Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending the option of sanctions against Iran by passage of H.R. 6297, the Iran Sanctions Extension Act, which reauthorizes the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 for 10 years. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am very much aware of what is at stake in the work done by President Obama to ensure that Iran does not have the breakout capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Events over this Congress make it clear that Congress should be even more vigilant in providing for the protection of the United States. Congress should be mindful of the: United States' leadership in the effort to forge an enforceable and verifiable nuclear agreement with Iran; and Deadliness of chemical weapons when they were used during the Syrian conflict against unarmed men, women, and children. H.R. 6297, allows Congress the option to impose sanctions, but does renew the imposition of sanctions. As Congress continues to review the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which resulted in the significant reduction in Iran's capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon, we must continue the peaceful and verifiable efforts to cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. President Obama and current and former Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were successful in the pursuit of global sanctions and gained the cooperation of the world, including Russia and China, which was critical in bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table on their nuclear arms program. We should retain in our arsenal the option to impose sanctions so that if necessary the United States can act quickly to coordinate a global response to any threat posed by Iran's verified breach of the JCPOA. Declaring sanctions for the sake of declaring sanctions against Iran should never be the objective, nor should we forget that the effectiveness of sanctions are their global nature. Under President Obama's brilliant leadership the United States had the stature around the globe to impose sanctions, and the diplomatic ties to gain global cooperation to expand participation in Iranian sanctions because we could make the case that Iran's nuclear program posed an international threat to peace and stability. The United States is the world's foremost authority on radiological weapons grade material detection and source identification. The Department of Homeland Security is leading the effort through its Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to create a Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, which should be aggressively supported with sufficient funding by Congress. Recognizing the threat posed by nuclear and other radioactive materials, DNDO was created by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-43 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-3.4 and subsequently codified by Title V of the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act (Pub. L. No. 109-347), which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002. A key area that the United States has focused its capabilities and resources is blocking the enrichment of radioactive materials for weapons use; and the detection of radioactive materials that would pose a threat to public safety and health. There are several material facts that must be understood about weapons grade radioactive material--each nation's process for refining nuclear material for use in a weapon is unique. Radioactive material has a unique spectrum range and composition that is akin to signatures that cannot be confused with other sources of radioactive material both natural and manmade. The first essential fact is that having samples and data from Iranian facilities where materials in Iran were produced established the radiological signatures for materials that could have only come from those facilities or from processes that follow the methods used by the Iranian nuclear physicists who developed their program. The United States has those samples and the data needed to identify material from Iranian efforts to purify radiological materials. The second essential fact is that radiological material leaves evidence of its presence long after it may have been removed from an area. The physical evidence of centrifuges; storage facilities or weapons themselves are not the only evidence that may convict Iran of violation of the agreement; it can also be the unique Iranian radiation trail left behind during any attempt to refine or purify radiological material for use in a weapon or the transfer of even small quantities of material that is generated or sourced by the Iranians. The third essential fact is that if the Iranians need special centrifuges to refine radiological material to a point that it may be used for a weapon. H.R. 6297 assures that any attempt by the Iranians to cheat by refining more radiological material than is allowed will be detected and Congress would be prepared to impose a sanctions regime. Another significant signal of Iranian violation would be the unique signature of the sound made by centrifuges that are used to purify radiological material. The sound of these massive centrifuges will be detectable many miles away from where they are operated--and the United States has the resources in place in cooperation with allies around the world to detect if enrichment activity is occurring. Operating more centrifuges than is allowed by the agreement would be a actionable sign that Iran is seeking to purify more radioactive material than is allowed by the agreement. This is important to the timeline in calculating the time to breakout--having enough enriched material to use in a weapon. The final essential fact is that the United States has satellite surveillance and ground surveillance capability to detect in great detail activity on the ground. The United States used these resources to identify nuclear arms activity that informed the administration of the severity of the issue and used that evidence to galvanize international support for one of the most successful embargoes in human history. For these reasons, I will join my colleagues in supporting passage of this bipartisan effort to extend by 10 years the period that sanctions may be applied to Iran. I urge you to join me in support of this bill and the excellent work of the Obama Administration in making the world much safer from nuclear threats.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me take a moment to acknowledge my ranking member and my chairman for I believe that this past session has generated an enormous amount of bipartisanship and cooperation. I thank Chairman Goodlatte for his leadership. I also thank Ranking Member Conyers for the important leadership he has given to issues that we have warned about for a long time, and that is criminal justice reform. I say that in the backdrop of being enormously concerned about H.R. 5982, which is redundant since we have already passed midnight regulation legislation. The House did that earlier this year to establish a moratorium on midnight rules, rather than addressing critical issues, such as creating new opportunities for job growth and advancement, or fixing our Nation's broken immigration system, providing relief from crushing student loan debt, and, yes, moving forward on criminal justice reform. We have legislation that now seems directed at President Obama before the election of last week and now, again, continuing to wish to do something that impacts, I think, personally and directly on the President of the United States, who happens to be President Barack Obama. Because otherwise there is no real basis for this legislation. I have amendment No. 3 that speaks to it and clearly specifically states why this is a problem. It provides a limited exception from the provisions of H.R. 5982 of any administrative regulation or rule promulgated to prevent or respond to matters of critical national security. Mr. Chairman, if enacted in its current form, this bill will severely hamper our Nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or to address many other critical public policy matters related to public safety or national security. The American people should know this is an en bloc destruction of regulations that may save lives. It is to say: in your eye, Mr. President--and yes, whoever it may be--because it feigns itself to be bipartisan because it says ``a President.'' Well, obviously we know what President we are talking about right now. Probably next year, this will be completely eliminated. First of all, if it goes through now, it should be vetoed; and I am sure any other President would veto it. They have to have the opportunity and the responsibility, as their constitutional duties, to stand in the gap for the American people. This would severely hamper our Nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or to address many other critical public policy matters. It would amend the congressional review to allow joint resolutions disapproving en bloc resolutions submitted to Congress for CRA review within 60 days of the end of the Presidential term. I don't attribute to any President any malice just because their term is about to end. I hold up for you the west Texas fertilizer plant blast that killed 15. The blast was preventable, the safety board says. And our President, rightly so, in mourning the loss of these individuals--the bomb explosion, if you will, was around schools. Thank God it was at night and these children were not nearby because the schools were leveled--so the President issued executive orders dealing with this issue. I ask my colleagues to vote down this particular underlying bill and support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, my emotion, of course, deals with, as I think you know, many of the tragedies we have faced in the Nation. Here is my point: Your interpretation, I need to analyze all of that, and I have not to date. But I would say to you, there is always a first time. There is always the possibility. What we are trying to do is to make an exception if that happens to occur, and it might not. But we give that privilege so that the people can be protected. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains, please.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that the gentleman from California is a good friend. We have served on the Judiciary Committee for a period of time. I could not disagree with him more. Yes, a very poison pill bill passed out of the House, and it did not go any further, which I hope this one will not go any further as well. This bill is dangerous. It is a sweeping measure that would jeopardize the ability of the Federal Government to protect our Nation in times of urgent and imminent danger. Post-9/11, in the world we now live in, the role of the government in protecting its people has never been more important. Specifically, my amendment ensures that the Federal Government is not further prohibited from responding to emergencies, such as the 2013 west Texas chemical explosion that killed 15 people and created a fireball that leveled nearly the entire town. This legislation wants to en bloc--not separate, analyze, or work with the administration--en bloc. Mr. Chair, what that means is to take the whole ball of wax--take the bag and wipe out regulations that may be helping to save lives and protect the American people. I have to disagree with, again, the gentleman from California. On Homeland Security, we deal with this all the time. On the Judiciary Committee, we deal with this all the time. I have to stand in the gap. We have to stand in the gap for the security of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment to protect the national security of this Nation. Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain the Jackson Lee Amendment. Specifically, the Jackson Lee Amendment provides a limited exception from the provisions of H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act,'' of any administrative regulation or rule promulgated to prevent or respond to matters of critical national security. Mr. Chairman, if enacted in its current form, H.R. 5982, would severely hamper our nation's capacity to respond to public health emergencies or to address many other critical public policy matters relating to public safety or national security. H.R. 5982 would amend the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to allow joint resolutions disapproving en bloc regulations submitted to Congress for CRA review within 60 days of the end of the presidential term. In particular, H.R. 5982 purports to address concerns associated with new regulations and rules that are issued as the clock of an outgoing presidential administration runs out--otherwise known as ``midnight rules.'' This is a sweeping and dangerous measure that would jeopardize the ability of the federal government to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need. In the post-September 11th world we now live in, the role of the government in protecting its people has never been more important.'' It is important that the Administration at all times retains the authority to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens from national security emergencies. The Jackson Lee Amendment does just that. Specifically, my amendment ensures that the federal government is not further prohibited from responding to emergencies, such as the 2013 West, Texas chemical explosion that killed 15 people and created a fireball that leveled nearly the entire town. In response to this mass explosion, the President issued an Executive Order to necessary to improve the safety and security at chemical facility in West, Texas and across the nation. Recognizing the importance of responding to public health and safety emergencies, the Congressional Review Act specifically permits agencies to issue rules where the agency has good cause, such as responding to an emergency. However, as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has clarified, this exception is only available where an agency has not already undertaken regulatory action. An exception substantively similar to the Jackson Lee Amendment appears in H.R. 4361, another bill that would establish a moratorium on ``midnight rules'' that has already passed the House this Congress. We should include a similar exemption here to ensure that agencies retain the ability to effectively respond to urgent and pressing national security measures. Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of our regulatory agencies ability to address growing threats and active cases of public health crises. The Jackson Lee Amendment would ensure that any rule promulgated to prevent or respond to matters of national security would not be obstructed. Accordingly, I urge adoption of the Jackson Lee Amendment. [From CNN, Tue., April 22, 2014] West, Texas, Fertilizer Plant Blast That Killed 15 ``Preventable,'' Safety Board Says (By Eliott C. McLaughlin) The 2013 fertilizer plant blast that killed 15 people and wounded another 226 in West, Texas, ``should never have occurred,'' the chairman of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Tuesday. Though the board's report says that at least 14 people were killed, the death toll was updated to 15 people in the days after the blast. The board's investigation was released a few days after the first anniversary of the explosion, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I hold this dear little book with affection and great respect. I am so proud to be an American who has a country that is based upon this Constitution and, of course, the Bill of Rights. That is why I rise today to raise the question of the ugliness of racism in the aftermath of the Presidential elections as offered by the individuals who prevail. It is true that we now have in the White House an individual that is not befitting of the diversity of this Nation or my city of Houston where there are 98-plus counsel general officers and 98 languages spoken in our schools. Just 2 days after Donald Trump's election, reports are coming in from across the Nation suggesting a sharp rise in anti-Muslim and anti- immigrant attacks. Remember, we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We know that in the Breitbart world that Mr. Bannon has had headlines: Birth control makes women unattractive; hoist it high and proud, the Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage; after Pulse Club massacre, it is time for gays to come home to the Republican Party; birth control makes people crazy. Let me simply say it is time for Mr. Trump to do a major speech to reject this kind of hatred and this kind of rejection of the American people. Why is there such silence? And why is Mr. Bannon still in the White House?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule for H.R. 5711, the ``Block U.S. Financing for Iranian Aircraft Purchases,'' and H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2016.'' I thank Chairman Sessions and Chairwoman Slaughter for their work in bringing this Rule before the House for consideration. I would like to thank the Rules Committee for making my amendment in order for H.R. 5982, the ``Midnight Rule Relief Act,'' which exempts any rule promulgated to prevent, respond to, or mitigate matters of critical national security. H.R. 5711, is in direct violation of a provision of the Iran Nuclear Agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA would be undermined by passage of this bill. The Administration has issued a veto threat on the bill, stating in part, ``This bill, if enacted, would contravene U.S. commitments in the JCPOA and interfere with its successful implementation. H.R. 5711 would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from authorizing transactions by the U.S. financial institutions in connection with the export and re-export of passenger aircraft made prior to enactment of the bill. The United States has a long tradition of remaining faithful to our commitments and our international partners, and a reversal of this principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our ability to lead globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon in implementing the JCPOA. We can anticipate that should this bill become law our closest allies would view this bill as a violation of our JCPOA commitments and Iran would take the issue to the Joint Commission.'' In June, it was disclosed that Boeing had a Memorandum of Agreement with Iran Air for the sale of 80 commercial passenger planes. In September, the Treasury Department then issued a license for the sale of all 80 of these Boeing planes to Iran Air. The license also authorized U.S. financial institutions to engage in all transactions necessary to provide financing or other financial services to effectuate the sale of the Boeing planes. This bill prohibits the involvement of U.S. financial institutions in the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran Air, and would put U.S. aircraft manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors, whose access to financing would not be subject to the same constraints. This will translate into jobs lost in the United States. Promises to bring jobs in October, but working to put people out of work in November is not what the public wants or expects of Congress. Complaints about Iran have access to $50 billion of unfrozen oil escrow funds as a result of the JCPOA and charging that this $50 billion could be redirected to Iran's destabilizing activities in the region is now preventing some of those funds from coming to a U.S. company that would create jobs here at home. This GOP bill would PREVENT Iran from spending well over $50 billion on commercial passenger aircraft from Boeing and other manufacturers as well as on air infrastructure improvements. This Congress has much to do with in the 13 days of official business remaining. The 114th Congress has to complete work on: 11 of the 12 House Appropriations bills; Criminal Justice Reform; Funding for the Flint Water Crisis; Restoring the Voting Rights Act; Protecting children with disabilities access to public education; Immigration Reform; Funding for the Louisiana Flooding; Funding for the damage caused by Hurricane Matthew; and Cybersecurity of the Nation's Critical Infrastructure. It is beyond shocking and unacceptable that tens of thousands of citizens living in Flint Michigan have been exposed to toxic levels of lead in their drinking water. Not only will the dangers and hazards of this disaster be felt by the residents of Flint Michigan for years to come, but the American public remains at risk to national security vulnerabilities exposed through our most basic infrastructure that supports the delivery of clean water to homes and businesses nationwide. The trust and ability to protect our citizens' basic right to clean water has been shaken, while the leadership of this Congress does nothing. We all have a duty to ensure justice and protection of our citizens. Criminal Justice Reform is a pressing issue that Congress must address. As Judge Learned Hand observed, ``If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: thou shalt not ration justice.'' Reforming the criminal justice system so that it is fairer and delivers equal justice to all persons is one of the great moral imperatives of our time. For reform to be truly meaningful, we must look at every stage at which our citizens interact with the system--from policing in our communities and the first encounter with law enforcement, to the charging and manner of attaining a conviction, from the sentence imposed to reentry and collateral consequences. House Democrats, led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers of Michigan and me, as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, have accepted and embraced the challenge of reforming the criminal justice system and developed many innovative legislative remedies to correct many of the most glaring inequities and racial disparities in the most critical areas of the system. This is an important topic and one that Congress must turn its attention to with urgency and unity of effort to: address the harms caused; get an accounting of what happened; understand how the water was poisoned; make the lives of people damaged by this tragedy whole; find justice for those lives that may have been lost; and determine and provide for the long-term health needs of those impacted. Today, the water in Flint, Michigan is not safe to drink and we have no concrete answer on when it may be safe to drink in the future. Flint, Michigan like so many communities across the nation really felt the brunt of the financial crisis created by the abuse of new home lending practices and deceptive investment schemes that hid the weaknesses in the economy until the great recession spread across the nation beginning in late 2008. The financial damage done to communities like Flint in the form of steep declines in property values, which caused