Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5, the ``Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017,'' which is a radical measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations to protect the public. I oppose this legislation because it would effectively shut down the entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock existing regulatory statute. My opposition to H.R. 5 is amplified by the Rules Committee's decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on election processes or institutions.'' Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure. Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was the subject of cyberattacks. These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent. All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment. The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition if to this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests. The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies. These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of agency actions and policy rationale. For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are in the best position to carry out the statutes. The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less experienced judges to second guess expert opinion--essentially sanctioning judicial activism. The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions. The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber networks. As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately concerned constituents. To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule, let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson Lee Amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted. The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American people. We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders' intentions. On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, and that adhere to tradecraft standards. Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential opportunities to advance U.S. national security. This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide or obfuscate their activities. My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals. Specifically, the amendment that the Rules Committee disallowed for presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering, alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions. In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the American public. Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict. It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their legal obligations. The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to interfere with elections is also warranted. We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve the proponents' major purposes. For these reasons and more, I oppose this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Mr. Johnson, the ranking member of the subcommittee for his leadership on these issues, and the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Conyers, for his persistent leadership, having gone over this bill any number of times. Let me mention that Mr. Johnson's amendment is vital because it deals with vulnerable workforce individuals, individuals with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and other requirements. And I would beg to differ with my good friend from Pennsylvania, 70 different elements of criteria that you will put these regulations through, you are simply trying to implode those who advocate for the rights of workers, unions, and others. Therefore, I would question the viability of trying to obstruct, helping these vulnerable workers. This is a very good amendment. Let me be very clear. Since 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs. From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent. We know that, as Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers notes, demographic changes in labor force participation, primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008, has consistently weighed on employment growth. It is quite different from when President Reagan was in. The labor force participation rate is low because of these variables. These regulations are not going to improve that participation. The Obama recovery has been slower because, under Reagan, we realized the baby boomers were in their prime. Now the baby boomers are retiring. We need to provide opportunities for younger workers, minority workers, workers with disabilities; and this, H.R. 5, with all of these hoops that the regulation has to go through that are protecting or empowering workers or increasing the opportunities for workers is certainly going to thwart that growth. You cannot deny that this administration has seen growth with 200,000-plus jobs per month over a series of years. I would argue that Mr. Johnson's amendment is a strong amendment. It promotes job growth, and it gives opportunities to many who are vulnerable in the workforce. I ask my colleagues to support the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chair, my Republican colleagues have made several statements concerning economic activity that invite fact checks: First, they argue that the labor force participation rate is historically low, but as we all know, the labor force participation is affected by both long term trends and short term policies. As Jason Furman, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, notes, ``demograpic changes in labor force participation--primarily driven by a large increase in retirement by baby boomers that began in 2008--have consistently weighed on employment growth.'' Second, they argue that the Obama recovery has been slower than the economic recovery under the Reagan Administration. But this argument is laughable. President Reagan's recovery benefited from the fact that many baby boomers were in the prime working years while President Obama's recovery has taken place in front of the backdrop of an aging U.S. population. More importantly, the economic lows of the Reagan Administration are not comparable to the mortgage-foreclosure crisis, which resulted in higher unemployment than any other period since the Great Depression. Finally, despite many bald assertions, my Republican colleagues have not satisfactorily explained how H.R. 5 will create a single job or responded to President Obama's unimpeachable jobs record. In fact, despite, strong economic headwinds and years of Republican obstructionism during the majority of his presidency, the U.S. economy is 11.5 percent larger than its peak before the 2008 economic crisis as of the third quarter of 2016. Since early 2010, U.S. businesses have added 15.6 million jobs. From 2014 to 2015, real median household income grew by 5.2 percent, the fastest annual growth on record, and the United States saw its largest one-year drop in the poverty rate since the 1960s. In closing, there is little evidence supporting my Republican colleagues' claims and if there is any doubt that the H.R. 5 will undermine workforce participation, my colleagues should support my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Would the gentleman not count automation and technology as one of the elements and, as well, the idea of the retiring of baby boomers as part of the issue of growth? And can we not work together to question those particular elements so that we can collectively and collaboratively promote job growth?