Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on a warm Sunday morning, yesterday, six men in a blue truck and six men in a black truck began shooting along Griggs Road. Women and children fled. Families fled in fear of their lives. Because of the gunshot noise, police were able to come, and those who were hovering and sheltering could dial 911 on their cell phones. So today I want to join with the law enforcement coalition who are working with former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly, who are standing up against legislation that would deregulate and allow civilians to buy silencers. It indicates that the gun lobby applauds introduction of the Hearing Protection Act. A quote in an article says many gun owners and sportsmen suffer severe hearing loss after years of shooting. Yet, the tool necessary to reduce such loss is onerously neglected and taxed. What about the law enforcement officers who will suffer at the hands of those who want to do us harm with silencers on their guns? What will happen to those who will be murdered in the streets? What about them and their families? This is a legislation misdirected. This is a legislation that is unfortunate. I join with my fellow Americans and law enforcement officers, first responders, in standing up against a nonsensical and misdirected initiative. Let's stand with those who are to protect us and let's protect our families and not support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my friends and distinguished leaders of this Special Order, Congressman Veasey of Texas and Congresswoman Plaskett of the Virgin Islands. As I begin today, I want to pose a question that was posed by Eddie Chambers. Chambers is a professor of art and art history at the University of Texas in Austin. As I say that, let me respond to Congressman Veasey and indicate that we do have a lot of history in Harris County, but also in the State of Texas. Also, I had the privilege of working for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the leadership of, then, Ralph David Abernathy and met Hosea Williams and many of the foot soldiers that worked with Dr. King. I can see the historic perspective that they were able to garner by their experience and association with this great modern-day profit, a man who understood that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. As I answer the question, I want to cite from Eddie Chambers' article that appeared in the Chronicle today. He said in one of his sentences: ``Is there an important place for a celebration that might well appear in some respects as anachronistic? ``In a word,'' he said, ``yes.'' He went on to say: ``As a professor whose classes invariably deal with aspects of African-American history and African Diaspora history, any moment of doubt I might have about the validity of Black History Month are dispelled once classes begin each semester. I am still shocked and saddened at the level of ignorance among students of important events and personalities that are part of African-American history, and consequently, American history. I don't, of course, blame my students, and this ignorance is by no means restricted to students of a particular ethnicity or cultural background.'' In other words, he said: ``Widespread ignorance of Black American history leads to an insufficient grasp of American history.'' So my few words tonight will explain or highlight the fact that this is a need for not only African-American History Month, which is February, but it needs to be taught throughout the year and integrated into the education of all students, no matter where they live; and it is shameful testimony that the books that children are learning from, the curriculum, is so missing, so lacking in the history that is American history--African-American history. My challenge tonight is for those of my colleagues who are listening, those educators in primary and secondary education, in colleges, Ivy League and otherwise, what is your answer to the question: Is it now still time to celebrate and commemorate Black History Month? What are you doing about it? I know that Texas is certainly full and rich with history, although our schoolbooks do not denote that. In fact, there was a vigorous fight with the Texas education board on their lack of responsibility in terms of insisting on textbooks that had an accurate recounting of Black history. Certainly, we know--I hope that we know--the names of Congresswoman Shirley Chisolm, the first woman African American to run for President; my colleague and former predecessor, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, who in the Judiciary Committee said, ``We, the people,'' and repeated a statement of the importance of the Constitution; activists like Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and Sojourner Truth. Secretary Hillary Clinton and myself introduced legislation to put the first American bust, that of Sojourner Truth, in the United States Capitol, where she sits today. Who would have known her name, had it not been for the celebration through that legislation of over 2,500 women who came to celebrate the placing of this bust? Astronaut Mae Jemison still remains the first African-American woman to go into space. We have mathematicians Catherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson, who I believe are evidenced in the film ``Hidden Figures.'' ``Fences'' is another great movie of great history. We have Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks. All of these are evidence of great people. Or the likes of Ruby Mosley, who started with the city of Houston but was an activist and is an activist in Acres Homes. Not one thing of good news happened in Acres Homes and around the city without Ruby Mosley's great leadership. She is still going. Barbara Jordan, Mickey Leland, Craig Washington, and myself, who served in this seat in the 18th Congressional District, fought to make sure that seniors had housing, make sure their Social Security and city services were there, and standing up to fight for civil rights. There were so many like Ruby Mosley. All of them should be placed in literature to announce their greatness. And then, of course, let me say how proud I am to have a father by the name of Ezra C. Jackson, one of the first African-American cartoonists working in New York City in the media of comic books. He was a strange figure there. Tragically and unfortunately, as the White men begin to return after World War II, the African Americans who worked during that time, since he was the youngest of four sons--three went to World War II--were displaced. Racism. But yet I am so proud of him for being such an astute and brilliant artist. So much of his work still remains, shown in the Smithsonian in its early stages of putting together the National Museum of African American History and Culture. Also, my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, one of the Tuskegee Airmen. Clearly, it began as an experiment to determine whether colored soldiers were capable of operating expensive and complex combat aircraft but ended as an unqualified success, based on the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, whose record included 261 aircraft destroyed, 141 aircraft damaged, 15,553 combat sorties, and 1,578 missions over Italy and north Africa. This past weekend, we buried a church member of mine, Clyde Alexander, who was also a Tuskegee Airman. To both of those men, we pay tribute, and I ask the question: How many textbooks in America, in school districts, rural and urban, have the story about the Tuskegee Airmen? Is the question: Do we need to celebrate and commemorate Black history? If that is the question, then the answer is not only a resounding yes, but what are you doing in the academic institutions across America to ensure that we tell the story not of African American history or Black history, but of American history? Let me finish my remarks by adding a challenge evidenced in the Los Angeles Times. One of the things that comes out of the commemoration of African- American history is a connection to the diaspora. The Congressional Black Caucus has been the singular connecting force to the diaspora, whether it is to the Caribbean; whether it is to the African Brazilians in Brazil who happen to be of Nigerian heritage; whether it is, as I indicated, in the Caribbean, where my parents and grandparents came from, from Jamaica; from Panama, where my grandfather worked on the Panama Canal. All of this is part of the portfolio of the Congressional Black Caucus, and I thank our chairman, Mr. Richmond. We have been the strongest voices on these issues. Mickey Leland, who was my predecessor, died on the side of an Ethiopian mountain because he cared about the horrible and devastating drought that was killing those in the region and he continued to want to take them food and to hold dying babies in his hands. Now we have a new challenge, and that is of Somalia, a new hunger emergency. Millions are going to die if this President does not recognize that his responsibilities include not only being the Commander in Chief, but many times the chief humanitarian of the world. In the last drought, some 350,000 children died in this region because of starvation. Right now they are expecting that starvation is going to impact hundreds of thousands of women and children. This is a picture of a woman and her child walking by the dead goats that would be the source of their livelihood because there is no water. As I close my remarks, I call upon this Congress and I call upon this President to get the wheels back on the White House and begin to recognize that America has always been the comforter in receiving refugees, and it has always been a friend of the continent of Africa. There are Members of Congress who have gone to Africa in times of need, but we have also worked with the administration, from George Bush to Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama and many others, who recognized that we are connected to the continent of Africa by the very slaves who were brought here. Let us fight for Somalia to survive. I call upon my fellow colleagues to join me in legislation dealing with the starvation here, that we can raise up humanitarian dollars and efforts to save the lives of hundreds of thousands who are now on the brink of starving. That is what this month commemorates, not only the African American history, but the diaspora of which we are so connected.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 58, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to Teacher Preparation Issues, because the regulation Republicans seek to rescind will have the effect of reducing educational opportunities in student achievement, quality of instruction, college readiness and other important outcomes. Teaching is a very noble profession that shapes the character, caliber, and future of an individual and for many of our nation's children, a teacher affects eternity; he or she can never tell where his influence stops. Teachers cannot however succeed in shaping the lives of our children if we as a society fail to equip them with the tools necessary to master and hone the craft they pass along to our youth. This joint resolution would nullify the Teacher Preparation Issues rule finalized by the Department of Education on October 31, 2016, tying the hands of any and all future administrations in improving the transparency and quality of teacher preparation programs until the Higher Education Act (HEA) is successfully reauthorized. The Teacher Preparation Issues rule established indicators that States must use to report on teacher preparation program performance, to help ensure that the quality of teacher preparation programs is judged on reliable and valid indicators of program performance. Section 205 of the HEA requires States and institutions of higher education (IHEs) annually to report on various characteristics of their teacher preparation programs, including an assessment of program performance. Under the rule that this menacing legislation would obliterate requirements in the collection and dissemination of more meaningful data on teacher preparation program quality. These reporting requirements exist in part to ensure that members of the public, prospective teachers and employers (districts and schools), and the States, IHEs, and programs themselves have accurate information on the quality of these teacher preparation programs. These requirements also provide an impetus to States and IHEs to make improvements where they are needed. The Department's existing title II reporting system framework has not, however, ensured sufficient quality feedback to various stakeholders on program performance. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that some States are not assessing whether teacher preparation programs are low- performing, as required by law, and so prospective teachers may have difficulty identifying low-performing teacher preparation programs, possibly resulting in teachers who are not fully prepared to educate children. In addition, struggling teacher preparation programs may not receive the technical assistance they need and, like the teaching candidates themselves, school districts, and other stakeholders, will not be able to make informed decisions. The final regulations also link assessments of program performance under HEA title II to eligibility for the Federal TEACH Grant program. The TEACH Grant program, authorized by the HEA, provides grants to eligible IHEs, which, in turn, use the funds to provide grants of up to $4,000 annually to eligible teacher preparation candidates who agree to serve as full-time teachers in high-need fields at low-income schools for not less than four academic years within eight years after completing their courses of study. Thousands of novice teachers enter the profession every year and their students deserve to have well-prepared teachers. Current educational policy is committed to ensuring that the measures by which States judge the quality of teacher preparation programs reflect the true quality of the programs and provide information that facilitates program improvement and, by extension, improvement in student achievement. H.J. Res. 58 is just another step in Republicans' plan to dismantle the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education and undermine public education. H.J. Res. 58 flies in the face of Congressional intent, removing any sense of transparency related to teacher preparation program quality, and leaving these important equity provisions without checks and balances indefinitely. H.J. Res 58 would ensure that there are no serious attempts to improve the quality of teacher preparation programs, since the CRA prevents future Departments of Education from regulating on a similar issue. If unhappy with the final rule, the Trump Administration should use administrative tools at its disposal to amend and revise the regulation. Use of CRA is a political gimmick that harms students, teachers, and taxpayers. Republicans want blanket deregulation of federal education programs in an attempt to stall implementation of equity-focused provisions and allow states and districts the ultimate flexibility to ignore laws and federal requirements intended to protect disadvantaged students. The CRA has been used only once in Congressional history. Using it to block regulatory action to improve teacher preparation program quality is extreme and a gross abuse of power. When we fail our teachers, we rob our children of long fought for opportunities to expand their horizons in classrooms and achieve in life the hope we have vested in them for the future. I urge you to oppose this bill

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the text of an op-ed that was published yesterday in The Hill, entitled ``When It Comes to Leading the Justice Department, the Senate Should Just Say No To Sen. Sessions,'' whose headquarters building is named after Robert F. Kennedy, by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. [From The Hill, Feb. 8, 2017] When It Comes to Leading the Justice Department, the Senate Should Just Say No to Sessions (By Sheila Jackson Lee) Many people think the role of the U.S. Attorney General is simply to be the nation's chief prosecutor. This seriously understates the responsibility, power, and moral authority of the office. The attorney general is the lawyer for the American people. He is not the president's lawyer. The Attorney General leads the Department of Justice and justice is his client and his mission. As a member of the President's Cabinet, it is important that the Attorney General have the trust of the President, but as the ``People's Lawyer,'' it is essential that he or she have the trust and confidence of the American people. The nomination of U.S. Sen. Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff'' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States does not inspire the required trust and confidence. Many of the senator's supporters, ranging from his Republican colleagues in the Senate to current and former staffers to home state friends and constituents, praise the senator for his modesty and courtesy and manners. The four- term senator and former state and federal prosecutor is, we are told, learned in the law, a person of deep faith, a good man who loves his family, his state, and his country. We can, as the lawyers say, stipulate that these assertions are true. But that does not make him an appropriate and deserving candidate to be Attorney General of the United States. And that is because the office of Attorney General and the Department of Justice he or she leads is different in a very fundamental way from every other Cabinet department. Unlike, say, the secretary of Transportation or Commerce or Education, or even the secretary of Defense or State, the Attorney General leads a department that is charged with administering the laws and enforcing the Constitutional guarantees and protections that directly affect every American, all 320 million of us. Sen. Sessions may be a courtly and courteous Southern gentleman but those qualities, charming and desirable as they may be in a senator, simply are not nearly enough to make one fit to serve as Attorney General of the United States of America. The position of Attorney General is unique because he or she is the only Cabinet officer who owes a stronger allegiance to the American people than to the president who nominated him or her. This is not true even for the secretaries of State, of Defense, or of the Treasury because while they are all charged with upholding the Constitution, their views regarding the fundamental rights and civil liberties of the American people are not essential to the execution of their governmental duties. One of the major reasons why the nomination of a sitting four-term senator to be Attorney General is unprecedented is that the role of a senator is to be a partisan advocate for specific legislative outcomes while the role of the Attorney General is to enforce the law. It is dangerous to combine this partisan zeal with the power and discretion vested in the Attorney General to shape legal policy in the federal judiciary. As Attorney General, Sen. Sessions will have an outsized role in determining which cases will be brought and what position the United States will take in cases decided by the Supreme Court. An alarming case in point is the Executive Order issued by the president banning Muslims from predominately Muslim countries from entering the United States, which has been denounced by leading national security and foreign policy experts, deemed unconstitutional by scores of law professors and other scholars, sparked peaceful mass demonstrations across the nation, and is opposed by a majority of the American public. The president's ban on Muslims entering the United States was deemed such a clear and egregious violation of the Constitution that then Acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced that she could not, consistent with her oath, defend the order in court. Sen. Sessions, however, appears not be troubled in the slightest by the cavalier rejection of the principle of religious liberty implicit in the executive order. This is hardly surprising since Sen. Sessions was one of the earliest, most influential, and enthusiastic backers of the Trump presidential campaign and its unconscionable and unconstitutional immigration policies, including the ``total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States'' announced by candidate Trump in December 2015. As Sen. Sessions told ABC News in May 2016: ``I don't think Trump has gone too far, . . . we should have a temporary ban on entry of people into the country from the Muslim world, but that's because we have an ineffective screening process . . . so I think we're moving in the right direction.'' As noted by the more than 1,000 State Department employees who have registered their dissent to the executive order, because there has been a virtual absence of terror attacks committed in recent years by Syrian, Iraqi, Irani, Libyan, Somalia, Sudanese, and Yemeni nationals living in the United States, the president's Muslim ban will have little practical effect in improving public safety. What it will do, however, is despoil our relations with these countries, and much of the Muslim world, which sees the ban, rightly, as religiously-motivated. So instead of strengthening relations with countries that should be our allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, we alienate them, inflame sentiment against the United States among their citizens, and deprive ourselves of vital intelligence and resources needed to fight the root causes of terror. Adoption of this wrong-headed policy appears to mean to Sen. Sessions that ``we're moving in the right direction.'' That any member of the President's Cabinet could hold these views is very troubling. That such views are held by the person who could be the Attorney General is frightening and disqualifying. After all, the U.S. Attorney General and Justice Department is not only the instrument of justice but also the living symbol of the Constitution's promise of equal justice under law. The nation's greatest Attorney Generals conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior experience, their words and deeds, and their character. Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican President Eisenhower, who oversaw the integration of Little Rock's Central High School. Think Robert Jackson, Attorney General for Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt, who led the prosecution team at the Nazi War Crimes trial in Nuremburg, Germany. Think Robert F. Kennedy, for whom the Main Justice Building is named, bringing to bear the instruments of federal power to protect Mississippi Freedom Riders and to stare down Gov. George Wallace in the successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama. Think Elliot Richardson, Attorney General under Republican President Richard Nixon, who stood for fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law in the infamous `Saturday Night Massacre' during the Watergate scandal. Those who argue the Sessions' nomination is no different than those of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch are simply wrong. The difference is stark--Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch came to the office of Attorney General as career professionals with no history or record of partisan political advocacy. Unlike Sen. Sessions, neither of them ever served in a legislative body or voted to pass or defeat the legislation the Department of Justice is charged with administering. Nothing in Sen. Sessions' 70 years inspires any confidence that he possesses the qualities of any of our distinguished former Attorneys General and there is less reason for optimism that he will grow in office. As a U.S. senator from Alabama, the state from which the infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder originated, Sen. Sessions has failed to play a constructive role in repairing the damage to the Voting Rights Act caused by that decision. He was one of the leading opponents of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Sen. Sessions's record in support of efforts to bring needed reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually non-existent. And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront. Sen. Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activists for voter fraud and has called the landmark Voting Rights Act ``a piece of intrusive legislation.'' He is one of the Senate's most hostile opponents of comprehensive immigration reform and was a principal architect of the draconian and incendiary immigration policy advocated by the current president during the 2016 campaign. When it comes to the effort to diversify the federal judiciary in his home state of Alabama and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Sessions has at best been missing in action. As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Sen. Sessions fought to continue practices that harmed schools predominantly attended by African-American students, including leading the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court. Although Sen. Sessions has publicly taken credit for desegregation efforts in the state of Alabama, there is no evidence of his participation in the desegregation of Alabama schools or any school desegregation lawsuits filed by then-Attorney General Sessions. Sen. Session's lengthy public record makes it difficult to place much faith in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. After staunchly opposing the Violence Against Women Act, the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' the expansion of anti-hate legislation to include sexual orientation, and fighting the removal of the Confederate flag from public buildings, the long-time opponent of voluntary desegregation in Alabama now claims to be committed to the cause of equal opportunity for all Americans. The proponent of overruling Roe v. Wade now presents himself as a defender and protector of a woman's right to choose. The outspoken advocate of unfettered Second Amendment rights now says he can be trusted to enforce the nation's gun violence prevention laws. Actions speak louder than words, and in the case of Sen. Sessions his 30-year record of intense opposition on so many critical issues involving civil rights, women's rights, voting rights, criminal justice and immigration reform, and equal educational opportunity is the most compelling and powerful evidence that he should not be confirmed by the Senate to be the nation's 84th Attorney General.