significant declines in property tax income. This was not just Flint's problem, but a national reality--for financially strapped cities, towns, school boards, and municipal governments who rely on Congress to fund all 12 Congressional appropriations bills to provide them with much needed revenue to meet the needs of their citizens. In the 51 years since its passage on August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act has safeguarded the right of Americans to vote and stood as an obstacle to many of the more egregious attempts by certain states and local jurisdictions to game the system by passing discriminatory changes to their election laws or administrative policies. In signing the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson said: `The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.' But on June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements, which protect minority voting rights where voter discrimination has historically been the worst. Since 1982, Section 5 has stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes in Texas. Although much progress has been made with regard to Civil Rights there is still much work to be done in order to prevent systemic voter suppression and discrimination within our communities and we must remain ever vigilant and oppose schemes that will abridge or dilute the precious right to vote. H.R. 885, `Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015,' of which I am an original co-sponsor, repairs the damage done to the Voting Rights Act by the Supreme Court decision and is capable of winning majorities in the House and Senate and the signature of the President. For millions of Americans, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. The Voting Rights Act is needed as much today to prevent another epidemic of voting disenfranchisement as Dr. Salk's vaccine is still needed to prevent another polio epidemic and I am calling again for Speaker Boehner to bring H.R. 885, `Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2015' to the floor for a vote this year. As of October 3, 2016 the Texas Education Agency has 30 days to respond to an order by the U.S. Department of Education to fix its terribly broken system that serves special needs children. Because the arbitrary cap limiting the number of special needs students enrolled in a school district set and enforced by TEA clearly violated both the letter and spirit of the IDEA Act, on September 12, 2016, I wrote Education Secretary John King to demand that the U.S. Department of Education ``review, investigate, and take immediate and appropriate action to remedy the injury currently being suffered at least 250,000 special needs school children resulting from the systematic and intentional actions of the Texas state government to deprive these students of the rights guaranteed them by the 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA Act).'' Hubert Humphrey once said that the ``moral test of government is how it treats: those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' By this measure, the Texas state government has been failing the moral test for more than a decade when it comes to fair treatment of special needs students. This should not have happened in Texas and we must act to be sure that it is not happening in other states. Across the nation, approximately 13% of school children receive the special education benefits guaranteed by the IDEA Act. In Texas, however, the comparable figure is 8.5%, by far the lowest of any state in the nation. If the level of service provided by the State of Texas even barely met the national average, an additional 250,000 special need students would be receiving the educational opportunity they desperately need and deserve. As I document in my letter to Education Secretary King, ``the real- world consequence of this deplorable decision is that vital supports to children with autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, epilepsy, mental illnesses, speech impediments, traumatic brain injuries, even blindness and deafness, are being denied to approximately 250,000 Texas children.'' When a school district, for example, ignores a mother's request for a special education evaluation, the emotional and psychological damage inflicted on her child who may be forced to repeat the second and third grade is incalculable and may be irreparable. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with the with the people of Louisiana who were adversely affected by the historic 1,000 year flooding event that has devastated the Baton Rouge area of Louisiana. This disaster is the latest reminder of the vulnerabilities posed by extreme weather events faced by people living along the Gulf Coast. The National Weather Service reported 21.86 inches of rain falling within 48 hours caused levees to overtop and rivers to breach their banks. Global climate change cares not if you believe in it; the force of nature will do its will at the expense, pain and suffering of our nation's citizens. This Congress is about to end its business without taking care of the people of Louisiana devastated by the floods earlier this year. On Oct. 7 in Florida, a peak surge of 9.88 feet above normal was measured at a tide gauge at Fernandina Beach, Florida. Storm surge flooding affected the St. Augustine area, including major flooding on Anastasia Island where water was reported to be 2.5 feet above ground level. To the south in nearby Flagler Beach, Florida, parts of A1A were washed out by the storm surge. The Northwestern-Jacksonville conducted a storm survey and found a new inlet was carved between Marineland and Matanzas Inlet, between Palm Coast and St. Augustine Beach, Florida. The St. Johns River in northeast Florida reached its highest level on record at Shands Bridge, along with 3 to 4.3 feet of storm surge inundation reported at the Racy Point, Red Bay Point and 1-295 bridge tide gauges. Early in the morning on Oct. 8, the St. Johns River was flowing backwards. Matthew's storm surge coupled with high tide lead to a record tide level at Ft. Pulaski, Georgia, early Oct. 8, and storm surge inundation roughly waist-deep was reported in parts of Charleston, South Carolina. We also should not forget Hurricane Matthew--what it did to Haiti and parts of the Southern United States requires Congressional attention to relieve people who are suffering. Even before Hurricane Matthew struck, more than a quarter of Haiti's 11 million people lived in extreme poverty, surviving on less than $1.25 a day. Haiti's people once again, in their great sorrow, need our prayers, our generosity, and our compassion. Much of what the people of Haiti have worked and fought tirelessly for over the last few years has been wiped out in this the third major natural disaster since 2010'S ruthless earthquake. Because of Hurricane Matthew hundreds of thousands of Haitians have little or no access to potable water or basic health services, and Haiti is facing an impending food crisis according to local and international organizations, and the government of Haiti. This Congress should replace the funding used by the Centers for Disease Control to address the Zika Virus threat, which depleted funds that were for Ebola response. We have not seen the full impact of Zika Virus, nor will we for several months as women give birth to children who may be impacted by the disease. I urge my colleagues to spend the last few legislative days available to us to make the American people our first priority.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Waters, for the leadership that she gave this issue in the Committee on Financial Services, and I rise today to offer my opposition to this bill for a number of reasons. I will say that it is interesting--I heard my colleague from North Carolina mention the Soviet Union and the interests and the efforts that President Reagan made to, in fact, make America safer in his time and in his context. Interestingly, in the backdrop of today, one could now argue that Russia has, in its portfolio, advocacy for terrorists as well as a large profile of cyberterrorism and hacking into the United States as well as a blatant interference in the most recent Presidential election. As I look to my colleagues speaking about what the President-elect will do, I would hope that he would not undermine the national security of this Nation. First of all, we know that this bill will be vetoed if it gets to the desk of President Obama. This bill would damage a hard-fought diplomatic solution that makes the world safer from nuclear war. The sanctions are working, including extensive monitoring of the nuclear capability of Iran. We also, in a bipartisan manner, supported the potential extinction of Iran sanctions yesterday, and that was the right thing to do, the opportunity or the possibility of doing that. But this bill, in particular, flies in the face of a realistic approach to how we do international engagement. The JCPOA has significantly constrained Iran's nuclear program. Key aspects of the program are dismantled under the JCPOA, and it subjects Iran's nuclear program to unprecedented verification and monitoring requirements. It is working. It is profoundly in the national security interests of the United States to continue to meet our commitments under the JCPOA as long as Iran continues to meet its commitments. Our allies are depending on us. The word of the United States should mean something. We even know that Israel has seen a positive impact, some of its military persons have indicated, by way of the JCPOA.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This bill prohibits the involvement of U.S. financial institutions in the sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran Air, civil end use that would put U.S. aircraft manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign competitors whose access to financing would not be subject to the same constraints. This is not putting commercialism or jobs above national security. It is, in fact, allowing civil end use to continue as we are standing for our national security. The sweeping and vague nature of this provision would have a chilling effect on U.S. and non-U.S. entities seeking to engage in permissible business with Iran. The United States has a long tradition of remaining faithful to our commitments with our international partners, and a reversal of this principle undercuts our credibility, diminishes our ability to lead globally, and threatens the very alliances we rely upon in implementing the JCPOA. We can anticipate that should this bill become law, our closest allies would view this bill as a violation of the JCPOA commitments, and Iran would take the issue to the Joint Commission. The main thing of this bill is that it will douse the friendship and alliance that we are making with allies who want a peaceful nonproliferation of nuclear activity. This is a ``no'' vote in order to provide for the national security of this Nation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1192, the ``National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act,'' which amends the Public Health Service Act to establish the National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission. This bill directs the Commission to evaluate and recommend solutions regarding better coordination and leverage of federal programs that relate to supporting appropriate clinical care for people afflicted with pre-diabetes, diabetes, and the resulting chronic diseases and conditions arising