Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me say this. Mr. Chair, first of all, before I yield to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland, the reason why we need my amendment is because this deals with speech. This regulatory bill deals with speech, what you can say and what you cannot say. So this is not a reflection that we need this in every legislative initiative. I would love for it to be there. But this is a bill that deals with what our agencies can say. And if the Chairman of the FCC put out all of these proposals specifically so that the public could see, just think if this bill unclarified what the protection of the First Amendment reiterated, his speech would be chilled. I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, Mr. Chair, can the Chair tell us the time remaining.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, let me indicate that the gentleman just argued my point. Clarity is what we need. My amendment provides clarity. Again, what does this bill do? This bill tells Federal employees about their speech: what level of speech, containing speech, how much speech, what they can say, what is propaganda, what is publicity. Therefore, I think it is important to avoid the chilling effect on public servants who are doing the task on behalf of the American people. Being the American people's defendant, I believe that we should, in fact, have this language. In Branzburg v. Hayes, Justice Douglas reminded us that an effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, rebuttal, and reexamination. That is the protection of the First Amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me reemphasize: Clarity in the First Amendment cannot be a bad thing. This bill kills speech. Let's clarify that that speech is protected by the First Amendment to not chill the hard work of our hardworking Federal employees trying to provide for the safety and security of the American people. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 998, the ``Searching for and Cutting Regulations that are Unnecessarily Burdensome Act of 2017,'' or ``SCRUB Act,'' and the underlying bill. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it hampers the ability of federal agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens. The SCRUB Act seeks to establish a Retrospective Regulatory Review Commission to identify and recommend to Congress existing Federal regulations that can be repealed to reduce unnecessary regulatory costs to the U.S. economy. As such, this bill purports to reduce bureaucracy by establishing a new ``regulatory review'' commission charged with identifying duplicative, redundant, or so-called ``obsolete'' regulations to repeal. Specifically, H.R. 1155 would establish a commission with unlimited subpoena power consisting of unelected, appointed members to review existing agency rules and make recommendations to Congress for an up or down vote on rules to be eliminated. The scope of this review would be virtually unlimited leaving no rule or regulation safe, and Congress would be prohibited from debating the individual repeal recommendations but would instead be forced to consider the commission's rule recommendations in a single package. Under the legislation as currently drafted, agencies would be required to follow a ``cut-go'' process--prohibiting a new rule from being issued until an existing rule of equal or greater ``cost'' according to the commission is repealed--thereby undermining the ability of agencies to quickly respond to imminent threats to public health and safety. Mr. Speaker, the SCRUB Act--and the creation of this $30 million regulatory commission--is problematic because it would operate with little meaningful oversight, transparency, or public accountability to ensure that its recommendations do not subvert the public interest and safety. For instance, the SCRUB Act would prohibit any regulatory agency from issuing any new rule or informal statement, including non-legislative and procedural rules, even in the case of an emergency or imminent harm to public health, until the agency first offsets the costs of the new rule or guidance by eliminating an existing rule identified by the Commission. This regulatory ``cut-go'' process would force agencies to prioritize between existing protections and responding to new threats to our health and safety. Such a sweeping requirement would endanger the lives of Americans by creating unnecessary delays in the Federal rulemaking process and creating additional burdens and implementation problems that will only divert critical agency resources and diminish agencies' ability to protect and inform the public in times of imminent danger and need. For instance, if an agency needed to respond to an imminent hazard to the public or environment, it would have to either rescind an existing rule that is identified by the Commission's arbitrary and cost-centric process or choose not to act. That is why I offered an amendment that would have exempted from the SCRUB Act any rule relating to the prevention of cyber-attacks intended to interfere with elections for public office. Regrettably, the Rules Committee did not make this salutary amendment in order, which is another reason I cannot support the legislation. The Jackson Lee Amendment would protect American citizens by ensuring that our federal agencies are not unnecessarily burdened with regulatory mandates that would jeopardize the ability of federal agencies to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, prevent cyber terrorism, and enhance the security and integrity of cybernetworks and systems. Now is not the time to undermine or impede the ability of DHS, DOJ, and other federal agencies to combat growing threats and active acts of cyber terrorism. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the rule for H.R. 998, and urge all Members to join me in voting against this irresponsible and unwise legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentleman for his very astute argument and his leadership on the committee. I am going to narrow my argument to, I think, very realistic questions about whether or not we are procedurally in the context of overruling the OSHA decision out of the Federal courts or whether or not this is really a question of do we want to protect the rights of American workers and protect them from the years of injuries that preceded the establishment of OSHA. I want to fall on the side of the American worker. Let me be very clear what we are talking about today. The ruling that we are speaking about went against 40 years of precedence in reporting workplace safety violations. Since 1972, every administration has maintained that the 5-year retention period for recording work-related injuries, illnesses, or death is standard practice. This DOL rule was simply put in place to codify and create some consistency that will benefit both employers and employees. Thank you, President Obama, who recognized that it is not the Member of Congress who may slip on a rug in their privileged manner of coming to this august body and voting, but it is, in fact, the workers who come every day and pick up your garbage, the sanitation workers, the same workers that Dr. King went to Memphis to stand up for and the individuals who, because of their work, are susceptible to injuries more often than not. Individuals who work in construction, who help build our houses and hospitals and tall skyscrapers, what excuse can we give for not maintaining the standards of keeping and reporting those injuries for a period of 5 years and the retention of such? Or those who work, for example, in the area of railroads, railroad beds and railroad sites-- hard labor. Or those who work at our ports--hard labor. So I rise to oppose disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor regarding OSHA, and I do so for the men and women who do the heavy lifting. I include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, which represents municipal and county workers across America, establishing why we should vote ``no'' on this. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, February 28, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), I'm writing to urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 83, which would abolish an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rule that clarifies an employer's responsibility to maintain accurate records of serious work-related injuries and illnesses. The new OSHA rule creates NO new compliance or reporting obligations and imposes no new costs on employers. The 1970 law creating OSHA explicitly directed the agency to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain accurate records of and to make periodic reports on, work- related deaths, injuries and illnesses other than minor injuries . . . .'' Since the first recordkeeping regulations issued in 1972, OSHA has required employers to record workplace injuries on an ``OSHA log'' within seven days of the injury and to maintain the records of the log and annual summary of the log for five years. Every Republican and Democratic administration since 1972 has interpreted this employer obligation to make and maintain accurate records to be ongoing from the date of the injury or illness until the five-year retention period expires. OSHA issued this clarifying regulation in December 2016 in response to a court decision that dramatically limited OSHA's enforcement of injury recordkeeping regulation to a six-month period. OSHA's clarifying rule simply restores the standard to one employers have known and complied with for 45 years. H.J. Res. 83 would strip OSHA of its enforcement authority and harm workplace safety. Passage of this Congressional Review Act Resolution of Disapproval would enable employers who deliberately and recklessly break the law to avoid any penalties for systemically failing to report or underreporting injuries over many years. They would be able to cover up or mask longstanding workplace hazards that need correcting. OSHA has limited resources and, on average, can inspect a workplace once every 140 years. OSHA relies upon reliable injury and illness data to prioritize its resources to those workplaces that present the greatest hazards to workers. H.J. Res. 83 would remove OSHA's enforcement ability to protect workers from the most dangerous and significant hazards. Workplace injuries are real. Last year, a GAO report found workplace violence is a serious concern for the approximately 15 million health care workers in the United States, but the full extent of injuries that are the result of workplace violence is unknown because of underreporting. Accurate reporting would help OSHA, employers, workers and their representatives respond more effectively to this prevalent workplace hazard. H.J. Res. 83 would jeopardize the progress that could be made on workplace violence and other workplace injuries by blocking this basic reporting and recordkeeping rule or a similar rule in the future. We oppose H.R. Res. 83 and urge you to stand with workers by rejecting this resolution. Sincerely, Scott Frey, Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. H.J. Res. 83 is wrong. It is wrong because it goes against the hardworking people. I also include in the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters disapproving of H.J. Res. 83. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, DC, February 27, 2017. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 83, disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.'' Disapproving this rule would undermine safety in some of the nation's most dangerous industries, many of which employ Teamsters. The rule does not impose new costs on employers and simply reaffirms OSHA's ability to enforce injury and illness recordkeeping. This rule became necessary when a 2012 court decision overturned policy that had been in place for 40 years by limiting enforcement of OSHA's injury recordkeeping regulations to a six month period. OSHA publishes the data that it collects from employers on worksite injury and illness which is then utilized by employers, unions, and workers to identify and fix workplace hazards. With limited resources, OSHA also utilizes the data to target its enforcement and compliance activities to the most dangerous workplaces thus making it essential that OSHA have accurate information. With under-reporting of injury and illness data already a major issue, it makes no sense to effectively strip OSHA of its ability to enforce reporting requirements as this ultimately impacts workplace safety. Congress should be working to improve work place safety not undermine it, and voting for H.J. Res 83 will ultimately harm working men and women. I urge you to oppose H.J. Res. 83 to protect OSHA's ability to enforce accurate injury and illness reporting and to ensure workers have a safe and healthy workplace. Sincerely, James P. Hoffa, General President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I stand with the workers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 83, a resolution ``Disapproving Department of Labor Rule Relating to Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make And Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury And Illness.'' I oppose this bill because it will harm workers who depend on the Occupation Health and Safety Administration to ensure that their workplaces are safe. H.J. Res. 83 will undermine workplace health and safety and make it impossible for OSHA to ensure that injury and illness records are complete and accurate. Accurate records are needed to ensure OSHA focuses its limited resources on the nation's most dangerous workplaces, instead of wasting time in workplaces with low risk. The Department of Labor rule at issue here does not create any new obligations. OSHA has enforced injury recordkeeping requirements by reviewing the last five years of an employer's records throughout its entire history, under every administration. In 2012, a court decision limited enforcement of OSHA's injury recordkeeping regulations to a six month period--a dramatic departure from the last OSHA's 40 year policy and practice. The 2016 rule simply allows OSHA to continue this practice. Mr. Speaker, complete and accurate information on work-related injuries and illnesses is important. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 directs the Secretary of Labor to ``prescribe regulations requiring employers to maintain accurate records of, and make periodic reports on, work-related deaths, injuries and illnesses other than minor injuries.'' Since the early 1970's, OSHA has required construction employers to keep these records. The records are used by employers, workers, and unions at the workplace to identify hazardous conditions, and take corrective action to prevent future injuries and exposures. Both positive and negative injury trends are tracked on a national scale, allowing limited prevention resources to be targeted effectively. Most importantly, OSHA relies on the records to target its enforcement and compliance assistance activities to dangerous workplaces. No employer, union, or individual could possibly want OSHA inspecting safe workplaces rather than hazardous ones, but without accurate information, this will happen. Disapproval of the new rule puts construction workers lives in danger. Without the new rule, it will be impossible for OSHA to effectively enforce recordkeeping requirements and assure that injury and illness records are complete and accurate. Underreporting of injuries and illnesses is already a huge problem, and without enforcement, this will get much worse. It will undermine safety and health and put workers in danger. I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 83 and urge all Members to vote against this ill-conceived and unwise legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful country that we live in. It is wonderful because we have come--maybe some because of the Statue of Liberty's wonderful words or others who have come in different ways, we are different, but we are one. Tonight in his message, wouldn't it be well to focus on our unity and not our divisiveness? Since the election, there have been 1,000 hate crimes. And, of course, in the last 72 hours to last week, two Indo Americans-- Indians--engineers, one dead, one shot. And the perpetrator indicated in his words: I shot two Middle Easterners. What kind of hate is being generated? It has been generated, and it needs to cease. We need to have a speech tonight that will speak to the unity, speak against anti- Semitism and the attacks that are going on the Jewish community. We need to recognize the distinctions and the differences. We need to stop the siege against Hispanics, mass deportation, African-American discrimination and others, women and many others. This needs to be a time of unity, respect, and dignity. I will be waiting to hear and to see what kind of America are we going to be guided by and what kind of America will we live in? I hope for the best.