Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 7, the so-called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,'' and the underlying bill. I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people. A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017''! Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration. We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have raise their families in poverty. A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life. Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto. The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would: 1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.) 2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. 3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds. 4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. 5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage. If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds. This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer Options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly. H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes. H.R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger. H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.'' This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the nth hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up. These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion. As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds. In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month. H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium. By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R.7 makes it look as 7 though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not. Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe V. Wade. Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God. H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Coloyal v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379,388-89 (1979). The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated. I urge all members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, these are the faces of innocent and wonderful women like Dakota and Chenoa, who indicate that, if they did not have Planned Parenthood, they would not be able to be where they are today, or Chenoa, who indicated, without Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act, they wouldn't have access to health care. That is what H.R. 7 intends to do, to deny these young, beautiful women an opportunity. But more importantly, my colleagues on the other side want to suggest they only--they only--have religion and faith. But as a mother, let me say that every child I have loved and every woman who has had a decision to make I have loved and respected for her choice of a faith, her God, and her doctor. Rather than having this war on women by Republicans, we need to be dealing with the voting rights law. Rather than prohibiting individuals from receiving a refundable tax credit on cost-sharing reductions for purchasing a qualified health plan that encourages coverage for abortions or denying the District of Columbia their rights, we should be standing for rights. This is a constitutional right. It is also a choice by a woman of her God, her doctor, and her family. Vote against H.R. 7. It is violence against women. It is not helping women or the unborn child. Madam Speaker, I rise again in strong opposition to H.R. 7, the so- called ``No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.'' I oppose this bill because it is unnecessary, puts the lives of women at risk, interferes with women's constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, and diverts our attention from the real problems facing the American people. A more accurate short title for this bill would be the ``Violating the Rights of Women Act of 2017.'' Instead of resuming their annual War on Women, our colleagues across the aisle should be working with Democrats to build upon the ``Middle- Class Economics'' championed by the Obama Administration that have succeeded in ending the economic meltdown it inherited in 2009 and revived the economy to the point where today we have the highest rate of growth and lowest rate of unemployment since the boom years of the Clinton Administration. We could and should instead be voting to raise the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour so that people who work hard and play by the rules do not have to raise their families in poverty. A far better use of our time would be to provide help to unemployed job-hunters by making access to community college affordable to every person looking to make a new start in life. Instead of voting to abridge the constitutional rights of women for the umpteenth time, we should bring to the floor for a first vote comprehensive immigration reform legislation or legislations repairing the harm to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder. Madam Speaker, the one thing we should not be doing is debating irresponsible ``messaging bills'' that abridge the rights of women and have absolutely no chance of overriding a presidential veto. The version of H.R. 7 before us now is as bad today as it was when the House Republican leadership insisted on bringing it to a vote a year ago. The other draconian provisions of that terrible bill are retained in H.R. 7, which would: 1. Prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. (Thus making permanent existing federal policies.) 2. Prohibit the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal or District of Columbia health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government or the District. 3. Apply such prohibitions to District of Columbia funds. 4. Prohibit individuals from receiving a refundable federal tax credit, or any cost-sharing reductions, for purchasing a qualified health plan that includes coverage for abortions. 5. Prohibit small employers from receiving the small-employer health insurance credit provided by the health care law if the health plans or benefits that are purchased provide abortion coverage. If H.R. 7 were enacted, millions of families and small businesses with private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage would be faced with tax increases, making the cost of health care insurance even more expensive. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are able to offer abortion coverage and receive federal offsets for premiums as long as enrollees pay for the abortion coverage from separate, private funds. If enacted, H.R. 7 would deny federal subsidies or credits to private health insurance plans that offer abortion coverage even if that coverage is paid for from private funds. This would inevitably lead to private health insurance companies dropping abortion coverage leaving millions of women without access to affordable, comprehensive health care. Currently, 87% of private insurance health care plans offered through employers cover abortion. If H.R. 7 were to become law, consumer options for private health insurance plans would be unnecessarily restricted and the tax burden on these policy holders would increase significantly. H.R. 7 would also deny tax credits to small businesses that offer their employees insurance plans that cover abortion, which would have a significant impact on millions of families across the nation who would no longer be able to take advantage of existing tax credits and deductions for the cost of their health care. For example, small businesses that offer health plans that cover abortions would no longer be eligible for the Small Business Health Tax Credit--potentially worth 35%-50% of the cost of their premiums-- threatening 4 million small businesses. Self-employed Americans who are able to deduct the cost of their comprehensive health insurance from their taxable income will also be denied similar tax credits and face higher taxes. H R. 7 would also undermine the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting its use of funds for abortion care to low-income women. The Hyde Amendment stipulates that no taxpayer dollars are to be used for abortion care, and has narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and health complications that arise from pregnancy which put the mother's life in danger. H.R. 7 would restrict women's access to reproductive health care even further by narrowing the already stringent requirements set forth in the Hyde Amendment. When the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the President issued an Executive Order to ``ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.'' This version of H.R. 7 goes far beyond the safeguards established under the Affordable Care Act, and sets a dangerous precedent for the future of women's reproductive health in this country because it includes two new provisions that were added at the 11th hour but have never received a hearing or a mark-up. These new provisions would (1) ban abortion coverage in multi-state