Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a statement regarding the joint session of election, the county electoral ballots, and as well the appropriate letters of objection and documentation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Section 2: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. I oppose this rule because it makes in order H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, 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. The legislation is clearly designed to stop all regulation dead in its tracks--no matter the threat to health, safety or the economy. It would neuter the current system's reliance on science, expertise, and public participation in developing regulations. H.R. 26 would reshape the regulatory system to work as it did in the 19th Century, before the abuses of the robber barons led Congress to create a modern and more efficient system to protect public health and safety. The REINS Act would require both houses of Congress to approve any major rule within a limited period of time in order for it to take effect. Effectively, this would allow either house of Congress to block rules simply through inaction, even when an existing statute required action. The legislation would disempower every federal agency, effectively rendering their rulemaking activities advisory opinions with no force of law. Under REINS, even rules to handle emergencies could be in effect for only 90 days absent Congressional approval. H.R. 26 is so grossly slanted against regulation that it will allow lawsuits to proceed against any regulation Congress could actually manage to approve. And the latest version of the bill delays its effective date for a year so that any Trump Administration efforts to repeal existing regulations would not get caught up in the REINS Act trap--another indication that the REINS Act would be expected to stop any regulatory action from moving forward (because repealing regulations must be done through regulation, so repeals would in fact trigger REINS.) In addition to representing an overwhelming threat to the public, H.R. 26 is also bad for business. The legislation would require businesses to have to lobby Congress for each and every significant regulatory change they wanted--no matter whether those were new regulations, changes in regulation or repeal; no matter whether the regulatory issues involved disputes between different industries; no matter how technical the issues involved. H.R. 26 would, in fact, make the regulatory system less predictable for industry and would disadvantage any industry that did not have a large political presence. It is difficult to exaggerate how fundamentally this alarming piece of legislation would change American government and how hard it would make it to protect the public. This legislative effort is the ultimate giveaway to special interests. Under H.R. 26, any special interest could simply use its political clout in one chamber of Congress to sideline such vital public protections as limiting the amount of lead in children's products, preventing salmonella contamination in eggs, reducing emissions of toxic air pollutants or banning predatory banking practices. The REINS Act constitutes the ultimate overreach as well, not only because of the impact it would have, but because Congress already has ample tools to control the regulatory system. Congress is already vested with the authority to vote to block a specific regulation at any time. And regulation is permitted only pursuant to statutes that Congress has passed and can amend or repeal. Under current law, agencies must keep a record of their interactions with industry and other entities interested in the regulatory process and provide a clear record of their decision-making (which often must be able to hold up in court). Because agencies often take years to review the scientific and technical evidence relevant to a decision, throwing every final decision to Congress would undermine this entire process. In addition, courts can review regulations and an elaborate public process that can stretch out for years must be followed to issue a regulation. Instead, under this legislation, Congress would have to make relatively rapid decisions, often behind closed doors, and it would not be legally held to any standard of technical review. Businesses would no longer have an incentive to cooperate with agencies and provide arguments and evidence because they could just take their chances with the political process, which they would no doubt try to influence with campaign contributions. Ultimately, decisions on regulations would be determined solely by political horse-trading among Members of Congress. Agencies issue 50 to 100 major rules a year dealing with everything from Medicare reimbursement to railroad safety to environmental protection. But, under H.R. 26, Congress would have 70 legislative days to second-guess each and every decision covered by the Act. Because failure to take action would kill any safeguard, Congress would be forced to hold hearings in a short time on technical issues-- or worse, forgo hearings and race the 70-day clock with even less information and debate. This body has already allowed backlog to clog the channels of its current docket, and this legislation would require that as many as 100 additional measures come to the floor. This is not an effort to drain the swamp; this is a divisive and manipulative tactic employed to clog the drain. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this merry-go-round legislative scheme and the irresponsibility of the House majority in wasting time trying to shut down the entire regulatory system (because it cannot win through time-honored, Constitutional legislative processes) entirely disregard the administrative public support efforts in place to protect food safety, air and water quality and to limit the manipulation of our economic system by special interests. The REINS Act is tantamount to a coup--a right-wing takeover to block future agency actions regardless of public desires. 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, today, in the Senate, the other body, unfortunately, joined the pathway of destruction for most Americans and voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. These are not my words, the pathway of destruction, but is evidence what will happen to millions and millions of Americans. By repealing without a replacement, which does not exist, insurance will be taken away from 32 million working families. Now, some 4 million uninsured children will have no insurance. Let me be very clear that many of these individuals do not have college degrees. Many of them, the voters of those who now will take the rein of government. Healthcare premiums will increase by 50 percent for millions of Americans. Hundreds of billions of dollars will go to tax breaks for insurance companies while eliminating the tax credits and subsidies for millions of working families. It will take healthcare coverage away from millions of low- and moderate-income Americans by cutting Medicaid, and it will close rural hospitals and public hospitals that provide the lifeline for many Americans. It will cut off Federal funds for health care for women through Planned Parenthood. And yes, it will eliminate and have cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, this is a pathway of disaster. We should not repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee; ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I rise today in support of the request of several Presidential Electors to be briefed by the Intelligence Communities regarding the activities of the Government of Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Further, since this information bears directly on the decision to be made by the Electors, it must be provided to them before they are required to assemble in the several state capitals to cast their votes. Mr. Speaker, the linchpin of representative democracies such as the United States 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 the votes cast count and are counted. This means that the American people must be able to freely elect their leaders without interference, covert or overt, from foreign governments or entities allied with foreign powers. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper No. 68, ``On the Mode of Electing the President,'' the Constitution reposes in each person chosen to serve as an Elector the sacred trust of disregarding the `talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,' and instead selecting as President the person who is in the most `eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.' The facts related to the activities of the Government of Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election bear directly on the decision to be made by the Electors and thus should be made known to them before they are required to assemble in the several state capitals to cast their votes. In Federalist Paper No. 68, Alexander Hamilton warned that one of the ``most deadly adversaries of republican government arises `chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils' and points out that there is no better way to achieve this objective than `than by raising a creature of their own to [be President], the chief magistracy of the Union.' To guard against foreign machinations of this sort, the Constitution entrusted the selection of the President to Electors, `persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations' as choice of President. Given the gravity and consequences of the decision they are to make, it is essential that information they deem material to their deliberations should and must be provided to them. In this instance, that means being briefed by the Intelligence Community prior to December 19, 2016 regarding the activities of entities allied with the Government of Russia undertaken to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand on behalf of the American people that the President-Elect disclose, detail, and divest, or place in a genuine blind trust, all, of his financial holdings prior to taking the oath of office so as to avoid major conflicts of interest and to comply with the Emoluments Clause of U.S. Constitution. As chief steward of America's extensive domestic, global, and national security interests, the fidelity of the President of the United States to the national interest must never be subject to question or doubt. The President-Elect's extensive financial interests in more than 100 companies operating in more than 18 countries and on five continents potentially represent major conflicts of interest which can only be remedied by complete divestment or placing all of his assets in a genuine blind trust. As reflected in recent media reports, a preliminary analysis of the President-Elect's extensive financial arrangements reveals dozens of potential conflicts of interest. For example, the President-Elect has received more than $10 million from his interest in the Trump Towers Istanbul in Turkey, a country with which the United States has extensive, complicated, and politically sensitive military and diplomatic relations. Similarly, since August 2015, the President-Elect's business organizations has registered eight separate companies connected to hotel deals in Saudi Arabia, which is located in one of the world's most critical geopolitical regions. Based on the limited and inadequate financial disclosures he has made to date, it appears that the President-Elect's business organization is financially dependent upon, and obligated to, Deutsche Bank, its biggest lender, which happens to be negotiating a multibillion-dollar settlement over housing-crisis-era abuses with the Justice Department, a deal that