from these diseases. As a member of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus, I understand the importance of diabetes prevention and care of patients. We must address the devastating impact of diabetes as the seventh leading cause of death in the United States, affecting nearly 29,000,000 Americans. Since 2011, 3 million Americans have been diagnosed with the disease and more than twice that, 7 million Americans, have been diagnosed as pre-diabetic. In my home state of Texas, the numbers are even more worrisome. According to a study performed by the Texas Department of State Health Services in 2013, 11 percent of adults in Texas suffer from diabetes and 8.1 percent of adults have pre-diabetes. Of these percentages, minorities had the highest level of diabetes and pre-diabetes occurrences: In Black adults, 12.9 percent had diabetes and 9.6 percent had pre- diabetes. In Hispanic adults, 12.7 percent had diabetes and 6.2 percent had pre-diabetes. In 2014 in Harris county, 8.5 percent of adults were diagnosed with diabetes. A 2012 Centers for Disease Control study estimated diabetic medical treatments cost patients throughout the country an estimated $245 billion. The direct medical costs associated with diabetes diagnoses totaled $176 billion. These numbers are incredibly high, but I am encouraged by the commendable efforts of the National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act. H.R. 1192 takes a critical step in the direction of preventive medicine, shifting the focus of diabetes management from reactive to proactive by encouraging prevention. Additionally, the establishment of the National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission within the Department of Health and Human Services would allow greater collaboration in research in the area of diabetes, pre-diabetes, and the health outcomes. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1192, the ``National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1209, the ``Improving Access to Maternity Care Act.'' This important measure will require the Health Resources and Services Administration to designate maternity care health professional shortage areas and review these designations at least annually. A maternity care health professional shortage area is described as: any area with a shortage of full scope maternity care health services; or any geographical area home to a population group experiencing a shortage of such providers or facilities. Full scope maternity care includes: (1) care during labor, (2) birthing, (3) prenatal care and (4) postpartum care. H.R. 1209 will address the concern of shortages in provision of care, and improve access to maternal medical care for women in need. Access to better maternal care will ensure a safer delivery for both mother and child, safeguarding the bedrock of the American family. Approximately 34,000 women die each year in the United States from pregnancy-related complications--one every fifteen minutes. The risk is two times greater for women living in high-poverty areas, than for women living in low-poverty areas. African-American women are 3-4 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes, a travesty we cannot continue to allow to occur in 2016 in the United States. In 2010, almost 50 percent of counties in the country did not have OB/GYNs who provided direct patient care to expecting mothers, and almost all of these counties had no certified nurse-midwives. Limited access to maternity care providers has greatly extended wait and travel times for patients' appointments, and exacerbated capacities at prenatal care sites and birthing facilities. Maternal medical care is among the top reasons for the hospitalization of women in the United States. Hospitalization can be costly, in 2010 child delivery and newborn infant care cost American families $111 billion. The designation of maternity care health services professional shortage areas can help to reduce maternal care cost by allowing for greater access to prenatal care and giving women safe delivery options within their local communities. For these reasons, I support H.R. 1209 the ``Improving Access to Maternity Care.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2669, the ``Anti-Spoofing Act of 2016,'' which amends the Communications Act of 1934, to make it unlawful to cause a caller identification service to knowingly transmit inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to: defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value. Spoofing is a practice in which a phone number shown on a phone or caller identification device deliberately is falsified. Spoofing is a commonly used tool for a number of illegal practices, including ``phishing'' for personal information and ``swatting''-- calling in a fictitious crime in progress in order to generate a police response. The Truth in Caller ID Act of 2009 prohibits spoofing of voice caller identification information; however, as communications methods and consumer habits continue to evolve, so do the attempts by third parties to gain personal information for criminal use. The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology considered H.R. 2669 during a markup on September 13, 2016, passing the legislation by voice vote and the Subcommittee agreed to continue working on technical changes before it was brought before the full Committee. The Committee expects to consider an AINS aimed at making those technical changes to the definition of a text message. Many Americans now rely on text messaging to stay connected. According to CTIA, in 2015, Americans sent over 156 billion text messages per month. H.R. 2669, the Anti-Spoofing Act, will extend the provisions of the Truth in Caller ID Act to include text messaging and text messaging services. The legislation adds a definition of ``spoofing service'' to the statute, addressing the growth of services that allows a user to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information. In addition, it extends the prohibitions to any person or service placing an international call to a recipient within the United States. Additionally, H.R. 2669 will revise the definitions of ``caller identification information'' and ``caller identification service'' to include text messages sent using a text messaging service. It defines ``text message'' as real-time messages consisting of text, images, sounds, or other information transmitted from or received by a device identified by a telephone number. It also includes in the definition both, real-time and two-way voice or video communications, addressing the emerging law enforcement issue of ``swatting'' by which people can purposefully misdirect valuable, police efforts and resources. This bill takes the right approach targeting behavior, while protecting innovations that are important to the digital economy. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I understand the vital need to safeguard against caller identification spoofing. For example, Women's Abuse Shelters and law enforcement officers working undercover have a need to protect their clients' identities. This bill seeks to target those who have the intent to cause harm or commit a crime. I support this legislation because it protects the consumer from criminal behavior, while protecting our fundamental right to privacy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4665, the ``Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contributions (REC) Act of 2016.'' H.R. 4665 will direct the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the Department of Commerce to collect, analyze and report information relating to the outdoor recreation economy of the United States and its economic impact on the nation's overall economy. Outdoor recreation generates $646 billion each year in consumer spending and creates 6.1 million American jobs. Outdoor recreation has a significant impact on the economy, generating three times as many jobs as the oil and gas industries. The state of Texas offers many amazing outdoor recreation services at treasured attractions such as Big Bend National Park and Garner State Park. Studies show that at least 51 percent of Texans participate in outdoor recreation each year. This activity generates approximately $28.7 billion in consumer spending. In addition, the outdoor recreation industry in Texas, generates $1.9 billion in state and local tax revenue each year, and provides 277,000 direct jobs resulting in approximately $8.9 billion in wages and salaries. The passage of this bill will generate objective, federal data and statistics that policymakers, at either the local, state or federal level, can use to make informed and responsible decisions regarding the outdoor recreation industry. Protecting and securing public lands and space for outdoor recreation is crucial for the future success of the American economy and the environment. Outdoor recreational activities contribute significantly to the physical, mental, and spiritual health and wellness of individuals. Federal lands contribute significantly to the preservation of nature- based outdoor recreational opportunities. Federal recreation resources generate vast amounts of economic enterprise from tourist activity, recreation visitors, and the increased property value and business attraction gained from natural amenities. The preservation and growth of the Outdoor Recreation Industry depends on the informed decision of lawmakers, and the Outdoor REC Act of 2016 will be pivotal in providing this vital information. For these reasons I support H.R. 4665 the ``Outdoor Recreation's Economic Contribution Act of 2016.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support to H.R. 2713, the ``Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2015,'' which extends advanced education nursing grants to support clinical nurse specialist programs. Specifically, I am pleased that this legislation: Includes clinical nurse leaders as advanced education nurses, thereby making clinical nurse leader education programs eligible for advanced education nursing grants. (Clinical nurse leaders are advanced generalist clinicians who apply research and coordinate care in order to improve outcomes for patients.); Describes the clinical nurse specialist programs that are eligible for grants and federal aid; Reauthorizes funding for nursing programs by extending loan repayments and programs through 2020. H.R. 2713 will provide a general sum of money, as may be necessary, for the fiscal years 2016 through 2020, allowing Congress to appropriate funds as necessity arises. Importantly, this bill also includes a focus on comprehensive geriatric education, helping to ensure that our parents and grandparents are treated by knowledgeable and well educated personnel. Student debt has proven an increasing concern for nursing students as the price of programs grows steeper, while employment opportunities grow sparse. Of recent nursing school graduates in 2012 and 2013, more than 1/3 of borrowing students in the field were unemployed upon graduation, despite a national increase in general recent graduate employment. Additionally, 74 percent of recently graduated nursing students are straddled with loan repayment obligations, a number that is slightly higher than the 71 percent of all new recent graduates battling unsurmountable student debt. Providing nursing students with additional time to repay these loans is incredibly important, and I am happy to see this aspect of the bill renewed and increased. Within Houston, MD Anderson, Texas Children's Hospital, Memorial Hermann Hospital, and St. Joseph's are only a few of the medical centers in the city requiring skilled nurses. In 2011, nearly 22,000 vocational and registered nurses practiced within the city of Houston, making it the largest employer in the state. Supporting the nursing workforce in furtherance of advanced education is critical and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2713, the ``Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act of 2015.