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 57, the CRA Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to Accountability and State Plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). I oppose this legislation because the regulation Republicans seek to rescind is intended to reduce educational opportunities in student achievement, quality of instruction, college readiness and other important outcomes. ESEA, the national education law, represents a longstanding commitment to equal opportunity for all students. ESEA authorizes state-run programs for eligible schools and districts eager to raise the academic achievement of struggling learners and address the complex challenges that arise for students who live with disability, mobility problems, learning difficulties, poverty, or transience, or who need to learn English. The original goal of the law, which remains today, was to improve educational equity for students from lower-income families by providing federal funds to school districts serving poor students. Typically, these school districts receive less state and local funding than those serving more affluent children. Local property taxes are typically the primary funding source for schools, and property values are much lower in poorer areas, making the funds critical to children demonstrating greater educational need. ESEA is the single largest source of federal spending on elementary and secondary education. ESEA demands accountability in state plans addressing deficiencies in high needs educational policy in return for the taxpayer dollars. Because of this regulation states and districts must now show that they are working to meet the needs and providing a quality education to all of their students. When education policy folks talk about accountability, this is what they mean. Recognizing the continuing vital need for this landmark legislation, the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was reauthorized as the Every Student Succeeds Act, with strong bipartisan majorities and it was signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015. The joint resolution before us today, would nullify the rule finalized by the Department of Education on November 29, 2016, relating to accountability and state plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. H.J. Res. 57 is the latest Republican attempt to dismantle the oversight and enforcement authority of the Department of Education and undermine public education. Thus far: The Trump Administration nominated Betsy DeVos, a candidate for Secretary of Education with no practical education experience who pledges to redirect $20 billion in federal funding to private school voucher programs; Administration sources leaked plans to eliminate the Under Secretary position and outsource higher education policy to a task force headed by the controversial Jerry Falwell, Jr., the President of Liberty University; The Department removed all Every Student Succeeds Act technical assistance resources to the states from the public domain; and Republicans have filed two joint resolutions of disapproval to block and prevent re-regulation of key equity protections for students and educators--this bill and H.J. Res. 58, the Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution for Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Education Relating to Teacher Preparation Issues. Mr. Speaker, current education law and policy builds on key areas of progress in recent years, made possible by the efforts of educators, communities, parents, and students across the country. Today, high school graduation rates are at all-time highs: Graduation rate of U.S. public high schools: 83.2 percent for the 2014-15 school year, an all-time high; pre-Obama: 75 percent By race and ethnicity: African Americans: 73 percent; pre-Obama: 61 percent Hispanics: 76 percent; pre-Obama: 64 percent Whites: 87 percent; pre-Obama: 81 percent American Indian/Alaska Native: 70 percent: pre-Obama: 64 percent Asian/Pacific Islander: 89 percent; pre-Obama: 91 percent Dropout rates are at historic lows. And more students are going to college than ever before. These achievements provide a firm foundation for further work to expand educational opportunity and improve student outcomes under ESSA. ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for students and schools. Below are just a few benefits provided by the ESSA: 1) Advances equity by upholding critical protections for America's disadvantaged and high-need students. 2) Require--for the first time, that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers. 3) Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students' progress toward those high standards. 4) Helps to support and grow local innovation including evidence- based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders and educator, consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise Neighborhoods. 5) Sustains and expands this administration's historic investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool. 6) Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability, and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation rates are low over extended periods of time. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) passed as a cornerstone of President Lyndon. B. Johnson's War on Poverty was signed into law on April 9, 1965. This law brought education into the forefront of the national assault on poverty and represented a landmark commitment to equal access to quality education. The ESEA is a comprehensive statute that funds primary and secondary education, emphasizing high standards and accountability. As mandated in the Act, funds are authorized for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and the promotion of parental involvement. The government has reauthorized the Act every five years since its enactment. President Johnson believed that full educational opportunity should be our first national goal. From its inception, ESEA was a civil rights law. ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for textbooks and library books, funding for special education centers, and scholarships for low-income college students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education. The previous version of the law, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, was enacted in 2002. NCLB represented a significant step forward for our nation's children in many respects, particularly as it shined a light on where students were making progress and where they needed additional support, regardless of race, income, zip code, disability, home language, or background. NCLB put in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved students and their peers and spurred an important national dialogue on education improvement. This focus on accountability has been critical in ensuring a quality education for all children, yet also revealed challenges in the effective implementation of this goal. The law was scheduled for revision in 2007, and, over time, NCLB's prescriptive requirements became increasingly unworkable for schools and educators. Parents, educators, and elected officials across the country recognized that a strong, updated law was necessary to expand opportunity to all students; support schools, teachers, and principals; and to strengthen our education system and economy. Recognizing this fact, in 2010, the Obama Administration joined a call from educators and families to create a better law that focused on the clear goal of fully preparing all students for success in college and careers. Congress has responded to that call allowing the Every Student Succeeds Act to reflect many of the priorities previously debated. Additionally, in 2012, the Obama Administration began granting flexibility to states regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed to close achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and increase outcomes for all students. The law today, offers flexibility to states from some of the previously more cumbersome provisions. In order to qualify for this flexibility, states have to demonstrate that they have adopted college and career-ready standards and assessments, implemented school accountability systems that focused on the lowest-performing schools and those with the largest achievement gaps, and ensured that districts were implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. These efforts should not be compromised. H.J. Res. 57 however, puts politics before America's 50 million public school students. It takes an axe to a consensus-driven ESSA rule that was developed with, and supported by, the broader education community, including states, districts, civil rights groups, parents, and teachers. Republicans want blanket deregulation of federal education programs in an attempt to stall implementation of equity-focused provisions and allow states and districts the ultimate flexibility to ignore laws and federal requirements intended to protect disadvantaged students. The CRA has been used only once in Congress' history. Using it to block regulatory action to support and improve public education is extreme and a gross abuse of power. Resolutions introduced by Republicans in the last week, including H.J. Res. 57, set a dangerous precedent by permanently undermining the Department of Education and all federal agencies. ESSA was passed in December of 2015 with overwhelming bipartisan and bicameral support, and H.J. Res. 57 is a political power play that would undo enforcement of key equity protections in this bipartisan civil rights law. States are currently drafting plans to implement this very regulation. ESSA affords states and districts unprecedented flexibility. H.J. Res. 57 would pull the rug out from under states and districts that are working hard to ensure the civil rights legacy of the law, leaving them without the clarity and direction needed to fully use new flexibilities and meet federal requirements. H.J. Res. 57 strikes at the heart of ESSA. Blocking implementation and reregulation of ESSA's core requirements in accountability, state plans, and data and reporting will leave States in limbo and jeopardize protections for vulnerable students that Democrats championed in reauthorization. If unhappy with the final rule, the Trump Administration should use administrative tools at its disposal to amend and revise the regulation. Use of CRA is a political gimmick that harms students, teachers, and taxpayers. I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a bill