will be finalized with Justice Department officials appointed by the President-Elect. Companies owned or controlled by the President-Elect's organization also owe hundreds of millions of dollars to the state-owned Bank of China and to Wall Street interests. The American people are entitled to assume without hesitation or doubt that when the President of the United States meets with foreign leaders and dignitaries that he is motivated only by what is in the national interest and not the private, pecuniary interests of himself, his family members, or his business enterprises. That assurance cannot be provided when the President of the United States has enormous financial stakes in the enterprises operating in those same foreign countries. It is for this reason--to ensure that the President's loyalty will always be to the nation he leads--that the Framers included the Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that ``no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.'' According to leading experts in ethics, a prohibited emolument would include, for example, anything from a foreign government that benefits the President-Elect, such as providing favorable tax, zoning, licensing treatment for his real estate holdings or enhanced security to protect his business operations. The financial interests of the President-Elect are extensive, complex, and inter-connected with the interests of foreign leaders and countries. They are all-encompassing and time-consuming. But they pale in comparison to the global, diplomatic, economic, and national security interests of the United States, which supersede the interests of any one person or corporation. As the Scriptures teach, you cannot serve two masters. The President-Elect must make a choice and act accordingly before he takes the oath of office. Either divest all of his financial interests or place them in a genuine blind trust or refrain from taking the oath of office and assuming the responsibility to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed'' and ``to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House Committee 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 initial 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. 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. His Senate voting record and rhetoric has endeared him to white nationalist websites and organizations like Breitbart and Stormfront. Should the President-Elect proceed with the nomination of Senator Sessions to be Attorney General, 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. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to John Glenn, who died December 8, 2016 at the age of 95, in Columbus, Ohio. John Glenn represented the best of America. Perhaps more than any other American of his generation, he personified the American spirit of daring, achievement, bravery, innovation, and humility. As a four-term United States Senator from Ohio, John Glenn was one of the most passionate advocates for justice and opportunity for all persons. Most important of all, for more than 75 years, John Glenn served his country honorably in his home State of Ohio, in the United States Senate, in uniform during World War II and the Korean Conflict, and in outer space as one of the original class of astronauts that made space exploration synonymous with American leadership. John Glenn did indeed possess the `right stuff,' as the writer Tom Wolfe documented in his 1979 best-selling book about the first Project Mercury astronauts selected for the NASA space program. John Glenn was a hero and inspiration to millions of boys and girls who held their breath as he rocketed into outer space, orbited the earth, and safely descended from the heavens to return home to his beloved wife Annie and an adoring public. Godspeed, John Glenn.

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 address efforts that may be taken in various states to recount votes cast for candidates for the office of President of the United States in the recent election. The linchpin of representative democracies such as the United States 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 the votes cast count and are counted. We know from experience that it not uncommon that occasionally vote counts reported in an initial canvass may later prove to be inaccurate because sometimes votes are overlooked or inaccurately credited to the wrong candidate. Vote recounts have long been recognized as an essential safeguard to correct errors of this type. Recounts have occurred at the local, state, and, as we saw in 2000, presidential level. It should be noted also 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. Also, as is the case this year, where 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 and appropriate to ensure that any uncertainty over the accuracy of the vote determining any state's electoral votes be resolved as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the President- Elect to rescind his controversial appointment of Steven Bannon as White House Senior Counselor and Strategist. If the President-Elect takes seriously his Election Night pledge to be a president to ``all Americans,'' he must immediately renounce his intention to appoint Steven Bannon as White House Senior Counselor and Strategist. Steven Bannon has a long history promoting racial and ethnic bigotry, sexism, religious intolerance, and misogyny. He has insinuated that African-Americans are `naturally aggressive and violent,' and under his leadership, Breitbart's publishing strategy turned to one that has made it the media arm of the racist ``Alt- Right'' movement, publishing articles promoting popular white nationalist tropes such as ``black on white crime'' and that ``rape culture'' is inherent in Islam. In selecting Steven Bannon as one of his two most trusted White House advisors, the President-Elect is signaling to the American people that the inflammatory, reckless, and insensitive rhetoric and tactics employed by his campaign can be expected to become part of his Administration's standard operating procedure. This is not the way to begin healing the wounds opened by the recently concluded presidential campaign and or to bring the American people together. I strongly urge the President-Elect to reconsider his decision and rescind his controversial appointment of Steven Bannon as White House Senior Counselor and Strategist.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her continued leadership, and let me also acknowledge my support of her stance on the previous question and the eloquence of Mr. Cartwright on a very, very important issue. I rise to be part of that. Let me also join my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) who said that the appropriators did their work. The American people need to know that. That is regular order, that the appropriation bills should have come forward, and the needs of the American people, through their Representatives in the people's House, should have been addressed. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. So I rise with deep concern--one, as a neighbor to Louisiana, which I know that funds are being allocated, but I realize the devastation there; but also as a Representative of the State of Texas and the 18th Congressional District, where we face a continuous barrage of rains and flooding, that we need continued relief from flooding and, of course, the additional amendment that I had passed in the Energy and Water Appropriations to finally do a study of Houston's bayous. I am not going to give up on that. Now, there is money here on a short-term basis for the Army Corps of Engineers' community development block grant, the $1 billion for Federal Highway Administration, but we don't know whether these moneys will, in fact, be able to solve the problems that we have. So regular order would have been appropriate. I know that the Senate asked for $240 million-plus for Flint, a place where I have traveled to more than one time. I know our good friend from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, has laid himself on the line for those people. There is $100 million here. They need $200 million-plus now--now. This bill goes until April of 2017; and, frankly, I would argue that there are emergency instances where we need the full funding, and that is what is wrong with this CR. It is a compromise to go down even worse in April. That is my fear. It is a compromise to undermine employees of the Federal Government in April. Who knows what will be on the horizon. So this is not the response that we need for the American people. This is not regular order. This is not full funding. This does not allow for amendments. And then let me say this, Mr. Speaker. The last time we provided a waiver for a general--I think everybody can read their history books, and they know who General George C. Marshall was, in 1950. We have not done that now for 66 years. Where is the oversight of Congress? As a member of the Judiciary Committee, to be able to implement a waiver willy-nilly in the CR--no hearings, no legislation, no understanding. There is a definitive core in the American psyche and the constitutional premise of the civilian-military relationship, that there is a separation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. To be able to defend the Nation, we have the military. They are excellent. I am sure ``Mad Dog'' Mattis is excellent. But a waiver? Is this going to be the administration of waivers? We have already heard from the top Democrat in the Senate, changing the rules governing nominations he opposes. We know that, changing the rules in a CR, we should oppose. This is not regular order or regular legislation. This is a continuing resolution. For the American people, let me tell you what is happening. They are trying to ease under the door a process of eliminating the basic principle of separating the fact that you are in the military and you must have a separate period of time before you come into civilian leadership. This is a bad process, a bad bill. Let's not fool the American people. Let's treat them with fairness. This is wrong. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Rule for Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, the ``Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.'' I oppose this rule for four reasons: This rule does not follow the regular order process for House consideration of each appropriations bill; allow the full funding of the federal government for fiscal year 2017; allow for amendments; and support a long standing prohibition of not legislating on an appropriations bill. The rule before the House addresses consideration of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, which includes the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2016, and a Continuing Resolution to fund the federal government until April 28, 2017. The WIIN Act, which contains the WRDA Act, authorizes much needed water projects around the nation that will improve water resources infrastructure. 