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I sadly rise today to pay tribute to Judge Bruce Mosier, who lost his life yesterday; to his lovely and beautiful wife, Diane; beautiful daughter; and extended family. The whole of Harris County in Texas loved and respected Judge Bruce Mosier. Oh, he was a strong and vibrant Democrat, but he was a man that, whenever you called upon him, he would serve. He loved the law, practiced, and continued to represent individuals, many of whom could not help themselves. And, of course, he stood by his wife's side, championing every effort she made to empower people to vote. He was a stalwart in the last Presidential election. He continued to encourage and support all of us to do what is right and to ensure the rights of all people to vote. Judge Bruce Mosier served his neighborhood, served his county, served his State, and served this Nation. I will miss Judge Mosier. I will miss his friendly smile and his kindness, his willingness to help those who were just starting in their political or legal career, his willingness to lift up this country and to be the kind of American that always had an open mind to anyone, no matter how different they might be. So today, my dear friend, Judge Bruce Mosier, may you rest in peace. Diane, we will continue to love you and honor his legacy, work with you to continue his dreams and aspirations, and encourage those in this Nation, our county, and our State to be participatory participants in the wonderment of democracy in this Nation that is, that was, Judge Bruce Mosier.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado, and I thank my good friend from Georgia. It is important to take note of the value of democracy and the discourse on this floor, and my friendship with the gentleman from Georgia, but absolute disagreement with him on our purposes here. Yes, regulation should be fair, and it should cede to the administrative process and the administrative laws that dictate how they should be formulated, and that fairness should be their underpinnings. But I think my constituents, in terms of the regulatory scheme, are far more interested in clean water and clean air. They are far more interested in making sure that consumer products that impact toddlers and babies are enforced. They are far more interested in ensuring that there is competition to the FTC, and that there are fair energy laws to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Having said that, I am disappointed as well that we are moving forward on H.R. 5, which is a bill that went through the Judiciary Committee, and, as my colleague from Colorado said, with 56 new Members, it did not go through regular order. We are recycling the same bad bill again. I rise today to express concern over the number of amendments that were presented that were good amendments that did not get in. Before I speak to the amendment I am concerned about, first, I want to speak to the previous question. I support the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) on a very important statement, and that is in the tragedy and the heinousness of 9/11, we formulated the 9/11 Commission. Mr. Speaker, there is no more heinousness than a foreign nation interfering with the just and fair voting of every American. There are many who lost their life in the name of one vote, one person. For that reason, I would make the argument that it is imperative that this bill be amended to create the commission that will address the question of foreign intrusion, particularly Russian intrusion and hacking in our election. I believe this election was skewed, in spite of the peaceful democratic transfer of government, which we will all adhere to, but there is no doubt. This does not compete to 2001 with President Bush in Florida. It does not compete to 2004 with Mr. Kerry. It is beyond any kind of comprehension of what happened in this election, a direct intrusion and skewing of this election. But, more importantly, protecting the systems of election and the voting rights, the preciousness of the voting rights, is crucial to democracy. This commission, independent of any of the committees that should be working--and I agree, Congress should be working. Senator McCain has already begun working--a Republican--but this commission would be a vital asset. So I am certainly disappointed that the amendment I had that was crucial as relates to cybersecurity to deal with the question of cyber intrusion was not made in order. It would have been appropriate for us to have an amendment that would have spoken directly to the idea of identifying new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy, or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting the data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. This amendment would have been vital to have not only a vigorous discussion on the floor but also to recognize that cybersecurity has now become a potential weapon. I have worked on this issue for a decade as the former chairwoman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. It was under my subcommittee that we began to look at electric grids and began to see the enormous power of the cyber world. My amendment should have been included because we are now faced with what the cyber world used as a weapon can do. I am disappointed that that amendment was not made in order. I am disappointed that H.R. 5 is again before us without regular order, and would hope that we have the opportunity to vote for and support the previous question to find out what happened and who conspired to alter our elections in 2016. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I strongly oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017, which is a radical measure that could make it impossible to promulgate safety regulations to protect the public. I oppose this rule because it would effectively shut down the entire U.S. regulatory system, amending in one fell swoop every bedrock existing regulatory statute. My opposition to H. Res. 33 is amplified by the Rules Committee's decision to decline to make in order the Jackson Lee Amendment, ``to provide an exception for regulations that help prevent cyberattacks on election processes or institutions.'' Apparently, House Republicans are still reluctant to debate the subject--undisputed by our Intelligence community--of Russian cyberattacks on American cyber networks and infrastructure. Key Judgments in the Intelligence Community Assessment's declassified version of a highly classified report entitled, ``Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,'' have confirmed that 2016 witnessed the first American presidential election that was the subject of cyberattacks. These and other subversive activities have been confirmed to have been perpetrated by entities allied with the Government of Russia and were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the presidential contest to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump, who made history by becoming the first presidential candidate to invite a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent. All three agencies, CIA, FBI and NSA, agree with this judgment. The so-called Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA), in addition to this rule, demonstrates the deceptive design of the majority to make it harder to establish regulations to protect the public by tilting the entire regulatory system significantly toward special interests. The bill allows Federal courts without expertise on technical issues to substitute their judgment for those of the expert federal agencies. These agencies are staffed with career subject matter experts that are deeply knowledgeable of the background, context, and history of agency actions and policy rationale. For this reason, courts have long deferred to agency experts who are in the best position to carry out the statutes. The RAA would end this well-established practice and allow far less experienced judges to second-guess expert opinion--essentially sanctioning judicial activism. The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, would have attuned this dangerous legislation to provide an exception for regulation upon which Americans so greatly rely on their government to help prevent cyberattacks on our highly coveted and esteemed election processes and institutions. The bill promoted by the majority, calling for accountability from our Administrative Agencies--fails to answer in accountability to the threat posed by foreign and domestic invaders on our national cyber networks. As the new Congress commences in the People's House, obstructionist Republicans are circumventing the very procedures by which elected officials answer the cries of outrage and dismay of desperately concerned constituents. To the obstructionist majority perpetuating this restrictive rule, let me stand firm in the American convictions laid bare by the Jackson Lee amendment--the system of Checks and Balances established by the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution will not be thwarted. The spirit of the H.R. 5 is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to cyber networks, national security, economy, or the very health and safety of the American people. We know that Russia's cyber activities were intended to influence the election, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, and undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. These actions are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The mission of the Intelligence Community is to seek to reduce the uncertainty surrounding foreign activities, capabilities, or leaders' intentions. On these issues of great importance to U.S. national security, the goal of intelligence analysis is to provide assessments to decision makers that are intellectually rigorous, objective, timely, and useful, and that adhere to tradecraft standards. Applying these standards helps ensure that the Intelligence Community provides U.S. policymakers, warfighters, and operators with the best and most accurate insight, warning, and context, as well as potential opportunities to advance U.S. national security. This objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues on which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide or obfuscate their activities. My amendment would have improved H.R. 5 by exempting only those regulations critical to making cyber networks invulnerable to attack from foreign and domestic agencies and individuals. Specifically, the amendment that the Rules committee disallowed for presentation on a vote here on the floor today would have provided the American people an exemption to allow for the prevention of tampering, alteration, or misappropriation of information by agents of foreign countries with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions. In particular, restrictions put forth in H.R. 5 could result in further delay to agencies attempting to take action to help network defenders better identify new tactics or techniques that a malicious actor might deploy or detect and disrupt an ongoing intrusion, in addition to protecting data that enables cybersecurity firms and other network defenders to identify certain malware that the Russian intelligence services use. The Regulatory Accountability Act provides no accountability to the American public. Instead, it allows polluting industries and special interests to game the system and escape accountability for any harm they inflict. It makes it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to secure new public protections and arms industry with numerous tools to avoid their legal obligations. The increasing use of cyber-enabled means to undermine democratic processes at home and abroad, as exemplified by Russia's recent activities, has made clear that a tool explicitly targeting attempts to interfere with elections is also warranted. We cannot afford to let global terroristic threats, in the form of cyber activities, erode faith in U.S. democratic institutions, sow doubt about the integrity of our electoral process, influence elections, or undermine confidence in the institutions of the U.S. government. My amendment would have offered protections guarding the integrity of our cyber networks, while at the same time allowing the bill to achieve the proponents' major purposes. The exceptional Americans we serve deserve a Congress that does its job and keeps our time-honored institutions functioning. For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 321, the INSPIRE Women, Act. I support this legislation because Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution states our duty ``To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries . . .'' This includes the education of our next generation of women considering participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace. Statistics show that women remain underrepresented in the science and engineering workforce, although to a lesser degree than in the past, with the greatest disparities occurring in engineering, computer science, and the physical sciences (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014). 