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for H.R. 4365 the bipartisan ``Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2016.'' H.R. 4365 would authorize a medical director, physician, and physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse to authorize Emergency Medical Service, EMS, personnel to dispense controlled substances such seizure medications, narcotic painkillers and other controlled substances under an order from a registered doctor or agency. This bipartisan bill was passed by both the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Subcommittee on Health, each by unanimous consent. I support this bipartisan bill because it provides a vital solution for our emergency management personnel to provide lifesaving care to those requiring unique medical attention, such as in cases substance abuse overdose. Under this bill the Justice Department would be directed to approve the registration of qualified EMS agencies under the Controlled Substances Act and is empowered to deny registration based on an applicant's conviction record and other factors that could affect public health and safety. The bill authorizes emergency service providers to store substances in ambulances and other EMS vehicles and partner with local hospitals to restock medications and supplies. Each emergency services provider would be responsible for complying with requirements including recordkeeping and physical security. In Houston, Texas in 2015 alone, over 289,907 citizens relied upon the critical care emergency services of medical personnel, such as nurses, paramedics and technicians. Our EMS personnel throughout the nation must be equipped with every tool necessary to provide critical lifesaving measures during patients' most dire time of need. During the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th, the lifesaving skills of our EMS providers were vital to saving countless American lives. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4365 the ``Protecting Patient Access to Emergency Medications Act of 2016'' because it provides emergency medical personnel with a broad range of tools to provide lifesaving care to persons in need.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 780, ``Urging Respect for the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Democratic Transition of Power in 2016.'' H. Res. 780 encourages the United States Government to impose sanctions on government officials of the Democratic Republic of Congo who continue to violate the civil rights of the Congolese people. The right to free and fair elections is a crucial element of any democracy. When the right to vote is curtailed, democracy cannot flourish. The constitution of the Democratic Republic of Congo, guarantees to its citizens the right to vote and the right to choose their leaders in a free and open election. The current president of the. DRC, Joseph Kabila, succeeded his father in 2001, following his assassination. The highest court in the nation determined that if elections are delayed then President Kabila could remain in power until elections are held. President Kabila's term ends in December, and elections were set for November. Unable to constitutionally seek a third term, President Kabila and his officials are delaying elections, citing financial problems, as a way to retain power. His decision not to hold elections has led to political turmoil, violence and the death of dozens of people. Human Rights Watch reported that at least 44 people have died during political demonstrations. The Constitution was adopted to avoid the troubling onslaught of violence occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which, in its 56 years since independence, has never experienced a peaceful transition of power. Wherever there is a threat to freedom and democracy, it is the tradition of the United States to assist, to the furthest possible extent, freedom loving people in achieving their democratic aspirations. President Joseph Kabila and other government officials have violated the rights of the Congolese people, and the law of the Democratic Republic of Congo. For these reasons, I support the sanctions taken by the Administration to correct these violations, and I support H. Res. 780.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee; I rise in support of H.R. 5732, the ``Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act of 2016.'' The situation in Syria is truly appalling, innocent civilians are subject to the Assad's brutality. Over 14 million Syrians have become refugees or have been internally displaced over the last five years. The Syrian transition and its future leadership are likely to depend on what the United States and its partners do now to save the lives of innocent Syrians. I am pleased to join in co-sponsoring this legislation that will hinder the Assad's access to resources it uses to harm its people. This bill is named in honor of the courageous former Syrian military photographer, known as ``Caesar,'' who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 2014 about the Assad regime's torture of Syrian civilians. H.R. 5732 will help halt the slaughter of the Syrian people, encourage a negotiated political settlement, and hold Syrian human rights abusers accountable for their crimes. H.R. 5732 requires the President to report to Congress the persons responsible for, or complicit in, gross violations of human rights of the Syrian people. This process will name and shame the violator of these human rights. H.R. 5732 additionally requires the President to impose new sanctions on anyone who (1) does business with or provides financing to the Government of Syria, including Syrian intelligence and security services, or the Central Bank of Syria; (2) provides aircraft or spare parts for aircraft to Syria's airlines (including financing); (3) does business with transportation or telecom sectors controlled by the Syrian government; or (4) supports Syria's energy industry. H.R. 5732 requires the President to submit a report on the potential effectiveness of imposing a No-Fly Zone and the risks, and operational requirements of the establishment. This report will a ditionally contain maintenance updates of a no-fly zone or a safe zone over part or all of Syria. H.R. 5732 authorizes the President also to waive sanctions on a case- by-case basis. Sanctions cans also be suspended if the parties are engaged in meaningful negotiations and the violence against civilians has ceased. Suspension is renowable if the suspension is critical to the continuation of negotiations and attacks against civilians have ceased. On balance, I support H.R. 5732 because it will help alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 5732.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of extending the option of sanctions against Iran by passage of H.R. 6297, the Iran Sanctions Extensions Extension Act, which reauthorizes the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 for 10 years. As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am very much aware of what is at stake in the work done by President Obama to ensure that Iran does not have the breakout capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Events over this Congress make it clear that Congress should be even more vigilant in providing for the protection of the United States. Congress should be mindful of the: United States' leadership in the effort to forge an enforceable and verifiable nuclear agreement with Iran; and Deadliness of chemical weapons when they were used during the Syrian conflict against unarmed men, women, and children. H.R. 6297 allows Congress the option to impose sanctions, but does renew the imposition of sanctions. As Congress continues to review the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which resulted in the significant reduction in Iran's capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon, we must continue the peaceful and verifiable efforts to cut off Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon. President Obama and current and former Secretary of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton were successful in the pursuit of global sanctions and gained the cooperation of the world, including Russian and China, which was critical in bringing the Iranians to the negotiation table on their nuclear arms program. We should retain in our arsenal the option to impose sanctions so that if necessary the United States can act quickly to coordinate a global response to any threat posed by Iran's verified breach of the JCPOA. Declaring sanctions for the sake of declaring sanctions against Iran should never be the objective, nor should we forget that the effectiveness of sanctions are their global nature. Under President Obama's brilliant leadership the United States had the stature around the globe to impose sanctions, and the diplomatic ties to gain global cooperation to expand participation in Iranian sanctions because we could make the case that Iran's nuclear program posed an international threat to peace and stability. The United States is the world's foremost authority on radiological weapons grade material detection and source identification. The Department of Homeland Security is leading the effort through its Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to create a Global Nuclear Detection Architecture, which should be aggressively supported with sufficient funding by Congress. Recognizing the threat posed by nuclear and other radioactive materials, DNDO was created by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-43 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-14 and subsequently codified by Title V of the Security and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act (Pub. L. No. 109-347), which amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002. A key area that the United States has focused its capabilities and resources is blocking the enrichment of radioactive materials for weapons use; and the detection of radioactive materials that would pose a threat to public safety and health. There are several material facts that must be understood about weapons grade radioactive material--each nation's process for refining nuclear material for use in a weapon is unique. Radioactive material has a unique spectrum range and composition that is akin to signatures that cannot be confused with other sources of radioactive material both natural and manmade. The first essential fact is that having samples and data from Iranian facilities where materials in Iran were produced established the radiological signatures for materials that could have only come from those facilities or from processes that follow the methods used by the Iranian nuclear physicists who developed their program. The United States has those samples and the data needed to identify material from Iranian efforts to purify radiological materials. The second essential fact is that radiological material leaves evidence of its presence long after