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. I appreciate the support I received from the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, which authorized projects that directs the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct studies into the conditions that lead to flooding. Although the funding has not been appropriated to conduct studies on conditions that lead to flooding, as it should have been if Congress had followed regular order for the appropriations' process, the efforts to address flooding issues such what was seen in Houston over the last three years is essential to saving lives and property. The Jackson Lee Amendment .to H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act which will help facilitate the $3 million needed to fund the Army Corps of Engineers' Houston Regional Watershed Assessment flood risk management feasibility study. When funding is appropriated for this type of project the Army Corps of Engineers will conduct the first water system studies that looks at all factors that contribute to flooding not only in the City of Houston, but around the nation. Should the funding become available a special emphasis of the study if conducted in Houston would covers 22 primary watersheds within Harris County's 1,756 square miles, will be placed on extreme flood events that exceed the system capacity resulting in impacts to asset conditions/functions and loss of life. Because of this Jackson Lee Amendment to authorize flood studies, I know that the WIIN and WRDA bills could have been improved through amendments; unfortunately, this rule does not allow amendments. I am a strong proponent of regular order and for the House to take seriously its responsibility to fund the federal government in a responsible and prudent manner. The leadership of the House is using the last days the 114th Congress will be in session to do appropriations work that should take 8 months to complete in a regular appropriations process. If we do not act, and pass this bill--the federal government would be under threat of shutting down. The fiscal year of the Federal government for 2016 ended on September 30, and the Fiscal Year for 2017 began on October 1, 2016. The use of Continuing Resolutions was historically used for the few bills that did not finish the full legislative process prior to October 1. Now Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus Appropriations bills are an annual part of the House budget and appropriations process--this is wrong and I will work in the next Congress to make sure that we are focused on bringing transparency back to the budgetary and appropriations process by following regular order. Mr. Speaker, Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, ``Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016,'' which extends current Fiscal Year 2017 government funding through April 28, 2017, at its current rate, which includes an across-the-board cut of .19% for all accounts, defense and non-defense. The federal government operates under budgetary and authorization constraints that cannot be met if administrators of agencies are unable to plan because they do not know what their funding levels will be from year to year. This short term Continuing Resolution does the most harm to Fiscal Year 2017 because we have already passed one CR and now this body is about to pass another that will end in April. This creates uncertainty not only for the work of federal agencies, but for programs that fund local and state programs and projects that include infrastructure, education, food programs and much more. This haphazard appropriations process also causes problems and uncertainty for companies and businesses that provide goods and services to the federal government. Further, this rule keeps in place sequestration the most damaging and fiscally irrespirable thing done by the 114th Congress to the American people. Under the conditions that the two bills under this rule have been managed by the leadership of the House, it would have benefited from amendments to make improvements to the bill. Because this bill changes a law that has nothing to do with appropriations, it would have been beneficial to allow the House to clearly speak to this single issue through the amendment process, which would support debate and a clear affirmation for the change in law governing the appointment of the Secretary of Defense. Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 also does something very serious, which has nothing to do with funding the federal government. This short term CR has language that changes the number of years a retired member of the armed services must wait before being considered for the position of Secretary of Defense. The bill's critical imperfection has nothing to do with funding the federal government--it is a change in law that would allow a retired military person to serve after only 3 years of retirement instead of 7. The service to our nation and the honor and integrity of the person under consideration at present to be the next Secretary of Defense is not in question--it is the reason why there is a waiting period and why that is important. By placing this change in a continuing resolution--a bill designed not to allow more than an hour of debate and not changes is not the vehicle we should use to make this change. If President Obama has suggested a change in law to be accomplished in a continuing resolution appropriations bill his request would have been denied. The politicization of the legislative process has seriously undermined the credibility of the Congress to do the important work of funding the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have again been placed in the position of having to fund the government through the device of a continuing resolution rather through the normal appropriations process of considering and voting on the twelve separate spending bills reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The use of this appropriations measure to further a political objective adds further insult to this body and the appropriations process. There are oversight committees with the knowledge, expertise and experience to make the determination on whether this change is prudent and if they determine that it is--to make the appropriate changes in law. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposition to this Rule and in support of Congress returning to regular order for the consideration of authorization and appropriations bills. [From CQ Roll Call, Dec. 6, 2016] New CR Would Ease Confirmation for Mattis (by John M. Donnelly) The new stopgap spending bill would clear a path for lawmakers to exempt President-elect Donald Trump's Defense secretary nominee from a law requiring a seven-year waiting period before retired military officers can take that job. Many Democrats oppose the move and they could make trouble for the continuing resolution as a result, though it is unclear if they will risk a government shutdown to make their point. The House expects to pass the CR on Thursday and the Senate on Friday, just in time for President Barack Obama to sign the bill into law and keep the federal government operating, as the current CR expires that day. The new CR, unveiled Tuesday night, contains a provision that would expedite consideration of legislation that would enable the Senate to confirm retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, Trump's now-official pick for Pentagon chief, even though he retired from military service three years ago. expedited process The provision provides that the Senate may consider under expedited procedures legislation that would give Mattis an exception to a nearly decade-old law requiring a seven-year interlude after military service. The seven-year mandate was itself a shortened version of the original in-year requirement in the National Security Act of 1947 (PL 80-253), to which Congress granted an exception only once, in 1950, in the case of Army Gen. George C. Marshall. The legislation to grant the exception can be introduced in the first 30 days of the next Congress's first session. It would have to pass both houses, but the CR seeks to knock down possible dilatory procedures Democrats might use in the Senate. The Senate Armed Services Committee would have five days to report it. If they did not do so, it would go straight to the floor anyway. Once there, it would still require 60 votes to pass, unless leaders of both parties agreed to waive that requirement. But the CR provision would knock down a number of other time-consuming procedural hurdles. The Senate would debate it for 10 hours. Arizona Republican John McCain, chairman of Senate Armed Services, had said earlier Tuesday that it is critical to confirm a new Defense secretary as soon as possible. ``Apparently, Democrats are saying they want to drag it out,'' he said, referring to the confirmation process. ``You can't drag out the secretary of Defense. . . . It's absolutely disgraceful. It puts the nation's security at risk.'' Democrats have said they will resist an attempt to bobtail congressional debate over the Mattis nomination and the larger issue of civilian control of the military, which they believe deserves scrutiny. Whether they will oppose the expedited process detailed in the CR provision remains to be seen. opposition to rule changes Asked before the CR provision was unveiled publicly whether the Mattis provision could doom the whole stopgap, incoming Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin said: ``I hope it doesn't come to it . . . There's a strong sentiment opposing any rules changes in the CR.'' Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on Senate Armed Services, said in a statement he opposes ``changing the rules'' governing nominations. ``Trying to jam an historic change like this through on a year-end spending bill, or changing the rules before a serious debate can take place, is not the way to conduct the people's business,'' Reed said. ``Surely, at the very least, it is worth having bipartisan hearings and debate before taking any action that could unintentionally disrupt the long established principle of civilian control of the military.'' New York Democrat Charles E. Schumer, the Senate's incoming minority leader, told reporters prior to release of the new spending legislation that the Mattis nomination should not be ``short-shrifted through a CR.'' ``There should be a full process, and our caucus feels very strongly about that,'' Schumer said. ``And changing the rules in a CR? That's never been done before.'' Along the same lines, in the House, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said earlier in the day that using a CR to address a forthcoming nomination would set a ``terrible precedent.'' ``The American people are entitled to regular order and thoughtful scrutiny of nominees and any potential waivers,'' Pelosi said. Likewise, the top Democrat on House Intelligence, Californian Adam B. Schiff, said in a statement prior to the CR's release: ``Members of Congress would benefit from knowing not only General Mattis' views on civilian control of the military, but who else from the military the President- elect intends to nominate for other key positions in his Cabinet. This ill-considered idea of rushing to judgment and including the waiver in a must-pass spending bill should be rejected.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we know well, perhaps better than most, how blessed our nation is to have in reserve such exceptional young men and women who will go on to become leaders in their local communities, states, and the nation in the areas of business, education, government, philanthropy, the arts and culture, and the military. We know this because we see them and benefit from their contributions every day. Many of them work for us in our offices as junior staff members, congressional fellows, or interns and they do amazing work for and on behalf of the constituents we are privileged to represent. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is no higher calling than the call to serve a cause larger than ourselves. That is why I ran for public office. I was inspired to serve by President Kennedy who said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,'' and by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who said: ``Everybody can be great because anybody can serve. . . . You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.'' By this measure, there are several other great young men and women who served as volunteers this year in my offices. They may toil in obscurity but their contributions to the constituents we serve are deeply appreciated. That is why today I rise to pay tribute to five extraordinary young persons for their service to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and to the American people. They are: Katherine Jenkins from Texas Tech University; Michaelette Haywood from Georgia State University; Kai Scates from Wiley College; Keera Ingram from Howard University; and Lisa Oguike from the Madeira School. Mr. Speaker, the energy, intelligence, and idealism these wonderful young people brought to my office and those interning in the offices of my colleagues help keep our democracy vibrant. The insights, skills, and knowledge of the governmental process they gain from their experiences will last a lifetime and prove invaluable to them as they go about making their mark in this world. Because of persons like them the future of our country is bright and its best days lie ahead. I wish them all well. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that such thoughtful committed young men and women can be found working in my office, those of my colleagues, and in every community in America. Their good works will keep America great, good, and forever young.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 612, the ``Water Infrastructure Improvement Act,'' as amended, which authorizes variety of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water resources development projects, feasibility studies, and relationships with nonfederal project sponsors. I thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for their work in shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their commitment to addressing the needs of America's harbors, locks, dams, flood protection, and other water resources infrastructure critical to the nation's health, economic competitiveness and growth. I am pleased that the bill before us provides authorization for several water projects critical to my State of Texas: 1. Brazos River, Fort Bend County, Texas.--Project for flood damage reduction in the vicinity of the Brazos River, Fort Bend County, Texas. 2. Chacon Creek, City of Laredo, Texas.--Project for flood damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation, Chacon Creek, city of Laredo, Texas. 3. Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas.--Project for navigation, Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas. 4. City of El Paso, Texas.--Project for flood damage reduction, city of El Paso, Texas. 5. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, Texas.--Project for navigation and hurricane and storm damage reduction, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties, Texas. 6. Port of Bay City, Texas.--Project for navigation, Port of Bay City, Texas. Additionally, the bill includes changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act to help communities, particularly economically distressed ones, pursue better quality drinking water and obtain certainty for protecting a community's economic, environmental, and public health well-being in the following ways: 1. Empowers small and economically disadvantaged communities to improve their drinking water services; 2. Equips communities with programs and activities to reduce concentrations of lead in drinking water, including the replacement of lead service lines; 3. Empowers states and provides flexibility to incorporate underserved communities that have inadequate drinking water systems, and aids smaller, lower-income communities, tribes, and states in water quality testing and general compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act requirements; 4. Benefits communities by requiring public water systems to notify customers if the utility is exceeding federal drinking water lead action levels, similar to H.R. 4470 which passed the House 416-2; 5. Creates a voluntary program for testing for lead in school and childcare center drinking water; 6. Promotes transparency and accountability by creating a clearinghouse of public information on the cost-effectiveness of alternative drinking water delivery systems, including systems that are supported by wells; and 7. Authorizes research on innovative water technologies, including those that identify and mitigate sources of drinking water contamination and improve compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased that the bill before us addresses the need of funding that Flint, Michigan has been experiencing, authorizing $170,000,000 to be used to repair or replace private infrastructure in communities that the President has declared to be in an emergency. For the past two years, Flint, Michigan has lived in a state of fear, having to drink from bottles of filtered water in order to completely avoid lead poisoning and contamination. Citizens of Flint, Michigan had to abandon their homes and the residents had to be compensated for their property as well as be provided for regarding current and future health conditions that arise from the contamination by polluted water. Wired Magazine estimated that most of the corroded pipes in Flint-- 20,000 to 25,000 in total--are one inch in diameter, and connect homes to the larger, main pipes running under the middles of streets. The project of replacing all lead pipes will need a city-wide lead pipe map. The water pipes are buried at a depth of 3.5 feet to put them below the frost line, and will need to be extracted. The Michigan's state report produced in September 2015 on replacing all lead pipes in the city of Flint places the per-household cost at between $2-8,000. The report estimates that it would take fifteen year to completely replace lead pipes at an estimated cost of $ 60 million. Flint Mayor Karen Weaver announced that her goal would be to replace 13,000 lead pipes at a cost of $2-3,000 for each pipe for a total of about $42 million. No one knows the reality of undertaking a massive effort such as what will be needed, so the cost could easily be much higher than estimates. Flint cannot be another Katrina where the poor, people of color and marginalized are shutout of jobs as well as the political and decision making processes regarding their homes, neighborhoods or city. Replacing the lead pipes of Flint, must include the cost of repairing homes that will be damaged to access the pipes; repaving driveways, or re-sodding lawns that are dug up to get to pipes, and restoring sidewalks that are damaged to access pipe. These costs can easily put another $40-50 million in addition cost to lead pipe replacement. Further, the current and long term health effects on residents must be addressed. These massive costs that Flint will incur cannot be placed on the shoulders of Michigan alone. We will continue to work to help the people of Flint, Michigan in order to restore them to health and bring them out of this crisis.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding, and I thank her for her leadership. I want to associate myself with the words about the chairman, Mr. Rogers, and thank him for his years of commitment and dedication to this Nation. I also want to acknowledge my good friend Sam Farr, and I thank him so very much for being so strong and committed to the right things of this body and the Nation. I thank him for his service. I join with my colleagues. Many have said this is the wrong way to fund the government, that appropriations legislation done by the Appropriations Committee was ready and done. I join my colleague who says that we caved. We conceded to not doing our job in the 114th Congress, and for that reason, I am very concerned. Earlier today we had the WRDA bill, and I support that bill for the many projects that are going to help the citizens of Texas. I wish I could say the same thing as we go into the continuing resolution, for, yes, we have suffered in the State of Texas. There is $1 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $1.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant, and $1 billion for the Federal highway. Certainly, I would say, in the WRDA bill is the authorization for helping the people of Flint and a reform of the Safe Drinking Water Act to make sure we protect our children from lead-filled water. That is a good thing, but it is not a good thing to only put $100 million in for Flint. But I support my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) because this money is needed, and it is needed now. I think there is more we can do, and we should have done it in regular order; and if we had done regular order, a few more days, we would have passed appropriations bills. Let me also say that what really skews and takes this bill, the CR, off its wheels is the waiver, the expedited process of trying to move forward a nominee of the incoming President, violating statutory law that has not been utilized in 66 years since the famous General Marshall was selected. Why not regular order--hearings, legislation, understanding what this will do to the military-civilian separation? Mr. Speaker, let me simply say we have got to do our job the right way. The CR is not the right way. The American people need us to do our job the right way. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, the ``Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2016.'' This bill is an imperfect vehicle for appropriations for FY 2017, because it does not fully fund the government for the entire fiscal year; it includes language to change a law that is unrelated to the budgetary or appropriations process; and it keeps in place sequestration. The leadership of the House is using the last day the 114th Congress will be in session to do work that should take 8 months to complete in a regular appropriations process. Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 goes against sound fiscal practice by including the budget gimmickry known as sequestration, a fiscal bludgeon that makes across the board cuts in funding for the valuable services depended upon by American children, seniors, workers, veterans, students, and small businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Continuing Resolution before us extends current Fiscal Year 2017 government funding through April 28, 2017, at its current rate, which includes an across-the-board cut of .19% for all accounts, defense and non-defense. Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 also does something very serious, and has nothing to do with funding the federal government; this bill changes the number of years a retired member of the armed services must wait before being considered for the position of Secretary of Defense. The bill's critical imperfection has nothing to do with funding the federal government--it is a change in law that would allow a retired military person to serve after only 3 years of retirement instead of 7. The service to our nation and the honor and integrity of the person under consideration at present to be the next Secretary of Defense is not in question--it is the reason why there is a waiting period and why that is important. By placing this change in a continuing resolution--a bill designed not to allow more than an hour of debate and no changes is not the vehicle we should use to make this change. If President Obama had suggested a change in law to be accomplished in a continuing resolution appropriations bill, his request would have been denied. The politicization of the legislative process has seriously undermined the credibility of the Congress to do the important work of funding the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have again been placed in the position of having to fund the government through the device of a continuing resolution rather than through the normal appropriations process of considering and voting on the twelve separate spending bills reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The use of this appropriations measure to further a political objective adds further insult to this body and the appropriations process. There are oversight committees with the knowledge, expertise and experience to make the determination on whether this change is prudent and if they determine that it is--to make the appropriate changes in law. Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028 is not perfect--far from it--but it is a modest and positive step toward preventing Republicans from shutting down the government again and manufacturing crises that only harm our economy, destroy jobs, and weaken our middle class. The government shutdown of 2013, which was manufactured by the Republican majority, lasted 16 days and cost taxpayers $24 billion. The cost to federal employees and the people they serve cannot be calculated. Mr. Speaker, as with any compromise there are some things in the agreement that I support and some things that I strongly oppose. For example, I support the provisions in the Continuing Resolution ensuring that funding for appropriated entitlements continue at a rate maintaining program levels under current law. The Continuing Resolution provides $4 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief for damage caused by Hurricane Matthew in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida; and severe flooding that occurred in Texas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and elsewhere. Funding includes: $1 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to repair damage to federal projects resulting from recent severe storms; $1.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant; $1 billion for the Federal Highway Administration's Emergency Relief program to rebuild infrastructure after natural disasters; The Continuing Resolution includes $5.8 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for defense priorities from the budget amendment submitted in November: $5.1 billion is to support counterterrorism operations; and $652 million is to support the European Reassurance Initiative. The Continuing Resolution includes $4.3 billion in Overseas Continency Operations funding for non-defense priorities, including: $1.6 billion for Embassy Security; $1.2 billion for Economic and Stabilization Assistance, including countering Russian influence; $916 million for Humanitarian Assistance to respond to 65 million displaced persons; $160 million for State Department and USAID operations; and $404 million in Security Assistance for civilian police training and judicial aid, anti-terrorism training and explosive ordnance removal, peacekeeping and stabilization programs in Africa and the Middle East; The Continuing Resolution provides: $100 million for making capitalization grants to Flint, Michigan under the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These funds will address lead or other contaminants in drinking water, including repair and replacement of lead service lines and public water system infrastructure; $20 million for Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation (WIFIA) Grants to finance water infrastructure efforts, including those to address lead and other contaminants in drinking water systems; $20 million for a Lead Exposure Registry to collect data on lead exposure and an Advisory Committee to review programs, services, and research related to lead poisoning prevention; $15 million in additional funding for CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program to conduct screenings and referrals for children with elevated blood lead levels; and $15 million in additional funding for HRSA's Healthy Start Program to reduce infant mortality and improve perinatal outcomes. The Continuing Resolution appropriates $872 million from accounts funded by the 21st Century Cures Act, including: $500 million to support grants to States to respond to the opioid abuse crisis; and $352 million to support biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. Mr. Speaker, to illustrate how strongly I feel about the need to end sequestration, let me chronicle the severity of the suffering and pain inflicted by sequestration on the most vulnerable residents of Texas and the constituents that I serve. Head Start and Early Head Start services were eliminated or severely impacted with approximately 4,800 children being impacted throughout the state of Texas. Families in my district who rely on Federal Government programs like Head Start are hurting. The pain did not start with the 2013 shutdown, but with sequestration which hit Head Start programs for 3 to 4 year olds in the Houston area hard: $5,341 million cut; 109 Employees cut; 699 Slots for children cut. Head Start and Early Head Start Programs were further stressed by the federal government shutdown. My support of Head Start and Early Head Start is based on what I have seen and heard about programs like the AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start program serving parents and children in the 18th Congressional District. The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start is a program serving low income families in my Houston, Texas District. I have visited with AVANCE-Houston administrators many times to get an update on how low-income families with infants and toddlers and pregnant women served by the program were doing. The AVANCE-Houston Early Head Start's mission is simple: AVANCE- Houston works for healthy prenatal outcomes for pregnant women, enhances the development of very young children, and promotes healthy family functioning. AVANCE-Houston serves nearly 1,800 children citywide; each of these families and their children are suffering the effect of the sequestration. Sequestration has cost AVANCE-Houston over $842,518 in Head Start and Early Head Start lost funding and put on hold the head start on the future our children deserve. As I stated, Mr. Speaker, this Continuing Resolution is not perfect and it only funds the government until April 28, 2017. For that reason, I renew my call that all members of the House and Senate work together to reach agreement on an appropriate budget framework that ends sequestration but does not harm our economy or require draconian cuts to the nation's priorities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute a wonderful pastor, the Reverend Dr. T.R. Williams, who is celebrating and commemorating 50 years of preaching. His commitment and dedication to the special Word and the word of his faith is to be commended, but he is also a trained businessman. He is also a person who believes in his flock and that they are number one. I have enjoyed worshipping with Pastor T.R. Williams over the years. He is an orator, a pastor, a nurturer, a counselor, but, most of all, a friend--a friend to the members of his great church and a friend to many young pastors and others alike. He is admired by his fellow clergymen. They respect him for his love of God's Word. I am so grateful to have known him. Just a few weeks ago, his congregation honored him with a gigantic celebration at the Stafford Centre because he is deserving of such. Pastor Williams, it is my privilege and pleasure to be able to salute you and to say ``thank you'' for your service, because, when you serve in the Lord's Name, you serve this Nation. Might I also thank all of those who have served in the United States military, wherever they may be this season. This is a season of blessings, and I wish for everyone in this great Nation blessings during this wonderful and very special season. Happy holidays to all.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, Mr. Cohen; the chairman of the committee; both sponsors; the lead sponsor, Mr. Nadler of New York; and I thank the ranking member, Mr. Conyers. I rise in strong support of H.R. 6130, the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016. I am very grateful that my colleagues have brought this to the attention of the House. This important legislation tries to bring some remedy and solace to a devastating era of genocide, the Holocaust. It provides the victims of Holocaust-era persecution and genocide and their heirs a fair opportunity to recover works of art confiscated or misappropriated by the Nazis, and there were many. People wishing to claim ownership of art lost or confiscated during the Holocaust would have the proper time necessary to do so under H.R. 6130. The bill would apply to art and other antiquities, such as books, that were stolen from Jewish people and other persecuted groups by the German Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945. In the times that I visited Israel, I have spent much time in the Holocaust Museum, as I have spent time in the Holocaust exhibit and tribute here in Washington, and our own Holocaust Museum in Houston, Texas. I have been on the advisory board of the Holocaust Museum in Houston, Texas, and have participated in the Holocaust ceremonies here. This is a very important legal remedy. While the United States is a signatory of the 2009 Terezin Declaration, which states legal systems can facilitate claims of ownership of items lost during the Holocaust, the claims of potential owners in the U.S. have, however, faced barriers because of State statutes of limitation, which in some cases would have expired even before the end of World War II. Under this legislation, individuals would have as much as 6 years from the time they discover the identity and location of a piece of art or other property or learned that they may have ownership of such art or property to file an ownership claim. The bill's findings would express the sense of Congress that setting one Federal statute of limitations will allow claims to be settled through alternative dispute resolution methods that will produce more just and fair outcomes. The actual bottom line of this legislation, as we were able to see in the Academy Award-winning actress in the film ``Woman in Gold,'' which many of us saw, is that it is a fair and just relief for those so persecuted. What more can be taken from you--your life, your liberty, your lost loved ones--and then those special artifacts, antiquities that would bring back the memories of your family and your history? This legislation is well needed. It is a relief for those who are in pain. I support and ask my colleagues to support the Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6130, the ``Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act of 2016''. I thank our colleague, Chairman Goodlatte for his work in guiding this legislation through the people's House. This legislation provides the victims of Holocaust-era persecution and genocide and their heirs a fair opportunity to recover works of art confiscated or misappropriated by the Nazis. People wishing to claim ownership of art lost or confiscated during the Holocaust would have the proper time necessary to do so under H.R. 6130. The bill would apply to art and other antiquities, such as books, that were stolen from Jewish people and other persecuted groups by the German Nazi regime from 1933 to 1945. While the United States is a signatory of the 2009 Terezin Declaration, which urged legal systems can facilitate claims of ownership of items lost during the Holocaust, the claims of potential owners in the U.S. have, however, faced barriers because of state statutes of limitation, which in some cases would have expired even before the end of World War II. In a 2009 case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a law in California that sought to extend the statute of limitations for Holocaust