1. Female scientists and engineers are concentrated in different occupations than are men, with relatively high shares of women in the social sciences (58 percent) 2. biological and medical sciences (48 percent) 3. relatively low shares in engineering (13 percent) 4. computer and mathematical sciences (25 percent) (NSF, Science & Engineering Indicators, 2014). Women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce, but are much less represented in particular science and engineering occupations (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, 2014): 1. 39 percent of chemists and material scientists are women; 2. 27.9 percent of environmental scientists and geoscientists are women; 3. 15.6 percent of chemical engineers are women; 4. 12.1 percent of civil engineers are women; 5. 8.3 percent of electrical and electronics engineers are women; 6. 17.2 percent of industrial engineers are women; and 7. 7.2 percent of mechanical engineers are women. These statistics show that measures need to be taken in order to promote women participation in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace. H.R. 321 will support NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS, virtual mentoring programs using commercially available video chat programs, to pair National Aeronautics and Space Administration mentors with young students anywhere in the country. NASA GIRLS and NASA BOYS give young students the opportunity to interact and learn from real engineers, scientists, and technologists. H.R. 321 will also support the ``Aspire to Inspire'' Program (A2I), which engages young girls to present science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) career opportunities through the real lives and jobs of early career women at NASA. H.R. 321 also promotes the Summer Institute in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Research (SISTER) program at the Goddard Space Flight Center designed to increase awareness of, and provide an opportunity for, female middle school students to be exposed to and explore nontraditional career fields with Goddard Space Flight Center women engineers, mathematicians, scientists, technicians, and researchers. Let me close by urging all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 321.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 255 the ``Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act.'' As a Senior Member on the House Committee on Homeland Security who sits on the Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, I know well of the need to encourage and train women to thrive in the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Promoting diversity in the STEM professions is more than just an idea; it requires an understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure the inclusion of all minorities and women in all areas of American life. Studies have found that women make up almost 50 percent of the workforce. Studies note that 23 percent of STEM workers are women; however, women make up 48 percent of workers in all occupations. Only 26 percent of women who do attain degrees in STEM fields work in STEM jobs. According to the most recent available data women are less likely to focus on the STEM disciplines in undergraduate and graduate studies. In 1991, women received 29.6 percent of computer science B.A.'s, compared to just 18.2 percent in 2010. Jobs in computer systems design and related services, a field dependent upon high-level math and problem-solving skills, are projected to grow 45 percent between 2008 and 2018. There are approximately 6 million women and minority owned businesses in the United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy. My home city of Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, knows the importance of professionals in the STEM industries. It has been reported that the highest-paying STEM occupations are petroleum engineers with an annual salary of $147,520, architectural and engineering managers with an annual salary of $138,720, natural sciences managers with an annual salary of $136,450, computer and information systems managers with an annual salary of $136,280, and physicists with a reported annual salary of $117,300. There is an increasing demand for individuals with STEM degrees to extend their focus beyond the laboratory so they can be leaders in discovery and commercialization. Women deserve a fair shot in the STEM programs in this nation. In addition, I believe that work needs to be done to modernize key contracting developmental programs designed to increase opportunities for women, minorities and low-income individuals who pursue STEM degrees and STEM job training. I support programs at the National Science Foundation that have worked to reduce the current barriers and ensure women have the support they need in the STEM fields. Mr. Speaker, we should encourage women to pursue degrees and careers in the STEM fields so we can continue to compete in the global economy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 239, the ``Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2017,'' which amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for improved innovative research and development. I support this bill because it would extend the Department of Homeland Security secretary's pilot program for research and development projects and prototype projects through 2020. This bill would require the secretary to report annually to the House Homeland Security and Science committees and the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the dynamics of the projects undertaken. Specifically, H.R. 239 would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to include fundamental improvements to facilitate