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I first start out by mourning the loss of two Indo-Americans in Kansas, friends of all of us. As I left India last week, you can imagine the horror of hearing of this incident by a Trump sympathizer. We must stop the spread of hate. I want to say to them, this community, and the people of India that we in America will stand by them, and we will stand against hate. I, too, want to add my mourning for a second time for the loss of the Navy SEAL who died in Yemen on January 28. I came to the floor some weeks ago to acknowledge my shock and concern about the precipitousness of this effort by the Trump administration in the first days of his administration. I join in asking for a full investigation, the whys, the wheres, the necessity of doing this operation within days of the beginning of the White House term. We don't take operations with our precious military souls lightly. It is important to be thoughtful and deliberative. Certainly it is important to be ready. It is also important not to signal what you are doing. I understand that. But I can't understand what happened and the tragic loss of this great Navy SEAL leader. We need answers, and we need them quick from the White House. Give them answers now. Investigate now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, for anchoring this Special Order and rise to remember and mourn the millions of souls lost in the Holocaust, the worst instance of man's inhumanity to man in human history. Nearly 72 years have passed since the end of World War II but for those who survived, and the descendants and relatives of those who perished, the Holocaust is not ancient history but a reminder of the evil that can be unleased when humans give into their worst instincts and appetites. The Holocaust's magnitude of destruction numbered more than 12 million deaths, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children (more than 2/3 of European Jewry), and the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. A haunting quote in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum refers to the story of Cain and Abel: The Lord said, ``What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground (Genesis 4:11). The Holocaust forces us to confront uncomfortable questions such as the responsibilities of citizenship and the consequences of indifference and inaction, and the importance of education and awareness. The Holocaust is a testament to the fragility of democracy. We must resolve to resist prejudice and intolerance in any form. It fills me with grief to know that the leaders of nations can destroy their own, as did the Nazi regime. Yet I hope that we can continue to strengthen the means by which we can pursue justice. And I am saddened, outraged, and embarrassed that the current President of the United States could think it appropriate to issue a statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day that fails to make any mention of the defining crime of the 20th Century, the murder of 6 million persons for no reason other than they were Jews. But the vast majority of Americans remember and are united in this prayer and promise: Never Again. Thank you, Congresswoman Kaptur, for holding this important special order. I include in the Record the following statement from the President regarding International Holocaust Remembrance Day: The White House Office of the Press Secretary [For Immediate Release--January 27, 2017] Statement by the President on International Holocaust Remembrance Day It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror. Yet, we know that in the darkest hours of humanity, light shines the brightest. As we remember those who died, we are deeply grateful to those who risked their lives to save the innocent. In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that the forces of evil never again defeat the powers of good. Together, we will make love and tolerance prevalent throughout the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is known for many things. It is known for its integrity, its honesty, and its high moral compass. We are well aware that the United States intelligence community is united in its assessment that Russia attacked our Nation in 2016, and interfered in our elections. In response, President Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Government and personnel entities, including intelligence services. He also expelled dozens of Russian officials from the United States. Now, we know that General Flynn, in violation of many laws, intruded and discussed these issues with the Russian Ambassador. His departure does not end this investigation. Who knew what, when? When did the President know it? The integrity of this country is higher and more superior than one individual. Why, when other Presidents have used Camp David and the White House for international diplomacy most often, did we have, over the past weekend, the embarrassment of international and national security issues, and personnel being filmed in an ordinary restaurant owned by the President? Finally, let me say, with the many hundreds of thousands of DACA children who need relief, the question is: Can the President attend to serious business fighting for these young people and saving lives?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues and my fellow Americans can see what is even greater about this country in its far- reaching wildlife and open areas. I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 69 because I do think it is important that we be good custodians of what has been given to us. Yes, to protect those humans who have come to be in places where wildlife was, but to be good custodians. The rule that was adopted years ago after public engagement from many different people is reasonable and rational: Denning of wolves and their pups, shooting or trapping them while at their dens in the spring; using airplanes to scout land and shoot grizzly bears; trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel- jawed leghold traps and wire snares--this is what that rule prevents-- luring grizzly bears with rotting meat, sugar, and pet food to get a point-blank kill; denning of black bear mothers and cubs during hibernation. It reminds me of the time that I came to the floor last year to stand against a horrible killing of Cecil the lion by someone who wanted a trophy. So let me tell you about the lesson from Dr. Ed Schmitt, a retired surgeon, a hunter, who moved to Alaska from Colorado to fish in the river that flowed by his house, to be able to hunt. He enjoyed fishing for salmon, casting for salmon, and seeing the brown bears, also known as grizzly bears. Here is what he said: ``'Most of us that live in Alaska are here because we recognize that it has something that the rest of the world doesn't,' says Mr. Schmitt, president of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, which is working with the HSUS to protect animals from trophy hunting abuses. `The wildness can be destroyed by people. We've stopped seeing the wildlife because we've made it go away.''' He further said: ``It's not true that all Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public lands.