health plans available under the ACA; and (2) mandate that health plans mislead consumers about abortion coverage by requiring all plans in the health-insurance exchanges that include abortion coverage to display that fact prominently in all advertising, marketing materials, or information from the insurer but interestingly, does not require the same disclosure from plans that do not cover abortion. Madam Speaker, H.R. 7 would also force health plans to mislead consumers about the law's treatment of abortion. As a concession to anti-choice lawmakers, the ACA requires insurance plans participating in the new health system to segregate monies used for abortion services from all other funds. In order to aid in identifying these funds and simplify the process of segregating general premium dollars from those used to cover abortion services, the ACA requires that health plans estimate the cost of abortion coverage at no less than $1 per enrollee per month. H.R. 7 would require plans covering abortion to misrepresent this practice as an ``abortion surcharge,'' which is to be disclosed and identified as a portion of the consumer's premium. By describing abortion coverage in this way, H.R. 7 makes it look as though it is an added, extra cost, available only at an additional fee, when in fact it is not. Taken together, the provisions in H.R. 7 have the effect, and possibly the intent, of arbitrarily infringing women's reproductive freedoms and pose a nationwide threat to the health and wellbeing of American women and a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. Madam Speaker, one of the most detestable aspects of this bill is that it would curb access to care for women in the most desperate of circumstances. Women like Danielle Deaver, who was 22 weeks pregnant when her water broke. Tests showed that Danielle had suffered anhydramnios, a premature rupture of the membranes before the fetus has achieved viability. This condition meant that the fetus likely would be born with a shortening of muscle tissue that results in the inability to move limbs. In addition, Danielle's fetus likely would suffer deformities to the face and head, and the lungs were unlikely to develop beyond the 22-week point. There was less than a 10% chance that, if born, Danielle's baby would be able to breathe on its own and only a 2% chance the baby would be able to eat on its own. H.R. 7 hurts women like Vikki Stella, a diabetic, who discovered months into her pregnancy that the fetus she was carrying suffered from several major anomalies and had no chance of survival. Because of Vikki's diabetes, her doctor determined that induced labor and Caesarian section were both riskier procedures for Vikki than an abortion. Every pregnancy is different. No politician knows, or has the right to assume he knows, what is best for a woman and her family. These are decisions that properly must be left to women to make, in consultation with their partners, doctors, and their God. H.R. 7 lacks the necessary exceptions to protect the health and life of the mother. H.R. 7 is an unconstitutional infringement on the right to privacy, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases going back to Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Roe v. Wade decided in 1973. In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a state could not prohibit a woman from exercising her right to terminate a pregnancy in order to protect her health prior to viability. While many factors go into determining fetal viability, the consensus of the medical community is that viability is acknowledged as not occurring prior to 24 weeks gestation. Supreme Court precedents make it clear that neither Congress nor a state legislature can declare any one element--``be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor--as the determinant'' of viability. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1979). The constitutionally protected right to privacy encompasses the right of women to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability, and even later where continuing to term poses a threat to her health and safety. This right of privacy was hard won and must be preserved inviolate. The bill before us threatens this hard won right for women and must be defeated. I urge all members to join me in opposing the bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, I wish President- elect Donald Trump nothing but the best as he becomes the Commander-in- Chief of our nation. On November 8th 2016, many of us were deeply wounded and it was a very difficult time. For me, the concern was for so many of my constituents who had worked so hard for a different result; and the many young people who were for the first time engaged in the democratic process that were seemingly so disappointed. They were looking for hope. After the election, although still very concerned, I was willing to give the President-elect the appropriate time, as he moved through his transition, to address the American people with a message of unity. Unfortunately, the transition was not as smooth as I believe many of us, as Americans, would have wanted it to be. The call for unity and the embracing of all Americans simply did not come. The moments of attack continued. However, many of us still continued to listen. As a senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee and Ranking Member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Investigations, I take national security very seriously. I was appointed to the Homeland Security Committee in the aftermath of the heinous, murderous, and horrific terrorist attack on September 9, 2011. The intelligence community is part of my day to day work. In the midst of moving toward the inauguration, stark, provocative, sobering, and difficult facts came to our attention. All of America's intelligence agencies confirmed the detrimental cyber-attack by high Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin, to steer the election toward one candidate, Mr. Trump, and away from the other candidate. Rather than accept their report, President-elect Trump chose to make a full force attack on the brave men and women serving in our intelligence community and disparaged their commitment to serving our nation. There are moments in a public official's life that you always put country over self. That did not happen and the disappointment was piercing. As a Member of the Judiciary committee, one of my proudest moments was the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But an even prouder moment was the enormous number of votes the legislation received from both Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. And when all the Members went to the White House for the signing of the legislation by a sitting Republican President, we celebrated America's love affair with the precious right to vote. President George W. Bush signed that legislation into law only to now come to 2016 to face huge examples across the nation of voter suppression in this election with newly minted laws that suppressed the voting rights of so many Americans and particularly many in minority communities. The President- elect gave these voting abuses no credence. Further, the President-elect has every right to select his or her cabinet. However, it is very difficult when his choice for the nation's highest law enforcement officer, who is supposed to be the arm of justice for the most vulnerable in our nation, and that person holds consistent positions against civil rights and against voting rights. So, I deliberated on my decision over a period of time. I did not boycott this ceremonial inaugural event. I have decided in good conscience I could not go. John Lewis, a man who bled for freedom made his choice and made his decision without rancor or hysteria. But that was not the tone of the response he received; and John did not call for any boycott. This is not a boycott. This is an act of conscience. The President-elect could not refrain from a full-fledged personal attack on Congressman John Lewis. He failed to offer even a small olive branch. The State of the Union will be the President's first message directly to Congress and the American people on how he will lead--that I will attend--and I am committed to working for my constituents and all of the American people. I hope the new President will do the same. So my principles revolving around justice and fairness, an unfettered election, the duty that I have to the national security community and the recognition of the provocative and criminal intrusion by the Russians into our election causes me to be reflective on January 20. Finally, I did enjoy greeting my constituents as they came to the inauguration. But as so many Americans, I will be waiting on that olive branch to be extended to all of us by this President; thereby giving us an opportunity to heal, to mend, and for him to recognize that Americans have very similar aspirations and values, and to remember that those who did not vote for the ultimate victor still deserve dignity and respect in this country.