information, analytics, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents, consistent with the current law. In particular, it adds a new section to the Homeland Security Act, directing the Department of Homeland Security to support--whether within itself, other agencies, or in academia and private industry--the research and development of cybersecurity-related technologies. As a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I support this bill as it directs the Under Secretary for Science and Technology to bolster research and development, along with the testing and evaluation of cybersecurity technology to improve the sharing of information, analysis, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents. The Rapid Innovation Act is a smart bill that will enable the Department of Homeland Security to establish and improve technologies for detecting attacks or intrusions. The ``Support for Rapid Innovation Act of 2017'' will equip the Department of Homeland Security with vital tools and resources to prevent and remove attacks and threats implemented by those who target our nation. Mr. Speaker, we face growing cybersecurity threats, which demands that we increase research and development, along with the testing and evaluation of cybersecurity technology to expand the sharing of information, analysis, and methodologies related to cybersecurity risks and incidents. This is a comprehensive bill that will help protect all Americans in every corner of this nation. I urge all Members to join me in voting to pass H.R. 239.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 240, the ``Leveraging Emerging Technologies Act of 2017,'' which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to engage with innovative and emerging technology developers, including technology-based small businesses and startup ventures that can help tackle the rapidly expanding list of homeland security technology needs. H.R. 240 helps to protect America's computer and communications networks, which security experts believe represent the nation's most critical national security challenge, including Internet functions and connected critical infrastructure such as air traffic control, the U.S. electrical grid, and nuclear power plants. H.R. 240 authorizes DHS to establish personnel and office space in diverse geographic areas around the United States that have high concentrations of technology developers and firms. The bill also directs DHS, within 6 months, to develop and submit to Congress a Department-wide strategy to engage with innovative and emerging technology companies. Importantly, the bill specifically requires the Secretary to include in that strategy ways to effectively integrate technology-based small businesses and startup ventures. Importantly, the bill also requires the DHS Secretary to coordinate with those in the venture capital industry to assist in the development of technologies that are ready for commercialization and use in the Homeland Security Enterprise. Since its founding, the Department of Homeland Security has overcome many challenges as an organization but much more progress must be made regarding effective inter-operable communication between the federal, state, and local agencies. Although not a panacea, H.R. 240 is a step in the right direction because it will help improve DHS' overall functions so that it can more effectively protect our people. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Veasey for his leadership. Let also thank the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Richmond, for his leadership. Before I start, let me offer my appreciation to law enforcement officers across America--this is Law Enforcement Appreciation Day--and join my colleague, Val Demings, particularly acknowledging the sadness in Orlando today in the loss of two law enforcement officers in the line of duty. I rise today for not a personal statement or a statement that has to do with personality. As the President-elect said of Mr. Sessions, he is a fine and decent fellow. I have no interest in determining whether that is true or false. But I do want to hold the President-elect accountable for the words that he said on election night that he pledged to the Nation that he would be a President for all Americans. That pledge, I believe, will ring hollow for tens upon tens of millions of Americans with the nomination of the Secretary of Education, who is against public schools, the nomination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who has no plan for health care, and, finally, the nomination for Attorney General. Rather than select someone who is championing and protecting, rather than opposing and undermining the precious right to vote, the constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, criminal justice reform, and the support for reform of the Nation's immigration system, it is quite the contrary in the nomination of Senator Sessions--a person who opposed Shelby County v. Holder in terms of the basis of trying to constructively support voting rights, an individual who is hostile to comprehensive immigration reform, and certainly someone who has constantly not sought to fix, but has sought to undermine. So, for example, as a U.S. attorney, he was the first prosecutor in the country to bring charges against civil rights activists of voter fraud. But, Mr. Speaker, listen to this: he didn't just bring charges; he had 29 counts of voter fraud that resulted in civil rights activists facing 100 years in prison. He 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, and he did nothing to reconstruct the Voting Rights Act and restore section 5 when tens upon tens of Members of Congress worked diligently to try to fix the Shelby case. He criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for challenging State election laws, claiming they are necessary to fight voter fraud. Evidence supports that voter fraud is almost nonexistent, with 31 confirmed cases out of more than a billion ballots cast. Senator Sessions fought to continue practices that harm schools predominantly attended by African American students. He 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. Finally, in the State of Alabama, nearly a quarter of African American students attend what is called apartheid, or what can be called apartheid schools, meaning the school's White population is less than 1 percent. Now we understand that the Senator has 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. I would say to you as I close, we who are vulnerable look to the Department of Justice as the solid rock of justice for the Nation. Whether we are immigrant, whether we are a woman who is trying to fight against violence, whether we need civil rights, whether we are LGBT, whether we are those who are seeking religious freedom or freedom of expression, the Department of Justice is a solid rock of justice for this Nation. With that in mind, I believe that this nominee, who now stands with the criteria evidenced by the record, stands not prepared, not fit to hold this position of the Attorney General of the United States--a sacred position of law and justice. 