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. `` `It's not true that all Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public lands,' he says. `Only a minority of Alaskans are hunters, and even fewer kill animals just for a trophy.' '' This is Dr. Schmitt, a hunter. This is not a tree hugger. He is a hunter who moved to this beautiful land that we can call America. So many Americans on the mainland, in essence, go to this beautiful, connected Alaska, and so Dr. Schmitt goes on to say, like most hunters in Alaska, he is appalled at practices that have been raised up to not save the beauty of these wild animals. ``'The notion that people don't want any rules is a myth. We want good rules, just like everybody else.''' Well, I want to stand alongside of Dr. Ed Schmitt, a healer, a former doctor, a hunter who moved to Alaska, who understands that what we are seeking to disapprove is wrong because it was a reasoned response to all who were engaged in this area. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 69, a congressional resolution rescinding a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to prevent widely criminalized, cruel, and unsporting hunting methods of killing wolves, grizzly bears, and other native mammals on 76 million acres of federal lands in Alaska. I oppose the disapproval resolution because it subverts the judgment of professional wildlife managers, and allows appalling methods of killing animals on public lands designated for wildlife. The FWS rule does not apply to subsistence hunting or sport hunting in general; it simply restricts methods of killing that are not suited anywhere, least of all on national wildlife refuges. The rule, adopted after years of public engagement and with the support of many Alaskans, bans the following practices: 1. Denning of wolves and their pups--shooting or trapping them while at their dens in the spring; 2. Using airplanes to scout, land and shoot grizzly bears; 3. Trapping of grizzly bears and black bears with steel-jawed leg hold traps and wire snares; 4. Luring grizzly bears with rotting meat, sugar, and pet food to get a point blank kill; and 5. Denning of black bear mothers and cubs during hibernation. H.J. Res. 69, if adopted, would prevent the Administration from ever issuing a rule on this topic, foreclosing our Federal wildlife managers from regulating these activities in any way under current law. The decision to ban these cruel hunting practices came directly from professional wildlife managers from the FWS based in Alaska and is consistent with science-based wildlife management practices. In addition, the FWS statutory mandate requires that the agency conserve wildlife species. The FWS appealed to the Alaska Board of Game dozens of times to amend its rules to ensure that the FWS statutory mandate was being followed. The Board of Game's continued refusal to do so forced FWS to initiate this rulemaking to ensure that its statutory mandate of conserving wildlife species on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska is followed. Mr. Speaker, a statewide poll conducted in February 2016 showed Alaskans opposed denning of wolves by more than a 2-to-1 margin. The poll showed that Alaska voters strongly support eliminating these cruel and unsporting methods of killing native carnivores on National Wildlife Refuges in their state. Additionally, at a series of public meetings on the rule, many Alaskans turned out to publicly support the rule because they want these inhumane, unsustainable, unsporting practices to end. Mr. Speaker, another reason to oppose H.J. Res. 69 is that it would damage wildlife tourism and hurt the economy of Alaska. These are federal lands, maintained with federal taxpayer dollars, and millions of Americans travel to Alaska each year for the unique opportunity to see bears, wolves, caribou, lynx, and other species on these lands. Wildlife watchers contribute over $2 billion to the economy of Alaska--five times more than the amount generated in Alaska from hunting activity. The wildlife within our National Wildlife Refuges is a national resource and Americans across the country care about protecting it for future generations of Americans. For these reasons, I strongly opposed H.J. Res. 69, and urge my colleagues to join me. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this disapproval and to support and stand with these beautiful animals. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article, ``The Fight to Protect Alaska's Predators,'' and an article regarding Safari Club. [The Humane Society of the United States, Oct. 19, 2016] The Fight To Protect Alaska's Predators (By Karen E. Lange) Ed Schmitt, a retired surgeon, moved to Alaska to experience the wild. He left Colorado for the Kenai Peninsula, south of Anchorage, where he could fish in a river that flowed right outside his house and hunt, he says, in a way that respects wildlife and the environment. Schmitt enjoyed casting for salmon and seeing brown bears, also known as grizzly bears, fishing nearby. He never wanted to kill them. But over 25 years, development and new roads ate away bear habitat. And a different mentality from Schmitt's, one that treats large predators as creatures to be eliminated so populations of moose and caribou can flourish, took its toll on the Kenai's brown bears. Schmitt hasn't seen one in three years. ``Most of us that live in Alaska are here because we recognized that it has something that the rest of the world doesn't,'' says Schmitt, president of the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, which is working with The HSUS to protect animals from trophy hunting abuses. ``The wildness can be destroyed by people. We've stopped seeing the wildlife because we've made it go away.'' A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rule released in August aims to preserve the state's biodiversity by banning cruel and unsporting hunting methods on the 76 million acres of Alaska's federal national wildlife refuges. (Last year, the National Park Service issued a similar rule for the more than 20 million acres of federal preserves within the state). Under the rule, supported by The HSUS and a network of scientists and local advocacy groups, hunters will no longer be able to bait brown bears, trap brown or black bears or use a plane to find bears from the air and then immediately land and shoot them. In addition, trophy hunters will not be allowed to kill black bear mothers and cubs or wolf and coyote mothers and pups in their dens (subsistence hunters are exempt). And ``predator control'' programs, which let hunters kill greater numbers of carnivores in the hope the populations of prey animals such as caribou will increase, won't be permitted in national wildlife refuges. ``This is the first time the federal government has stood up to the state of Alaska's brutal practices in 37 years,'' says Wendy Keefover, HSUS native carnivore protection manager, who led meetings on the rule in Anchorage, Juneau and Fairbanks to encourage constituents to speak out. An HSUS poll in March showed a majority of Alaskans support these restrictions, and the Fish and Wildlife Service says most people who submitted comments favored the rule. The change came despite well-financed campaigns by the NRA and Safari Club International against it, and the opposition of the hunters, trappers and hunting guides on the state's Board of Game, as well as Alaska's representatives in Congress. HSUS Alaska state director Michael Haukedalen says the number of residents who rallied to support the rule shows there's a constituency for