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 4o 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 manufactures 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 of 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 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; and 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 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. 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. 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 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. 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 E-9-1-1 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 through 29 have a smartphone, as do 83 percent of those ages 30 through 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 911 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, having worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and been engaged with many of the foot soldiers that studied under Dr. Martin Luther King, I love and cherish nonviolent protests and the rights for people to petition. I hold up a beautiful and powerful statement by way of a picture, powerful together, as thousands marched across the Nation, upwards of 1 million and maybe even more. I am particularly proud of those in Houston, Texas, and particularly ``Across Texas, marchers `just can't be silent anymore.' '' Congratulations to those who marched safely, securely, and nonviolently. Congratulations to the Houston organizers. Yes, it is your right to fight against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the ignoring of the funding of access to women's health care. It is your right to fight for educational opportunity. It is your right to recognize that we have rights as women, but we have rights as Americans; and it is your right to seek a nation that will be representative of all of the people, no matter where they come from, what their religious background is, what regions they live for. It is beyond the wonderful Midwest that the Nation needs to be represented. It is in the far corners of the east and the north, yes, down in Houston, Texas, far to the west. We cannot isolate and say we won with few votes from this region. America is a country for all people, and I look forward to this Congress and this White House representing all of us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands and the gentleman from Texas for their service to the Nation and for leading the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order. It is always important for the voices of the Congressional Black Caucus and the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Richmond of Louisiana, to be heard. Both Ms. Plaskett and Mr. Veasey have accepted the challenge and the call. I want to express to them my greatest appreciation for the leadership that they are showing. I want to start my remarks again by saying that it may be hometown pride, but I like the headline of the Houston Chronicle that says ``Powerful Together.'' The numbers have not yet been fully calculated, but we know upwards of a million and maybe over a million persons around the Nation, and then they added individuals from foreign countries far and wide. I would take by this title that represents, Mr. Speaker, the peaceful protests--I want to say that again; in fact, I might want to say it two times: peaceful, peaceful protests, nonviolent protests--that occurred on Saturday, expressing the view of what America is really about. I say that to my colleagues, they are about what the Congressional Black Caucus is about, and I believe our chairman made the point that we come from very diverse districts, representing people of many racial backgrounds, religious backgrounds, as well as economic backgrounds, that we are the voice of reason and the conscience of this Congress. We fight against poverty, but we have Ph.D.'s, lawyers, judges, and we have businesspersons. They, by and large, Mr. Speaker, are charitable individuals who believe in social justice. That is why we come with a sense of privilege, if you will, to be able to speak about what America truly is. Yesterday at the Community of Faith, under the leadership of Bishop James Dixon, I gathered for a prayer for the Nation. Mr. Speaker, I did not dissect it. I did not eliminate the White House. I did not point out Members of Congress, call them by name. I said a prayer for the Nation, and that included the White House and individuals in the Congress and the Senate. We had international representation. We had the Consulate General of Pakistan. We had imams. We had individuals who worship on Saturday Sabbath. We had people who spoke Spanish, people who spoke, obviously, English. And we gathered to pray for the nation. That is what I think is represented in the message or the title of the ``New Deal for Black America,'' it needs prayer because it is not reflective. Although well-intentioned, I am not sure who may have advised the administration, but it does not speak to the wideness of diversity of the African American population, African American communities in this Nation. So I want to speak very briefly on questions of health care and justice. I would like to say that in the safe communities of which the administration or the President has offered his new deal, he says: ``We will make our communities safe again. Every poor African-American child must be able to walk down the street in peace. Safety is a civil right. We will invest in training and funding both local and federal law enforcement operations to remove the gang members, drug dealers, and criminal cartels from our neighborhoods. The reduction of crime is not merely a goal--but a necessity.'' In that there is no mention of ending gun violence or looking at sensible gun safety regulations or laws, of which we have asked. I introduced Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act, which really answered Republicans' cry for enforcing the law, to add to the ATF, to enforce the penalties against those who use guns wrong. In particular, the perpetrator in Mother Emanuel should not have been able to get the gun, but he was because the gun dealer was so easy and quick to sell it, even though he had not gotten an affirmation by ATF, that is the one. I would argue it was because they did not have enough personnel. He also seems to categorize that every poor child has to walk down the streets. We want every child to walk down--as I said, our community is very diverse. He then says: ``Equal Justice Under the Law. We will apply the law fairly, equally and without prejudice. There will be only one set of rules--not a two-tiered system of justice. Equal justice also means the same rules for Wall Street.'' So I quickly want to offer these points before I yield the floor. Number one, we are not all impoverished, but I join my colleagues in ending poverty. African Americans want the same thing as Barbara Jordan said when asked, ``What do your people want?'' ``It is the same thing that all America wants.'' Yes, we do want opportunities, but we do have to be more forceful for issues that are relevant. We have seen nothing in Mr. Trump's statement of a new deal for Black America to deal with sentencing reduction and ending mandatory minimums. We see nothing about working with police departments that have found themselves falling upon bad times and having a plague of bad actors, even though we respect and honor police. And so the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act that John Conyers and myself introduced has to do with correcting the issue of training and the improper inaction of police and community. I would offer to say that the nominee for the Attorney General is completely opposed to addressing any questions of bad behavior on behalf of bad actors and bad officers. In fact, he opposed consent decrees like the one in Ferguson and Baltimore that were only positive, welcomed by the police departments to help them do a better job at policing the community. Prison reform to change the matrix of prison, gun violence prevention that I have already mentioned, and healthcare access that are truly crucial to all of us. Let me also indicate a changing of the matrix of juvenile justice. We want to reauthorize the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant Program Reauthorization Act, but, more importantly, we want to change how we are dealing with juveniles. We want to change from the idea of them being, if you will, punished versus incentivized. Finally, let me offer to say that two Senators in the other body have offered a new matrix on health care. I understand there are some proposals here. I would say that we see that we can't have unity. We don't have any replacement. What is being offered by the Senators is health savings accounts, which we know are not realistic. So I would offer to the President that there are many ways of looking at serving all of America, including African Americans. It is not listening to your own voice. It is helping us change the matrix for juveniles, changing the matrix for those who are incarcerated, mandatory minimums, the way police and community work, at the same time respecting them, but, more importantly, it is listening and working with Members who have real life experiences in some of the issues that will make this country continue to be the greatest country in the world. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I was struck by some information that I just received. This is a summary of the new deal for Black America. Nowhere in the new deal for Black America is a commitment to protecting voting rights. One of the Achilles heels of the nominee for the Attorney General is he does not have a history of protecting voting rights. Particularly, I want to acknowledge President George W. Bush because the Congress--both the House and the Senate--worked extensively with him in the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including section 5, which is preclearance. Lo and behold, the Shelby case imploded section 5. We no longer have it in a potpourri--a flourishing, a garden of weeds--of voter ID laws, one by which my colleague Mr. Veasey, who was a plaintiff, was promoted. The last point that I want to make is, in addition to not having anything on voting rights, we just had breaking news that the White House has indicated that the President would have had the popular vote if he had not had happen to him 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast. This is being reported. Likewise, what is being reported is there is absolutely no evidence that there were 3 to 5 million illegal votes cast in the 2016 election. I think we need to have focus on voting rights and on the protection of those who vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this Monday, January 16, the nation observes for the 31st time the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday. Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King Holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it was not enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. ``Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' And when Dr. King talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968 in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life: I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity. We should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan. For young African-Americans, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. And not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. that we celebrate here today could have turned out to be just another African-American who would have had to learn to be happy with what he had, and what he was allowed. But he learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King was a dreamer. His dreams were a tool through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society, and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper. But Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African-Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered 53 years ago, on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this nation's Bill of Rights. The 1960s were a time of great crisis and conflict. The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the crises they had to face, both domestically and internationally. It was the decade of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Vietnam War, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. It started when Dr. King led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, with Rosa Parks and others, that lasted for 381 days, and ended when the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation. But the dream did not die there. It continued with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow Laws in the South and he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. On April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City, he spoke out against the Vietnam War, when he saw the devastation that his nation was causing abroad and the effect that it had on the American men and women sent overseas. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the immortal words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis offreedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality and dignity. There is no doubt that Dr. King wished and worked for freedom and justice for every individual in America. He was in midst of planning the 1968 Poor People's Campaign for Jobs and Justice when he struck down by the dark deed of an assassin on April 4, 1968. It is for us, the living, to continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the more troubling nominations made by the President-Elect to fill the important Cabinet posts at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy. Let me begin with the nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General owe a responsibility to the public to be clear and forthright in stating the reasons they believe he should not be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. 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 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. To quote then-Senator Joseph Biden during the 2001 confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft: This Cabinet position is the single most unique position of any Cabinet office. For it's the only one where the nominee or the Cabinet officer has an equally strong and stronger, quite frankly, responsibility to the American people as he does to the person who nominates him. At that same confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois observed that ``the attorney general, more than any other Cabinet officer, is entrusted with protecting the civil rights of Americans.'' The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the President; the Attorney General is the lawyer, and the Department of Justice the law firm, for the American people. That is why I agree so strongly with then-Senator Biden when he said in 2001: [F]or the office of attorney general, first, the question is whether the attorney general is willing to vigorously enforce all the laws in the Constitution, even though he might have philosophical disagreements. [The second question is] whether he possesses the standing and temperament that will permit the vast majority of the American people to believe that you can and will protect and enforce their individual rights. Put another way, 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. Mr. Speaker, the nation's greatest Attorney Generals conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior experience, their words and deed, and their character. Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican President Eisenhower, who overaw 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 Governor George Wallace in the successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama. The nomination of Alabama Senator Sessions as Attorney General does not inspire the necessary confidence. As a U.S. Senator from Alabama, the state from which the infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder originated, Senator Sessions has failed to play a constructive role in repairing the damage to voting rights caused by that decision. He was one of the leading opponents of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 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 President-Elect during the campaign. And his record in support of efforts to bring needed reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually non-existent. In 1986, ten years before Senator Sessions was elected to the Senate, he was rejected for a U.S. District Court judgeship in view of documented incidents that revealed his lack of commitment to civil and voting rights, and to equal justice. And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront. As a U.S. attorney, Senator Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activists for voter fraud. Senator Sessions charged the group with 29 counts of voter fraud, facing over 100 years in prison. Senator Sessions has repeatedly denied the disproportionate impact of voting restrictions on minorities and has been a leader in the effort to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Sessions has spoken out against the Voting Rights Act, calling it ``a piece of intrusive legislation.'' Senator Sessions criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging state election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud. However, evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harmed schools predominantly attended by African-American students. Senator Sessions led the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court. In the state of Alabama nearly a quarter of African-American students attend apartheid schools, meaning the school's white population is less than one percent. Although Senator