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 President-Elect's nomination of U.S. Senator Jefferson Beauregard ``Jeff'' Sessions III of Alabama to be the next Attorney General of the United States. On Election Night the President-Elect pledged to the nation that he would be a president to all Americans. That pledge will ring hollow to tens of millions of Americans in light of his announced intention to nominate one of the U.S. Senate's most far-right members, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to be the next Attorney General of the United States. Perhaps 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. 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. I call upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to subject the nomination to the most comprehensive, searching, and withering examination. 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. The duty of the U.S. Attorney General is to lead the Department of Justice in protecting and expanding the civil rights of all Americans and the pursuit of equal justice for all, not to turn back the clock on hard won rights and liberties. No senator should vote to confirm the nomination of Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General if there is the slightest doubt that he possesses the character, qualities, integrity, and commitment to justice and equality needed to lead a department, the headquarters building of which is named for Robert F. Kennedy, one of the nation's greatest and most indefatigable champions of civil rights and equal justice for all.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the 15 votes from the State of North Carolina because of the massive voter suppression and the closing of voting massive suppression that occurred from African American--

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Vice President, I do have in writing a signature from myself, not yet a signature from a Senator.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Not yet. We are seeking a United States Senator.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I have an objection.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object on the massive voter suppression that is provisional that denied individual ballots--

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the votes from South Carolina because--

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I have it in writing. I am now seeking a signature from a United States Senator.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I object to the votes from the State of Wisconsin which should not be legally certified.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. President, I do have a written document with my objection.

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 offer thoughts and reflections on the congressional responsibility to bear witness to the counting of electoral votes to determine formally the persons elected President and Vice President of the United States and on the campaign and election that brought us to this day. Historians will surely record that the 2016 presidential campaign was one for the ages. The two leading protagonists could not have been more dissimilar. The Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton of New York, was widely considered the most qualified person ever nominated for the office, having served as Secretary of State; elected by landslide margins to two terms as U.S. Senator from New York, the nation's only First Lady to win high elective office in her own right; valedictorian of her class at Wellesley University, a graduate of Yale Law School, and the first woman ever to win the presidential nomination of one of the nation's two major political parties. Republican Donald Trump of New York, the other candidate, was sui generis as well, since he is the first person to gain an Electoral College majority with no experience whatsoever in elective or appointed governmental office or public service but possessing a remarkable talent for attracting media attention. The 2016 was notable also for a number of other unprecedented occurrences. For example, it was the first time in history that a Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had ever injected himself and his agency, unintentionally or not, in a presidential campaign when FBI Director James Comey held a July 5, 2016 news conference, during which he announced that the FBI had completed its investigation regarding the email server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and had concluded that no violation of law had been committed but offered unfavorable personal opinions ex cathedra regarding Secretary Clinton's conduct. Compounding the damage inflicted on Secretary Clinton's campaign by his gratuitous commentary, FBI Director Comey exacerbated the damage already done when, a mere eleven days before Election Day, he sent a vaguely worded letter to partisan Congressional Republican opponents of Secretary Clinton allowing them to leak the letter to the media and claim falsely that the FBI had reopened the investigation for the sole purpose of inflicting electoral damage on Secretary Clinton. These actions were taken in contravention of long-standing Department of Justice policy, practice, and custom enjoining Justice Department officials and employees from engaging any conduct or taking any legal action that could impact the outcome of an election to be held within the ensuing 60 days. The 2016 presidential election was historic in another respect as well; it is the first American presidential election that the Intelligence Community has confirmed was the subject of cyberattacks and other subversive activities of entities allied with the Government of Russia that were undertaken for the express purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election to secure the election of its preferred candidate, Donald Trump. It is also worth noting that the 2016 presidential campaign was the first in history in which one of the two leading candidates, Donald