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat my concern, when the United States is compared to the thuggish behavior of Russian leadership, the attempt to poison individuals who are activists and opponents to that kind of oppression. But I want to speak today to what is impacting our neighbors, Mr. Speaker, and that is the executive order that has been issued by the President of the United States. I want to dispel any myth that Members of this body who oppose the executive order are against security for this Nation. I am a years'-long member of the Homeland Security Committee, the Transportation Security Committee, the Border Security Committee, and work hard to write a stiff border security bill. But, frankly, this is a Muslim ban, and when a 17-year-old, 16-year-old from my community, from Jordan, was stopped and held for 48 hours and shipped to Chicago, that is a Muslim ban. What I say to those who have executed it is that you have to realize that the order that you tried to copy from President Obama was not the same. It was stringent review; it was not rejection. You are rejecting Muslims and allowing others. As a Christian, I know that Christians are not being subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. This is a Muslim ban. I ask the White House, as we go to court this evening: Why don't you reconsider and pull that Muslim ban down?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 588, Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act, which requires the Federal Communications Commission to submit to Congress and publish on the FCC website a study on the public safety benefits, technical feasibility, and cost of providing the public with access to 9-1-1 services during times of emergency when mobile service is unavailable. As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of the importance of telephone service during disasters. The Securing Access to Networks in Disasters (SANDy) Act seeks to ensure the resiliency of the nation's communications networks during emergencies. Acquiring cellphone service during a massive natural or manmade disaster is often difficult, if not impossible, and this is why this piece of legislation is so essential. During the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City, cellphone service was severely disrupted, forcing many callers to repeatedly dial to get through to 9- 1-1 emergency services. On that day, some of the most tragic, heart wrenching calls came from those trapped in the Twin Towers. It is not only during terrorist attacks that cellphone services are severely disrupted, but also natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, which claimed the lives of over 1,800 people. The SANDy Act would ensure that during an emergency, consumers' cell phones work on other carriers' networks if a consumer's own network goes down. H.R. 588 would give priority to calls to 9-1-1 services and emergency alerts. It also would increase coordination between wireless carriers, utilities, and public safety officials by creating a directory of the contact information for relevant disaster response officials. The bill would require the FCC to report to Congress regarding whether additional outage data should be provided in times of emergency. In addition, the bill requires the FCC to report to Congress on the viability of providing 9-1-1 services over Wi-Fi hotspots during emergencies. H.R. 588 would be of immense benefit to the 18th Congressional District and the greater Houston area. On April 17-18, 2016, Houston experienced a historic flood event that claimed the lives of eight people, damaged over 1,150 households, disrupted hundreds of businesses, closed community centers, schools, and places of worship due to flood waters. On April 25, President Obama granted the request for federal Individual Assistance for Harris County residences and business owners who were affected by severe weather and flooding. Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story of flooding in Houston for 2016--in early June another record setting rainfall led to catastrophic flooding throughout the Houston area. I am grateful to President Obama and the great work of those at the Department of Homeland Security who worked tirelessly to help people after both 2016 flood events. I spoke on the House Floor several times about the Floods and the suffering caused by the waters that came through our communities-- damaging homes, our schools, places of business, and our places of worship. The flooding problems in the Houston area are frequent, widespread, and severe, with projects to reduce flood risks in place that are valued at several billion dollars. In 2015, the Houston and surrounding area experienced widespread historic flooding. The importance of being able to contact emergency responders in the case of natural disasters is critical in order to save the lives of those directly affected by such events. The SANDy Act would provide telecommunication access to victims of natural and man-made disasters. The SANDy Act amends the Stafford Act to ensure that all communications providers: 1. Have the ability to access relevant disaster stricken areas during emergencies to restore service; and 2. Are included in the universal credentialing program for essential service providers The SANDy Act would recognize the critical role that all communications providers--broadcasters, cable, and telecommunications-- serve in emergencies, but most notably, the bill would ensure consumers have access to wireless service even if their cellphone service provider's wireless network goes down. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 588, the Securing Access to Networks in Disaster Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 587, the Fair Ratepayer Accountability, Transparency, and Efficiency Standards Act (Fair RATES Act), which amends the Federal Power Act to permit administrative and judicial review of any rate change filed by a public utility that takes effect without the approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The need for this change became evident in the wake of a New England Forward Capacity Market Auction in 2014, which occurred at a time when FERC only had 4 Commissioners. When the New England Forward Capacity Market Auction issue was addressed by FERC, the Commissioners split evenly over the question of whether the auction results were just and reasonable. Since FERC did not disapprove the auction results, wholesale electricity prices in New England increased dramatically. So, while rates went up, none of the affected parties could challenge the decision or resulting rate increase, and, therefore, no rehearing or judicial review was possible. H.R. 587 provides those who want to challenge a similar rulings or non-decisions by FERC the ability to challenge the decision administratively or in the courts. The bill ensures that stakeholders have recourse when a non-decision by FERC has very real consequences for consumers, producers and others. This bill would also improve the process by which FERC votes are reconsidered. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 587.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 423, the Anti- Spoofing Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934, to make it unlawful to cause a caller identification service to knowingly transmit inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to: defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Spoofing is a practice in which a phone number shown on a phone or caller identification device deliberately is falsified. Spoofing is a commonly used tool for a number of illegal practices, including ``phishing'' for personal information and ``swatting''-- calling in a fictitious crime in progress in order to generate a police response. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibits spoofing of voice caller identification information. However, as communications methods and consumer habits continue to evolve, so do the attempts by third parties to gain personal information for criminal use. Many Americans now rely on text messaging to stay connected. According to CTIA, in 2015, Americans sent over 156 billion text messages per month. H.R. 423, the Anti-Spoofing Act, will extend the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include text messaging and text messaging services. The legislation adds a definition of ``spoofing service'' to the statute, addressing the growth of services that allows a user to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information. In addition, it extends the prohibitions to any person or service placing an international call to a recipient within the United States. Additionally, H.R. 423 will revise the definitions of ``caller identification information'' and ``caller identification service'' to include text messages sent using a text messaging service. It defines ``text message'' as real-time messages consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information transmitted from or received by a device identified by a telephone number. It also includes in the definition both, real-time and two-way voice or video communications, addressing the emerging law enforcement issue of ``swatting'' by which people can purposefully misdirect valuable, police efforts and resources. This bill takes the right approach targeting behavior, while protecting innovations that are important to the digital economy. As the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I understand the vital need to safeguard against caller identification spoofing. For example, women's abuse shelters and law enforcement officers working undercover have a need to protect their clients' identities. This bill seeks to target those who have the intent to cause harm or commit a crime. I support this legislation because it protects the consumer from criminal behavior, while protecting our fundamental right to privacy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 582, the Kari's Law Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require multi-line telephone systems to have a configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call 9-1-1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix. As a senior member of the House Committees on Homeland Security and Judiciary, I am well aware of the importance of 9-1-1 services and some of the challenges of E-9-1-1 to ensure that those seeking emergency assistance receive the help they need. H.R. 582 would create parity for landline 9-1-1 services and smartphone E9-1-1 services so that emergency assistance request from either is treated the same. The bill requires that those engaged in the manufacturing, importation, sale, and lease of telecommunication service or devices pre-configured technology to dial 9-1-1. The goal of H.R. 582 is to ensure that all emergency calls regardless of the source are routed properly to emergency services. Kari's Law is not intended to alter the authority of State commissions or other State or local agencies with jurisdiction over emergency communications. The establishment of the Kari's Law Act acknowledges the importance of the configuration of multi-line telephones systems for direct dialing for 9-1-1. Over the past two decades, the personal communications of Americans have changed. The Wireless Association reported that the penetration of cellular devices surpassed 100 percent in 2012, and as of the latest 2014 report, penetration is now at 110 percent. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of U.S. adults have a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center. Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups: 86 percent of those ages 18-29 have a smartphone, as do 83 percent of those ages 30-49 and 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually. With so many mobile devices deployed the majority of calls to 9-1-1 emergency public safety answering points (PSAP) originate from them. U.S. emergency dispatch agencies report that wireless callers are responsible for at least 80 percent of their emergency call volume. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to Support H.R. 582, Kari's Law Act of 2017.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017, which amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require voice communications that charge users to register with the FCC and comply with service quality standards to be established by the FCC. The bill, should it become law, prohibits long-distance providers from using an internet provider to transmit voice communications and signals unless the intermediate provider is registered. H.R. 460 would require the FCC to: 1. Ensure the integrity of voice communications to all customers in the United States 2. Prevent unjust or unreasonable discrimination across areas of the United States in the delivery of voice communications; and 3. Make a registry of intermediate providers publicly available on the FCC website. H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2016, would seek to ensure that calls to Americans living in the rural areas of our country actually make it through to the intended receiver. Making sure a call goes through, regardless of where it is being made, is fundamental to our communications system. H.R. 460 that would require the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish basic quality standards for providers that transmit voice calls to consumers, among other things. The Senate Commerce Committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute (AINS) that made the following changes: 1. Extends deadlines for service quality standards for intermediate providers from 180 days to one year, 2. Exempts intermediate providers that have been certified as a safe harbor provider; and 3. Amends the definition of intermediate provider. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 460, the Improving Rural Call Quality and Reliability Act of 2017.