reform. ``It's not true that all Alaskans are OK with the state running rampant on public lands,'' he says. ``Only a minority of Alaskans are hunters, and even fewer kill animals just for a trophy.'' In the 1980s and 1990s, citizen ballot initiatives passed bans on cruel and unsporting hunting practices. However, these were later overridden by the state legislature and governor. In 1994, the legislature enacted a law requiring the state's Department of Fish and Game to practice ``intensive management'' of predators if caribou, moose and deer populations dropped below certain levels. For 10 years federal officials tried to negotiate with the Alaska Board of Game to protect wolves and bears from egregious hunting practices, says biologist Francis Mauer, retired from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. ``It's this ever-increasing fervor to kill predators in Alaska,'' he says. ``The federal agencies realized these hunting practices are inconsistent with the purpose for which the parks and reserves were established, and they had a responsibility to act.'' The fight against hunting abuses has now shifted to Washington, D.C., where Rep. Don Young (R-AK) got riders into House appropriations and energy bills that would undo both the Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service rules. Similar language was slipped into a Senate appropriations bill. The HSUS and other groups are encouraging Congress to reject these riders before sending the bills to the president. Schmitt says he, like most hunters in Alaska, is appalled by the practices the Fish and Wildlife Service has banned. ``The notion that people don't want any rules is a myth. We want good rules, just like everybody else.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. This is not about States, and it is not about the Federal Government. It's about women and the rights of women. H.J. Res. 43 could impact nearly 4 million primarily low-income patients that receive family planning services at title X sites, annually, across the United States. Of those 4 million patients, approximately 69 percent had incomes at or below the Federal poverty line, while 61 percent of those patients claimed the title X clinic as their only regular source of health care. About 60 percent of women who access care from family planning health centers consider it their main source; 4 in 10, it is their only source of care. Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from the Nation's family planning program. Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic and approximately 50 percent as African Americans. Every public dollar invested in Planned Parenthood, $7.09 is saved in Medicaid-related costs. Planned Parenthood centers are roughly one- third of the program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10 percent of the publicly supported safety and family net. This resolution for which we should vote ``no'' is going to take away money from people who are in need, who need health care. Where are the Republicans on women's rights? Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 43, a congressional resolution rescinding a rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services providing important protections to ensure that women, men, and young people can see trusted reproductive health care providers, like Planned Parenthood, through the Title X family planning program. I oppose the disapproval resolution because it is nothing more than a blatant attempt to persecute Planned Parenthood and make it easier for the state politicians to take away people's health care, specifically, the four million people who rely on Title X for birth control and other care. From birth control, to well-woman exams, to cancer screenings, millions of Americans nationwide turn to Planned Parenthood and other safety net reproductive health providers as their trusted source of health care. Many of these Americans, including low-income women, women of color, and those living in rural areas, are uninsured and rely on important public health programs for affordable health care, including Medicaid and the Title X family planning program. But their access to health care is under attack across the country because in recent years because politicians in at least 14 states have taken action to block access to care through Title X, willfully ignoring the law, the recommendations of public health experts, and the clear and present need in their communities. In September 2016, HHS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Compliance With Title X Requirements by Project Recipients in Selecting Subrecipients'' aiming to explicitly bar these types of actions. HHS opened the proposed regulation to public comment, which closed in October 2016 and garnered widespread support, with 91% of the roughly 145,000 responses in favor of the rule. Madam Speaker, Title X provides lifesaving, preventive care to millions of people and is cost-effective. Title X helps ensure more than four million persons of low-income have health care in this country. In fact, Title X is the only way that millions of low-income women or uninsured women have access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI tests, and other basic care. Eighty-five percent of the people served by Planned Parenthood's family planning program have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 48 percent are uninsured. In 2015 alone, Title X provided nearly 800,000 Pap tests, breast exams to 1 million women, nearly 5 million tests for STIs, and 1 million HIV tests. About 60 percent of women who access care from a family planning health center consider it their main source of health care; for 4 in 10, it is their only source of care. Approximately 1.5 million Planned Parenthood patients benefit from the nation's family planning program, 78 percent of whom live with incomes of 150 percent of the federal poverty level or less, the equivalent of $35,775 a year for a family of four in 2014. Approximately 20 percent of these patients identify as Hispanic; and approximately 15 percent identify as African American. For every public dollar invested in family planning, $7.09 is saved in Medicaid-related costs; that is savings to both federal and state governments and taxpayers. Planned Parenthood health centers serve roughly one-third of the program's clients, although Planned Parenthood health centers comprise 10 percent of publicly supported safety net family planning centers. Planned Parenthood health centers are located in the communities where access to care is most needed. More than half of Planned Parenthood's health centers across the U.S. are in rural and underserved communities with limited access to health care. Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). The idea that other providers could absorb Planned Parenthood's patients has been resoundingly dismissed by experts. In fact, the American Public Health Association called the idea ``ludicrous.'' Planned Parenthood health centers are also considerably more likely to offer Title X patients a broader range of contraceptive methods than other providers. In a study of Community Health Centers (CHCs), among CHCs that reported an independent family planning clinic in their largest site's community, 69 percent reported referring their patients to providers specializing in reproductive health services, like Planned Parenthood health centers, for family planning care. H.J. Res. 43 is a blatant effort to embolden states to try to block women from getting birth control and other preventive care at highly qualified family providers. By issuing this important protection, the Obama Administration made sure that politicians cannot ignore the law and stand in the way of the care that women need. I urge all Members to vote No on H.J. Res. 43. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter and article in opposition to this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 244, the Honoring Investments in Recruiting and Employing American Military Veterans Act or the HIRE Vets Act.'' H.R. 244 encourages effective, voluntary private sector investments to reciuit, employ, and retain men and women who have served in the United States military with annual presidential awards to private sector employers recognizing such efforts. H.R. 244 directs the Department of Labor to establish a HIRE Vets Medallion Program to solicit voluntary information from employers for purposes of recognizing, by the award of a HIRE Vets Medallion, verified efforts by these employers to: 1. Recruit, employ, and retain veterans 2. Provide community and charitable services supporting the veteran community. The President shall annually present the medallion and corresponding certificate to recipients at a time to coincide with the annual commemoration of Veterans Day. Two levels of medallions shall be established, large and small employers, to be designated the Gold HIRE Vets Medallion and the Platinum HIRE Vets Medallion. The bill prescribes awards criteria. Beginning two years after enactment of this bill, the Secretary of Labor shall submit annual reports on fees, program costs, the number of applications, and the medallions awarded, including the name and medallion level of each recipient.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512, the Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access Now Act, (``Wingman Ace''), which amends title 38. United States Code, to provide certain employees of Members of Congress and certain employees of State or local governmental agencies with access to case-tracking information of the Department of Veterans Affairs. H.R. 512 directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide an accredited, permanent congressional employee with read-only remote access to the electronic Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) claims records system of a represented veteran, regardless of whether the employee is acting under a power of attorney executed by the veteran. The DVA shall ensure that success does not allow the employee to modify system data. Each Member of Congress who elects to have an employee participate in the system shall bear the certification cost which shall be paid from the Member's representation allowance. The amended version would also require the DVA to implement the bill using appropriated funds, and allow as much as $10 million to be used from fiscal 2017 through 2020 for that purpose. No funds could be used to train congressional staffers. An accredited, ``permanent congressional employee'' is an employee of a Member of Congress who assists constituents with issues regarding federal departments or agencies. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 512 and urge all members to join me in voting for its passage. For that reason I support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 974, ``Boosting Rates of American Veteran Employment Act.'' ``BRAVE Act'' authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to give preference to companies with high concentrations of veteran employees when awarding VA contracts. I support this bipartisan bill because it provides an incentive to companies to actively hire veterans. H.R. 974 will spur the hiring of veterans into coveted positions within large government contractors. The BRAVE Act also gives the VA authority to debar contracting for at least five years of any company determined to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented the veteran status of its employees. One of the biggest problems facing our veterans right now is finding good jobs in civilian life, especially those who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our veterans have received the best training in the world. They have unique skills and experience that cannot be acquired anywhere but in the United States military. They have what it takes to excel in the civilian workforce; they do not need charity, just opportunity. With this bill, we urge private companies to hire highly-trained, highly-skilled veterans who know how to get the job done, whatever job it may be. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 974.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 108th anniversary of the oldest, largest, most historic and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, known to all simply as the NAACP. The NAACP is the oldest, largest, most historic and most influential civil rights organizations in the United States. First organized in 1905, the group was known as the Niagara Movement when members began meeting at a hotel situated on the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls. Members of the group had to meet in Canada because American hotels in Niagara Falls were segregated. Under the leadership of the Harvard-educated scholar, the great W.E.B. Du Bois, the group would later be known as the National Negro Committee before finally adopting the name by which it has been known for the last 106 years--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP--at its second conference in 1910. The first official meeting was held in 1909 exactly 108 years ago this past Sunday: February 12, the centennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln. The mission of the association was clearly delineated in its charter: To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; To advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and To increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability, and complete equality before law. Mr. Speaker, for more than a century, the NAACP has stayed true to its charter and championed the cause of justice and equality in America. It has fought valiantly and tirelessly on behalf of African-Americans and others to secure their civil rights and liberties and the full measure of justice and equality for all. At a time when African-Americans were treated as second-class citizens and the scourge of slavery was still rampant, the NAACP emerged to ensure that the rights, interests and voices of African- Americans did not go unheard. During World War I, the NAACP successfully campaigned for African Americans to be commissioned as officers in the army, resulting in President Woodrow Wilson commissioning 600 African American officers. During World War II, the NAACP persuaded the administration of President Franklin Roosevelt to issue an executive order banning racial discrimination in war-related industries and federal employment. In 1948, President Harry Truman became the first president to formally address the NAACP and he worked with the NAACP in appointing a commission to study and offer ideas to improve civil rights and equality of opportunity for all persons in the United States. The NAACP's close relationship with President Truman helped to influence him to issue Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the United States Armed Services by announcing the new ``policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin,'' and that this policy be put into effect as rapidly as possible. Mr. Speaker, the NAACP was perhaps the leading member of the ``Big Six''--the coalition of religious, labor and civil rights organizations that organized and staged on August 28, 1963 the historic March on Washington, the most famous act of peaceful protest in our nation's history. Other members of the Big Six were the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); the National Urban League; Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC); the International Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters; and the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). The March on Washington was a seminal event in our nation's history and awakened Americans of goodwill to the urgent need to rededicate ourselves to the great unfinished task of making real the promise of America for all Americans, especially African Americans. Mr. Speaker, the current president of the NAACP