equal rights amendment is passed fairly in this Nation and for the world to see, as they have admired us for our principles of freedom, that we believe in freedom for all the people of this Nation, men and women and families. That is extremely important. It is sad that it was voted down today by our friends on the other side of the aisle.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, no American, no patriot would stand on this floor representing the American people and argue for the default on America legislation. To refuse to pay our bills is an insult to the men and women who swore to die for this country. You want to know why? Because it would cut 30 million visits from veterans at the veterans' hospitals and 81,000 jobs from the Veterans Health Administration. It would increase the wait times for benefits like pensions and jeopardize the National Cemetery Administration caring for our cemeteries. If you are in retirement, $20,000 could be lost out of your retirement. Is that patriotic? In addition, you would cut grants for low-income students. You would cut and cause the expense of colleges to go up in Texas and around the Nation. In the 18th Congressional District you would jeopardize Social Security payments from $61,000, put public health benefits at risk for 242,000 people, and increase lifetime mortgage costs. You would raise the debt $1.74 trillion. This is unpatriotic. It is not representative of what America stands for. Vote against a bill that strips food assistance from 4,000 Texans. Mr. Speaker, as a Senior Member on the House Budget Committee, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2811, the Limit, Save, Grow Act. This reckless proposal would painfully impact the lives of millions of Americans by making disastrous cuts to programs that workers and families count on every day and by risking the full faith and credit of the United States. The outrageous proposal sets the FY 2024 discretionary spending levels at no more than the FY 2022 level, which would require a total cut of at least $142 billion from the FY 2023 appropriations Act. Cutting FY 2024 discretionary spending back to FY 2022 levels would endanger public safety, increase costs for families, undermine American workers, hurt our seniors, and weaken our national security. Instead of investing in America, Republicans would rather focus on holding our economy hostage to advance unpopular and dangerous right- wing priorities. The Republican default package is playing a brinkmanship game using the threat of economic catastrophe to try to force cuts in green energy investment, a rollback in enforcement against wealthy tax cheats, a war on poor people, and service cuts for taxpayers and Social Security beneficiaries. 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 800,000 plus 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 peril, 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. Specifically, this extreme and reckless plan would have devastating impacts on thousands of hardworking families across Texas. This plan would: Strip food assistance from 994,000 Texans. 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. Make college more expensive for 587,900 Texans. 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. Raise housing costs for 39,700 Texans. 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. Worsen Social Security and Medicare Assistance wait times for million Texas seniors. 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. Threaten medical care for Texas Veterans. 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. Eliminate 27,400 preschool and child care slots in Texas. 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. Deny 1100 Texans admission to opioid treatment. 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. The passage of this proposal would: 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. The proposal in front of us here today is not a reasonable middle ground, nor is it even a starting point for discussion. 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. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee titled: ``The Steep Costs of a Republican Default Crisis.'' Raising the debt limit in a timely manner is about meeting existing obligations and is the only option to avoid economic chaos. The effects of failing to raise the debt limit would likely be felt economy wide: From drastically increased costs for mortgages, credit card payments, and other borrowing, to disrupted payments for Social Security recipients, veterans, service members, and hospitals, to far-reaching effects in the financial system. As the 2011 debt ceiling crisis showed, even narrowly avoiding a default cost the country billions of dollars. Republicans' default crisis will push up costs for families and small businesses Debt-limit threats increase costs for families and small businesses. While breaching the debt limit would be catastrophic, the threat of breaching the debt ceiling alone can have serious economic consequences. As 2011 and 2013 Republican debt-limit brinkmanship showed, reckless talk about letting the U.S. breach the debt limit has a real impact on the economy, working families, and small businesses. These threats create uncertainty that the U.S. government will pay its bills, pushing up interest rates and undermining confidence worldwide in the U.S. economy. The average worker close to retirement could take a $20,000 hit to their retirement savings. According to the non- partisan think tank Third Way, the debt limit crisis of 2011 led to a significant decline in the stock market and the impact would be even more dire if the U.S. defaulted on the national debt. They find that a typical worker nearing retirement could lose about $20,000 from their 401(k) if debt-limit brinkmanship causes the S&P 500 to drop by 22 percent. Small business loans could go up $44 a month, costing about $2,500 more over the course of the loan. If, as happened in 2011 with mortgage loans, small business loans see an interest rate increase of 70 basis points due to debt-limit brinkmanship, an entrepreneur taking out a new startup loan with fixed interest would see a significant increase to their loan. About 20,000 businesses took out new loans each quarter in 2022. Similarly, an established small business owner with a variable rate loan will see their monthly payments rise by $53 per month. About 46,000 businesses had outstanding variable interest loans in the third quarter of 2022.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from Moody's Analytics titled: ``The Debt Limit Drama Heats Up.'' Speaker McCarthy's proposed legislation would increase the debt limit by $1.5 trillion or until March 31, 2024, whichever comes first. In exchange, it would cut government spending by $4.5 trillion over the next decade and implement a number of consequential changes to fiscal policy (see Table 1 and Chart 3). The most significant spending cuts would come by setting fiscal 2024 discretionary spending equal to fiscal 2022 spending levels.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, when I was in my district, commemorating and celebrating Eid, of course, with my many constituents who have just had Ramadan, I met one of the leaders of the Sudanese community. Clearly, this crisis in Sudan deserves our attention. I rise today to express great concern for the people of Sudan and the peace that they were attempting to implement. I ask for the United States to be diligent in seeking a cease-fire, a permanent cease-fire, between two fighting generals who have nothing to do but to fight over power. We must be concerned about women, children, and families. I have been to Sudan during the horrible genocide in Darfur. I know that they have overcome much. I have been to South Sudan with the right to return. Now it is time for peace. We have brought out our foreign officers, but we must also try to secure the Americans that are there. Sudan deserves peace, and the United States must be engaged in peace efforts.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, he sold millions of records. He was known around the world: Harry Belafonte. That song we remember, ``Day- O.'' But for those of us who admired and hung onto his every word, we know that he provided a transformational change in the civil rights history of this Nation. Heroic and courageous, he was not afraid of those who attacked him and called him names. What a major force standing by Dr. Martin Luther King, intervening with politicians and entertainers and providing financial support. He continued questioning this Nation's issues of race. He was fearless. Mr. Speaker, I am sad about his passing, but I will say that no one will fill his giant shoes. To his wife Pamela, Gina, and other wonderful relatives, I offer my personal regrets and sympathy. As a Jamaican immigrant that he was, he obviously touches my heart and that of my family. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will always remember a man that could have been only an entertainer, as well as rich and resounding, but Harry Belafonte wanted to change this country. Harry, as I see you soar where the eagles fly, may the Lord bless you. Rest in peace, my brother, and rest in power.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of a resolution Condemning the Inaction by the Islamic Republic of Iran in Addressing the Poisoning of Iranian School Girls, the daughters of the Iranian Revolution, and to announce the creation of the Iranian Women Congressional Caucus. This resolution recognizes the bravery and resilience of women who have faced tremendous challenges in their fight for equality and human rights. We have all witnessed the courage of women and youth leading the 2022 protests in Iran, calling for social freedom and political change. As stated in the resolution, these protests stem from more than four decades of organized resistance against the Iranian dictatorship, led by women who have endured torture, sexual and gender-based violence, and death. The uprising last year in Iran started with the murder of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman arrested by morality police in Tehran on September 13, 2022, for allegedly violating Iran's strict rules requiring women to cover their hair with a hijab, or headscarf. Since the protests started in September, after the murder of Mahsa Amini's, women and men have taken to the streets, risking their lives for a free and democratic Iran. Over 500 people have been killed, over 15,000 arrested. Iranian courts have issued numerous death sentences linked to the protests, convicting people of being ``enemies against God'' and ``spreading corruption on Earth.'' As a long-time advocate and fighter for justice and equality, I am inspired by the ongoing revolution led by Iranian women, despite the tortures their people face daily imposed their government. Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has been, for decades, the leading voice against the regime's abuses. Her Ten-Point Plan for the future of Iran, which she presented to the European Parliament in 2006, provides a roadmap for a secular, democratic, non-nuclear republic where the rule of law is upheld. Mrs. Rajavi's Ten-Point Plan stresses ``Complete gender equality in the realms of political, social, cultural, and economic rights, and equal participation of women in political leadership. Abolishment of any form of discrimination; the right to choose one's own clothing freely; the right to freely marry and divorce; and to obtain education and employment. Prohibition of all forms of exploitation against women under any pretext.'' As co-chair of the Iranian Women Caucus, and on behalf of all its members, I support Mrs. Rajavi's vision of a society where both men and women reject compulsory religion, compulsory hijab, and compulsory government. The current regime's human rights abuses have their roots in past dictatorships, characterized by widespread human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and political suppression by SAVAK, the notorious secret police. It is essential that we acknowledge this history and address the root causes of the current human rights crisis in Iran. I strongly condemn the deliberate gas attacks on schoolgirls in Iran and the violent suppression of students, men, and women participating in demonstrations. I call for transparent accountability for all killings of protesters by Iranian security forces. I strongly encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support the Iranian Women Caucus and this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I first want to take a moment to honor an esteemed pastor in my district, Pastor Ricky Bell, who has passed away after a valiant, strong, and vigorous fight against devastating cancer. I offer my sympathy to the members of the Forest Lawn Baptist Church, and to say to them, he was more than a giant in northeast Houston and in Houston, to his first lady, First Lady Bell, and to his family. I thank Pastor Bell for being a champion of veterans, for providing veterans housing, for being a force for education, and for being a spiritual leader. As we mourn Pastor Bell, and as we attend his going-home services, we honor the life that he led. I ask Members of this House to honor him and mourn him in their own silent way. Mr. Speaker, let me also acknowledge, at this time, that I ask my colleagues to join me in a resolution condemning the inaction by the Islamic Republic of Iran in addressing the poisoning of Iranian school girls--yes, poisoning the daughters of the Iranian Revolution and the formation of the Iranian Congressional Caucus. Over 500 people have been killed in the mass revolution of women and girls. Let me say this: Stop the poisoning of Iranian school children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work of law enforcement across America. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I have had the privilege of working with the FBI, the DEA, the ATF, the United States Marshals, and an array of law enforcement officers along with the Department of Homeland Security which we oversee as a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I am wondering what is the basis of the intrusion in D.C. home rule with my friends who thought there was nothing more important to do than to intrude on a fully comprehensive police reform bill that was supported by the chief of police and others as it relates to addressing those who have involved themselves in conduct that police officers would not support. That is the only reason that there is even an iota of opposition. The bill tracks the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act with changes that are applicable and relevant to the people of the District of Columbia. It is non-offensive legislation. I would wonder why my friends on the other side of the aisle would, in fact, be so against this bill when they did not help us with the Invest to Protect Act and the VICTIM Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. They didn't help us with the assault weapons ban that we are fighting, if I may call the roll: Uvalde, Nashville, Louisville, and in Alabama and on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, I support the work of the District of Columbia, the Mayor, and the city council. I support their reform bill that is supported by police officers, and also, I support home rule. Let us vote not to uphold the Republicans' legislation of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42--Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. This outrageous resolution would nullify the Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022, enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia. This resolution is a bridge too far. While Republicans continue to put forth legislation that further divides our country and puts lives at risk, Democrats have continuously supported funding for law enforcement and putting Americans safety over politics. For two congresses, Republicans have blocked the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, preventing us from making any substantive changes in policing accountability that would improve public safety nationwide. In the absence of federal action, dozens of states and D.C. have taken steps to improve their law enforcement agencies since the death of George Floyd. These reforms have included restricting the use of neck restraints, improving standards for the use of force, and reforming police certification. This resolution blatantly undermines Home Rule, and if my Republican colleagues really cared about the safety of the American people and law enforcement, they would have voted with Democrats on the various bills we previously put forth to improve public safety. Now, Republicans are going a step further by seeking to undo D.C.'s work to improve law enforcement and Policy/Community relationships and promote public safety. They want to roll back all of the progress that has been made in police accountability. While states, D.C., and House Democrats have consistently stood up for accountability in policing, advancing public safety, and improving the public's trust in law enforcement, Republicans are again defending rogue, lawless police officers who act with impunity. These rogue officers take lives and make all of us less safe as they erode public trust. Take for instance, the recent case of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, the startling facts set forth in the Department of Justice's report on the Louisville Metro Police Department, or the audio recordings of McCurtain County Sheriff Kevin Clardy, Sheriff's Captain Alicia Manning, and Jail Administrator Larry Hendrix discussing killing journalists and lamenting that they could no longer lynch black people. If Republicans cared about public safety and law enforcement, they would have supported the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act because we cannot have public safety without trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Democrats don't just talk about law enforcement; we invest in law enforcement. Democrats have supported funding for law enforcement while Republicans have repeatedly voted against it. Democrats have advanced the Invest to Protect Act which would have authorized $300 million in grants for law enforcement agencies with fewer than 125 officers. This legislation passed with bipartisan support, but 55 Republican members voted against it. Democrats also advanced the VICTIM Act, led by Congresswoman and former law enforcement officer Val Demings, which would have would have provided grants--totaling up to $100 million per year--to law enforcement agencies to help them solve violent crimes. 178 Republicans voted against it. My bill on supporting more money for victims, VOCA, is what we should be doing more of. If Republicans really supported law enforcement, they would have joined Democrats in passage of the Assault Weapons Ban, which would take the weapons most used to target law enforcement off our streets. 208 Republicans voted against it. Assault weapons pose a significant risk to law enforcement--one out of every five law enforcement officers killed by guns are killed by these weapons of war. The Violence Policy Center performed an analysis of unpublished information from the FBI and determined that one of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty in 2016 and 2017 were killed with assault weapons. They found that, during attacks in which multiple officers were killed, 75 percent of the officers were killed with an assault weapon. But that's not it. There are many pieces of legislation that Democrats have offered that Republicans could have supported if they really supported law enforcement. The Fighting Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Act of 2022; the Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, the Active Shooter Alert of 2022, and the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2022. I must also remind this body that when right wing extremists descended on the nation's Capital city, attacking citizens, and burning flags in church yards, Republicans stood back and stood by. This resolution is yet another example of Republicans forcing their failed policies on all of us by any means they can, particularly in black and brown communities nationwide. Whether it is unfairly blocking home rule and police accountability, hijacking the courts to restrict abortion access and bodily autonomy, taking over school districts, banning books, or attempting to overturn a fair election, we must hold the line and defend DC's right to self- governance. That is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I too had the opportunity yesterday to engage with Rebekah and her mother, and I want to just point to a stark reality. Mr. Chair, 53 percent of trans kids considered suicide last year. I am glad that the Governor of Utah, in a very lengthy letter, said: I want them to live. What Rebekah said is that she loves playing sports. She gets to know people, and they know her. She said the talk that we are doing on the floor of the House is scary. It puts trans children--children in corners. They don't know who likes them or not or who wants to do harm to them. This is a meaningless bill. The Olympics has addressed the question. The NCAA has addressed the question. When will we realize we have the right to freedom of religion and we have a right to our beliefs, and in that we have no right to undermine and threaten the lives of trans children. Mr. Chair, I stand in opposition to this mean-spirited legislation because I am a woman of faith, and I believe in the humanity of all children.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kindness, and I only have a minute to talk about kindness. I vigorously oppose the underlying legislation dealing with our beautiful children. Mr. Speaker, that is what it is, and I join with the Utah Governor who indicates that this minute problem does not deserve a sledgehammer. This bill deals with girls and women in sports, and the Olympics and the NCAA have spoken on transgender. I speak from the heart as a fellow human being. I speak from loving children as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus. I cannot stand here and tolerate 53 percent of trans kids considering suicide last year. They want to belong. They want to have friends. They want to play sports. If you are 5 years old, 12 years old, this Congress has no right in interfering with a beautiful community. It is, in fact, a blessing to have a world and a Nation that has people who are different. I affirm their difference. I stand for their difference. I will fight for their difference because they should be loved like anyone else. The rules and regulations are already in place. Why are we here doing that when guns are killing our children?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for the time, and I also thank the managers who are on the floor today. Let me clarify the reason for my being present as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, and one who has dealt with the issues by way of national security issues of water chemical contamination. I rise with great opposition to H.J. Res. 27. Let me call the roll: Flint, Michigan; Jackson, Mississippi; East Palestine, which it is known that the derailment also contaminated water; and cancer clusters in Houston where runoffs were contaminating the water. Let me give you the basis of what this is about. The rule that we are trying to oppose reestablishes critical protections for the Nation's vital water resources by returning to the longstanding 1986 regulations with appropriate updates, exclusions, and streamlining clarifications. In fact, the plain statement is that H.J. Res. 27 would leave Americans without a clear waters of the United States definition, which deals with the overall question of clean water. Mr. Speaker, I oppose it because it does clarify the categories of water bodies and wetlands that would be subject to government protection under the Clean Water Act. People are suffering across America. Mr. Speaker, to my good friend with the lawsuit by 24 States--we have 50 States. It is very clear that my good friends in the red States, the AGs, thought that they would undermine the President's direction on clean water. H.J. Res. 27 would carelessly bind the hands of Federal agencies working to protect our country's water supply and quality while creating instability for farmers and developers. This does not work. If H.J. Res. 27 was to become law, it may have a detrimental effect on the Clean Water Act, a law that prohibits the discharge of pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our water resources. We are a smart and big country. We can definitely find ways to help our farmers. We are getting ready to do the farm bill. We definitely can find ways to help those who engage in economic development. It is important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain the Clear Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that releases pollutants into U.S. waters acquire a permit. Mr. Speaker, is that too onerous? I heard someone use that term ``to save lives'' and to prevent babies from having an impact by drinking this water and having distorted growth. The Clean Water Act also permits the use of Federal funding to support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities by local governments and other organizations. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, Houston, Texas, needs those resources, and so do other cities. I would hate to undermine those resources. The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the health of U.S. water resources and for ensuring that Americans have access to clean, safe water. By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and promoting monitoring research activities, the Clean Water Act has been a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water quality. I have worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. They listen. If they speak up and say that this is the framework which we need and the EPA, as well, that has been on front lines of contamination, that seems to be the call of the day because our good friends in corporate America, trains, and otherwise, seemingly don't listen. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I just rode in on a train. I believe in that mode of opportunity and transportation. Let's have everyone be fair and responsible to what we have to do to protect the water of this Nation. The Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. According to the EPA, the number of water bodies in the U.S. that were safe for fishing and swimming has increased from 36 percent to over 60 percent. When you have something that is working, Mr. Speaker, why are you undermining it? So I am clearly in the position to say that in 2019 the EPA awarded $4.2 million to the city of Houston to fund projects aimed at improving water quality and storm water management.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me additional time. Mr. Speaker, we advocated for that management. We have hurricanes. And when we have hurricanes, we are always subject to the system not being able to hold the water and contamination is a possibility. According to the Houston Public Works Department, the city's wastewater treatment plant treats an average of 304 million gallons of wastewater per day. These treatment plants are required to meet strict standards. I will say that all cities and counties we are all working to maintain clean water. We have a situation that we are working on in my local community of Houston, wastewater and sewage. What do you think we would do, Mr. Speaker, without the Clean Water Act? Please don't undermine us. Don't undermine us and the local people. Listen to the roll call: Flint; Jackson, Mississippi; East Palestine; and many others. Let us oppose this particular H.J. Res. and let us recognize that we have the responsibility. If we are doing nothing else, we have got to be responsible with H.J. Res. 27, opposing it, so that we can stand up for the children of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 27. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition of H.J. Res 27--Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' ''. H.J. Res. 27 is specifically intended to oppose the ``Revised Definition of `Waters of the United States' '' rule, which clarifies and broadens the categories of water bodies and wetlands that would be subject to government protection under the Clean Water Act. In 2019, the EPA awarded over $4.2 million to the city of Houston to fund projects aimed at improving water quality and stormwater management. According to the Houston Public Works department, the city's wastewater treatment plants treat an average of 304 million gallons of wastewater per day. These treatment plants are required to meet strict standards set by the Clean Water Act, which helps ensure that the water discharged from the plants is safe for the environment and public health. The EPA has identified several bodies of water in the Houston area as ``impaired'' due to pollution, including parts of the Buffalo Bayou and Galveston Bay. However, thanks in part to the Clean Water Act, the overall water quality in the area has improved over the past few decades. According to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Clean Water Act has helped prevent an estimated 230,000 cases of childhood gastrointestinal illness in Texas each year by reducing water pollution. It is important to oppose this resolution because H.J. Res. 27 will be the sixth attempt at weakening the Clean Water Act. Over many years, Republicans in Congress and industry groups argued that the restrictions were overly broad and would have negatively impacted farmers, ranchers, and other businesses by subjecting more waters to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. H.J. Res 27 will carelessly bind the hands of federal agencies working to protect our country's water supply and quality. We need to help farmers have clean water with effective oversight. If H.J. Res. 27 were to become law, it may have a detrimental effect on the Clean Water Act (CWA), a law that prohibits the discharge of pollutants into our country's rivers and safeguards the quality of our water resources. It's important to prevent this joint resolution in order to maintain the Clean Water Act because the CWA places restrictions on the number of pollutants that can be emitted and mandates that any plant that releases pollutants into US waters acquire a permit. The Clean Water Act also permits the use of federal funding to support the construction and maintenance of water treatment facilities by local governments and other organizations. The Clean Water Act has been an essential tool for preserving the health of US water resources and for ensuring that Americans have access to clean, safe water. By establishing standards, funding infrastructure projects, and promoting monitoring and research activities, the Clean Water Act has been a significant factor in preserving and enhancing Houston's water quality. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, the number of water bodies in the U.S. that are safe for fishing and swimming has increased from 36 percent to over 60 percent. However because to statutory exclusions for routine farming, forestry, and ranching activities as well as for the building and upkeep of farm and stock ponds and irrigation ditches, farmers are mainly exempt from the Clean Water Act's regulatory requirements. Less than 1 percent of all permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are for agricultural purposes. Yet, this resolution will abolish elements of the Biden rule intended to provide farmers further advantages, such as the recodification of the previous converted cropland exclusion and new regulatory exclusions for specific ditches, irrigated regions, such as rice fields and erosional features. Eliminating these agricultural exclusions will increase uncertainty rather than decrease it. In addition, The Biden regulation reinstates the same scientifically based standards that have been used for decades by every presidential administration, including originally the Trump administration. I would like to thank Biden Administration for keeping those rules in place that helps the resident of Houston to have a better water quality and help farmers to maintain the productivity of their land and support sustainable agricultural practices. As a Senior member of the Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res 27 so we may keep defending the water's purity and the health of our citizens.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted but sad but empowered but anguished but yet fulfilled but yet rising but yet encouraged but yet ready to fight this evening. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for her distinguished leadership and friendship. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted as well with the gentleman from Illinois for his shining leadership and transformational changes that are happening in and around his district in Chicago. I am honored to be here with my other colleagues that are here. I thank Chairman Horsford and Chairwoman Beatty, emeritus of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I am honored to again call the Congressional Black Caucus the conscience of the Congress, and, yes, the conscience of the Nation. We can say that because in our midst we have had the Honorable John Lewis. Mr. Speaker, I want to go down memory lane just a bit. As I do so and before I speak to the irony of the connection of the Tennessee Three to the historical record. Does anyone remember the Georgia 33, as we have brought to highlight? There were 33 Black legislators right after the Civil War, 1866 to 1868, proud and standing tall because they had some way of gaining the right to vote and the people there--the freed slaves, after the 13th Amendment was eliminated ending slavery in the United States--our freed slaves could vote. Property owners, as I believe. They elected 33 Black legislators, and they were proud. You could see them with their button-down suits, speaking the best English they could, and fighting for their constituents. That is what we are to do here. Listening to the people and having the ear of their constituents. Yet, within a few moments of their great victory, election to the Georgia Assembly they were expelled, thrown out because of the color of their skin, which began the demise of reconstruction and the Black codes and the horrors of the rage of the Klan and others leading into the 1900s. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of George White who stood on the floor in 1901, who had been drawn out of this Congress, a Member of Congress, and said: The Negro will rise like the phoenix. Then in 1966--I am still stunned--a brilliant young man by the name of Julian Bond was duly-elected by the constituents, he had their ear, and they had his ear. A young man. He had all the willingness to do what was right as an elected member of the Georgia Assembly, and he was expelled for his supporting the fact of the SNCC, the organization that he previously led, indicating that the Vietnam war violated international law. He didn't speak of the soldiers, which I have repeatedly said that our soldiers put on uniforms unselfishly. We never accuse them. They fight and they die. They died in Vietnam from all of our communities from the South to the North to the East to West, from our backyards. But because he expressed a democratic belief, meaning his right to a belief that might have been different, and because of democracy he had the right to speak, he was expelled. Now we come to the fear and the absolute outrage of lack of understanding. I am baffled by the expulsion of the Tennessee Three: Representative Pearson, Representative Jones, and Representative Johnson. All they did was come to hear the cries of America's best, the youth, the children, crying out again: How much more bloodshed can we take? The Congressional Black Caucus has been a leading force joining with our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, let me say this tonight--we come from the same State-- let me just say this. We all tend to oratory, we are passionate and emotional. After all these years and all the deaths of children, can we find even a sense of Congress that will lead us to be able to condemn gun violence as being the number one killer of our children through homicide? The very fact that four children died and other innocent persons in Nashville just a mere couple of weeks ago, I want you to know that I feel personal pain when the news rises up in the early morning hours of what happened the night before, or the weekend, I have a personal pain. My tenure here was a tenure during the assault weapons ban, but in the midst there was Columbine. The numbers showed that they went down, the assault weapon incidences. Now I am living with Sandy Hook. I am living with Parkland, Virginia Tech. I am living with Texas Tech. I am living with any number of those in Texas from the Walmart to the church to Uvalde where I went and talked with the families and went to funerals and cried and wondered why children were dead--19 of them. These young men in Tennessee were walking the pathway of the Georgia 33 and Julian Bond. As history reflects, they did nothing wrong. These three individuals, one who was not expelled, did nothing wrong as well. They were representing their constituents. They were nonviolent. They were in the midst of civil disobedience. They could not be heard. They were on the floor where one could do a lot of things. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled ``The `All Things Being Equal Test' Part II: Blatant Racism in the Tennessee House.'' [From Forbes, Apr 7, 2023] The `All Things Being Equal Test' Part II: Blatant Racism in The Tennessee House (By Susan Harmeling) The shocking but not surprising expulsion of two young Black men by the Tennessee State Legislature while their 60- year-old White colleague was spared ouster despite breaking house rules in the exact same way is a blatant display of racism, pure and simple. It may sound ridiculously obvious, but it needs saying. Representatives Justin Jones and Justin Pearson were clearly kicked out because they are Black, and also supposedly not ``apologetic'' enough for their White, male counterparts who decided to pursue the nuclear option and remove them from office instead of using other, lesser punishments such as censure. Representative Gloria Johnson, who a few days earlier had joined Jones and Pearson in taking to the house floor to demand an assault weapons ban following the slaughter of three little kids in their school, was protected by her whiteness, as she herself publicly stated. This is an important moment in our society as it exposes both an ugly truth and an opportunity for progress. The ugly truth is obvious: two young, Black men in Tennessee--the birthplace of the Ku Klux Klan--were expelled for breaking rules of ``decorum'' while their White colleague who, again, joined them every step of the way still has her job. As Rep. Jones pointed out, there have been only two other expulsions from the Tennessee House in the last 157 years. In l980, a representative was found guilty of accepting a bribe while in office and in 2016, another was expelled over allegations of sexual harassment. Recently, neither an arrest on charges of domestic violence nor admitted child molestation nor alleged urination on the seat of a fellow legislator was enough to warrant these offenders expulsion, but loudly protesting inaction on gun violence after three 9-year-olds are executed--and especially protesting such horror while Black-- was reason enough for a Republican supermajority to take this extreme action. In a particularly repulsive and condescending comment, Rep. Andrew Farmer, R-Seviervi11e, blamed Pearson for throwing a ``temper tantrum with an adolescent bullhorn''. He continued addressing Pearson, ``That yearning for attention, that's what you wanted? Well, you're getting it now.'' Farmer may as well have preceded his ugly rant with the word ``boy'' for good measure. But take heart! Farmer is right in one sense--these young men are clearly going to get attention, just not the kind of attention Farmer was hoping for. This is clearly not the last we have heard from Jones and Pearson, both of whom are extraordinarily talented young legislators and orators. In fact, the Tennessee Republicans picked the wrong targets if they are hoping for this issue to go away. I personally have hope that their strong and powerful voices, particularly on the epidemic of gun violence, will not be silenced by this temporary, unjustified setback. I would like to focus on the opportunity--and more specifically the lesson--that this sorry episode presents. Too often, white people (or any people whose own ``tribe'' acts in such a blatantly racist way) look for alternative explanations for such behavior. But if it walks like racism and quacks like racism, it is racism. Due to our tendency toward homophily, our knee-jerk reaction is to start explaining away the bad behavior of people who look like we do. But we have to stop it. And the best way to stop it is to put the episode through the ``all-things-being-equal'' test (otherwise know as the ``but for'' test), as in, would these young men have been expelled ``but for'' their race? Well, in this case, our answer was served up on a silver platter because Rep. Johnson was spared while her two colleagues lost their seats. Typically, it's a bit more subtle. Would I have been called ``confident'' in teaching evaluations but for my gender? The answer is no, because not one single one of my male counterparts ever saw that adjective on their evaluations. Their confidence was simply assumed. Would Joe Biden have called Barack Obama ``clean and articulate'' but for Obama's race? No, because in the next breath he called him the first ``mainstream African American''. Would a young woman I recently interviewed have been asked by an older male colleague what she was making her boyfriend for dinner had the gender roles been reversed? Again, very doubtful (she swears she doesn't cook and never told this man that she does). Would George Floyd still be here today but for his race? Would a young, Black female former student of mine have been told by her White male boss that she could get promoted more quickly if she just ``told a few more jokes'' ``but for'' her race and gender? You get the idea. . . Assumptions, stereotypes, and the natural human desire to hang around with our ``Amen Choir'' only serve to further divide us and to keep certain members of society from reaching their full potential. I suspect that those conservative, White, male Tennessee legislators would be a lot more comfortable with Reps. Jones and Pearson if they tried harder to conform to their ways of dress, behavior, speech and ``decorum''. In fact, Representative Pearson's previous decision to wear a traditional, African dashiki on the house floor really got some of those guys riled up. But the promise of America is that it is a melting pot where we are called by our better angels to treat all fellow citizens with respect and tolerance. And the punishment for rule-breaking (or law-breaking) should be proportionate to the transgression, and the same for everyone. The quest for fairness in all areas of society, from law to politics to business to our many daily personal interactions, would benefit from the regular application of the all-things-being- equal test--``but for'' the individual's race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc, would things have played out in the same way? In Tennessee, if you're a young, Black male in the statehouse, the answer is clearly no.