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 511, the Power and Security Systems Act of 2017, which will revise energy conservation standards for devices operating in standby mode. In the early 1970s, I, recall, as many of my colleagues do, the impact to our nation's economy when OPEC nations withheld oil from the United States, causing one of the greatest peace-time energy shortages in United States history. One of the remedial steps taken by the Carter Administration was the promulgation of regulations that required large appliances and equipment that used electricity to default to a power down mode when not in use. Today, we take for granted that machines power down when not in use, but this one change in energy policy over the last 40 years has saved taxpayers, which includes businesses and private homes, billions of dollars in energy costs. This was only one policy solution that was used to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil so that energy could go to vital services like fuel for electricity generation, gasoline, heating fuels, and diesel oil. H.R. 511, the bill before us, would extend energy conservation to digital technology that can operate in standby mode. Most digital device technology manufacturers already provide sleep mode on their devices to assist their users in conserving power on cellphones, smartphones, MP3 players, e-book readers, as well as desktop and laptop computers. Today, 68 percent of U.S. adults own a smartphone, up from 35 percent in 2011, and tablet computer ownership has edged up to 45 percent among adults, according to newly released survey data from the Pew Research Center. Considering not just smartphones, but all types of mobile phones, Pew notes that cellphones continue to top the list. Roughly nine-in-ten American adults or 92 percent own a mobile phone of some kind. Although these mobile devices are ubiquitous today, the share of adults who own one has risen substantially since 2004. Smartphone ownership is nearing the saturation point with some groups: 1. 86 percent of those ages 18-29; 2. 83 percent of those ages 30-49; and 3. 87 percent of those living in households earning $75,000 and up annually own smartphones. These facts highlight the importance of energy conservation for mobile communication users. The battery life for these devices is limited and without power they are of no use to the user. This bill will help users remain connected as long as possible because the energy consumption on their cellphones and other digital devices will be minimized when they are not in use. Energy conservation will also assist consumers during times when power outages may occur due to weather or other electricity disruption. The longer power life for cellphones will benefit consumers by reducing the amount of electricity needed to recharge their personal devices. This bill will also benefit businesses that often have many computers that when in use can consume electricity if left on after business hours--especially over weekends. For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 511.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I know this Nation's values. Many of us study it in the Constitution, and as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, we review that document on many occasions. We are a nation that stands for principles of democracy; so I am very disturbed by an interview that was given by the White House this weekend that defended Putin--a man who invades to dominate, to kill, a man who supports a despot in Syria who has killed and gassed his own people--and compared his acts to any that the men and women in the United States military or in the United States may have done. It is not comparable to or even equal or even anywhere near the kind of despotism of Russia under Putin. I am offended, and I apologize to the American people for any comparison. I believe it to be appropriate for the White House to clarify and to apologize for suggesting that our values and the efforts we take to protect people who may encounter efforts of war in any way can be compared to Putin, who is, in fact, someone who kills--and kills to dominate, not to help. America is a defender, not an offender. I stand here proudly, supporting the values of the United States of America, a country that believes in the blessings of God and democracy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this February we recognize and celebrate the 40th commemoration of Black History Month. This month we celebrate the contributions of African Americans to the history of our great nation, and pay tribute to trailblazers, pioneers, heroes, and leaders like the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; U.S. Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce; U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Jordan; U.S. Congressman Mickey Leland; Astronauts Dr. Guion Stewart Bluford, Jr. and Mae C. Jemison; activists, intellectuals, authors, and artists like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks just to name a few of the countless number of well-known and unsung heroes whose contributions have helped our nation become a more perfect union. The history of the United States has been marked by the great contributions of African American activists, leaders, writers, and artists. As a member of Congress, I know that I stand on the shoulders of giants whose struggles and triumphs made it possible for me to stand here today and continue the fight for equality, justice, and progress for all, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The greatest of these giants to me are Mrs. Ivalita ``Ivy'' Jackson, a vocational nurse, and Mr. Ezra A. Jackson, one of the first African Americans to succeed in the comic book publishing business. They were my beloved parents and they taught me the value of education, hard work, discipline, perseverance, and caring for others. And I am continually inspired by Dr. Elwyn Lee, my husband and the first tenured African American law professor at the University of Houston. Mr. Speaker, I particularly wish to acknowledge the contributions of African American veterans in defending from foreign aggressors and who by their courageous examples helped transform our nation from a segregated society to a nation committed to the never ending challenge of perfecting our union. A few years ago about this time, I was honored to join my colleagues, Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Charles Rangel, a Korean War veteran, in paying tribute to surviving members of the Tuskegee Airmen and the 555th Parachute Infantry, the famed ``Triple Nickels'' at a moving ceremony sponsored by the U.S. Army commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The success of the Tuskegee Airmen in escorting bombers during World War II--achieving one of the lowest loss records of all the escort fighter groups, and being in constant demand for their services by the allied bomber units--is a record unmatched by any other fighter group. So impressive and astounding were the feats of the Tuskegee Airmen that in 1948, it helped persuade President Harry Truman to issue his famous Executive Order No. 9981, which directed equality of treatment and opportunity in all of the United States Armed Forces and led to the end of racial segregation in the U.S. military forces. It is a source of enormous and enduring pride that my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, was one of the Tuskegee Airmen. Clearly, what began as an experiment to determine whether ``colored'' soldiers were capable of operating expensive and complex combat aircraft ended as an unqualified success based on the experience of the Tuskegee Airmen, whose record included 261 aircraft destroyed, 148 aircraft damaged, 15,553 combat sorties and 1,578 missions over Italy and North Africa. They also destroyed or damaged over 950 units of ground transportation and escorted more than 200 bombing missions. They proved that ``the antidote to racism is excellence in performance,'' as retired Lt. Col. Herbert Carter once remarked. Mr. Speaker, Black History Month is also a time to remember many pioneering women like U.S. Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm; activists Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks; astronaut Mae C. Jemison; mathematicians like Katherine G. Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson; authors Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, and Gwendolyn Brooks; all of whom have each in their own way, whether through courageous activism, cultural or intellectual contributions, or artistic creativity, forged social and political change, and forever changed our great Nation for the better. It is also fitting, Mr. Speaker, that in addition to those national leaders whose contributions have made our nation better, we honor also those who have and are making a difference in their local communities. In my home city of Houston, there are numerous great men and women. They are great because they have heeded the counsel of Dr. King who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By that measure, I wish to pay tribute to some of the great men and women of Houston: 1. Rev. F.N. Williams, Sr. 2. Rev. Dr. S.J. Gilbert, Sr. 3. Rev. Crawford W. Kimble 4. Rev. Eldridge Stanley Branch 5. Rev. William A. Lawson 6. Rev. Johnnie Jeffery ``J.J.'' Robeson 7. Mr. John Brand 8. Ms. Ruby Moseley 9. Ms. Dorothy Hubbard 10. Ms. Doris Hubbard 11. Ms. Willie Bell Boone 12. Ms. Holly HogoBrooks 13. Mr. Deloyd Parker 14. Ms. Lenora ``Doll'' Carter As we celebrate Black History Month, let us pay tribute to those who have come before us, and pay forward to future generations by addressing what is the number one issue for African American families, and all American families today: preserving the American promise of economic opportunity for all. Our immediate focus must be job creation, and enacting legislation that will foster and lay the foundation for today's and tomorrow's generation of groundbreaking activists, leaders, scientists, writers and artists to continue contributing to the greatness of America. We must continue to preserve the American Dream for all. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in celebration of the heroic and historic acts of African Americans and their indispensable contributions to this great Nation. It is through our work in creating possibilities for today and future generations that we best honor the accomplishments and legacy of our predecessors.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is going to be a devastating day for so many. For decades, America has been engaged in resettling refugees. I remember the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, and the people from Afghanistan. More importantly, I remember the excitement I had in visiting the Statue of Liberty and being reminded of what a great country this is. Tomorrow, with the 120-day suspension, we will literally devastate refugee families, some of whom waited 10, 12, 15 years, who have sold all their goods and who are good people who want to come to this country, and, as well, their documents will expire. I am asking the administration to have mercy and to be as the Chaplain ordered us to do: to find our grounding in being able to be servants. I would ask that we not devastate these families causing them to completely be derailed from moving toward being refugees in this country. No terrorist has been found in refugees. I believe it is crucial that we show mercy in the spirit of prayer, as in the prayer breakfast this morning. Let us show mercy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on H.J. Res. 40, and the underlying legislation, because in a nation that leads the civilized world in deaths by gun violence, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for persons suffering from a very severe, long-term, mental disorder that makes them incapable of managing their financial benefits and unable to do any kind of work in the U.S. economy, even part-time or at very low wages to obtain deadly firearms. The Republicans have brought to the floor this week a Congressional Review Act (CRA) of Disapproval to overturn Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations to comply with existing federal law governing the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). H.J. Res. 40, would vacate an important rule issued by the Social Security Administration implementing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. That law, which we adopted in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Virginia Tech, requires federal agencies to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of individuals who are statutorily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. The statute was enacted with bipartisan support, and we should stand together to defend efforts to see that it is fully implemented. Let us