it may have been removed from an area. The physical evidence of centrifuges; storage facilities or weapons themselves are not the only evidence that may convict Iran of violation of the agreement; it can also be the unique Iranian radiation trail left behind during any attempt to refine or purify radiological material for use in a weapon or the transfer of even small quantities of material that is generated or sourced by the Iranians. The third essential fact is that if the Iranians need special centrifuges to refine radiological material to a point that it may be used for a weapon. H.R. 6297, assures that any attempt by the Iranians to cheat by refining more radiological material than is allowed will be detected and Congress would be prepared to impose a sanctions regime. Another significant signal of Iranian violation would be the unique signature of the sound made by centrifuges that are used to purify radiological material make noise. The sound of these massive centrifuges will be detectable many miles away from where they are operated--and the United States has the resources in place in cooperation with allies around the world to detect if enrichment activity is occurring. Operating more centrifuges than is allowed by the agreement would be a actionable sign that Iran is seeking to purify more radioactive material than is allowed by the agreement. This is important to the timeline in calculating the time to breakout--having enough enriched material to use in a weapon. The final essential fact is that the United States has satellite surveillance and ground surveillance capability to detect in great detail activity on the ground. The United States used these resources to identify nuclear arms activity that informed the administration of the severity of the issue and used that evidence to galvanize international support for one of the most successful embargoes in human history. For these reasons, I will join my colleagues in supporting passage of this bipartisan effort to extend by 10 years the period that sanctions may be applied to Iran. I urge you to join me in support of this bill and the excellent work of the Obama Administration in making the world much safer from nuclear threats.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend from California, and I want to offer a consistent appreciation for an effective articulate presentation on a message that not only the American people are eager to hear, but I would imagine as we have the waning hours--I don't like to call anything lame duck--that we can rush to craft the kind of fair and just response, overdue response to the infrastructure rebuild that takes into consideration American-made products, takes into consideration and includes no diminishing of hourly wages for our hardworking union members, and, of course, begins to move across America and fix the ailing bridges, dams, highway, freeways, bridges, tunnels, and airports. Being on the Homeland Security Committee, I definitely want to include that, particularly as I travel around the Nation and I see the hardworking people at airports, but also the infrastructure challenges.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, my words still count for the presentation that the gentleman from California made, and count me as one of those that will continue to join him in that. Mr. Speaker, might I take a moment to do a number of things as I engage in a conversation on the floor with my colleagues and acknowledge the importance of the work of this body. And also, I want to speak to the last week's occurrences. We, as Members of Congress, may have disagreements on the actions of last week, one of the most important acts that the American people engage in, so I certainly want to applaud the American people for the peaceful transfer of power. That power is not completely transferred. Everyone knows that it is the inauguration on January 20, 2017, in which we will have the opportunity to, in actuality, transfer power from President Obama to the next President of the United States that has been voted on by the people of this country. In the course of my discussion, I will raise a number of concerns that I think are important for us to listen to. Again, these may be issues that draw a little bit of provocativeness, if you will, but I hope to be thoughtful in my words. I do want to acknowledge the works or the words of my colleagues previously honoring the recognition of the Bible and say that so many of us not only find comfort in that wonderful book but we also use it for counsel. As I begin, I hope that those who may be listening will, in fact, see in my words the kind of temperament and tone that, as I said, even if we have disagreement, we will certainly not be disagreeable. And I cite for my friends and for this body Psalm 16:7-11, but I only read chapter 16 and verse 7 at this point. ``I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me.'' Verse 8: ``I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken.'' That is, I think, a wonderful testimony for this Nation. It is a testimony for the structure of government. It is a testimony for this Congress as we proceed. It is a testimony for the men and women who are in faraway places who are wearing the uniform. It certainly is a testimony, I believe, for many who find themselves suffering at this moment in a variety of ways. I do want to acknowledge and offer my deepest sympathy to the family of Gwen Ifill, someone who I have come to know over the years as one of America's award-winning journalists. Gwen Ifill was, in fact, a journalist that perceived her work as a profession, as a calling, and I am so sad to hear of her untimely death. She had a storied career, including being the first African American female to moderate a Vice Presidential debate in 2004, and handling it some 4 years later. She brilliantly moderated the 2008 Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, her steadiness as a host on the PBS NewsHour, and the wonderful family from which she has come. I want to acknowledge her wonderful sister, who heads the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and all of her family members to say that we celebrate her life, but we also mourn her passing. I wanted this evening to manage to combine the things that we need to get done--as I said, the actions of last week--and I want to combine it with the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights that we all have. I want to make it very clear that the First Amendment gives us the freedom of speech or of the press or the right for the people peaceably to assemble. So I take issue with statements that have been made by the recent elected person who sought the Presidency from New York who indicated in some early comments that he viewed the protesters as being paid and, I guess, incited by the media or caused to be protesting by the media. I take as a very sacred document that we are blessed to have as the Constitution. I watched as throngs of young people walked past the United States Capitol just a few hours ago. I think it is important for the American people and my colleagues to know what a beautiful sight of young, peaceful Americans who were frustrated and hurt by what they perceive as an exclusionary election that did not include them. So, I do want to put on the record that this will be a constitutional discussion as we weave in and out of the challenges that I see that we will be having and, in essence, speak to some of the concerns that these protesters would have. Let me first say that, with respect to military force, in a Washington Post article by Bob Woodward, it says: ``The president can select nuclear strike packages against three categories--military targets, war-supporting or economic targets and leadership targets.'' It means, in the hands of any Commander in Chief, President, they will have that power. Under practice, as the Commander in Chief, the President can employ U.S. military forces as he or she sees fit; and that means that the concern that many are expressing, these young people, what kind of Commander in Chief, as evidenced by words said during this very extended Presidential campaign of ``I like war,'' or the idea that there would be, I guess, an extensive use of war powers or the powers that an individual President can use, this raises concern for a lot of people. Let me, as well, indicate that, when you begin to think about the structures of government, you have a headline from the Associated Press that the children of this candidate could run a blind trust, and so that is certainly of concern. When Mr. Giuliani indicated that Mr. Trump should set up some kind of blind trust, when pressed, Mr. Giuliani told CNN's ``State of the Union'' that Trump's unusual situation might call for more flexibility; and that is something we have never seen before, where there is at least some mixture of government and the using of a business structure and more flexibility. And then a new announcement that these individuals that would be involved in the blind trusts, or running the business, now would be called upon to--or are being sought, if you will, to have a top secret clearance, which means that the interests of business could be mixed with the security interests of the American people. I find that quite puzzling. And as a member of--concerned about homeland security on a number of my committees, I find that of great concern. This is what happens when there are elections, maybe, with less information than we should have had. So I think it is important to note that protesters are rightly concerned. Certainly, there is additional information in a recent ``60 Minutes'' interview where the question came up about deporting undocumented individuals. Certainly, amongst undocumented individuals are young people called DACA, who have been given work permits and delays from deportation, who are scholars, who are in college, who are young high school students. Because the system of legal immigration that has been presented to this Congress any number of times has not been debated or passed, we have not done our job; so we have not passed a system in which those who are unstatused could legally pay fines, stand in line, and do the appropriate thing that I think Americans would care for them to do. What we have is a system that is broken, and so, in his wisdom, the President of the United States worked to step in the gap where there was no law as it relates to these young people, and, of course, the Congress did not act. No answer from that in the ``60 Minutes'' interview. There is a question, or a point, that individuals that have criminal records--gang members, drug dealers, probably about 2 million people, allegedly--would be deported, without any suggestion of how you would pay for it. I think deportation is about $10,000 per person. Also, criminal record is a relative question. Is that a misdemeanor? Is that a ticket? Is that a young person that is a gang member that could be rehabilitated and then, of course, have some way to access citizenship in some appropriate manner? Let this be very clear. None of us want to coddle or to protect anyone that will do us harm here in the United States. That is not in any way the stance that I take. But I do ask the question: Is there any thought to these policies? And these policies have now caused great fear, intimidation, which generates thousands of young people and others across America taking to the peaceful protests because they are confused--and the confusion is continuing to grow. In addition, it was said often that this is a powerful country with a wonderful democracy. That democracy means that, in the battle of campaigns, much is said. Once campaigns are over, then we move on to respect the opponent, the loyal opposition, and we move on to ensure that we do not have a punitive and--how should I say?