Sessions has publically 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. Mr. Speaker, the United States has been blessed to have been served as Attorney General by such illustrious figures as Robert Jackson, Robert Kennedy, Herbert Brownell, Ramsey Clark, Nicholas Katzenbach, Eric Holder, and Edward H. Levi. Nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President-Elect is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Attorney General who has a record of championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining, the precious right to vote; the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and support for reform of the nation's immigration system so that it is fair and humane. Regrettably, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is not that person and 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 today to address an increasing concern about the threat against our law enforcement officers, many of whom have been killed by civilians in the line of duty this past year. We must honor and protect the men, and women that wake up every day to put their lives on the line for us, making an incredible sacrifice to keep their communities safe. Without them our communities would be broken and our nation would be left fragmented. Today more than 900,000 law enforcement officers serve the people of this nation, risking their lives for the communities they serve. Last year proved to be one of tremendous violence, witnessing the loss of 140 law enforcement officers' lives across the nation--65 of whom died from gun violence alone. Texas experienced the highest rate of law enforcement killings in the line of duty during, tolling 19 deaths--seven of whom were killed as a result of gun violence. Dallas Police Department: Senior Corporal Lorne Bradley Ahrens, July 8, 2016; Officer Patricio E. Zamarripa, July 7, 2016; Sergeant Michael Joseph Smith, July 7, 2016,; Officer Michael Leslie Krol, July 7, 2016. Dallas Area Rapid Transit Police Department: Officer Brent Alan Thompson, 7/7/16. Euless Police Department: Officer David Stefan Hofer, 3/1/16. San Antonio Police Department: Detective Benjamin Edward Marconi, 11/20/16. Today I rise in solidarity with the police departments and communities mourning the loss of their loved ones. These brave men and women risk their lives to keep us safe and are too often taken from their families by the violence they toil to prevent. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of all of the Law Enforcement officers killed on the line of duty during 2016.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for the American workers; it does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cyber networks, and other infrastructure that is needed to sustain economic growth; it explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working class families. In particular, this foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their rightwing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families. Thirty million people will lose their insurance; the insurance market will be in shambles; and families left behind will have higher premiums. We will close rural hospitals; and hospitals will lose billions of dollars and might reduce services and cut jobs. The economy will lose 2.6 million jobs. Repeal and replace is just a straw man. It is about real lives, like Pamela Gross', who suffers from chronic lupus and a number of other autoimmune disorders that have required her to spend upwards of $5,000.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. She writes: ``I asked my doctor recently, `With all that's going on, would I make it without treatment?' The doctor's answer: `No.''' In her instance, if the Affordable Care Act goes--if is it repealed-- she could completely lose her eligibility for expanded Medicaid and simply die. A young man in my district would die as well. This is a bad bill. Vote against it. Save America's good health. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to S. Con. Res. 3, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2017, which more appropriately should be known as the ``Make America Sick Again'' Budget. I stand in opposition to this reckless, irresponsible, heartless, and bare-bones Republican budget resolution because it does nothing to provide jobs for American workers; does nothing to invest in the roads, bridges, ports, cybernetworks, and other infrastructure needed to sustain economic growth; and explodes the deficit and enriches those who are already wealthy at the expense of middle and working-class families. Let us be very clear about the real objective of our Republican colleagues: their sole purpose in bringing this resolution to the floor is to pave the way for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the defunding of Planned Parenthood by a simple majority vote in the Senate. This foolish rush to repeal the Affordable Care Act makes plain for all to see that congressional Republicans are far more interested in scoring political points with their right-wing base than they are in protecting the health and economic security of American families. Mr. Chair, the Affordable Care Act has been an undisputed success, making access to quality affordable healthcare available to more than 20 million Americans who previously lived with the dreaded fear that an unexpected injury or illness to them or a family member would go untreated or could bankrupt their families. While House Republicans may pine for a return to those bad old days, the large majority of Americans do not because they understand that repeal of the Affordable Care Act will have devastating consequences for working families, women, and the economy. Mr. Chair, health care experts, governors, and hospitals warn that repealing the ACA without a comprehensive plan in its place will cause chaos and catastrophe, including: 1. Nearly 30 million people would lose health care coverage, including more than 4 million kids; 2. With the individual insurance market in shambles, families remaining in what's left of it could face higher premiums and fewer choices as insurers exit; 3. Hospitals would lose billions of dollars and might reduce services or cut jobs; and rural hospitals would close. 4. The economy would lose 2.6 million jobs in 2019, with the majority in non-health sectors. Additionally, eliminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood would severely restrict women's access to comprehensive care such as contraception, cancer screenings, and STI tests and treatments. Mr. Chair, Republicans claim they have a replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act but the truth is they do not have a plan now nor have they in the past nor will they in the future. ``Repeal and Replace'' is an empty slogan and is about as serious as the President-Elect's promise of ``something terrific.'' Republicans have had seven years to produce and coalesce around an alternative to the ACA, and they totally failed. The reason for their failure is they are afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome that blinds them to the ACA's substantial and positive improvements in people's lives. Without the ACA, insurance companies could continue to make their own rules, and deny coverage based on a person's health status or job, offer lousy benefits, and impose annual and lifetime limits. Without the ACA, seniors would still face the Part D donut hole and have to pay more for drugs, and parents would not be able to keep their kids on their plan until age 26. Without the ACA, 20 million people would not have gained coverage, and we would not have the lowest uninsured rate on record. If Republicans really thought they could match this record of success, they would have unveiled and campaigned on their alternative plan in the last election or at least reveal it to the American people right now. It is immoral to put families, the health care system, or our economy at risk by repealing the ACA, hurting the economy, ballooning the deficit, and giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. Mr. Chair, the constituents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I am privileged to represent, are not buying the `Repeal and Replace' bill of goods that Republicans are selling because they know the Affordable Care Act, which they lovingly call ObamaCare, has brought peace of mind and security where before there was only worry and fear. Here are some of the ways the Affordable Care Act has made a positive difference to the residents of my congressional district: 1. Coverage for the Previously Uninsured. Up to 193,000 individuals in the district who lack health insurance will have access to quality, affordable coverage without fear of discrimination or higher rates because of a preexisting health condition. 2. Tax Credits to Make Insurance Affordable. Under the ACA, tax credits are available to assist individuals and families purchase the private health insurance they need. The amount of these tax credits range from $630 to $4,480 for individuals and from $3,550 to $11,430 for a family of four. This benefits as many as 446,850 constituents in my congressional district. 