be clear what a submission vote on this legislation is about: the Republican's goal is to weaken our firearms background check system. The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 presented the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history. On April 16 2007, the violence began around 7:15 a.m., ending in the deaths of 32 students and teachers after being gunned down on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Seung Hui Cho, a student at the school, who later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Only four months prior, on December 13, 2005, Cho had been ordered by a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his roommates and was subsequently evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental health facility. On February 9, 2007, Cho picked up a Walther P-22 pistol that he purchased online, just days before, on February 2 from an out-of-state dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia Tech. In March of 2007, Cho purchased a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for 571 dollars. The attack, resulting from these preventable actions, left 30 people dead and another 17 wounded. In all, 27 students and five faculty members died as a result of the actions of a known mentally unstable individual who was nonetheless allowed to purchase a firearm. On December 14, 2012, Lenny Pozner dropped off his three children, Sophia, Arielle, and Noah, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Noah had recently turned 6, and on the drive over they listened to his favorite song, for what turned out to be the last time. Half an hour later, while Sophia and Arielle hid nearby, Adam Lanza walked into Noah's first-grade class with an AR-15 rifle. Noah was the youngest of the 20 children and seven adults killed in one of the deadliest shootings in American history. Depending on whom you ask, there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight victims in Newtown. It is twenty-six if you count only those who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School; twenty-seven if you include Nancy Lanza--Adam's own mother; twenty-eight once Adam turned the gun on himself. There are twenty-six stars on the local firehouse roof. On the anniversary of the shootings, the governor of Connecticut asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times. Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children. To ensure the continued safety of American families, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing firearms, including those who, using outdated terminology, are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' (This is referred to as the ``federal mental health prohibitor.'') The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally licensed firearms dealers to run background checks on prospective gun purchasers through NICS. NICS includes records from various databases on individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing and possessing firearms. In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, prior to which the shooter's mental health prohibitor should have been, but was not, reported to NICS, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved legislation to adopt the NICS Improvement Amendments Act. As senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I supported the 2016 Social Security Administration (SSA) rule, which committed the SSA to submit records to the gun background check system for social security recipients prohibited from possessing guns due to severe mental illness. It is a critical process for enforcing the law that bars prohibited people from passing background checks and purchasing firearms. The only way we are going to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them, people who pose a known and documented danger to themselves and others, is through a system based on robust, accurate and complete information. Prior to the new SSA rulemaking, the agency had no process for submitting records of prohibited people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS therefore, has been missing records for those prohibited individuals. NICS is only as good as the records it contains. With those records missing from the system, these individuals are able to pass a background check and complete a purchase even though they are legally prohibited from purchasing guns under longstanding federal law. The SSA regulation closes this gap by committing the agency to begin submitting prohibiting records into the gun background check system. The rule does not impact any beneficiaries who are not already prohibited under law, and does not impact people based on disability findings that have been made prior to the rule taking effect. Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children. Under the regulation, only individuals with the most severe mental impairments, who are (1) unable to earn any income due to their mental incapacity, and (2) have been found incapable of managing their own benefits meet the NICS reporting system cautionary criteria to report the names of certain individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). SSA has evaluated legal, medical and lay evidence and determined that these individuals are not capable of managing their own benefits. SSA estimates that about 75,000 people per year will meet these criteria for reporting to NICS. Disability examiners make the determination based on medical and other evidence, but physicians or psychologists review the evidence and sign off on the cases. An individual who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, suffers from hallucinations and delusions, and most days cannot care for herself-- feeding, dressing, communicating with those around her. Her symptoms and medical history meet the criteria in the listing for schizophrenia. She receives disability benefits and has a representative payee. She would meet the criteria for reporting. An individual who has significant intellectual disability that prevents him from working at any level (i.e., he meets the listing for intellectual disability), and is unable to understand how to pay rent or use his benefits to buy food. He qualifies for disability benefits and has a representative payee. He would meet the criteria for reporting. Placing anyone into the NICS as a ``prohibited person'' is not something we should take lightly, but it is a task that must be done in limited circumstances and as required by statute. The circumstances addressed by this rule require that we work together on this serious and unfortunate issue. The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of Disapproval would, if passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, deem the rule to have not been in effect at any time and would also prohibit SSA from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same. The Republican's use of the CRA process to overturn the rule is an extreme exercise in bad governance. Rather than fixing or improving the rule, it would ban reporting by the SSA entirely. There would be no opportunity to simply improve aspects of the rule, and we would prevent full implementation of the law we enacted after the Virginia Tech shooting. I cannot support that result and therefore oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Subverting long-standing gun safety laws under the guise of protecting Constitutional rights, while simultaneously pushing for repeal of health reform laws that provided care to these communities rings hollow. Now is not the time to weaken our background checks system by excluding those with the most severe and incapacitating forms of mental impairment. The Social Security Administration should be commended for its efforts to keep children and families safe by following the lead of other agencies and enforcing laws that have been on the books for decades. I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a rule, and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the fallen Navy SEAL officer in Yemen and offer my concern to his family. I will rise tomorrow to continue my questioning on that, but today I wanted to make sure that I prayerfully acknowledged the sacrifice he made for this Nation. I rise today because we are one step further for the nominee for the Attorney General of the United States of America. And I join my colleagues in the Senate, the other body, who raised concern of not being able to inquire of Mr. Sessions what his position would be on what has been determined by five courts, at least, of the unconstitutionality of the executive order. It is a ban on Muslims, it is a violation of the First Amendment, equal protection of the law, and due process--First Amendment being freedom of religion. Therefore, we now have an Attorney General making the first step, Mr. Sessions, where we do not know whether you will be able to embrace the laws that protect the most vulnerable women, children, the civil rights of many, and the voting rights of many, and, frankly, I believe those questions should be answered. I conclude by saying, when you questioned Deputy Attorney General Yates, she was able to say that she would stand as an independent, objective person Attorney General having oversight over the White House. Will you be able to do the same?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working with Republican and Democratic Presidents, and, I might add, that I have had the sadness to be standing with them during times of need of this Nation. Living knowledge, during my tenure, President George W. Bush was President during 9/11. I was in this Capitol on September 11, 2001, and so I was physically evacuated. As we were leaving with no understanding of what was happening--particularly for those of us who had come for early morning meetings, not having the full impact of what had happened in New York and not having the full knowledge. But as we were fleeing this building, we took a look to our right. We could see the billowing black smoke in the Pentagon. We were running for our lives. We were running as Americans, Muslims, Jews, Christians, people of many faiths, many races, many genders, many orientations. We were running as Americans. Those families at Ground Zero watched in horror or heard in horror of their loved ones lost, in spite of the heroic efforts of first responders. First responders were lost. There, too, was a multitude of the United Nations. This Nation has always welcomed and respected people from all over the world, and so it disturbs me when those of us who have now taken a visible and stoic stand against an unconstitutional executive order begin to receive attacks from the very person who should be bringing this Nation together. I take great insult from the firing of Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, a person whom I have worked with personally as a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee. She is of profound integrity, honesty, respectability, and professionalism. I congratulate Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates for being a patriot. Last evening, she rendered this statement: ``In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.'' Responding to that, almost like Nixon, some decades ago, this White House fired Attorney General Yates and proceeded to make this statement: ``The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.'' Sally Yates explained it, but there is no betrayal of the Department of Justice. It is an entity. It is not the American people, and it is not a Constitution. She has no obligation to the Department of Justice. She has an obligation to the American people to uphold the Constitution. The White House proceeds to go on to say--I assume President Trump-- ``Ms. Yates is an Obama administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,'' of which I don't know their proof for such. But what I will say to you is that she was doing her civic and patriotic duty by remaining there as a senior member who was the only person there that could sign subpoenas. She was doing America a favor. So I will say, in the backdrop of that, were you at the Bush Intercontinental Airport, as I was, when an Iraqi citizen came in, a legal permanent resident with a green card, and was detained for 5 hours while his employer and lawyers were gathering and hovering outside; and CBP, to my understanding, how frightened they were, how they did not know what was going on, did not allow them to be able to speak? Or did you listen last night when an Iraqi woman indicated that her husband was murdered and she hid for 12 years in Iraq until she was able to bring her children here? Did you hear that refugees are being denied to come in for 120 days on Friday, Mr. Speaker, and that their papers will expire? Finally, Mr. Speaker, did you hear that the perpetrator in Quebec had on his social media that he was supporting or praising President Trump? Enough is enough. Repeal this order. Pass the SOLVE Act. Pass the USA Act that I have introduced as well that includes gender and religion. Stop this madness. The executive order is unconstitutional.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the executive order is patently and clearly unconstitutional. An executive order to ban Muslims is unconstitutional. None of us stand against the stringent review of individuals to determine who would come to do well, but who would come to do harm. A ban or a temporary suspension of all of the refugees around the world who have been vetted over and over again is clearly discriminatory. It is true that the Constitution of the United States starts with: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence . . .'' and ``welfare. . . .'' Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates made the right decision. Many court jurisdictions have already said that this is an unconstitutional and discriminatory order. The office of a public servant in the United States Federal Government requires that you take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I believe the President should uphold his oath. Request to Call Up H.R. 724, SOLVE Act, and H.R. 735, USA Values Act