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I come today to be able to join my colleagues and to again ask for the question of justice and democracy and freedom, and to be able to salute these three. To say that in their name, from Tennessee, now from Alabama where teenagers were murdered, can we not do our work on the floor of the House: from abandoning assault weapons, from passing a sensible storage bill, the Emily Vaughan storage bill, to getting rid of ghost guns, to making red flag laws permanent and not voluntary--because of what happened in Louisville, mental health concerns, and a number of other places. Can we not do this? I simply close with respect to the late Representative John Lewis. I simply close and pay tribute to him, for it was before your tenure, Mr. Speaker, that we did take to the floor of the House to sit with his leadership in the pain of another shooting of children way back during Parkland. We couldn't take it anymore. I wonder if this is not the moment when we can find common ground. I am going to look for my friends on both sides of the aisle to see whether we can find common ground on some form of gun safety legislation. Then I will say to those Tennessee Three what John Lewis said: Never give in, never give out, and never give up. I pay tribute to them and all others who have never given up, never given out, and never given in God bless all of you, and God bless the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, last week, we witnessed acts reminiscent of the extraordinary punitive action against lawmakers that can be traced back in Tennessee's deeply rooted racist history. In fact, the third time since the Civil War era that the Tennessee House has expelled a lawmaker from its ranks and threatens to further inflame the partisan rancor within a bitterly divided state. The silencing of the voices of two Black members for peacefully protesting gun violence is not only racist and anti-democratic, but also morally bankrupt, and out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that we need common sense gun control reforms to save lives. The expulsions of Tennessee State Representative Justin Jones and Representative Justin Pearson--two Black duly elected members representing minority districts--makes clear that racism is alive and well in Tennessee, and in America. If we want to progressively advance as a democracy, we must recognize and acknowledge these ugly truths and work towards eradicating racism when and where it rears its ugly head. These expulsions showcase is a harsh and racist retaliation against Representatives Jones and Pearson because they rightfully supported peaceful student protestors and demanded that the Republican majority in the legislature do more to protect communities against gun violence in the aftermath of the Covenant School shooting. I ask, why have we come this far to achieve progress for our democracy to go backwards? What occurred in the Tennessee Legislature and to our fellow lawmakers was a blow to our democracy. We must be cognizant of that. This should concern every American because the hallmark of a vibrant and healthy democracy is the very thing the Republicans in the Tennessee Legislature shut down: Freedom of Speech. It is hard to ignore the racial dynamic that played out. Its clear race is involved when two Black members were expelled and not the white member for the same alleged offense. Tennessee Speaker Sexton comparing children, parents, teachers and their representatives--who only want children to be safe from gun violence in the classroom--to insurrectionists shows how morally- bankrupt Republicans are in our country. There is absolutely no comparison between that peaceful protest, and the violence in the U.S. Capitol on January 6th. I stand today to acknowledge, support, and engage as much as possible to make sure reinstatement is upheld, equal democracy is demonstrated across all levels of government no matter the party affiliation, and we move forward as a democracy. We must be weary, however, that this extraordinary abuse of power in Tennessee is an ominous sign of what is currently taking place and what may still lie ahead in other state legislatures. These anti-democracy efforts are spreading in red states around the country, including: the Texas State TEA's move to take control of Houston schools, removing the elected school board and superintendent; and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's abuse of power in removing a prosecutor for political reasons. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis abused his power by removing an elected prosecutor because he didn't like his policy positions. A federal judge said DeSantis acted unconstitutionally, but the judge said he did not have the power to reinstate the prosecutor. DeSantis is now considering removing a second prosecutor. And in my home state of Texas, the state Government Education Agency will soon take oversight of the Houston school system away from the elected school board and superintendent. The takeover, an ACLU Texas attorney explains, ``is not about public education but about political control of an almost entirely Black and brown student body in one of the country's most diverse cities.'' Like our ancestors and civil rights legends, we must stand up and push back against these growing, dangerous attacks on our freedoms and democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am here today to voice my strong opposition to H.R. 1--because it will not and never could lower energy costs, and it is not taking the long view of where this Nation must go to reach true energy independence. Too often when policy makers talk about energy there are too many sound bites and not enough balanced common-sense approaches to our Nation's energy future. The economy and energy consumption are critically linked to each other because economic activity requires energy consumption. We all know that the booming economy under President Biden has led to energy demand increases and that the war in Ukraine although far from our shores has impacted global energy supply and as a consequence the price of energy. President Biden took decisive action that has led to the sixth consecutive month of reductions in inflation across the entire economy and includes prices at gas pumps. Democrats who took decisive action in the 117th Congress to take control of United States' energy future made major investments in renewable energy that is creating jobs, lowering the cost of energy and putting American consumers first. The oil and gas industries fueled the economic growth and global success of the United States in the last century and without a doubt bolstered the economy that created the largest middle class in our Nation's history. Oil and gas today and into the near future will continue to play an important role in the Nation's strategic and economic interest well into this century. It is important to note that some of the big wins from the Inflation Reduction Law will be the oil and gas industries, which has made significant investments in renewable energy already. It is a simple fact that the owners and operators of the energy delivery infrastructure in the United States--the pipelines, electric power grids, and gasoline distribution hubs that supply energy to an overwhelming majority of homes and businesses in the United States is not going to change anytime soon. The Inflation Reduction Law included multiple oil and gas leasing reforms to reflect today's pursuit of offshore oil and gas exploration while at the same time incentivizing the pursuit of wind and solar by the oil and gas industry. The Inflation Reduction Law will issue in the Energy Age that will bridge the gap between the old and the new forms of energy that will continue to fuel the American economy. This is not nor should it be viewed a war against the old and new forms of energy but a bridge that will allow a smooth transition to the many facets of energy provision that will mean prosperity and jobs, while providing low-cost affordable energy for all people. My greatest concern is that H.R. 1, if it becomes law, would roll back, important reforms by lowering royalty rates, repealing interest fees, and reinstating noncompetitive leasing. H.R. 1 rubber-stamps the construction of new natural gas pipelines-- which is already frighteningly easy--while shutting every agency, apart from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, out of the review process. Natural gas is a viable and important component of energy security for the United States, but its extraction, processing, and delivery to consumers does come with risks. Natural gas in its raw form is odorless and colorless--an odor is added so that people can detect its presence and respond to the threat before it is too late. It is important that safeguards remain in place regarding exploration to protect gas field workers and people who may be in the vicinity of exploration activities. H.R. 1, also poses risks to the United States strategic interest because it removes the requirement that Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports be determined to be in the public interest before being sent overseas, tearing down guardrails that prevent our adversaries from purchasing more of our energy to use against us. H.R. 1 poses risks to our national parks and public treasures because it would bypass the local and public interest in national lands by allowing oil and gas lease sales even if there is no national interest to support approval of the sale of mineral leases on these lands. The sale of leases on land that is owned by the American people should solely be in the interest of the people of the United States and this can be determined by identifying that there are no nonpublic sources of oil and gas to meet demand. The Nation is on the road toward a smooth transition to other forms of energy to complement its use of oil and gas that will result in a balance of energy options for a more stable, more affordable, and reliable energy supply. The Nation's current mining law is over 150 years old and does need updating, but it should be done so with all stakeholders at the table with a win-win approach. H.R. 1 makes this dangerous status quo worse. H.R. 1 allows mining on public land and the dumping of toxic mining waste as the ``highest and best use'' of those lands, which means the lands will not be suitable for a return to public use without a significant investment by taxpayers to cleanup and restore it to a natural state. I am not saying that all mining or exploration companies will follow the letter of the law--in H.R. 1 should it become law, but if only a few mining leases leave mining waste on public land and are so reckless as to not restore land to its original state the damage would be significant. H.R. 1 would also allow extraction of valuable minerals without paying the owners of the land--the American people in strict violation of every principle of oil and gas leasing. Private property owners who lease for oil and gas exploration expect to be compensated for the lease of their land--the American taxpayer should not expect any less from the lease of their public land held by the Federal government. Letting mining companies continue to extract valuable minerals from public lands without paying anything to the American people is establishing a dangerous precedent for private landowners with minerals, oil, or gas--one that I am sure the people in Texas, Alaska and other high exploration states would take offense over. To date, mining companies--many of which are foreign-owned--have already extracted an estimated $300 billion in minerals from public lands and caused untold damage, without paying a single dime to American taxpayers. H.R. 1 does nothing to improve tribal consultation, even though the vast majority of minerals needed for clean energy are located within 35 miles of tribal lands. The Nation is in the process of transitioning from primary relying on oil and as as a source of energy to alternative sources. The transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources will depend heavily on the adoption of critical minerals. Our Nation's clean energy transition will require new minerals, but mining must not come at the cost of our health, our environment, or our special places. I am very committed to--making sure that the emergence and adoption of new energy sources does not leave environmental victims along the way. I am aware of one company, Critical Mineral Refining (CMR) of Houston Texas, that has made environmentally sound extraction, transporting and mining of critical minerals its core mission. CMR's process has been certified by the Environmental Protection Agency as environmentally nuetral technology--which means that there is no harm to the water, soil, or air. Today, as we work to bring new forms of energy to the marketplace and because there are technologies that are cleaner and safer to conduct energy extraction, transportation, and refining these approaches should be adopted as industry standards. The application of this knowledge to critical minerals will prevent sickness, accidents, and deaths due to antiquated approaches to mining and refining being applied to rare earth minerals that are needed in solar and wind energy production. The extraction, transport, and refining of critical minerals could increase sixfold by 2050, according to one scenario by the International Energy Agency. Industries, consumers, and the nation needs to prepare for the boom that is coming from the emergence of critical minerals into the marketplace. By value this market could surpass $400 billion, exceeding the value of all of the coal extracted in 2020. We must reform our outdated mining system to raise the bar for mining both in the U.S. and across the globe in preparation for this new entrant into the energy marketplace. Helping critical minerals emerge and guarding its orderly introduction into our commercial sectors is a major objective of the United States to minimize externalities that often accompany extraction-based enterprises that too often rely upon complex global supply chains. The city of Houston--through Hurricane Harvey's flood waters, Winter Storm Uri's electric grid failures, and other climatic events has experienced the early effects of the climate crisis. Critical infrastructure like the electric grid and water systems must be resilient enough to withstand extreme weather events. This is only the beginning, but it is not too late to get the nation and the economy on the right track to combat the most potent threat to our national economy--climate related weather changes. Climate related weather change cost the U.S. $169.8 billion last year--a $14 billion increase from 2021 and a $55 billion increase from 2020. All the data shows us that the climate crisis is worsening. If Republicans cared about the economy as much as they claim, they would invest in science-based, clean energy solutions. Rolling back of the IRA will have severe consequences, costing the U.S. trillions in economic growth and hundreds of thousands of dollars in jobs. Climate related weather change is the culprit of natural disasters across the U.S. that have killed nearly 3,800 people and caused significant structural damage. In 2022, U.S. wildfires caused by extreme drought and rising temperatures burned a record number of acres and surpassed the 10-year average. Last week, a new UN report found that the world will be unable to limit global wanning by 1.5 degrees Celsius by the early 2030's. The report also found that global average temperatures could warm by 3.2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century causing seven feet of sea level rise by the end do the century. Clean energy, joining the contribution of legacy energy sources, is the future for our workforce sector. Despite fossil fuel production rising by 33 percent since 2014, employment in the fossil fuel industry has declined 34 percent since 2014. Through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, House