--unfair treatment of the individual that lost. We have repeated over and over again, Mrs. Clinton, who I think was an excellent candidate for the Presidency--as evidenced by the fact that, right now, the numbers are mounting. She has actually received more than 1 million votes over the individual that will take up the helm by inauguration in January of 2017. So the popular vote, more Americans voted for Mrs. Clinton than the person who will be inaugurated. That is a very hard pill to swallow, and I will speak about the electoral college. With that in mind, we also know that there have been many hearings in this Congress that have looked at a number of aspects of some of the concerns that have been raised in the battle, in the contest, and those have not evidenced any basis for moving forward. That being said, in an inquiry for ``60 Minutes,'' regarding Mrs. Clinton, kind words were said, of course, and I agree with them, that she proceeded in the appropriate manner to protect the peaceful transfer of government. She reached out to the American people to ask them to work with this new government. She spoke about our values and that we should continue to maintain our values. I thank her for that. And, of course, she appropriately called and conceded, and that action was called lovely. But when the question was posed about appointing a special prosecutor, rather than performing or speaking in a Presidential manner, that wasn't the case. The response was that this action would not be ruled out, and some words that were attempting to comfort were said: ``They are good people. I don't want to hurt them.'' Where is the responsible response, which is: The election is over. I thank Mrs. Clinton for her service to the Nation, and we look forward to healing this Nation and working together? That did not occur. So let me say, let us not discount the pain that my constituents and many others are feeling because there have been no words that are conciliatory; and certainly, there are no words that would seem to respect the loyal opposition, the opponent, only the words that would seem to provoke those who worked so hard on behalf of the other candidate. The newspapers are rampant with these examples of what kind of administration will we have. So how did we get here? We got here because of the structure of the electoral college, which was in place as we began this Nation. And of course it is established in Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives each State a number of electors equal to the combined total of its Senate membership, two for each State, the House of Representatives delegation currently ranging from 1 to 52. Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated three electors. So the electoral college consists of 538 electors; 535 electors from the several States and 3 from the District of Columbia. None of those individuals should stand in place of the popular vote, but that is the concept that we used in that earlier point. On November 6, 2012, Mr. Trump tweeted that the electoral college is a disaster for democracy. I think many of us in America totally agree. Most States require that all electoral votes go to the candidate that received the plurality in that State; and so, in some sense, it is connected to that State and has some basis to it. It was amended in the 12th Amendment--I think that was in 1804--which provides what happens if the electoral college fails to elect a President or Vice President. Here lies the very crux of the reason why a popular vote should now be the standard. Let me say also that I could not read the minds of our Founding Fathers. They managed to put in a system of democracy that has now lasted for a very, very, very long period of time. They are to be commended. This was through the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787. This was an important acknowledgment, and there were a variety of processes upon which they suggested there be a Presidential selection. A committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended that the election be decided by a group of people apportioned among the States. I would offer to say that that did not go forward. There were fears of intrigue if the President was chosen by a small group of men. At the time, as you are well aware, slaves were not counted as a full person, and slaves were in the United States. Women were not allowed to vote, and there were other prohibitions against voting. Concerns for the independence of the President if he was elected by the Congress was also part of the mix in terms of how you would discern and vote, and the electoral college was being developed. In Federalist Paper No. 39, James Madison explained the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government. Alexander Hamilton defended the electoral college on the grounds that the electors were chosen directly by the people. All of that, trying to get it right, I think, speaks volumes-- volumes--to the idea of moving forward beyond this idea of the electoral college and to begin to look at other options; and so I am going to be asking our committees--in particular, the Judiciary Committee--to hold hearings on the electoral college. I think it is extremely appropriate for the American people to be able to understand the crux of how this works but, more importantly, how this impacts the leadership of this country. Five times a candidate has won the popular vote but not the electoral college: Andrew Jackson in 1824, Samuel Tilden in 1876--we remember that compromise--Grover Cleveland in 1888, Al Gore in 2000, and, certainly, Hillary Clinton in 2016. I would suggest that this is an appropriate time to review this. We tried to do an electoral college review from 1969 to 1971. H.J. Res. 681 proposed the direct election of a President and Vice President, requiring a runoff when no candidate received more than 40 percent of the vote. The resolution did pass the House in 1969 but failed to pass the Senate. So, I think it is important that we look at this in a manner that can be reviewed, and there are ways of doing so. I believe there is a national popular vote, which I will find in just a moment, that has already worked with 13 States to devise another approach, or which is the popular vote, and to make sure that the bar that we have that deals with the electoral college and bars the count of the popular vote to the extent that one person, one vote, I think, has to be reviewed. There has to be a congressional review of this. There is too much at stake and too much emphasis on the right to a vote that we cannot let Americans vote for their President. And I say that some of the discussions around the idea of the electoral college were that maybe the voters were not informed enough, maybe they were not at a level of education that we should entrust to them the idea of the situation dealing with the popular vote. So I think the issue is that we need to make sure that the one vote, one person counts. We talk about it all the time, and we don't seem to act on it. Let's hold hearings. That is important. Let me quickly go to the aftermath of these elections that has really disturbed many of us. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports more than 201 incidents of election-related harassment and intimidation across the country as of November 11, 5 p.m. They range from anti-Black to antiwoman, to anti-LGBT incidents. People are hurting. There were many examples of vandalism and epithets directed at individuals. Oftentimes, the types of harassment overlapped, and many incidents, though not all, involved direct references to the Trump campaign. Let me give you some examples. This is an example from the Southern Poverty Law Center: My 12-year-old daughter is an African American. A boy approached her and said, ``Now that Trump is President, I am going to shoot you and all the Blacks I can find.'' We reported it to the school, who followed up with my daughter and the boy appropriately. Another at this time in the college setting: The day after the presidential election, my friend, a Black female freshman in a Boston- area college heard a White female student say, ``This is their punishment for 8 years of Black people.'' When she turned around to see who said it, the White student laughed at her. In Louisiana, a woman was harassed by White men in a passing car, which was a frequently reported venue of harassment since election day: I was standing at a red light waiting to cross the street. A black truck with three White men pulled up to the red light. One of them yelled something inappropriate. The other two began to laugh. One began to chant ``Trump'' as they drove away. I have an employee who happens to be Hispanic who was coming to work in my own hometown and was told, ``Wetback in a suit, go home.'' ``Death to diversity'' was written on a banner displayed on our library--this happened, I think, in Colorado--for people to see, as well as written on posters across the campus, as well as White males going up to women saying unfortunate things about grabbing unfortunate things. This is from Austin, Texas: Harassment, today a young Latino man in his 20s and a coworker of mine were walking into work as a truck slowed down and two White men threw a bag of garbage onto him and yelled, ``You are going back to where you came from.'' There are, obviously, many such instances. When asked about this, to his credit, Mr. Trump said to stop it. That is not going to be enough. That will not answer the thousands upon thousands of those who are protesting and the thousands upon thousands of those who are looking for leadership to be able to suggest that we are, in fact, a nation that represents all people. Now, it is the prerogative of the person who got elected and who will be honored to serve as the President of the United States, it will be their privilege to select persons that will lead. We do know that there is discussion about an individual for the Secretary of State, and I choose to cite this as an individual who is now possibly being looked at for the many conflicts of interest that they will have. This is the highest office in the land. There must be a responsible ordering of those who are actually able to do the job. It is important to reward your friends. But these are important governmental positions that will either be the face--the Secretary of State--of the United States internationally or the Attorney General who will be the chief law enforcement officer or in the White House staff will likewise be the face of the President of the United States. In the last week, an individual has now been selected who was in the campaign as the chief strategist--that is the face of the White House-- that has given a signal to White supremacists that they will be represented at the highest levels. It is clearly documented of the kinds of actions that this individual has been engaged in. The ex-wife indicated in a court document that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews. He said that he doesn't like Jews. Heading up a periodical that deals with the alt-right movement which has been known to deal with skinheads and various issues that are just completely untoward in a country that is 21st century and