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I join with the resolve of the Deputy Attorney General, and I ask unanimous consent for the SOLVE Act, and ask unanimous consent for H.R. 724 and H.R. 735, the USA Values Act, all dealing with banning and repealing and rescinding, now, the unconstitutional executive order on banning Muslims.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, because our Nation has always welcomed refugees and the poor and those who are in need, I don't know why we don't bring up H.R. 724, which would rescind President Trump's refugee ban on students like the Iranian-born anthropology student who left the U.S. to carry out research and is now likely to be unable to return to defend his thesis. If you do not believe in the ban, bring it up so we can vote against this ban.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia and, likewise, congratulate him for his leadership on the Transportation Committee, along with his chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, which committee has had special emphasis on protecting and responding to our first responders, and so I am excited about the fact of moving this bill forward. I thank the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I thank my Homeland Security Committee for moving this forward through an amendment process and now, ultimately, onto the floor of the House. I rise, Mr. Speaker, enthusiastically, in support of H.R. 58, the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, or FRIENDS, Act. I thank my chairman, Mr. McCaul, and Ranking Member Thompson for the valuable assistance and support in bringing this important bill before the House for consideration during the 114th Congress. We are now in the 115th Congress. I appreciate Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for allowing the FRIENDS Act now to come forward, which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be considered on today's suspensions. The FRIENDS Act reflects what America is all about. The FRIENDS Act reflects what we, as Members of Congress, are all about. How many of us stop by fire stations, pat a police officer of many different levels on the back, say ``thank you,'' and recognize that that 911 number is a very special number to many of our constituents. But more importantly, when natural disasters or manmade disasters such as the horrific and heinous terrorist act of 9/11 occur, who are among the first to come? It is the first responders, and they go to faraway places. The FRIENDS Act reflects stakeholder input and bipartisan collaboration with the majority. I thank the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State EMS Officials working with me, and The International Emergency Management Society for their valuable assistance and input regarding the FRIENDS Act. Our two committees, Transportation and Infrastructure and Homeland Security, really respond in a bipartisan way. Our Homeland Security Committee will be facing many mountains of concerns dealing with intelligence issues, dealing with the issues with Russia, dealing with the issues of executive orders, but we do know that we come together to honor our first responders that are our Nation's heroes. They run into burning buildings; they rescue people trapped by dangerous floods and put themselves in harm's way to protect others. Just last week, in San Bernardino, we saw the brave first responders heroically pursue two individuals that fled from the scene of a deadly attack recently over the last year. To do their jobs, first responders must leave their homes and families while the rest of us cling to ours. Whether it is to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist attack, as I indicated, or the fires, hurricanes, and tornadoes that we have seen across America--devastation of so many of our constituents, loss of life--first responders leave their homes to ensure that others are safe. Unfortunately, today, first responders are asked to answer the call to action without knowing whether their families will be safe as the work to rescue others proceeds. Our first responders deserve better. The FRIENDS Act directs the Government Accountability Office to conduct a comprehensive review of policies and programs designed to ensure that first responders are able to do their jobs, and effectively, by assessing, among other things, measures taken to ensure first responder families are safe, first of all, and the availability of personal protective equipment exists so that they can come home to their families. It was particularly noticed during 9/11. For those of us who were able to go to Ground Zero as they were still continuing the recovery, many of you know they continued to recover for months and months and months, and you saw the kind of exposure those first responders had. During committee consideration of the FRIENDS Act, my friend from New York (Mr. Higgins) offered an amendment to authorize GAO to evaluate the availability of home med kits for first responders and their families in assessing the preparedness of first responders. I was pleased to support the Higgins amendment, and it adds to this bill. H.R. 58 also directs GAO to distinguish policies available in high- risk urban areas which may be better resourced, and rural areas where efforts to ensure preparedness for first responders and their families may require creative leveraging of resources. This provision will ensure that the information included in the report will be applicable and adaptable by various communities across the country as they work to better protect their protectors. Let us remember both the rural community as well as the urban community. Additionally, the FRIENDS Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review its findings and assess whether the policies identified could be applicable to Federal first responders. The FRIENDS Act has been endorsed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and a number of other organizations. Before I conclude, let me again thank all of my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the International Association of Fire Chiefs and, as well, the National Association of State EMS Officials. International Association of Fire Chiefs, Fairfax, VA, January 31, 2017. Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Jackson Lee: On behalf of the approximately 12,000 fire and emergency service leaders of the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), I would like to thank you for introducing H.R. 58, the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations (FRIENDS) Act. The IAFC supports this legislation, because it will examine an important issue facing the nation's first responders during a major terrorist attack: adequate preparedness for the first responders' families. During terrorist incidents, fire, law enforcement and EMS officials will be called upon to take heroic actions to protect the public and provide fire and emergency medical response. In the case of a large-scale incident or biological attack, the families of these first responders also will be at risk. Based on the experience of IAFC members during the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the 2014 response to potential Ebola incidents in the United States, I know that the welfare of the first responders' families weighs heavily on them as they serve the public. It is important that federal, state, and local officials make plans to provide for the safety of first responders' families in order to ensure strong morale among local fire, law enforcement, and EMS officials during a major terrorist attack. Thank you for introducing this important legislation. We look forward to working with you to pass this legislation in the House of Representatives. Sincerely, Fire Chief John D. Sinclair, President and Chairman of the Board.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is important to know of the important role that the International Association of Fire Chiefs play in the lives of first responders and their advocacy for their fellow brothers and sisters--and they call them their fellow brothers and sisters. I want to briefly read their words: Dear Representative Jackson Lee, On behalf of the approximately 12,000 fire and emergency service leaders of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, I would like to thank you for introducing H.R. 58, the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, FRIENDS, Act. The IAFC supports the legislation because it will examine an important issue facing the Nation's first responders during a major terrorist attack, adequate preparedness for the first responders' families. It goes on to list terrorist incidents, fire, and law enforcement, and EMS officials will be called upon to take heroic action, and it recounts that their concern is what is happening to their family under these circumstances. In a letter from the National Association of State EMS Officials which I will insert into the Record, they indicate in their letter: We are writing to express our support for the Jackson Lee amendment, which was the bill the Families of Responders Identification of Emergency Needs in Designated Situations. This bill would make an important report on the state of family support planning for the families of first responders. Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to my colleagues for their assistance as we move the FRIENDS Act forward, but I am more grateful to those first responders who unselfishly put themselves forward and in danger to help our constituents and help all of us. To their families, we owe them the responsibility of ensuring that they are safe during the time of their loved ones being on the front lines of saving others. I ask my colleagues to support the FRIENDS Act, H.R. 58. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 58, the ``First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations, or ``Friends' Act'', and yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Chairman McCaul and Ranking Member Thompson for the valuable assistance and support in bringing this important bill before the House for consideration during the 114th Congress. I appreciate and thank Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking Member Peter A. DeFazio for allowing the FRIENDS Act, which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to be considered under today's suspensions. The FRIENDS Act embodies the important and fundamental idea that we have an obligation to ensure that the first responders who protect our loved ones in emergencies have the peace of mind that comes from knowing that their loved ones are safe while they do their duty. During terrorist incidents, fire, law enforcement, and EMS officials will be called upon to take heroic actions to protect the public and provide fire and emergency medical response. The FRIENDS Act reflects stakeholder input and bipartisan collaboration with the Majority. I thank the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Association of State EMS Officials, and the International Emergency Management Society for their valuable assistance and support for the FRIENDS Act. I also thank Kay Goss, the President of the International Emergency Management Society, who provided technical assistance on the work of first responders to prepare for catastrophic events. I am passionate about the work of those who dedicate themselves to public service. I hold in high regard the service of firefighters, law enforcement officers, emergency response technicians, nurses, emergency room doctors, and the dozens of other professionals who are the ultimate public servants. First responders are called to serve and few outside of their ranks can understand why they do the work they do each day--placing their lives in harm's way to save a stranger. Law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and emergency medical technicians make our lives safer, while often at the same time putting their own lives at risk. In the case of a large-scale incident or biological attack, the families of these first responders also will be at risk. Based upon the experience of International Fire Chiefs, which endorsed the FRIENDS Act, the members' experiences during their response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the 2014 response to potential Ebola incidents in the United States, know that the welfare of their families weighs heavily on first responders as they serve the public. It is important that federal, state, and local officials make plans to provide for the safety of first responders' families in order to ensure strong morale among local fire, law enforcement, and EMS officials during a major terrorist attack. H.R. 58 provides Congress an opportunity to let our first responders know that we know they have families and loved ones who they leave behind when they are called to duty, and their families will be protected in the first responder absence. The GAO study that will be provided as a result of this bill will report on what is being done by local and state governments to address the needs of first responder families when threats like Hurricanes Sandy, Hugo, and Katrina hit communities, or when a terrorist attack like the ones seen in New York and Boston occur. The report required by the Jackson Lee FRIENDS Act will also provide information on the availability of personal protective equipment for first responders. The issue of personal protective equipment was an acute problem for front line first responders during the 2014 Ebola crisis. First responders, including EMTs, emergency room doctors and nurses as well as law enforcement and fire department professionals, were not prepared for the crisis: 1. Nearly 80 percent of first responders report that their hospital had not communicated to them any policy regarding potential admission of patients infected by Ebola; 2. 85 percent said their hospital had not provided education on Ebola that allowed the nurses to interact and ask questions of patients; 3. One-third said their hospital had insufficient supplies of eye protection (face shields or side shields with goggles) and fluid resistant/impermeable gowns; and 4. Nearly 40 percent said their hospital did not have plans to equip isolation rooms with plastic covered mattresses and pillows and discard all linens after use; fewer than 10 percent said they were aware their hospital does have such a plan in place. The Centers for Disease Control and only a few hospitals around the country with infectious disease units knew the right protocols and had the right protective gear to be used when treating an Ebola patient. Ebola in the United States was a frightening experience for many, but I think we saw the great work that first responders do each day--our doctors and nurses went to work and treated the sick and did what they always do--they took care of us. During the 114th Congress the Homeland Security Committee unanimously voted to report the FRIENDS Act favorably to the full House, which passed the measure by an overwhelming margin and in support of local, state and federal first responders. The Comptroller General's comprehensive review of the range of policies and programs in place at the State level to address the preparedness and protection of first responders will also delineate high risk urban areas and rural communities; and the degree to which selected state policies were developed or executed with funding from the DHS Grant Programs or Urban Area Security Initiative authorized by the Homeland Security Act. The report's focus will be on the presence of the family of first responders in an area affected by a terrorist attack and the availability of essential personal protective equipment. This will be the first report that focuses on the family as a critical factor that should be considered in the work of first responders during times of crisis such as a terrorist attack or public emergency like in the massive flooding that occurred in the city of Houston last year and the year before. The well-being of family members is a factor that one would expect to weigh on a first responder called to respond to a terrorist attack or unprecedented emergency. The bravery or dedication of first responders is not in question-- they are the people who run into burning buildings to save people whom they may never have met. They are some of the best among us and we appreciate their dedication and service. Finally, the FRIENDS Act requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to consider the report's findings and their applicability for federal first responders. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Natalie Matson, of the Committee's majority staff and Moira Bergin, of the Committee's minority staff, both of whom worked closely with Lillie Coney on my staff on the FRIENDS Act. I also thank the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their efforts to bring the bill before the full House for consideration. I ask all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 58, the FRIENDS Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I, a senior member of the House Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees today am giving the following statement in response to the Executive Order issued by the President regarding admission of refugees to the United States: Today, I am introducing the Universal Security of American Values Act of 2017 (USA Values Act of 2017), which declares the Executive Order issued by the President on January 27, 2017 to be null and void and of no force and legal effect. In addition, USA Values Act prohibits the issuance or implementation of any Executive Order that has the effect of abridging any of the privileges and immunities of Americans or would discriminate against any person seeking entry to the United States on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation and identity, place of birth, place of residence, ethnicity, religion, age, or statuses that pose no undue health threat to the general population. As Americans we are best when we are true to the values we hold dear, beginning with fidelity to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The executive order issued last Friday by President Trump is a radical departure from these principles and I call upon him to rescind this order immediately. This Executive Order has affected 67,000 refugees thoroughly vetted by an 18 to 24 month screening process, many of whom have been separated from their families despite processing the proper paperwork. I agree with President Barack Obama's statement that he ``fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith and religion. Arbitrarily excluding Muslims from our country will not make us safer and makes a mockery of our reputation the world's most welcoming nation. America is a country founded by persons escaping religious persecution. We must be ever vigilant to ensure we remain the land religious liberty. Innocent lives are being put at risk as a result of a political theater and reactionary policies of the current Administration without even going through the normal review and clearance process. `The USA Values Act,' which affirms the nation's core values, compliments the `Statute of Liberty Values Act', (SOLVE Act) introduced today by my colleague Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California and sponsored by me and more than 125 Members of the House which bars ethnic and religious discrimination against refugees.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett) for their continuing leadership on a very important and needed response to the actions of many, in particular, this new administration. My time is short, so I want to thank Mr. Veasey for his leadership on the challenge to the voter ID law and, as well, his continuing leadership on the empowerment of voters, as well to Ms. Plaskett for ensuring and fighting for the right to vote for the Virgin Islands. I stand with both of them. But I come today to plead and also to enunciate what crisis we find ourselves in. The White House is in crisis. When the White House is in crisis, that means America is in crisis. Mr. Speaker, it is not a frivolous statement that I make; it is a truthful statement because less than 72 hours ago, without the counsel of many experts, Members of Congress who are on the jurisdictional committees, without the notice and input of the Secretary of Homeland Security, an executive order was produced by one young staffer in the White House and another individual who has pushed an agenda of exclusiveness. That is not the way to run this country. So this executive order came out, and what we find is that 67,000 refugees are stranded around the world who actually had documents, who were vetted, and, as some stories have told us, waited 10 and 12 to 13 years to be able to get in line and to be vetted to come to the United States of America. The tragedy is that some of them were, in fact, our friends from Iraq who have stood by our military personnel who had, in fact, provided them the interpretation that they needed to save their lives. In one story we heard tonight on the steps of the United States Supreme Court was a woman who finally got here with her two children. Her husband was murdered, and her father was tortured. So, to Mr. Trump, today I think it is important as we have joined in to repeal and to rescind this unconstitutional order, it is clear that you need to read the writing on the wall. The Deputy Attorney General, duly appointed and confirmed, of the U.S. Department of Justice, the remaining individual who has power in that office, has made a very conscious decision that they cannot defend this order because it is unconstitutional. This is not a person who takes her task lightly. This is not someone who is not an officer who has not taken an oath of office. This is akin to what happened in the Nixon administration. They were willing to lose their position to stand for the Constitution. So the Congressional Black Caucus is on the floor today with our chairman, Mr. Richmond, to be able to inform America that this is patently unconstitutional. It does not provide for due process. It did not provide for equal protection of the law. As well, it is a blatant attack on freedom of religion. For those of you who need a better explanation, let me tell you what a ban on Muslims is. A ban on Muslims is one country, two countries, seven countries, and the idea of who cannot come in are Muslims--that is a ban on Muslims. It is not a ban on Christians. It is not a ban on any other faith. It is a ban on Muslims, and the White House needs to understand what an interpretation of that means. Further, let me say, as I come to a close, please do not try to cover yourself with the announcement that was made by President Obama. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am well aware of that announcement that he had regarding a number of countries. It was not a ban. It was to take note that those countries were in conflict and that individuals who were coming from those countries specifically needed to have a higher level of scrutiny. It was not a ban. It is well documented that the tragedies that we have had from Boston to Orlando to San Bernardino were not individuals who came through as refugees or came from those particular countries. What are we doing here? We are blatantly violating the Constitution. When the President of the United States violates the Constitution, this body has to stand up and respond. So I would ask this body to direct the President to rescind. In the alternative, I would ask that the legislation that is being introduced call upon the President to repeal this. In all fairness, I would appreciate if the President took it up on his own to suspend this order that is impacting so many who are being left along the highway of despair, people who are able to--if you will, people and individuals who are able to seek refuge here are now being left. I believe that the Congressional Black Caucus--the conscience of the Congress--stands now, tonight, to seek to ban the Muslim ban, to seek to stop the suppression of voting, and to also say to the nominee for the Attorney General: Are you prepared to represent all of us and to be able to support the institution, or reinstitution, of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?