is Cornell William Brooks and the Board Chairman is Roslyn M. Brock; through the years, the NAACP has been led by some of bold, visionary, and effective leaders, including: Walter White; Roy Wilkins; Benjamin Hooks; Benjamin Chavis; Merlie Evers-Williams, widow of Medgar Evers; Kweisi Mfume; Bruce S. Gordon; and Benjamin Todd Jealous. Mr. Speaker, America would be a very different place were it not for the brilliance of the NAACP's Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., the legendary Director of the Washington Bureau from 1950 to 1978. So effective was Clarence Mitchell in the campaigns to win passage of civil rights laws, including the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the 1960 Civil Rights Act, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that his sobriquet was the ``101st Senator.'' The NAACP is perhaps best known for the practice pioneered by the legendary Charles Hamilton Houston and Thurgood Marshall of ``impact litigation,'' the strategy of bringing carefully selected cases to court to establish legal precedents of beneficially affecting thousands, and frequently millions, of persons beyond the immediate parties to the case. Among the historic victories won by NAACP lawyers are: 1. 1940--Chambers v. Florida, which established that confessions obtained as the result of police coercion are inadmissible at trial; 2. 1944--Smith v. Allwright, which outlawed the South's ``white primary''; 3. 1948--Shelley v. Kraemer, which ruled racially restrictive covenants and unconstitutional and legally unenforceable' 4. 1950--Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, which, held that separate law and graduate school are inherently unequal and thus constitutional; 5. 1954--Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, landmark case overruling separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson; and 6. 1956--Browder v. Gayle, which outlawed the practice of racial segregation on buses and led to the end of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Mr. Speaker, as Chair for the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned with fair access to quality education for today's youth and am personally grateful to the NAACP for its leadership in winning the greatest legal victory for civil rights in American history, the 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), in which the Supreme Court struck down de jure segregation in elementary schools. NAACP General Counsel Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first African American Solicitor General and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, forcefully argued and persuaded the Court to rule unanimously that in the field of public education, ``separate but equal'' was inherently unequal. That decision gave hope to millions of Americans that their children might enjoy the full promise of America that had been denied their forebears for more than three centuries. Mr. Speaker, the NAACP remains committed to achieving its goals through nonviolence, the legal process, and moral and political suasion, and through direct actions such as marches, demonstrations, and boycotts to give voice to the hopes and aspirations of African- Americans and others who lack the power to make their voices heard. There is still a need for justice and equal treatment for African Americans and other vulnerable populations in our country, and thankfully, we still have a vibrant NAACP to advocate their cause and fight for their interests. I am grateful for the many battles for equality that the NAACP organization has fought and won, and thankful that the NAACP will be there in the future to wage the fight for justice wherever and whenever justice needs a champion. Happy 108th birthday, NAACP, and thank you for all you have done to make our country better.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I thank the manager of this legislation. But my distinguished friend, Mr. Davis, and I have worked on societal issues dealing across the gamut, and the respect that he holds in the communities across America that recognize that second chances, unemployment compensation, summer jobs, and a whole manner of opportunities for individuals to restore their lives is the right way for America to go. In the backdrop of an executive order that saw one of my constituents, a 16-year-old with proper papers coming in from Jordan, held for 50 hours at George Bush Intercontinental Airport, in defense of those employees that I respect, CBP, they had no information how he got in, but they took this young man. Lo and behold, he wound up in Chicago because he didn't speak English, and that was the only bed they have. Why am I mentioning this? I am mentioning this because sometimes government gets it wrong. They get it wrong. This disapproval is wrong. What did happen was right, because what happened was that this rule didn't just pop up in the administration, meaning the Obama administration. It came about through a compromise--an intelligent compromise--dealing with middle class tax relief and job creation. Because at that time, there were people who randomly wanted to drug test, but wise individuals said this, they said that you could allow drug tests if you had lost your job or you are a drug user, so we want to get you right; therefore, you could be tested. Some people agree to disagree, but that is reasonable. Or that the job that you were looking for or had a job that required the kind of criteria and the kind of skills that drug use would impair or impact, that makes sense. But now you are talking about someone at the lowest ebb of life, losing jobs through no fault of their own, giving States that may be sensitive to human needs or reckless the ability to randomly test people because they lost their jobs, because they have been defeated. Well, I know it is too late, but maybe we should amend for Congresspersons, Senators, and Governors who get unelected. They lost a job; didn't they? It doesn't make sense. I rushed to the floor. We are in the Judiciary Committee addressing the question of how we are going to utilize the oversight plan, whether we want to investigate and fix for the American people this horrible scenario of the Russian involvement in the elections and the connection to the present administration. We want to fix things, but what you are doing here is that you are casting a bad light on people who are in need. I just want to say States have the ability to administer drug testing, and this change would needlessly shift employer costs to the States. State unemployment programs already penalize job-related drug use.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Twenty States also explicitly deny benefits for any job loss connected with drug use or a failed drug test. In addition, six States--Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin--passed legislation equating a failed or refused preemployment drug screen for refusing suitable work. We are already condemning everybody. Other States have other programs. This is not one that falls under the 10th Amendment. But the specialist drug testing of government-benefit recipients likely violates the Fourth Amendment, and it is cruel and inhuman treatment. I ask my colleagues to reject this cruel and inhuman treatment of individuals who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or they may be poor or they may be needing public assistance. Let America's humanity shine. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I strongly oppose this rule because it makes in order H.J. Res. 42, a bill disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants, an effort to impose drug testing as a condition of receiving unemployment insurance and other forms of public assistance. I oppose this rule because it would repeal a Department of Labor rule intended to implement a bipartisan agreement on implementing a provision, in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, that allows states to drug test unemployment insurance (UI) applicants in certain circumstances. In 2012, Congress approved a bipartisan compromise on drug testing unemployment insurance claimants. The agreement permitted states to drug test UI claimants in cases where: 1) an applicant has been discharged from their last job because of unlawful drug use; or 2) an applicant who ``is an individual for whom suitable work (as defined under the State law) is only available in an occupation that regularly conducts drug testing (as determined under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor).'' Congress therefore mandated the Department of Labor to define through regulation those occupations that regularly conduct drug testing. The final Department of Labor (DOL) rule, which would be repealed by H.J. Res. 42, defined ``occupation'' as a position or class of positions that are required, or may be required in the future, by state or federal law to be drug tested. Some members of Congress have criticized the regulations as being too narrowly drawn, but in fact, they track the bipartisan legislation very closely. It seems that what is really at issue is a desire to conduct broader drug testing of UI applicants. Any proposal that seeks to expand the ability of states to drug test people for unemployment insurance should be vigorously opposed. States already have the ability to administer drug testing and this change would needlessly shift employer costs to the states. State UI programs already penalize job-related drug use. Virtually all states treat a drug-related discharge as disqualifying misconduct even if it is not explicitly referenced in their discharge statutes. Twenty states also explicitly deny benefits for any job loss connected to drug use or a failed drug test. In addition, six states (Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) have passed legislation equating a failed or refused pre-employment drug screen with refusing suitable work. Employers already have testing as a tool to screen out people who use illicit drugs, at no cost to states. Proponents of drug testing argue that states want to be able to drug test UI applicants. However, only three states (Texas, Mississippi and Wisconsin) have enacted laws permitting state drug testing of UI claimants, consistent with the federal regulation, with all three of these states delaying implementation until after the final DOL rule targeted by H.J. Res. 42 was issued. Suspicionless drug testing of government benefit recipients likely violates the Fourth Amendment. Generally, government-mandated drug testing not based on individualized suspicion is unconstitutional. Drug tests historically have been considered searches for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. For searches to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can show a special need warranting a deviation from the norm. However, social insurance or governmental benefit programs like UI, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Housing Assistance do not naturally evoke the special needs that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past. Indeed, when states like Michigan and Florida have tried to impose mandatory suspicionless drug testing on all TANF applicants or recipients, they have been stopped by federal courts that have found such testing to be unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. These court battles also imposed substantial legal costs for states. State-administered drug testing is a poor investment of public funds. Claims that testing will save taxpayer money are built upon the assumption that the tests will return a high number of positive results. However, studies show that individuals who receive public benefits use drugs at rates similar to the general population, and the vast majority of such individuals do not use drugs. Most individuals, in fact, refrain from using drugs on a regular basis. Ten states have spent substantial amounts of money in recent years to set up and administer drug testing systems for TANF recipients, but have identified only a few claimants testing positive. Drug testing is also costly and prone to returning false-positives. Drug tests that do come back as positive easily identify marijuana use but often miss other drugs that ordinarily clear out of the body within a few days. Tests do not indicate if a person is impaired, or whether they are using less than they have in the past. Working people paid for this insurance policy, and jobless workers earned the right to access UI through their service to their employer. Proposals to drug test UI beneficiaries needlessly stigmatize and punish jobless workers and their families who are trying to get back on their feet. If legislators have genuine concerns about drug use, there are far better ways to respond than targeting and stigmatizing the unemployed. I urge you to oppose H. Res. 99, the Rule governing debate for H.J. Res. 42 and any legislation that seeks to expand the ability of states to condition the receipt of unemployment insurance and other forms of public assistance on a drug test. For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill. I would also like to include the following list of organizations actively opposed to H.J. Res. 42: 9to5, National Association of Working Women; AFL-CIO; AME Church--Social Action Commission; American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Bill of Rights Defense Committee/Defending Dissent Foundation; Center for Community Change Action; The Center for HIV Law and Policy; Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Drug Policy Alliance Economic Policy Institute Policy Center; Food Research & Action Center; Harm Reduction Coalition; Housing Works; Institute for Science and Human Values; Interfaith Worker Justice; LatinoJustice; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Legal Action Center; Legal Aid at Work. Life for Pot; The Los Angeles LGBT Center; Massachusetts Law Reform Institute MomsRising; NAACP; National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum; National Association of Social Workers; National Center for Transgender Equality; National Council of Churches; National Employment Law Project; National Employment Lawyers Association National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National Women's Law Center; NCADD-MD; Public Justice Center; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; StopTheDrugWar.org; Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP); The Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice; Union for Reform Judaism; The United Methodist Church--General Board of Church and Society; Witness to Mass Incarceration; Workplace Fairness.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a commemoration of African American History Month. It is a vital month. It is a month that tells America's history. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute a distinguished American, Dr. Thomas Freeman, who has been a faculty member at Texas Southern University now for more than half a century. Dr. Freeman is the leading orator of the university, the leading storyteller. He is the instructor of the Honorable Barbara Jordan, my predecessor. He taught her the skills to be able to sit before the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of Richard Milhous Nixon and say, ``We, the people.'' He is the individual that has taught and tutored decades of students--tens upon tens--from a school that is a historically Black school and called and taught his students to be successful in debates around the world. He is a history maker. He is now close to 100 years old. He is deserving of honor and tradition. I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying, in our community, he is the tiller and the holder of the values of the Constitution. I know that he deserves honor on this floor. Dr. Freeman, I salute you. You deserve the honor and recognition as a great American.