Democrats are creating nearly 360,000 jobs by the end of this year and 660,000 jobs by the end of 2025. H.R. 1 masquerades as ``energy security'' when in reality it only sets the stage for actions by less responsible oil and gas energy providers to put at risk communities that may face higher risks for chemical disasters, more toxic air, more unsafe drinking water, and substantially weaker environmental and public health protections. The bill also blocks lawsuits from anyone who did not participate in public comment periods (which are also shortened by the bill). H.R. 1 is drafted so broadly that it exempts all so-called ``critical energy resource'' facilities--such as petroleum refineries that release air toxics like benzene and use hydrofluoric acid linked to catastrophic chemical disasters--from commonsense Clean Air Act and hazardous waste permitting requirements. It also shamelessly grants these facilities amnesty for any violations of federal, state, or local environmental law. H.R. 1 completely erodes the new chemicals review process under the bipartisan Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), allowing new chemicals--even PFAS--on the market without any consideration of safety. Chemicals in the wrong hands can be weapons that are used to wreak havoc in unsuspecting communities, which can pose threats to homeland security. Because of these concerns both Republicans and Democrats joined efforts to pass the bipartisan basis in the 2016 TSCA reform law. The only ``permitting reform'' in H.R. 1 is the gutting of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a bulwark within federal law governing agency regulations of activities that directly impact people to provide meaningful oversight of processes that pose risks to life, health, safety, community welfare and vulnerable persons that include children, the elderly, the disabled and minorities. As industry representatives have already said, this attack on NEPA will not help accelerate the energy projects we need; less than 1 percent of projects even go through NEPA's full, detailed environmental review. One important point to note to people on both sides of the debate-- major oil and gas producers do not hate all regulations--they depend on regulations to keep bad actors and poor command and control processes from putting the environment or communities at risk. Every time there is an accident involving oil, gas, or chemical processes it puts every company and refiner under the spotlight regardless of the work that has been done and continues to be done to get the job right for the environment, workers, and communities. H.R. 1 weakens enforcement of nearly all environmental and public health laws by dramatically limiting the statute of limitations for unlawful permit decisions--like those required by the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act--to 120 days. Limiting public comment is stopping communities from learning about and communicating their views on government permitting activity--that would like result in actions not in the public interest. Federal regulatory process delays are caused by a lack of agency resources and staff capacity. Fortunately, Democrats already passed more than $1 billion in the IRA for federal agency permitting offices, which will address this issue and is expected to drastically shrink the timelines for permitting. H.R. 1 codifies the reckless, extreme Trump-era NEPA regulations, which were widely opposed by House Democrats, into law. These changes prohibit agencies from properly considering climate change and the cumulative impacts of multiple sources of pollution in permitting decisions, among other bad provisions. H.R. 1 arbitrarily shortens public comment periods for environmental reviews under NEPA and even allows polluters to conduct their own reviews, creating an obvious conflict of interest. It also requires that these reviews ``meet the goals of the [project] applicant,'' instead of the public's interest. Outside of NEPA, H.R. 1 allows the owners and operators of ``critical energy recourse facilities'' to bypass public health and environmental safety standards built into the permitting process, directly endangering the safety of the workers and communities near these facilities. H.R. 1 also undermines Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which empowers states and Tribes to holistically protect their lakes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water from development. Native people have and continue to be guardian of the land, water, and air whose rights on tribal land must be respected. Energy independence is within our grasp--and so is cleaner, water, air, and soil. We should not treat the environment or people as if they are expendable. To meet this challenge of energy independence, we must stay the course of the Inflation Reduction Law and move ahead in modernizing and increasing the capacity of federal permitting offices, and reform the transmission planning and cost allocation process.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in a Budget Committee hearing yesterday, I could not restrain my pain to raise the question of three little babies and three adults killed in Nashville with assault weapons. Does anyone know the costliness--over $200 billion of gun violence in America. I raised that in the Budget Committee because the witnesses were trying to blame all of the deficit on President Biden. I believe in a balanced budget for States and cities like Houston. We can do that. Please understand that the Federal Government is the umbrella on a rainy day. A disaster in Mississippi--the Federal Government comes. A disaster in Ohio, in East Palestine--the Federal Government comes. Raging hurricanes--the Federal Government comes. Raging fires. As a member of the Budget Committee, I can assure you we will look to the President's $6.7 trillion budget, but we are looking to also bring down the deficit as we responsibly need to do. I will not support eliminating Medicare payments for those who need it, Social Security payments for those who need it, education funding that the Federal Government does through Pell grants, climate change dollars, or being able to ensure that we are the umbrella on a rainy day. The budget of the American people must respond to the American people. We will get the right budget and lift the debt ceiling.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. You know what? We hoped, coming from an energy State, that we could do this bipartisan. H.R. 1 goes off on a tangent that even union members are questioning. If you want to know what the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers would like, they would like us to be bipartisan and to get a framework to strengthen and to get reliable Federal permitting so that we can continue to have jobs. Even those who believe in parks, like I do, would like a permitting process that works and protects our parks. But if we look at this, what we will be doing is just giving people a blank slip, and they can do whatever they want to do in America's precious parks. That is not where we want to be. I am grateful for the idea that we want to build our economy, but we cannot build our economy on environmental disasters which are happening around the Nation: the 2008 coal ash spill in Tennessee, the 2014 water crisis in Flint, the concealed 2022 radioactive spill in Minnesota, the tragedy with the tornado in Mississippi, and the train chemical spill and fire in Ohio. It is clear that we need to do something together, but this is not it. H.R. 1 will, in fact, impact our environment by taking away the requirements for waste produced by certain energy facilities. It will undermine the Toxic Substances Control Act by short-circuiting the review and approval process for new chemicals. It will also allow the EPA administrator to circumvent the scientific process of approving or denying flexible permitting. That is not what our workers want us to do. In addition, we find that the Federal Government recognizes that this is not working. In his statement to veto, the President acknowledges that this would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates, roll back historic investments to increase access to low-cost energy. Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad and increase profits by those who already have profits. What about our health? What about our children? H.R. 1 is not bipartisan. It needs to be a compromise, working with all of us to create jobs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, a nightmare, a day of horror, and one that prayers and sympathy cannot quash the deep and piercing pain that the parents of these babies in an elementary school, a Christian school in Nashville, had to experience this morning at 10 a.m., and the loved ones of the adults that suffered an untimely death. How long is this Congress going to diddle-daddle around? How long are we going to be divided over the reality that a 28-year- old who went to the school had two AR-15s and a handgun? Oh, there is always the talk about the Second Amendment. I honor the Second Amendment, but I do not honor the violence of an assault weapon. How many more babies can we lose? How many more stories like Uvalde can we tolerate? How many more parents, whose children's lives are just going to be snatched from them, are going to walk around like zombies? It is time now to ban the assault weapons. Ban them now. It is time to address mental health issues in a larger way. It is time for this Congress to come together. It is time to stop the nightmare and to stop the horror. How many more parents have to cry over dead babies? Ban assault weapons and do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his leadership on a very important topic this evening that brings us all together. I thank Congresswoman Cori Bush for the vibrancy, along with Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, in the organizing of the ERA Caucus. It is important that we work together to ensure that the equal rights amendment becomes law. I am reminded of my entering Congress. I don't know if anyone would realize that there was a statue for suffragette women, women in the early 1900s who were seeking the women's right to vote. Even earlier than that, Sojourner Truth, who we galvanized around, with the National Congress for Black Women, to provide an opportunity for Sojourner Truth to even have a statue here as an early suffragette and abolitionist. When I came, the statue honoring women, who fought for women's rights and the right to vote, was in the basement. It was women, Members of the House and the Senate, who had to organize and fight to lift that very awesome sculpture out of the basement, covered by dust, to be able to be put in the rotunda. We still have work undone, because it was a half-finished sculpture. African-American women argued that they did not have Sojourner Truth in that statue, who was an abolitionist and leader on women's rights. We did it through legislation, myself and Senator Clinton, we did, in fact, get a statue sculptured by an African-American woman of Sojourner Truth, she now remains in Emancipation Hall, and our task is not yet finished to be able to place her in the rotunda along with the other statues. I say that to say that this Caucus, this announcement, couldn't be more important, and the reason is because Black women were very instrumental in having the loudest voices; realizing even then that Black women had the lowest hourly wage, Black women were still domestic workers, Black women were not, in fact, equal in many aspects of the law. Pauli Murray, who I honor; Shirley Chisholm, Flo Kennedy, all of whom I remember and know, and Barbara Jordan, are a few of the prominent Black women who have advocated for the equal rights amendment in the 1970s. Many Black organizations endorsed the ERA, including the National Black Feminist Organization, the NAACP, and the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. A 1970s Gallup poll showed that 60 percent of Black women wanted the ERA. This has been a long history. There is a long history of activism that Black women and women of color in support of women's rights and the ERA, stated by historian and professor of Africana studies, Dr. Mary Phillips. Today, Black women still play a critical role in pushing for the ERA. In three States, to recently ratify the ERA, Black women were at the forefront. Nevada Senator Pat Spearman led a successful campaign for the ratification of the ERA in her State in 2017, and Representative Juliana Stratton made extensive floor speeches in support of the ERA in Illinois. As well, Jennifer McClellan led the successful effort to ratify the ERA in Virginia, finally bringing the total ratification of the ERA to 38 States required to become part of the Constitution. And yet, we did not make our mark. Yet, we have more work to do. Yet, we are struggling to ensure that in 2023 Black women will have equal rights in the court. Black women will have equal rights in healthcare. Black women will have equal rights in education. Black women will have equal rights in the issue of sexual assaults and rape when women are charged with agreeing or consent, which is not true. Equal rights to be heard. Equal rights in work. Equal rights in payments. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my colleagues, and really to acknowledge these brave and historic women. I am so proud that my predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, was one of those who stood regally tall along with the first African-American woman in the United States Congress, Shirley Chisholm. Of course, who could forget Flo Kennedy wearing those hats. Who could forget feminist and civil rights advocate Pauli Murray, who testified for the equal rights amendment at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 1970. In her testimony, Murray drew up upon her own experience of race and sex, and these are her words: ``Although my motivation, energy, and effort to meet the highest standards of performance have been operative throughout my life, I have experienced numerous delays in my career, not for the traditional reasons given for the failure of women to develop on par with men in our society (marriage, childbearing, et cetera), but by a combination of individual and institutional racism and sexism--Jim Crow and June Crow.'' As a constitutional lawyer, a woman, and a Black person, I can say with conviction that Black women, as a group, have the most to gain from the adoption of the equal rights amendment. All that has been said about the frustration and deprivations of American women, generally because of discrimination by reason of sex, can be said with special force about the position of Black women. My concluding remarks--maybe she didn't call herself a fighter for the ERA, but Harriet Tubman was a fighter for justice and took slaves out of the Deep South. Her words were this: If you hear the dogs coming, keep on moving. If you hear the noise, keep on moving. If you see the lights, keep on moving. Because if you want a taste of freedom, keep on moving. Tonight we stand here for freedom and the equal rights amendment. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a timeline of the equal rights movement. 1840: Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton are barred from attending the World Anti-Slavery Convention held in London. They decide to hold a Women's Convention in the U.S. 1850: Massachusetts, is the site of the first National Women's Rights Convention. Frederick Douglass, Paulina Wright Davis, William Lloyd Garrison, Lucy Stone, and Sojourner Truth attend. A strong alliance is formed with the Abolitionist Movement. 1851: At a women's rights convention in Akron, Ohio, Sojourner Truth, a former slave, delivers her speech, ``Ain't I a woman?''. 1870: The Fifteenth Amendment gave Black men the right to vote. The National Woman's Suffrage Association refused to work for its ratification. Frederick Douglass broke with Stanton and Anthony over this position. 1890: The National Woman Suffrage Association and the American Woman Suffrage Association, merged to formally expand the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA). NAWSA focused on enfranchisement solely for white women. 1913: The Alpha Suffrage Club was founded, with Ida B. Wells as one of the co-founders and leaders, this is believed to be the first African-American women's suffrage association in the United States. 1920: Three quarters of the state legislatures ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. 1940: Jim Crow laws such as poll taxes and literacy tests are enacted, designed to keep Black citizens from voting. 1965: 500 activists march from Selma to Montgomery, AL to demand voting rights for Black citizens. They are brutally attacked by law enforcement. 1965: President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act into law. 2011: Record numbers of state restrictions are enacted on voting, including voter ID laws and restrictions to early voting. 2013: The Supreme Court strikes down the heart of the Voting Rights Act by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing states to change their election laws. The first Equal Rights Amendment was drafted by the National Women's Party in 1921 to enshrine equality for women in the Constitution. Fifty-one years later, the Equal Rights Amendment won the requisite two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives and passed the Senate. In 2020, Virginia became the thirty-eighth state to vote in favor of the ERA, but whether the ERA has accordingly been ratified remains politically and legally contested. Since 2013, Black Lives Matter has been a global social movement advocating against anti-Black racism and state-sanctioned violence, including but not limited to police brutality against Black men and women. The movement has attracted broad participation by non-Black activists and lawmakers following the police murder of George Floyd. Suffrage in America: The 15th and 19th Amendments During the 19th and 20th centuries, Black women played an active role in the struggle for universal suffrage. Who got the right to vote when? August 18, 2020 marked 100 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution granting women the right to vote. However, obstacles like poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory state voting laws would keep Black women (and men) disenfranchised for a further 45 years. Black Women Had to Fight for the Right to Vote on Two Fronts They were suffragists combating both racism and sexism long after the 19th Amendment was passed. Women of color were crucial to women's suffrage--it's time we acknowledge them. Wagner, who is behind books such as Women's Suffrage Anthology and Sisters in Spirit, has for almost 30 years studied the Haudenosaunee (or the Iroquois) influence on the early feminist movements. More to the Movement While Seneca Falls is considered the first American convention to focus exclusively on women's rights, the first convention to consider women's rights as an issue was the May 9, 1837, Anti-Slavery Convention of American Women in New York City.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I include in the Record the following letter from First Focus Campaign for Children in opposition to H.R. 5. First Focus, Washington, DC, March 20, 2023. Hon. Julia Letlow, Member, House Education & Workforce Cmte, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, House Education & Workforce Cmte, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, House Ed & Workforce Cmte, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal budget and policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored but important rights of children. Parental Engagement Is Critical First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and involved in the education of their children. In fact, children have better outcomes when their parents are involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged with my children's schools by voting in school board elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences, volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to meet with teachers and administrators when important issues arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools. In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step- mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for each and every one of their students. Again, we strongly support parental engagement in education, but parents should not control all curriculum and educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable. For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents believe the earth is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to overrule a physician's decision that a child with a concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the words ``spinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because they are too ``scary of words,'' 41 don't like the bus routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these demands by some parents and many of them are completely false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would seek to push their accommodation in some form. The Real Parents Agenda for Children We must all do better by our kids. By an overwhelming 77-11% margin, a May 2022 poll by Lake Research Partners found that parents believe ``policy involving children should always be governed by a `best interest of the child' standard.'' By a 60-19% margin, the American people believe we are spending too little as opposed to too much on public education. And when it comes in investing in children, 9-in-10 voters (90-7%) agreed with the statement that ``investing in children helps improve their lives, development, and outcomes.'' When it comes to children's policy overall, a nationwide survey by Global Strategy Group in February 2023 found that American voters have strong priorities in favor of ``creating more effective childcare options for all families'' (87-8 percent), expanding family and medical leave'' (82-12 percent), bringing back the improved Child Tax Credit (76-13 percent), and ``expanding universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds'' (73-16 percent). The support for this agenda stands in sharp contrast to the opposition that American voters express to an agenda that would call for ``passing legislation banning transgender-focused health care options for young Americans'' (41-47 percent), ``banning books that some parents find to have questionable content'' (32-57 percent), and ``banning high school classes like AP African- American history'' (21-68 percent). Children Have Fundamental Rights Too Before diving into the details of H.R. 5, it is important to acknowledge that children need the support BY parents and government to be successful, and that they also sometimes need protection FROM parents and government. The fact is that children have unique and fundamental human rights that should not be ignored or dismissed. These include the right to an education, the right to health care, the right to be protected from abuse and violence at home and in schools, the right to be protected from gun violence and school shootings, the right to not be discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity, gender (including gender identity and sexual orientation), economic status, disability, religion, immigration status, or age. As for parental rights and H.R. 5's attempts to modify the Protection of Pupil Rights Act (PPRA) and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), it is important to highlight that PPRA was originally enacted nearly 50 years ago (in 1974) and has been modified several times, including in 1978, 1994, and 2002, in order to broaden access and consent requirements. H.R. 5 Adds New Bureaucracy to Schools and Detracts from the Time, Attention, and Funding Dedicated to Students While the impetus for aspects of H.R. 5 are well- intentioned, our first concern is that the language is duplicative of language already in federal law, policies in state law, and general practice by school districts all across this country in many respects but also potentially adds new bureaucracy and red tape to schools and school districts all across this for no apparent benefit. Unfortunately, these proposed changes may potentially harm children. Any funding, time, and attention that is shifted away from students and their learning toward added bureaucracy and red tape can be detrimental to students. But H.R. 5 provides no funding to address the many newly imposed bureaucratic requirements upon schools. For example, H.R. 5 proposes new reporting requirements for schools to include in their ``local educational agency report card'' a budget that is detailed ``for each elementary school and secondary school served by the local educational agency.'' Requiring detailed accounting of costs, some of which are shared across school campuses (e.g., school nurses, bus drivers, etc.), for the more than 90,000 public schools across this country will likely greatly increase the employment of accountants. However, H.R. 5 does not provide funding to pay for such a mandate. Before proceeding, we should acknowledge that this newly-imposed mandate detracts from the funding, time, and attention school districts and educators have for improving the education and well-being of children. First Focus Campaign for Children supports tracking funding that is allocated for children's programs as a share of government spending, and thus, annually produce a Children's Budget that analyzes the funding of more than 250 federal programs. We share this report with Congress to raise the awareness and transparency of funding for children. However, we would urge Congress to focus as many of those dollars as possible on the children themselves and not on excessive accounting and reporting measures that consume much of the attention and focus of H.R. 5. H.R. 5 Promotes Book Bans Rather Than Access to Books and Reading Another important concern is language from Sec. 104 and Sec. 202 that would require schools to share with all parents of students at every school ``a list of books and other reading materials available to the students of such school in the school library.'' Again, compiling, cataloging, and sharing such information to all parents would come at great time and expense that is not paid for by H.R. 5. That money and time would come at the expense of librarians and other educators focused on the education of children. Parents already have the right to visit their child's school and its library, to request such information, and to ask their own children what they are learning and reading in school. Rather than adding the burdens of more bureaucracy and red tape to schools and creating a chilling effect through increasing incidences of censorship and book bans, we should be working together to pass legislation to encourage students to read and learn through greater access to books, such as Reach Out and Read, First Book, Reading Is Fundamental, and other literacy programs. An individual parent should not solely be allowed to object to a book and cause its censorship for all of the children in a school or school district. This violates the parental rights of the vast majority of parents who do not support book bans or censorship. Even more importantly, it violates the fundamental rights of children. As Justice Abe Fortas wrote in his majority opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969): Students in school as well as out of school are ``persons'' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State . . . In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. Justice Fortas adds: It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. In the Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), the Court ruled that children have a fundamental right to an education and access to learning that is not limited by the censorship of books based on ``narrowly partisan or political'' grounds. As Justice William Brennan writes: Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus, whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decisions, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. H.R. 5 Threatens Access to Health Care, Privacy, and Confidentiality of Students Concern about access to health care for our children leads us to oppose the language in H.R. 5 with respect to school health. There were more than 4 million children in this country that were uninsured in 2020. In 2016, the Children's Health Fund estimated that over 20 million children lacked ``sufficient access to essential health care.'' Therefore, the role of school based health clinics, school nurses, school counselors, coaches, social workers, and physical trainers in schools is critically important to the health, education, and well-being of children. The language in H.R. 5 appears to dramatically expands the potential incidences in which all of these school personnel would have to seek out parental notification and consent prior to performing care, such as to check whether a student has a fever, has an ankle sprain, may have experienced a concussion, or need to check for a possible broken bone. In many cases, these may not be considered emergencies, but in the meantime, children languish or must wait while school personnel spend large amounts of time trying to track down parents for consent. In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the House Education and Workforce Committee majority write, ``Americans should never be forced to relinquish these parental rights to government-- whether that involves curriculum decisions or personal medical choices'' (emphasis added). We strongly disagree. First, such a statement would threaten the health, safety, and lives of some children in our country. For example, based on that statement, does the Committee majority reject the ability of schools