art recovery infringed on federal authority over foreign affairs. Under this legislation, individuals would have as many as six years from the time they discovered the identity and location of a piece of art or other property, or learned that they may have ownership of such art or property, to file an ownership claim. The bill's findings would express the sense of Congress that setting one federal statute of limitations will allow claims to be settled through alternative dispute resolution methods that will produce more just and fair outcomes. Pre-existing claims would be considered discovered on the date of the bill's enactment, including claims that had previously been barred by federal or state statutes of limitation. While we can never erase the horrors of the Holocaust from human history, we can do our part to bring these treasures back to the families of those who suffered and sacrificed so much during that dark time. I join the American Society of Appraisers, B'nai B'rith International, the Federal Bar Association, the World Jewish Congress, and the World Jewish Restitution Organization in supporting this important legislation. Academy Award-winning actress Helen Mirren, who starred in the 2015 film ``Woman in Gold,'' about the real life Maria Altmann's fight to reclaim a painting taken from her family during this horrific atrocity, has pledged her support as well, testifying on behalf of companion bi- partisan legislation introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Senior Senator from Texas, my friend John Cornyn. We know there are many cases that still cry out for justice. For 75 years, since the start of World War II, these unremedied claims have seared festering wounds into the lives of brave survivors and their families. This legislation will finally allow us to celebrate the heirlooms and artifacts of varied heritage that stitch together the diversity of American culture with the thread of age-old and integral property rights we still cherish today. The legislation before us is intended to help us remove that stain once and for all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding and let me thank the sponsor of this bill. Five minutes certainly will not be enough time to refute my good friend from Texas, but let me start by saying to my colleagues that this bill is about saving lives. Let me say it again. It is squarely, on its face, simply about saving lives. I support this bipartisan measure because it addresses an urgent need, one with which I have had firsthand experience. As a Member of the United States Congress, I take great concern, as we all do, with the individual lives of our constituents. I have had at least two occasions to deal with missing adults whose families have been in pain. Those adults have been missing because of dementia or Alzheimer's. Out of their plight, we have sought law enforcement to be of help to look for these loved ones. This bill would amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize and expand the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program. Across our Nation, there are millions of children who suffer from autism or mental developmental disorders, as well as individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. What is the crux of this bill? A few years ago, Congresswoman Waters and myself introduced amendments to the Elder Justice Act and Elder Abuse Victims Act, which reauthorized and expanded the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program's key provisions. The Department of Justice program supports the use of new technologies to help local communities and law enforcement officials quickly locate and identify people with Alzheimer's disease who wander or are missing and reunite them with their families, providing vital assistance to a vulnerable population. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is about saving lives. We know, in 2016, one in nine older Americans have Alzheimer's disease; 6 in 10 people with dementia will wander. Alzheimer's was the sixth leading cause of death in 2013 in Texas alone. As it relates to children and autism, nearly half of the children with autism engage in wandering behavior. More than one-third of children with autism who wander are never or rarely able to communicate their name, address, or phone number. Accidental drowning accounts for approximately 90 percent of lethal outcomes as relate to children with autism who wander. Let me speak specifically to the legislation before us and answer the concerns. There is no evidence in this bill that any invasive activity will occur. No chip will be put in an adult or a child who is suffering either from autism as a child--a wanderer--or an adult. It clearly says that this is a collaboration between the Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, who will only focus on leading research advocacy, self-advocacy, and service organizations to help establish standards and best practices relating to the use of noninvasive, nonpermanent tracking technology where the guardian or parent, in consultation with the individual's healthcare provider, has determined that a noninvasive and nonpermanent tracking device is the least restrictive alternative to locate individuals. Nothing will occur, Mr. Speaker, to any loved ones without the permission of that loved one's guardian or parent, and it is only to be able to save lives. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services will have no further input, other than to make sure that whatever is utilized is noninvasive, best practices, and will do no harm. What is the role of the Federal Government? It is to solve problems. We are attempting to come here today for the loved ones all over America. Meet the family of an autistic child--a loving child, a loving family. They know that is a talented and wonderful, beautiful child, but they have a tendency to wander. Come, for example, and stand in the shoes of a family in Houston, Texas. During a wonderful holiday season, the Thanksgiving season, a time of joy and family gathering, a beautiful little 9-year-old boy walked out of the house. They said he may have his iPad with him, he may have his earphones, he might not have any shoes on, but don't call his name, don't bother to chase him, because the likelihood is he will run away from you.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Just think, if there had been that acceptable tracking device, noninvasive. Mr. Speaker, I am as concerned about privacy as my good friend from Texas. We have sat on the Judiciary Committee together and we have supported, first, when we were dealing with the issues of terrorism after 9/11, the PATRIOT Act. We came together. We were standing strong against the invasiveness that violates the privacy of the American people and violates the Constitution. This is not that case. There are families out there who are suffering the loss of their loved ones, whether it is an elderly person or whether it is that beautiful, young child who happens to be autistic, who is in a world of their own and who decided to wander. Just think of the wonderful device that would help save lives. I ask my colleagues to vote on this bill as a lifesaving bill that needs the love and affection of every Member of Congress to give love and affection to those families that are suffering and need our help. We are problem solvers. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4919, the ``Kevin and Avonte's Law of 2016,'' as amended. I support this bipartisan measure because it addresses an urgent need. The bill would amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize and expand the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program. Across our Nation, there are millions of children who suffer from autism or mental developmental disorders as well as individuals suffering from Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. These children and adults are often at serious risk of injury or even death when they wander away from their caregivers. In many cases, they are disoriented and unable to seek help for themselves. They may not even remember their name or where they live. Worse yet, they can be seriously injured or worse. This bill, in fact, is named for two young boys--Kevin and Avonte-- who died tragically after wandering away from their caregivers. To address this problem, H.R. 4919 would significantly improve the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program in several significant respects. First, the bill would expand the scope of the Program to authorize grants to locally based organizations to fund initiatives, activities, and services related to children with autism and developmental disabilities. Second, the bill would authorize grants for the development and operation of location tracking services in appropriate circumstances. H.R. 4919 also expands the grant program authorized by the Missing Children's Assistance Act specifically for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to provide technical assistance and training in cases involving children with developmental disorders. Although H.R. 4919 expands the existing grant system and renames it as the Missing Americans Alert Program, the central purpose of the Program will remain the same. Grants would continue to be provided to the many agencies and organizations that protect and locate missing individuals suffering from disorders that result in wandering with the goal of reducing incidences of wandering and the resultant risk of injury and death. To ensure these efforts are done effectively, prevent abuse with respect to any use of tracking technology, and protect privacy interests, the bill establishes standards and best practices. While H.R. 4919 will help address an important issue, I am concerned that the suspension version of the bill will reduces the authorization for funding for another grant program in order to satisfy the ``cut- go'' requirements of the Majority. I do not see the need to reduce the authorization for one good program to fund another, and I hope we will be able to address this issue as we work with the Senate on final legislation for enactment. Nevertheless, H.R. 4919 overall is an important measure that will provide real assistance to those who are among the most vulnerable in our society. As this Congress comes to a close, I am pleased that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have worked together in a spirit of compromise to address a critical issue that unfortunately affects so many Americans. It is my hope that this spirit of cooperation will continue into the next Congress, particularly in the area of criminal justice reform. I am pleased to support H.R. 4919 because this bill would reauthorize and expand the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program and authorize grants to establish and operate programs that provide location tracking services for children with autism or other developmental and adults with Alzheimer's or dementia--something I have long advocated for and worked to make law. Thousands of adults and children go missing each year. While we must be concerned for all individuals who go missing, adults and children, with mental deficiencies or disabilities, require more particularized consideration due to their vulnerability. Adults who suffer from Alzheimer's or dementia and children with autism spectrum disorders, or other developmental disorders, are prone to wander away from safe places. A study published this year by researchers at Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York reported that more than 250,000 school-age children with autism or other developmental disorders wander away from adult supervision each year. The National Crime Information Center reported