3. Extra Benefits for Seniors. More than 4,100 seniors in my district receive prescription drug discounts worth an average of $828 per person. 4. Extended Coverage for Young Adults. 11,400 young adults in the district now have health insurance through their parents' plan. 5. No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays. 121,000 individuals in my district--including 23,000 children and 50,000 women--now have health insurance that covers preventive services without any co-pays, coinsurance, or deductible. 6. Premium Rebates. 113,000 individuals in my district are saving money due to ACA provisions that prevent insurance companies from spending more than 20% of their premiums on profits and administrative overhead. 7. No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions. In my district, up to 46,000 children with preexisting health conditions no longer can be denied coverage by health insurers. 8. No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage. 153,000 individuals in my district now have insurance that cannot place lifetime limits on their coverage and no long face annual limits on coverage. It is said often, Mr. Chair, but is no less true, that the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of the nation's most cherished values. As the late and great former senator and Vice-President Hubert Humphrey said: The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped. It is for this reason that in evaluating the merits of a budget resolution, it is not enough to subject it only to the test of fiscal responsibility. To keep faith with the nation's past, to be fair to the nation's present, and to safeguard the nation's future, the budget must also pass a ``moral test.'' The Republican budget resolution fails both of these standards. Because the American people deserve to know exactly what ills Republicans have in store for them, I strongly oppose S. Con. Res. 3 and urge all Members to join me in voting against the reckless, cruel, and heartless measure that will do nothing to improve the lives or well-being of middle and working class families. Pamela Gross dreads repeal of Medicaid expansion. Still, millions of people like Gross, could face immediate effects. While her disability allows her access to Medicare coverage, she also relies on Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program, to help pay for costs Medicare doesn't. Gross says she was insured before Obamacare became law. But her Medi- Cal coverage, which she relies on to pay her monthly premiums and co- pays, hung in the balance each year when she received a Supplemental Security Income cost of living increase. The minor jump in pay threatened to push her out of eligibility for the program, which would leave her without the means to pay for a private insurance policy and the doctor visits and medications she says her life literally depends on. ``I asked my doctor recently, with all that's going on would I make it without treatment?'' The doctor's answer: ``No,'' Gross says. Because Obamacare expanded eligibility for Medicaid and increased the program's income limits, Gross no longer has to be concerned each year that the cost-of-living increase she receives from her SSI income will throw her out of coverage. That would change if Medicaid expansion is eliminated as part of the law's repeal. ``If they repeal I could completely lose eligibility,'' she says. ``I would die.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman specifically for a clarity on the status of General Mattis as the legislation is written. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who stand make sure the American people know of our greatest respect and honor for General Mattis. His history of service to this Nation, his tactical expertise, and his ability to acknowledge the constitutional underpinnings of which this Nation is based is without question. But we have, as my colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle, a very serious moment in history. In the public domain is a conspicuous intrusion of Russia and the election of 2016. There is also knowledge of other areas of which they have used the cyber system for cyber warfare. The talent of military persons is welcome, but that is the strength of this Nation: that we don't yield and bend this little book called the Constitution, which has, as I indicated, its essence being that our Nation is governed by the civilian population under principles of democracy and equality, the recognition of the three branches of government, and the separation of our military and civilian operation. This waiver is extraordinary. This waiver, I believe, undermines the very sense of the freedom of our military, its ability to counsel as a separate entity, and it undermines, again, the idea that in 1947 our Congress decided to acknowledge and only waived to General Marshall because of the potential concern and catastrophe of the Korean conflict, now Korean war. It has not been done since. So I would ask my colleagues whether or not we are going to bend--not bend the arc toward justice and recognition of the Constitution, but bend at any moment of convenience. I do not believe that this is a time in history to bend for convenience. I believe General Mattis would agree, with his very fine record, that civilian control of the government should be superior and raise the question himself, if asked, whether or not this waiver is for this time and for now and whether or not we are in such a moment of history that that waiver needs to be granted. My view is that it does not. My view is that we should, in essence, adhere to the regularness of constitutional premise and also to recognize the well-established separation of civilian and military. At this time, I want to thank General Mattis for his service, and I would argue that this resolution should receive a ``no'' vote from our colleagues in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 84, which provides an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces so that the President-Elect can nominate Gen. James Mattis to serve as the next Secretary of Defense. Gen. Mattis retired from active duty in 2013, which under current law, makes him ineligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense. Civilian control of the military has been a bedrock principle of our democracy since the founding of the Republic. That principle has served the nation well and there is no reason to depart from from 66 years of precedent in strictly protecting the American principle of civilian control over the military. Indeed, in the history of the Department of Defense, the only Defense Secretary ever given a waiver was then-Secretary of State, General George Marshall--who was provided an individual waiver in 1950 at the height of the Korean War in a stand-alone bill approved by the Congress. It is not the service of the individual nominated or his or her fitness to serve that is in question, but the dangerous precedent that would be set by entrusting leadership of the Department of Defense to a retired military person whose active duty military experiences have not been moderated by the tempering effect of life in the civil sector. I urge all Members to join me in voting against S. 84.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of both the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in celebration of the over 1 million Texans who have gained healthcare coverage under the Affordable Health Care Act, and the millions of Americans more whose lives have been exponentially improved by access to substantial increases in life-saving coverage. The data show that the uninsured rate in Texas has fallen by 28 percent since the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2010, translating into 1,781,000 Texans gaining coverage. In addition to residents who would otherwise be uninsured, millions more Texans with employer, Medicaid, individual market, or Medicare coverage have also benefited from new protections as a result of the law. With respect to employer coverage, 13,709,000 people in Texas are covered through employer-sponsored health plans. Since the ACA was enacted in 2010, this group has seen: (1) An end to annual and lifetime limits: Before the ACA, 7,536,000 Texans with employer or individual market coverage had a lifetime limit on their insurance policy. That meant their coverage could end exactly when they needed it most. The ACA prohibits annual and lifetime limits on policies, so all Texans with employer plans now have coverage that's there when they need it. (2) Young adults covered until age 26: An estimated 205,000 young adults in Texas have benefited from the ACA provision that allows kids to stay on their parents' health insurance up to age 26. (3) Free preventive care: Under the ACA, health plans must cover preventive