Trump, openly invited a hostile foreign power to launch cyberattacks against his political opponent. In at least one respect, however, the 2016 presidential campaign was not unprecedented. It was the fifth time in history, and the second in the last 16 years, that the candidate winning an Electoral College majority lost the popular vote. But what is unusual is the historic margin of the popular vote defeat produced by the 2016 campaign that saw Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump by an astounding 2.86 million votes: 65,844,610 votes to 62,979,636, nearly six times more than Vice-President Al Gore's popular vote win in 2000, the next highest victory margin. Indeed, Hillary Clinton received more votes for president than any person in history not named Barack Obama, which means that the two greatest vote getters in American political history are an African American male and white female, which in itself is a testament to how far America has travelled on the path to equality and opportunity for all in the past 240 years. While it is true that a switch of less than 80,000 votes in just three states--Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin--would have secured an Electoral College majority for Hillary Clinton, that fact is of little consolation and practical consequence to the situation and task now before us, which is to count the electoral votes cast for President and Vice-President of the United States and announce the results to the country and the world. It is, as I noted at the outset, a duty imposed on Members of the House and the Senate by the Constitution and laws of the United States. But because we are all called upon to bear witness to the counting of electoral votes does not mean our role is to be passive observers. On the contrary, the Constitution and the law, specifically Section 15 of the Electoral College Act, 3 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., vests in Representatives and Senators the power and responsibility of objecting to the counting of any vote cast by an elector if in their judgment the vote was not ``regularly given'' or the person casting the vote was not ``lawfully certified'' as an elector. The Constitution devolves this solemn duty upon the people's representatives, the Congress, because the linchpin of representative democracy is public confidence in the political system, regime, and community. That confidence in turn rests upon the extent to which the public has faith that the system employed to select its leaders accurately reflects its preferences. At bottom, this means that all citizens casting a vote have a fundamental right and reasonable expectation that their votes count and are counted. This concern is particularly salient when it comes to today's counting of the electoral votes occurring in the aftermath of the unprecedented interference by a hostile foreign power to secure victory for its preferred candidate. And the salience is heightened by the fact that the November 8, 2016 election is the first presidential election held since the Supreme Court issued the notorious decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which neutered the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act and adversely affected the ability of hundreds of thousands of persons to cast a ballot and have their vote counted. For these reasons, I owe it to my constituents and to the American people to consider each electoral vote certificate as it is presented and accept those that appear to be meritorious but to oppose those which in my judgment do not appear to satisfy the statutory requirement that the votes reflected on the lists were ``regularly given'' by ``lawfully certified'' electors. I am particularly skeptical that this legal standard is met where there is evidence to support the following conclusions: 1. There is a failure to provide ``distinct lists of votes'' for the President and Vice President as required by U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 and Amendment XII; and by 3 U.S.C. Sec. 9; 2. There is a failure of one or more elector to reside in the district from which elected as required under state law; 3. There appears to be a violation of state statutes prohibiting electors from holding multiple governmental offices of trust, honor, or profit; 4. There is compelling evidence that the illegal activities engaged in by individuals and entities allied with the Government of Russia that were undertaken for the purpose of benefitting the candidacy of Donald J. Trump deterred and dissuaded thousands of voters from exercising their franchise; or 5. There is compelling evidence that activities engaged in by state officials violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and disenfranchised thousands of voters and resulted in the unlawful certification of electors. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record that where, as is the case this year, the results in the Electoral College and of the popular vote diverge by the largest and most astounding margin in American history, it is particularly fitting, appropriate, and necessary to examine the electoral vote certificate presented for acceptance as carefully and fairly as possible and for as long as time permits. The fate of our democracy is at stake. I now submit formal letters to the Vice President regarding objection to certification of Electors in certain states: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, January 6, 2017. Basis of Objection: Failure of one or more elector to reside in district from which elected. Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Vice President Biden: We object to the 15 votes from the State of North Carolina for Donald J. Trump for President and Mike Pence for Vice President. Notwithstanding the certification by the Governor of the State of North Carolina, it is the opinion of the undersigned that these 15 votes were not regularly given because at least five electors were not ``lawfully certified'' and their votes were not ``regularly given'' since one or more electors does not reside in the district for which he or she was elected as required by state law. Additionally, several activities engaged in by state officials in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 disenfranchised thousands of North Carolina voters and resulted in the unlawful certification of electors. Accordingly, no electoral vote of the State of North Carolina should be counted for Donald J. Trump for President or for Mike Pence for Vice President. Respectfully, Sheila Jackson Lee, U.S. Representative, State of Texas.