that, between 2011 and 2015, roughly 16-17 percent of adults reported missing suffered from a mental or physical disability or senility. When these individuals wander away, they are oftentimes at great risk of serious injury or even death. This bill is named for two children who wandered away and drowned. Sadly, each one of us has a similar story about a constituent. I have pushed so hard for this type of legislation so that we do not have to tell more stories like the one of Mr. Sammy Kirk, a native of Houston, whose family called me for help in locating him. Mr. Kirk was 76 years old and suffered from dementia when he wandered away. His family searched for him for days to no avail. In their desperation, they called on me to lend my services to them to help find him. We searched together for Mr. Kirk for three days and nights. When we found him, he had succumbed to dehydration. His body lay alongside a bayou, many miles away from his home. I have advocated for so long, along with my colleague, Rep. Maxine Waters, in attempting to establish a pilot program during the 109th and 110th Congresses to provide voluntary electronic monitoring services to elderly individuals to assist in locating such individuals when they are reported missing. Mr. Kirk and many others might have been saved if such a program already existed. The need for individual location tracking is just as critical as it was in 2008, when I and Congresswoman Waters offered amendments to several bills providing for such programs, including the Elder Justice Act and the Elder Abuse Victims Act. I am pleased that the key provisions of the Jackson Lee-Waters Amendments have been incorporated into the bill before us today. More than 5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease and 1 in 68 children has an autism spectrum disorder. Almost half of wandering Alzheimer's patients will be seriously injured or die if they are not found within 24 hours of their departure. Like their older counterparts, almost half of autistic children are expected to wander away from their caregivers. Several studies predict that many of these children will be at risk of drowning or sustaining a traffic injury. The number of citizens suffering from Alzheimer's, dementia, autism, or developmental disorders is expected to grow rapidly and exponentially. The time has come for us to offer all that we have available to prevent any more stories like that of Kevin Curtis Wills, or Avonte Oquendo, Mr. Sammy Kirk, or just as recently as this Thanksgiving holiday, Marcus McGhee. Let us focus our efforts on assisting state and local governments in the development of alert systems and technology to protect some of our most vulnerable constituents and locate them, if the time ever comes. This bill would provide for a host of entities and measures that work together to protect, locate, and recover loved ones, including education and training. This bill would also expand the grants that can be awarded to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to provide technical assistance and training in the prevention, investigation, prosecution, and treatment of cases to also include children with developmental disabilities. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see this bill before us today. It is a good piece of legislation that responds to a need that has reached a tipping point. I am concerned about the cutting of funds for the Byrne Innovation program for 2017, however the Continuing Resolution will provide funding until April 2017. children with autism fact sheet Autism is one of the fastest-growing developmental disorders in the U.S. Nearly half of children with autism engage in wandering behavior. More than 1/3 of children with autism who wander are never or rarely able to communicate their name, address or phone number. Accidental drowning accounts for approximately 90% of lethal outcomes among children with autism who wander. Other dangers include dehydration; heat stroke; hypothermia; traffic injuries; falls; physical restraint encounters with a stranger. After intellectual disabilities, autism is the most common developmental disorder. A white child with autism is almost 3 times more likely to receive an accurate diagnosis of autism on their first visit to a specialist, than a black child. Children diagnosed as early as 18 months to 3 years have the benefit of preschool intervention programs in their most formative years. The average African-American child with autism is not diagnosed until they are 5 years old. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control released a 2016 report, announcing an increase in autism from one child in 88 to one in 42. Autism costs a family $60,000 a year on average. Boys are nearly five times more likely than girls to have autism. Half of families report they have never received advice or guidance about elopement from a professional.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise to acknowledge the fallen on this day, December 7, at Pearl Harbor, the day of infamy, and offer to them our greatest admiration and gratitude. Our prayers continue to be with their ongoing families. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to speak about the responsibilities of public servants. To my knowledge, Air Force One does not belong to any particular Presidency, regardless of party. Therefore, any attempt to ensure the technological sophistication and the quality of that aircraft should be left to the decisionmakers who have the responsibility of protecting the President of the United States or, in essence, those who have the responsibility of governing the United States military, which includes the Congress and, certainly, our Pentagon. I am concerned when the incoming person that will take the oath of office begins to abuse the process and suggests that this is too costly and that this company--Boeing, in particular--should be undermined. Our job is to create and save jobs, not to destroy jobs. Our job also, Mr. Speaker, is to protect the President of the United States; and that kind of interference, uninformed, should be stopped immediately.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my first order of business is to thank Congresswoman Kuster for her leadership on this legislation; and then to make mention of a bill just an hour or two ago that bears mentioning, that I want to take note of the importance of its passage, and that is S. 1632. In the House it was H.R. 3833. The Senate bill has now passed, a bill to require a regional strategy to address the threat posed by Boko Haram. As I begin to discuss this bill, the issue of security is on all of our minds, certainly the tragedy of the Boko Haram onslaught in Nigeria, the missing Chibok girls should be on our mind, and this bill that I just mentioned that was passed and supported by Congresswoman Wilson of Florida will be a very, very important initiative, one of which I cosponsored and will continue to work on this issue. Now I rise in strong support of H.R. 6431, the Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act of 2016. The bill would establish U.S. criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by Federal employees conducting border security duties in Canada. In so doing, H.R. 6431 will strengthen our national security as well as promote the safe and efficient flow of travelers and goods between the United States and Canada, one of the United States' strongest allies. In addition, it will facilitate the expansion of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection preclearance facilities in Canada, which is our Nation's largest trading partner. Each day, our countries trade billions of dollars of goods, services, and stock investments. Annually this relationship generates in excess of $1.4 trillion in value. This partnership also creates millions of jobs for both Canadians and Americans. To protect this incredibly important relationship, the Beyond the Border agreement between the United States and Canada created a plan to enhance national security and promote efficient travel and trade. This agreement is intended to facilitate the expansion of U.S. Customs and Border Protection preclearance facilities in Canada, which prevents inadmissible people and items from entering the United States before they reach a U.S. entry point. The United States, as a result of this agreement, saves millions of dollars in processing costs, and our national security is strengthened because potential threats are stopped before they access U.S. soil. In addition, preclearance facilities help alleviate congestion for millions of travelers and traders arriving at U.S. airports from Canada. That is a very, very important aspect of this legislation, along with its very strong security commitment. The expansion will include rail preclearance facilities for the first time, thereby creating another safe and efficient way to travel between each country. This bill is intended to resolve a final procedural impediment to the full expansion of the preclearance facilities in Canada by ensuring that U.S. personnel who work at these facilities are held accountable under U.S. law. Again, I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Kuster. Her leadership is one that we are greatly appreciative of. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 6431. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6431, the ``Promoting Travel, Commerce, and National Security Act of 2016.'' This bill would establish U.S. criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by federal employees conducting border security duties in Canada. In so doing, H.R. 6431 will strengthen our national security as well as promote the safe and efficient flow of travelers and goods between the United States and Canada. In addition, it will facilitate the expansion of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection pre-clearance facilities in Canada, which is our Nation's largest trading partner. Each day, our countries trade billions of dollars of goods, services and stock investments. Annually, this relationship generates in excess of $1.4 trillion in value. And, this partnership also creates millions of jobs for both Canadians and Americans. To protect this incredibly important relationship, the ``Beyond the Border Agreement'' between the United States and Canada created a plan to enhance national security and promote efficient travel and trade. This Agreement is intended to facilitate the expansion of U.S. Customs and Border Protection pre-clearance facilities in Canada, which prevents inadmissible people and items from entering the United States before they reach a U.S. entry point. The United States, as a result of this Agreement, saves millions of dollars in processing costs and our national security is strengthened because potential threats are stopped before they access U.S. soil. In addition, pre-clearance facilities help alleviate congestion for millions of travelers and traders arriving at U.S. airports from Canada. And, the expansion will include rail pre-clearance facilities for the first time, thereby creating another safe and efficient way to travel between each country. This bill is intended to resolve a final procedural impediment to the full expansion of the preclearance facilities in Canada by ensuring that U.S. personnel who work at these facilities are held accountable under U.S. law. H.R. 6431 is an important bill that will advance the interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which will allow the expansion of preclearance facilities in Canada and thereby enhance national security and promote trade and travel in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), who is the author of this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I will close at this time. It is my pleasure to indicate what an important bill H.R. 6431 is because it will advance the interests of the United States. I thank the two leading cosponsors for their collaboration and for their leadership: the gentlewoman from New York and the gentlewoman from New Hampshire. I thank the gentlewomen so very much for bringing this bill forward and working so hard on it to improve the relationships and the ability for travel and commerce between Canada and the United States. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which will allow the expansion of preclearance facilities in Canada, thereby enhance national security and promote trade and travel in the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the dean of this institution. Anyone who has had the privilege of working with John Conyers and John Lewis have nothing but admiration and understanding through their teachings of the lives which they lived. This important legislation is a reflection of their commitment to these families and their personal knowledge of the pain that so many families still now experience through unsolved civil rights crimes. Emmett Till was one of the most noteworthy and violent, and many of us still are able to see in our vision the picture of the open casket, of brutalized and beaten young Emmett Till, a 14-year-old boy, and what he had to suffer. His mother was willing to go through what might have been considered absolute humiliation in terms of seeing her son's body open to the world; but because it was such a heinous crime, she was willing for the world to see. This legislation is enormously important because it extends, until 2027, the authority of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute unsolved criminal civil rights cases and expands, by a decade, the time period for which the Department can reopen cases to investigate. Under current law, the cutoff date was 1970. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007 remains necessary legislation intended to complete some of the Nation's most important unfinished business. I will just say, in concluding, this legislation will have to be a document which the Members of Congress will have to breathe life into. We will have to insist, regardless of the changing of the guard at the Department of Justice, that this section have the kind of funding that is necessary. So the task of this Congress is not finished by the authorization; it must be funded. Many families have come to my office in deep pain needing more resources for that section, more lawyers, more energetic activity. And so I say to those who may be assigned to this at the Department of Justice, take this as a special cause. It is not just unsolved cold cases. It is a smear on the democracy of this Nation. It is a stain. It is a taint that we should live above by insisting that every family have justice for the murder of their loved ones, particularly those who were in the battle of civil rights when many in this country lived in the second-class shadow of racism and discrimination. The civil rights battles were real; they were violent in some instances; but thank God there were leaders like John Lewis, John Conyers, many in this Congress, and certainly the late Dr. Martin Luther King, who always believed, as I do, that we can do this through peace and nonviolence. This is a tool of nonviolence. We must insist that they do their task and that we solve these unsolved murderous civil rights cases, and we do so to heal the Nation and to continue to promote our democracy. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Amendment to S. 2854, the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Reauthorization Act.'' I thank our colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, who is widely recognized as the moral conscience of the House for sponsoring the original legislation and I thank Chairmen Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers, for their work in shepherding this reauthorization through the Congress. This legislation reauthorizes the ``Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007,'' which I co-sponsored and strongly support when it was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 7, 2008 as Public Law 110-344. The legislation before extends until 2027 the authority of the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute unsolved criminal civil rights crimes, and it expands by a decade the time period for which the department can reopen cases to investigate; under current law the cut-off date is 1970. The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act of 2007 is and remains necessary legislation intended to complete some of the nation's most important unfinished business. And that is to solve some of the most depraved acts of violence against persons belonging to a racial group that was vulnerable, politically powerless, and innocent, and against those persons who risked life and limb to help them secure the rights promised in the Declaration of Independence and made real in the Constitution. Madam Speaker, in 1989, the Civil Rights Memorial was dedicated in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the modern Civil Rights Movement. The Memorial honors the lives and memories of 40 martyrs who were slain during the movement from 1954 to 1968, including Emmett Till. But we know that many more people lost their lives to racial violence during that era. In fact, at the time the Memorial was dedicated, the killers of 13 of the 40 martyrs whose names are inscribed on the Memorial had not been prosecuted or convicted. In 10 of the 40 deaths, defendants were either acquitted by all-white juries or served only token prison sentences. We also know there are many cases that still cry out for justice. These unsolved crimes represent a continuing stain on our nation's honor and mock its commitment to equal justice under law. The legislation before us is intended to help us remove that stain once and for all. The 40 victims selected for inclusion in the Civil Rights Memorial fit at least one of three criteria: (i) they were murdered because they were active in the civil rights movement; (2) they were killed by organized hate groups as acts of terror aimed at intimidating blacks and civil rights activists; or, (3) their deaths, like the death of Emmett Till, helped to galvanize the movement by demonstrating the brutality faced by African Americans in the South. The 40 persons who fit the selection criteria ranged in age from 11 to 66. Seven were white, and 33 were black. They were students, farmers, ministers, truck drivers, a homemaker and a Nobel laureate. But Madam Speaker, there are many, many other victims besides the 40 who are remembered on the Memorial. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that its research uncovered approximately 75 other people who died violently between 1952 and 1968 under circumstances suggesting that they were victims of racial violence. For most of them the reason their names were not added to the Memorial is because not enough was known about the details surrounding their deaths. Sadly, the reason so little is known about these cases is because they were not fully investigated or, in some cases, law enforcement officials were involved in the killings or subsequent cover-ups. And because the killings of African Americans were often covered up or not seriously investigated, there is little reason to doubt that many slayings were never even recorded by the authorities. The reason justice had not been served was the callous indifference, and often the criminal collusion, of many white law enforcement officials in the segregated South. There simply was no justice for African Americans during the civil rights era. The whole criminal justice system--from the police, to the prosecutors, to the juries, and to the judges--was perverted by racial bigotry. African Americans were routinely beaten, bombed and shot with impunity. Sometimes, the killers picked their victims on a whim. Sometimes, they targeted them for their activism. In other cases, prominent white citizens were involved and no consequences flowed. Herbert Lee of Liberty, Mississippi, for example, was shot in the head by a state legislator in broad daylight in 1961. It is, of course, fitting and proper that this legislation bears the name of Emmett Till, whose slaying in 1955 and his mother's decision to have an open casket at his funeral stirred the nation's conscience and galvanized a generation of Americans to join the fight for equality. Sadly, hundreds of them were killed in that struggle, and many of the killers, like those of Emmett himself, were never successfully prosecuted. Madam Speaker, the heart of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Cases Act is sections 3 and 4. Section 3 establishes a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division. Section 3 now requires the Attorney General to designate a Deputy Chief of the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights division who will be responsible for coordinating the investigation and prosecution of violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred before December 31, 1979, and ended in death. Section 3 also requires a study and report to Congress about the number of cases opened, the number of federal prosecutions commenced, the number of cases of state and local prosecutions where the DOJ assisted, the number of cases that have been closed, and the number of open pending cases. Section 4 of the bill establishes a parallel component in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to be headed by a Supervisory Special Agent designated by the Attorney General. This Supervisory Special Agent in the Civil Rights Unit is responsible for investigating violations of criminal civil rights statutes that occurred not later than December 31, 1979, and resulted in death. The Supervisory Special Agent should, where appropriate, coordinate investigations with State and local law enforcement officials. Madam Speaker, over the past half century, the United States has made tremendous progress in overcoming the badges and vestiges of slavery. But this progress has been purchased at great cost. Examples of unsolved cases include the 1968 ``Orangeburg Massacre'' at South Carolina State University where state police shot and killed three student protesters; the 1967 shooting death of Carrie Brumfield, whose body was found on a rural Louisiana road; the 1957 murder of Willie Joe Sanford, whose body was fished out of a creek in Hawkinsville, Georgia; the 1946 killing of a black couple, including a pregnant woman, who was pulled out of a car in Monroe, Georgia, and dragged down a wagon trail before being shot in front of 200 people. Solving these cases like these is part of the great unfinished work of America. Madam Speaker, 53 years ago, Medgar Evers was murdered in Jackson, Mississippi; justice would not be done in his case for more than twenty years. But that day was foretold because the evening before the death of Medgar Evers, on June 11, 1963, President John F. Kennedy addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the state of race relations and civil rights in America. In his historic speech to the nation President Kennedy said: We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution. One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fling free until all its citizens are free. S. 2854 will help ensure that justice is received by those for whom justice has been delayed for more than two generations. In doing so, this legislation will help this Nation fulfill its hopes and justify its boast that in America all persons live in freedom. I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.