to set graduation requirements? Oppose the teaching of evolution? Allow parents to send children to school even if they are vomiting, have a fever, diarrhea, or have a communicable disease? Does the Committee majority now oppose school vaccine mandates? School concussion protocols? Even more fundamentally, the sweeping statement in the Committee report would seemingly reject actions by government to protect the lives of children, such as that by a Hillsborough County judge in Florida who ruled in 2019 that a 3-year-old should continue chemotherapy treatment at Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital at the advice and consent of doctors rather than the parents desire to stop cancer treatment and use ``other methods such as an alkaline diet and cannabis.'' At its extreme, parental rights are granted in virtually all matters related to the health of their children in Idaho, including the use of faith healing rather than medical treatment. This has resulted in tragic health outcomes, including the death of children. The Washington Post reported in 2018 that, ``Child advocates estimate that 183 Idaho children have died because of withheld medical treatment since states across the nation enacted faith-healing exemptions in the early 1970s.'' We urge the Committee majority to reconsider its language, as it raises grave concerns about the role some parents have played in decisions to impose female genital mutilation, conversion ``therapy,'' rebirthing ``therapy,'' certain types of involuntary institutionalization of children, seclusion and restraint, forced sterilization of children with disabilities, and other harmful or detrimental ``personal medical choices.'' On this last point, there are also very troubling stories in which some parents bought into an array of false or dangerous treatment for autism that included ``industrial bleach. . ., turpentine or their children's own urine as the secret miracle drug for reversing autism.'' We would hope that everyone would agree that children should be protected-- by government--from that. We also support the affirmative right of children to seek out health care services in schools and, when requested, to have their privacy and confidentiality respected. And for decades, so has Congress. In fact, some of the language being amended by H.R. 5 comes from the Protection of Pupil Rights Act. Therefore, for a student that seeks out a medical professional at school and desires privacy and confidentiality, we strongly urge that the request be respected. As Abigail English and Dr. Carol Ford explain in The Journal of Pediatrics, confidentiality and privacy is critically important to adolescents: Decades of research findings have documented the ways in which privacy concerns influence adolescents' willingness to seek healthcare, where and when they seek care, and how candid they are with their healthcare providers. In the absence of confidentiality protections, some adolescents forego care entirely, some delay care or avoid visiting providers they perceive as not assuring confidentiality, and some limit the information they are willing to disclose.'' The authors highlight an important reality: Not all adolescents have parents who are available, willing, and able to communicate with them about sensitive issues, and not all adolescents are willing to share information about all sensitive health issues with their parents. In this context, confidential consultation with a healthcare provider can play an essential role. Eliciting candid information about adolescent concerns, health behaviors, and symptoms clearly increases clinicians' opportunities to address concerns, provide evidence-based prevention and risk-reduction counseling, and ensure timely diagnosis and treatment. With potentially tragic consequences, H.R. 5 appears to undermine the affirmative rights of young people to seek out or health care providers for suicide prevention, mental health, substance abuse, asthma, infectious diseases, or other health care services without schools first obtaining written parental consent. Furthermore, H.R. 5 is silent on the matter of when parents may disagree over consent and the default should never be that kids are denied or left to languish with respect to access to essential services that are important to their health, well-being, and safety. School Personnel Should Not Be Subjected to Threats, Intimidation, or Violence Finally, although we often do not comment on language that expresses the Sense of Congress, language in Sec. 105 argues that ``[e]ducators, policymakers, and other stakeholders should never seek to criminalize the lawfully expressed concerns of parents about their children's education.'' While we agree with that sentiment, it should also be said that parents should never bully, threaten, dox, or seek to intimidate educators, teachers, and even students themselves. The numerous stories of threats, violence, and efforts to intimidate school board members, administrators, teachers, and even students is disturbing and should never be considered acceptable. In fact, many examples of threats, intimidation, and violent behavior cited in footnote 16 would never be tolerated if such behaviors were conducted by children. Kids would be punished and even arrested for far less. Furthermore, I would highlight that H.R. 5 would require such violent behavior ``on school grounds or at school-sponsored activities'' to be reported to parents (Sec. 104). Would that also include reporting violent acts of parents on school grounds or at school-sponsored activities, such as those cited in footnote 16, to all other parents in the school district? On this point, we should all be deeply concerned about what message adults engaging in such behaviors are sending to our children. Our children are watching and listening, and it is sad that so many adults are trying to make education all about themselves rather than keeping the focus on the education, needs, and well-being of children. H.R. 5 should not promote such behavior. In the report accompanying H.R. 5, the Committee majority cite the ``Nicole Solas's story'' as a ``prime example of how school administrators can stonewall even the most basic attempts to uncover what children are being taught.'' Left unsaid is that Solas and her husband filed over 300 Access to Public Records Act (APRA) requests with multiple requests within each individual request that the school district estimated would take nearly 5,000 hours at enormous cost to the schools and to taxpayers (and again, time and money diverted away from serving children). These requests included demands for all emails, personnel records related to individual teachers, and records that contain personal information, including the home addresses and medical information of numerous teachers and educators in the school system. Also left unsaid is that Rhode Island's APRA explicitly protects the disclosure of information about ``individuals maintained in the files of public bodies when disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'' This is an important fact that should not be ignored. One APRA request could have asked for the curriculum, as Solas claimed that she wanted, but that was accompanied with hundreds of other requests: many of which would invade of personal privacy of targeted teachers and other educators in schools. We would urge the Committee to not try to make Solas the ``poster adult'' for parental engagement. She is not. Furthermore, Congress should be more discerning with respect to the types of behaviors that it finds acceptable. Supreme Court Justice Warren Berger explains, ``Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences. In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate.'' For example, Congress would not allow the behaviors exhibited in footnote 16 to take place as it attempts to conduct its own congressional business. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect school boards and educators to subject themselves to extremely unproductive behavior as cited in footnote 16 when Congress would never tolerate the same. Threats of violence and intimidation are threats to democracy. Instead, Congress should promote discourse and civility. Again, we strongly support the critical importance that parents have in the upbringing and education of their children. Unfortunately, we believe there is language in H.R. 5 that would prove to be unnecessarily detrimental to the education, health, privacy, and well-being of children. We urge you to go back to the drawing board and work with educational and child and family organizations to improve and rebalance the focus of this legislation, and to remember that children have fundamental rights too. Rather than a self-centered agenda focused upon parents, the vast majority of parents really want what is best for their children. They do not accept that, as a nation, the U.S. ranks 36th out of 38 wealthy nations on measures of child well-being. They demand that we do better by children. That should be all of our focus. As such, parents are far more interested and focused on improving education, child health, and reducing child poverty, hunger, and homelessness than book bans, censorship, the whitewashing of history and science, and the excessive filing of numerous records requests for personal and confidential information about school teachers. Let's work together toward those goals. Sincerely, Bruce Lesley, President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to adhere to the protocols of the floor. If I did not, I would shout from the rooftops as a mother and a happy grandmother that I champion parental rights and parents. I am happy to have been one and to continue to be one, and I view parenthood and parents' rights as cherished rights. Not one Democrat here would argue against that principle. In fact, there is no doubt that we, as Democrats, have fought for parents and their rights. Child tax credits should now be made permanent, taking care of additional childcare for those parents who are burdened, and for those who need housing, investing more so that children have roofs over their heads, as well as ensuring that no one is left alone looking for housing. Why I cannot support H.R. 5 is not because of my championing parents' rights. Before I came here from Houston, I was with parents, fighting against the devastating takeover by a Republican Governor and State education commissioner of a school district that has a rating of B. I am against undermining nutrition in schools. That is in this bill. I am against undermining vulnerable children, such as transgender children. I am against banning books, such as a book about a Black astrologist, a scientist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or the story of a man ultimately of peace who brought South Africa together, Nelson Mandela. Banned books, I am against that. I am against it because I want to make sure that parents want to have involvement in what their children learn. I am against not wanting to hear the words of Elie Wiesel about the Holocaust. He said: ``I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation.'' Don't we want our children to be kind? Don't we want our children to know that slavery was wrong, as I fight against slavery today that still exists? Don't we want our children to understand the basis of all of our history, the mosaic of this Nation and African-American history? Don't we want teachers to get the salaries that they deserve? Don't we want to make sure that it is important, if you will, to ensure that our school buildings are repaired? That is why I include in the Record the First Focus letter. First Focus Campaign for Children, Washington, DC, March 20, 2023. Hon. Julia Letlow, Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Chair, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Bobby Scott, Ranking Member, Committee on Education & the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Letlow, Speaker McCarthy, Leader Jeffries, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking Member Scott: I am writing on behalf of First Focus Campaign for Children, a bipartisan children's advocacy organization dedicated to making children and families a priority in federal budget and policy decisions, to express opposition to H.R. 5, the Parents Bill of Rights Act. We do not believe this bill strikes the right balance between the duties of schools, the rights and responsibilities of parents, and the oft-ignored but important rights of children. Parental Engagement Is Critical First, let's be clear: Parents are fundamental to the upbringing of children and absolutely should be engaged and involved in the education of their children. In fact, children have better outcomes when their parents are involved. As a parent of four children myself, I have engaged with my children's schools by voting in school board elections, attending all parent-teacher conferences, volunteering in my children's classrooms, scheduling time to meet with teachers and administrators when important issues arise, serving on the PTAs at my children's schools, serving on athletic booster clubs, and volunteering as an assistant boys and girls basketball coach for two county schools. In addition to my personal experiences, I have learned a great deal over the years from both of my parents, my step- mother, step-brother, my uncle, and several cousins, who are all educators. Consequently, I have immense respect for the work, talent, dedication, and concern that the vast majority of teachers and educators bring to their profession on a daily basis--all with the goal of educating our nation's children to best achieve their hopes and dreams while also trying to provide a place of safety and compassion for each and every one of their students. Again, we strongly support parental engagement in education, but parents should not control all curriculum and educational decisions. Doing so is unworkable. For example, imagine an elementary school of 500 students where 12 parents oppose the teaching of evolution, 8 parents believe the early is flat, 21 are Holocaust deniers, 14 oppose learning about slavery, 7 believe in racial segregation, 17 believe in the concept of schools without walls, 27 believe in corporal punishment, 12 want Harry Potter books to be banned, 25 want books banned that mention the Trail of Tears, 31 believe parents should be allowed to overrule a physician's decision that a child with a concussion should refrain from participating in sports, 39 oppose keeping kids out of school when they have the flu, 4 believe that a child with cancer might be contagious, 34 believe students should be ``tracked'' in all subject areas, 12 believe students should not be taught how to spell the words ``sinal tap'', ``quarantine'', or ``isolation'' because they are too ``scary of words,'' 41 don't like the bus routes, 45 want a vegan-only lunchroom, 4 demand same-sex classrooms, etc. Even though most parents oppose these demands by some parents and many of them are completely false, undermine the purpose of education, threaten the safety of children, or promote discrimination, H.R. 5 would seek to push their accommodation in some form.