services--like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms--at no extra cost to consumers. This provision benefits 10,278,005 people in Texas, most of whom have employer coverage. (4) Slower premium growth: The average premium for Texas families with employer coverage grew 3.5 percent per year from 2010-2015, compared with 8.1 percent over the previous decade. Assuming Texas premiums grew in line with the national average in 2016, family premiums in Texas are $5,400 lower today than if growth had matched the pre-ACA decade. (5) Better value through the 80/20 rule: Because of the ACA, health insurance companies must spend at least 80 cents of each premium dollar on health care or care improvements, rather than administrative costs like salaries or marketing, or else give consumers a refund;. Texans with employer coverage have received $20,082,448 in insurance refunds since 2012. With respect to Medicaid, 4,770,229 people in Texas are covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, including 3,512,929 children and 374,617 seniors and people with disabilities covered by both Medicaid and Medicare. The ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and strengthened the program for those already eligible. An estimated 1,107,000 Texans could have health insurance today if Texas expanded Medicaid under the ACA. Coverage improves access to care, financial security, and health; expansion would result in an estimated 127,000 more Texans getting all needed care, 157,400 fewer Texans struggling to pay medical bills, and 1,330 avoided deaths each year. 406,000 Texans, or an estimated 23 percent of those who could gain Medicaid coverage through expansion, have a mental illness or substance use disorder. Texas could be saving millions in uncompensated care costs. Instead of spending $1 billion on uncompensated care, which increases costs for everyone, Texas could be getting $5 billion in federal support to provide low-income adults with much needed care. Children, people with disabilities, and seniors can more easily access Medicaid coverage. The ACA streamlined Medicaid eligibility processes, eliminating hurdles so that vulnerable Texans could more easily access and maintain coverage. Texas can better fight opioids. Under the ACA, CMS provided technical assistance that is giving Texas the opportunity to strengthen Medicaid services for people struggling with opioid abuse or other substance use disorders (SUDs). With respect to Medicare, 3,765,946 people in Texas are covered by Medicare. The ACA strengthened the Medicare Trust Fund, extending its life by over a decade. In addition, Medicare enrollees have benefited from: Lower costs for prescription drugs: Because the ACA is closing the prescription drug donut hole, 346,750 Texas seniors are saving $366 million on drugs in 2015, an average of $1,057 per beneficiary. Free preventive services: The ACA added coverage of an annual wellness visit and eliminated cost-sharing for recommended preventive services such as cancer screenings. In 2015, 1,746,043 Texas seniors, or 72 percent of all Texas seniors enrolled in Medicare Part B, took advantage of at least one free preventive service. Fewer hospital mistakes: The ACA introduced new incentives for hospitals to avoid preventable patient harms and avoidable readmissions. Hospital readmissions for Texas Medicare beneficiaries dropped 6 percent between 2010 and 2015, which translates into 4,960 times Texas Medicare beneficiaries avoided an unnecessary return to the hospital in 2015. More coordinated care: The ACA encouraged groups of doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers to come together to provide coordinated high-quality care to the Medicare patients they serve. 37 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) in Texas now offer Medicare beneficiaries the opportunity to receive higher quality, more coordinated care. Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of our insurance providers to address growing threats and active cases of Americans' health crises. Accordingly, I urge all Members to join me in protecting the gains achieved by the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to keep America healthy, saving the Affordable Care Act. I rise in the name of Cynthia Perry, facing a life-or-death scenario. Without the law in place, Cynthia Perry would also be facing life or death. Perry suffers from an immune deficiency that requires her to take medication she estimates costs roughly $40,000 a year. Cynthia, who lives today. I rise to keep America healthy. Kathryn Will, terrified about losing access to treatment, terrified because she, herself, at 28 years old, was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. I rise to keep America healthy because a Senator from Kentucky said we need to think through how we do this, and it is a huge mistake for Republicans if they do not vote for replacement on the same day they vote for repeal. I rise to keep America healthy and not give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to insurance companies and drug manufacturers while eliminating tax credits for millions of working Americans. I rise to keep America healthy. Vote to save the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committees on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Congressional Voting Rights Caucus, I rise today to express my views regarding the more troubling nominations made by the President-Elect to fill the important Cabinet posts at the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Energy. Let me begin with the nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff'' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Speaker, those of us who oppose the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General owe a responsibility to the public to clear and forthright in stating the reasons they believe he should not be confirmed as the Attorney General of the United States. 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 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. To quote then-Senator Joseph Biden during the 2001 confirmation hearing of Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft: ``This Cabinet position is the single most unique position of any Cabinet office.'' ``For it's the only one where the nominee or the Cabinet officer has an equally strong and stronger, quite frankly, responsibility to the American people as he does to the person who nominates him.'' At that same confirmation hearing, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois observed that ``the attorney general, more than any other Cabinet officer, is entrusted with protecting the civil rights of Americans.'' The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the President; the Attorney General is the lawyer, and the Department of Justice the law firm, for the American people. That is why I agree so strongly with then-Senator Biden when he said in 2001: ``[F]or the office of attorney general, first, the question is whether the attorney general is willing to vigorously enforce all the laws in the Constitution, even though he might have philosophical disagreements.'' ``[The second question is] whether he possesses the standing and temperament that will permit the vast majority of the American people to believe that you can and will protect and enforce their individual rights.'' Put another way, 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. Mr. Speaker, the nation's greatest Attorney Generals conveyed this commitment to equal justice by their prior experience, their words and deed, and their character. Think Herbert Brownell, Attorney General for Republican President Eisenhower, who overaw 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 Governor George Wallace in the successful effort to integrate the University of Alabama. The nomination of Alabama Senator Sessions as Attorney General does not inspire the necessary confidence. As a U.S. Senator from Alabama, the state from which the infamous Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder originated, Senator Sessions has failed to play a constructive role in repairing the damage to voting rights caused by that decision. He was one of the leading opponents of the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. 