that is so diverse. So I believe that having joined my colleagues and asked for reconsideration, you have the right to choose your cabinet. You have the right to choose your various aids that you will have. But I don't believe in this Nation that you have the right to deal with this question of these issues where people feel divided. There is a picture here. We know that there is the burning of a church. This is the Hopewell Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville, Mississippi, that has written on the outside of the sacred place. I began my message or my statement on the floor with a word from Psalms. And here is written, ``Vote Trump.'' Now, we know that there are people that may want to provoke or not provoke, but what I think is important is that one candidate got more of the popular vote. We need to review the electoral college. Out of this election has come great concerns from the words that have been offered during the campaign that cannot be pulled back. The words that cannot be pulled back now have generated not only actions by individuals not in the government, children being maligned and attacked, individuals being attacked on the street, people feel frightened. Churches are being burned, which we passed a law some years back that it is a Federal crime to burn a church. Then to have an individual who has been associated with the kind of propaganda that, in essence, is discriminatory against so many of us as women, African Americans, Hispanics, and certainly people who have differences. Certainly we have seen potential of the KKK marching in North Carolina, been denounced by the Republican and Democratic State party chair in North Carolina; and we thank them for that. So what does that mean for all of us? We have work to do. We have work to do. As Justice Learned Hand observed, if we are to keep our democracy, there must be one command: Thou shalt not ration justice. We have criminal justice reform to deal with. We have to address the individuals that have been incarcerated unfairly. We must give them a second chance. This is not myself speaking, this is religious groups speaking. This is Republicans and Democrats speaking about the importance of criminal justice reform. We have not heard any discussion on that, but we do know that there has been over 200 hateful acts in the election aftermath. That is a problem. We also know that the electoral college has now, again, selected an individual that did not get the most votes from the American people. So I would offer to say that, among the work that we have to do working to rebuild America and put America first, I certainly join in that. We have some healing to do, and we should be doing this in a corrective manner. We should be doing our job and looking at some of the constitutional fractures that occurred. Let me close on one last point that I want to make sure that, as I speak, I offer a great respect for the individuals who have offered to serve in this government. But I would be remiss if I did not cite a shocking episode that occurred on October 28, 2016, in the midst of the Presidential election. It is important for the American people to know whether they agree or disagree. My colleagues, there lies another opportunity for an investigation because there is no more storied an agency in law enforcement than the FBI. I have the greatest respect--I have worked with them as a young lawyer, as a staffer in this body. I have been on a committee that has worked with the FBI. What was that committee? I served on the committee as a staffer to investigate the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy when we opened it again where Chairman Gonzalez and Chairman Stokes served as chairpersons of that committee. We worked with then-FBI agents who were willing to provide information on how things happened during that timeframe. We have always looked to them to investigate and to be the armor of investigation to find the truth. But no protocol ever suggested that any announcement about an unknowing situation, unrelated to anything, could be announced and blatantly interfere in a Presidential election. We must find out why that determination was made and what leaks were forthcoming. Many have written to determine if that is the case. So I am looking forward to a thorough investigation in the altering of the campaign landscape that occurred historically on October 28, 2016, and it did have a damaging and drastic impact statistically in a 1-to-2- point measure. That was an impact that was not the making of the American people. It was not something that was life or death. Factually, the ultimate determination is that the announcement was irrelevant. It had nothing to do with or did not generate any new information on the particular incident that was being addressed at that time. So I came to the floor today because I believe that we should not let things last and fester, and we in the Congress can be factfinders in an evenhanded and unbiased way. Our Judiciary Committee set up a task force dealing with overregulation. We have done it on antitrust and we have done it on criminal justice. Right now, the Constitution is being challenged, and aspects of the Constitution, the electoral college, is being challenged. The interference of a democratic process of the election occurred no matter what good intentions were behind it. So the American people deserve many a factfinding situation--not in any way a targeting, not in any way a finger pointing, but a pure factfinding. This has to be corrected. Those who are charged with the responsibility of serving this Nation must do it in the context in which they do it. Investigations go on until you find the resolve of that investigation and the prosecutor, the Attorney General, makes the announcement that they will proceed to prosecute or they may not proceed to prosecute. So I am very grateful to live in a nation that cherishes the Constitution and cherishes our Bill of Rights. I beg that we appreciate those who have sought to protest, and we appreciate those who have voted because it is a process of democracy. I will accept that. But I will also say that the voices of those who are being raised should be heard, and we as factfinders should do our job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty) for her leadership and dynamic message she gave this morning when we were discussing in the district and the area of our colleague Congressman Hank Johnson and John Lewis the issue of economic empowerment and economic empowerment as it relates to women, and particularly women of color. Let me thank the gentlewoman for that, and as well for leading today, along with Mr. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, this very important Special Order of unfinished business. Let me say that all of us, and you will hear certainly this repetitive refrain, have been challenged in this last election. Now, let me be very clear for those of our colleagues who may be listening or those who may be hearing, I am by no means whining. What I do speak to, of course, however, is, and will be over a period of time, whether or not there were fractures in the Democratic process that were driven not by candidates, for candidates can say and do, as much as you may be offended by them saying or doing, but whether or not there were actually systems that undermined the voting process. Starting first, of course, with the Supreme Court's extinguishing of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the long, how should I say, journey of members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic Caucus and others of goodwill to restore section 5 or, in essence, a fix to section 5, and the long period of time that we had, Congresswoman Beatty, to fix it, but it never got fixed before the election, which means that there are a number of jurisdictions that face a high mountain of trying to be able to vote. People were purged off of lists in a number of States. Individuals, unfortunately, had challenges with respect to what local officials may have been doing. We will get all of this out in the wash, but we would have been much better off if we had section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In my own jurisdiction, even though it ultimately was fixed under the auspices of they were not ADA compliant, we consolidated and closed a lot of precincts that we had to correct because on election day people were going to their home precincts and they didn't exist. So clearly fixing section 5, fixing the Voting Rights Act, is not unfinished business. It is a requirement. It is adamantly necessary to do. Let me quickly say that we only did one out of the 12 appropriations bills, so Agriculture is not done, Commerce-Justice is not done, Defense, Energy and Water, Financial Services. All of these impact the lives of Americans. We are still in the dilemma of the Flint water crisis. We have gone to Flint. We as members of the Congressional Black Caucus have spoken to those people who are hurting. They have various ailments--one woman with a rash, hair loss, children with cognitive issues--and we have still not resolved that. Protecting children with disabilities, access to public education. My State alone has been an embarrassment for they were only providing for 7 to 8 percent of children with disabilities as opposed to the national average of 13 to 14 percent. We need to make sure that we ensure that those children are protected under Federal law. My State says they are immediately stopping the capping, but I prefer that we have it institutionalized into law and make sure it works. Immigration reform. We have to worry about the DACA young people who are working in our economy and now with the potential that they may be on the deportation list. Funding for the Louisiana flooding is crucial, whether those dollars have gotten--after our colleague, Congressman Richmond, worked so hard and told us of the trillions of dollars of flooding that occurred in his constituency. They need help, and we must get them help. Funding for the damage caused by Hurricane Matthew. That is, of course, in Princeville, North Carolina, areas that I remember going to with my colleague, the Honorable G.K. Butterfield, the great chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and, nonetheless, improving cybersecurity of the Nation's critical infrastructure. I finish on this point, and that is on criminal justice, which I know a number of members will speak of. As the ranking member on the Criminal Justice Committee, I want to thank all of the many members who have offered legislation and thank the members on the Judiciary Committee, particularly under the leadership of John Conyers and certainly those who have worked with the chairman. We must pass police reform and accountability, the law enforcement trust and integrity bill. We must pass the sentencing reduction bill that will codify some of the work that needs to be done, prison reform that will turn prisons into true institutions of rehabilitation, and also a new matrix in juvenile justice to stop punishing our young people, but to provide a corrective rehabilitative approach, which is reauthorization of the juvenile block grant legislation, along with antibullying and bullying intervention. We must do these things because the American people have sent us here to do our job. We must do these things because they are right. We must do these things because the American people need this legislation. We must simply do these things because, Mr. Speaker, we must do our job.