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a March 7, 2023 letter to President Biden and Secretary Miguel Cardona. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, March 7, 2023. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dr. Miguel Cardona, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, Washington, DC. CC: Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Lyndon Baines Johnson Building, Washington, DC. Dear President Biden and Secretary Cardona: Public school education around the country is under attack and the actions of the Texas Education Agency (TEA) in taking over one the largest school districts in the nation, despite a B+ rating overall and intense work with schools needing additional help the state has underfunded, HISD is further evidence we must support schools, parents and teachers. We the undersigned Members of Congress are writing to request that the Department of Education take immediate action to investigate systemic and discriminatory state takeovers of public schools receiving federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education throughout the State of Texas. It is imperative that there be some form of federal intervention immediately to prevent a takeover of the Houston Independent School District (HISD) because of the detrimental impact on a predominantly minority school district that is a recipient of major federal funding. State officials in Texas are actively working to eliminate public education and erode federal protections in educational institutions throughout the State of Texas, causing racially disparate and harmful outcomes for children and families in Black and Hispanic communities in Texas. The recent actions taken by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) and the state of Texas are an absolute outrage and a threat to all Texans. There is no justifiable reason for the TEA to take over HISD. Rather, the continued intermeddling and overstepping into our educational systems by Texas state officials is causing further harm and damage to our communities--and it must stop. Taking over a school district such as HISD makes absolutely no sense at all. HISD is the largest school district in Texas, with 274 schools and a student population of approximately 200,000 students. HISD is rated B+, and 94 percent of HISD schools now earn a grade of A, B or C, up from 82 percent in 2019. Yet, TEA is basing its decision to take over HISD on one school. As of today, Phyllis Wheatley High School is no longer low performing and there are new members on the board. The conditions that existed when the takeover was first proposed no longer exist. Moreover, Wheatley would've passed under the rules that were in place at the time, but TEA changed the rules, and made them fail. Given Wheatley's improvement to a C and the district's overall B rating, the TEA's reason for initiating a takeover bid in 2019 is no longer valid. TEA has no experience managing a district of this magnitude and should not be engaging in such drastic efforts without any viable justification. The structure that will be used to govern this huge school district will be a board of managers solely selected by the TEA--with no input by voters, teachers, students and/or administrators. There is a question of whether the TEA is operating correctly under Texas State education law and the Texas State Education Code. Pursuant to Senate bill 1365, Section 39.0546 (c) and Texas State Education Code. Section 39.0546(c)(1) and (2) it is unclear that the TEA commissioner even has the authority to takeover HISD because the school in question, Wheatley High School, has maintained a C performance rating at this time. This action is confusion to the constituents of HISD, and the state has no answer as to why they think they have the right to do this--particularly when Wheatley High School is performing, other schools are performing, and the school district is performing, even though there are schools with challenges that the school is focusing on. While the TEA Commissioner's stated reasoning for pursuing a state takeover of HISD, namely one single underperforming school in Houston ISD, this rationalization further highlights the latest confusing and contradictory actions taken by Texas state officials in their larger efforts to justify stripping locally elected school boards of their authority, and effectively stripping Texans of their federally protected rights. Despite the long-evidenced fact that state takeovers have targeted low income and Black and Hispanic communities, resulting in lower graduation rates and higher student suspensions, Governor Abbott has made no secret of his support for privately run charter schools--of which do not have to provide a free, appropriate public education under federal law--and his discontent for public schooling for all children in Texas, of which is subject to federal law and oversight. Seizing HISD, the eighth-largest school district in the country is a clear overreach by Texas government officials and their pursuit and intent to turn over state run schools to privately run charter schools. A state takeover would not only lead to school closures, layoffs and no improvements in test scores, it would also absolutely harm the HISD scholars. All you have to do is look around to see any urban schools that TEA has taken over and you will see that TEA did not make them better. The vast majority of school districts that have been taken over by state agencies (TEA included) have not improved but declined. There are 15 such instances over the course of three decades, according to state records. None likely offer a case study that would compare to a takeover of the diverse student body of HISD, the largest school district in the state and the eighth largest in the nation--which also serves predominantly Black and Hispanic children and families considered to be ``economically disadvantaged''. According to the recent article in the Houston Chronicle reporting on this concern of prior Texas state school takeovers, it is pertinent to quote the following information: Seven of those districts were predominantly Black, including multiple districts with schools significant to Texas' African American history. Another seven of the districts taught mostly Hispanic student bodies. Only one district--Shepherd ISD--was predominantly white. Around 66 percent of students in that district are economically disadvantaged. Of HISD's 187,000 students, 62 percent are Hispanic and 22 percent are Black. Nearly 80 percent of its students are economically disadvantaged. None of the districts previously taken over by TEA come close to comparing in size to HISD. The smallest of those districts, Kendleton ISD, had less than 100 students and the largest, El Paso ISD, has 50,709. Beaumont ISD has around 17,000.'' While there are real schools struggling throughout Texas and despite an overall increase in public school performances, TEA is choosing to target only those schools with predominantly Black and Hispanic children over other school districts with far greater rates of performance decline. In fact, TEA released a report for its 2022 A-F accountability ratings for districts and campuses, which showed that of the 1,195 districts and 8,451 campuses rated in 2022, 25% of districts and 33% of campuses improved their letter grade from 2019, and 18% of high-poverty campuses in Texas were rated an A. It is also important to highlight that Texas is behind the national average in how much it spends per student in the classroom. More specifically, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Texas spends $3,000 less than the national average. Overall, Texas spent a little over $10,000 per student in 2020; as the largest school district in the state, HISD spent even less, averaging $9,380 per student. Given the complete lack of funding infused into school districts like HISD, it should be incumbent upon the State of Texas to reprioritize and shift its focus to allocating more appropriate and equitable funding across shamefully underfunded and underserved communities and school districts. In fact, it is well known that a critical factor impacting students' academic outcomes is investing even more money into low-income students. Low-income students perform worse in states with larger spending gaps--states whose actual spending is furthest from the amount needed. With data ranging back to the late 1980s, researchers found that most state takeovers don't translate to academic improvements. And in states with no spending gaps, poor students perform at or above the national average for all U.S. students--which shows that states can improve the academic performance of even our poorest students by investing more--not by discriminately targeting schools for state takeovers. As your agency is aware, Texas is plagued with 154 open and pending cases of reported discrimination currently under investigation at elementary, secondary and post-secondary schools throughout the state. Between 2015 and 2023, there have been at least 51 cases opened at such institutions and are currently pending investigation for racial discrimination and harassment, as well as at least 28 cases for retaliatory discrimination at various educational institutions across Texas. And yet, these numbers do not even begin to account for the countless documented and undocumented cases of current and historical discriminatory practices, of which no state in this nation is immune to. The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights serves to enforce several federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department of Education. Whereby, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability; and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 prohibits age discrimination, the primary role of OCR is to assist student populations facing these areas of discrimination, and to resolve their complaints, as well as to provide guidance and assistance to advocates and institutions promoting systemic solutions to civil rights problems. These civil rights laws enforced by OCR extend to all state education agencies, elementary and secondary school systems, colleges and universities, vocational schools, proprietary schools, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, libraries, and museums that receive U.S. Department of Education funds, including but not limited to: admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing, and employment. An additional critically important part of OCR's responsibilities is to foster partnerships and initiatives designed to develop creative approaches to preventing and addressing discrimination. Unfortunately, Texas educational school systems and their controlling governmental officials are no stranger to running afoul of federal laws your agency is tasked with enforcing and protecting. In 2018, the Department of Education found the entire state of Texas to be in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. By setting an enrollment target for special education, the Texas Educational Agency (TEA) denied tens of thousands of children their federally protected right to free and appropriate public education supports and services. Governor Abbott has long sought to restrict access to free public education to all children in Texas and takeover control of all Texas educational systems in order to implement harmful and discriminatory policies and agendas. Most recently, Governor Abbott has been pushing for additional voucher programs across Texas--namely an $8,000 initiative for individuals in rural communities. While some may say that school choice efforts are critical to ensuring that families can decide the best educational settings for their children, such programs are not going to help public school systems. Instead of providing critical funding for underfunded school programs, money and resources simply get diverted away from the public schools that serve the majority of children in Texas. Now, with the recent Texas Supreme Court ruling to lift the temporary injunction, that kept the TEA Commissioner, Governor Abbott and other state officials from taking over the HISD, the plight of schools and the educational future in Houston, as well as throughout the entire state of Texas, is particularly dire and in need of federal oversight and intervention. A TEA takeover would have a significant and negative impact on HISD and other Independent School Districts in Texas because a board of managers is not elected, and they don't have to answer to the constituents, including children, parents and teachers, in those districts. This is particularly relevant given the day before the TEA Commissioner announced the state takeover of HISD, voters had democratically elected new members to the school board-- raising many unsettling questions about the state's true agenda. Additionally, we must not lose sight of the fact that teachers and support staff within the education system are some of the most important people in our society. The dedicated public service they provide represents the heart of our nation--as the work they do is vital to fabric of our communities. They shape generations of our future leaders and hold the key to our children's potential. As we know, however, teachers are underpaid and often go unappreciated in their efforts to make our world a better place. The TEA takeover of HISD would not only result in school closures and job cuts, but the actions of the TEA would also eliminate all of their rights on how to be heard on how they can proceed in the face of such attacks on their livelihoods and service to our communities. Well-meaning and extremely qualified teachers would lose their jobs and their voice. That is why we are writing to request that the Department of Education, pursuant to its duty and authority under law, investigate and take immediate action to address the recent systematic and dangerous efforts underway by state and local officials in Texas seeking to undermine and undo decades of civils rights protections and advancements in educational institutions and student populations. I am confident that the Department of Education will do all that is necessary to ensure that the rights of Texans and all those impacted by the heightened discriminatory actions by Texas officials are protected and safeguarded. Thank you very much for your consideration and assistance in this matter. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee at (202) 225-38l6, the Representative for the 18th Congressional District of Texas, the jurisdiction where HISD is located.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want us to know that, in supporting parents' rights, we must support not destroying public school education, and we must support the Houston Independent School District to not allow----