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 President-Elect during the campaign. And his record in support of efforts to bring needed reform to the nation's criminal justice system is virtually non-existent. In 1986, ten years before Senator Sessions was elected to the Senate, he was rejected for a U.S. District Court judgeship in view of documented incidents that revealed his lack of commitment to civil and voting rights, and to equal justice. And his Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront. As a U.S. attorney, Senator Sessions was the first federal prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activist for voter fraud. Senator Sessions charged the group with 29 counts of voter fraud, facing over 100 years in prison. Senator Sessions has repeatedly denied the disproportionate impact of voting restrictions on minorities and has been a leader in the effort to undermine the protections of the Voting Rights Act. Senator Sessions has spoken out against the Voting Rights Act, calling it ``a piece of intrusive legislation.'' Senator Sessions criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging state election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud. However, evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. As Attorney General of the state of Alabama, Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harmed schools predominantly attended by African-American students. Senator Sessions led the fight to uphold the state of Alabama's inequitable school funding mechanism after it had been deemed unconstitutional by the Alabama circuit court. In the state of Alabama nearly a quarter of African-American students attend apartheid schools, meaning the school's white population is less than one percent. Although Senator 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. Mr. Speaker, The United States has been blessed to have been served as Attorney General by such illustrious figures as Robert Jackson, Robert Kennedy, Herbert Brownell, Ramsey Clark, Nicholas Katzenbach, Eric Holder, and Edward H. Levi. Nothing would do more to reassure the American people that the President-Elect is committed to unifying the nation than the nomination and appointment of a person to be Attorney General who has a record of championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining, the precious right to vote; the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and support for reform of the nation's immigration system so that it is fair and humane. Regrettably, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama is not that person and he should not be confirmed by the Senate to be the nation's 84th Attorney General.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, January 10, 2017, I traveled to Chicago at the invitation of the President of the United States to attend his Farewell Address to the Nation. Consequently, I was not present for Roll Call Votes 29 through 31. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call 29, I would have voted AYE. (Velazquez Amendment to H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'') On Roll Call 30, I would have voted AYE. (Clay/Waters Amendment to H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'') On Roll Call 31, I would have voted AYE. (Final Passage of H.R. 79, Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act (``HALOS Act'')

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 11, 2017, I was unavoidably detained attending to representation duties and was not present for rollcall Votes 32 through 34. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall 32, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 33, I would have voted ``no.'' On rollcall 34, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and the distinguished ranking member for convening us. It reenforces my commitment to the importance of the House Judiciary Committee for important, innovative, and groundbreaking, in some instances, work that we have done. In this instance, I find fault because this legislation does not meet that criteria. Just a few days ago, we read the Constitution, and some might make the argument that H.R. 5 fits very comfortably into the Bill of Rights, Amendment V and Amendment XIV. Both frame themselves around the question of due process. I make the argument that this legislation is sorely lacking. I want to take up, first of all, a point made by my colleague, a member of the Rules Committee. This legislation, to my recalling, has been circulated for many years. It seems that I have been in the House when a bill like H.R. 5 has passed over and over again. This bill appeared in the 114th Congress. Many Members left since that time. New Members are here. New Members, Republicans and Democrats, will be added to the House Judiciary Committee and to the Senate Judiciary Committee. None of them will have had the opportunity for regular order, to be able to ensure hearings and to be able to engage in input with amendments that I would agree or disagree with, but to have a vigorous debate in our Judiciary Committee as well as in the Senate. It did not happen. We are now on the floor of the House. So that is one fracture of what we are doing, one Achilles' heel to this legislation. In the last 24 hours, I heard a news account of a little boy who swallowed magnets that were produced by a particular company. It went through the process. It was designated dangerous; and then, unfortunately, that dangerous status was pulled back, and the company is excited about producing those magnets again. The little boy who swallowed the magnets, I think, was about 2 years old. A happy little boy, of course, that is how children are. He had major intestinal surgery, and most of his intestines were removed. He is now 6 years old, and he must now be fed intravenously. His devastation is our failure. That is what we are facing with H.R. 5. I don't know if my colleagues agree, as boring as the Administrative Procedure Act was in law school, I liked the course. I had a great professor who made me understand the life of the APA and its value. This legislation attempts to rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act to the detriment of the American people. Consider this, hardworking agencies should have oversight; that is what our committees are all about. They should have oversight. They will now have to jump through hoops of 70 new criteria. I didn't say 10; I didn't say a quarter of 100, 25; I didn't say a half of 100, 50; but 70 when issuing rules, including alternatives to any rule proposal, the scope of the problems the rule meant to address, and potential cost and benefits of the proposal and alternative. I want to see small businesses thrive. Part of that includes a reasonable healthcare package like ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act, for its employees, a reasonable new structure dealing with taxation that helps small businesses and does not give a mountain of benefit to major corporations. Maybe we should address the needs of small businesses in that manner, or, as my minority constituents tell me, access to credit which is generally denied to women, Hispanics, in some instances, and certainly African Americans. That may help our small businesses get them back on their feet. But that is not what H.R. 5 does. It stifles the work of our agencies of which we have attributed to them, the Small Business Administration, Health and Human Services, the Federal Trade Commission, the FCC, and, in some instances, the Department of Justice articulating regulations dealing with funding of juvenile issues.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. These are agencies that are depended upon to give regular order. Oversight is important, but I would make the argument that stifling, denying, demolishing, or destroying is not order. Now, I had an amendment that I think is crucial. It is to provide an exception under this bill for regulations that help prevent cyber attacks on election processes or institutions. Mr. Chairman, not only have we found with much profoundness that a foreign entity, in this instance Russia, maybe it might be Iran, maybe it might be some other country, intruded into the democratic process of elections. I am glad Senator Graham said this is not Republicans or Democrats. This is about the integrity of the election system. And why we were hesitant to make this amendment in order, because there is no stopping of the peaceful transfer of government. The American people see to that process. Thank God for our love of democracy. We are able to express our opposition in many different ways. But there is no doubt there was not only intrusion, there was skewing from one candidate versus another. There are prints--this is public knowledge--that have been able to be tracked to suggest who, what, and what country, and how far up the chain to Mr. Putin that it went to. So my amendment, I think, was constructive. Why would we be reluctant to debate it? Why would we be reluctant to acknowledge the intelligence report assessing Russian activities and intentions in the recent U.S. elections? And why would we be reluctant to find out who was involved? H.R. 5 is not doing what it is supposed to do. It is, in fact, undermining the Constitution and eliminating the protections for a little boy who now lives his life completely different because maybe we didn't intervene in the regulatory manner of oversight over that product that we should have, and maybe now we have given them a pass so that other children might suffer the same consequences. I ask my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill and send it back for us to do the work of the people in regular order.