Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, we can honor Women's History Month in many different ways, and I rise today to acknowledge women in all walks of life and around the world. I particularly want to mention a crisis that involves women in my Congressional District. Can you imagine the State of Texas attempting to take over the largest school district in our State, and the seventh or eighth largest school district, the Houston Independent School District. Why women? Because parents, many of them single household, women. Teachers, women. Support staff, women. Cafeteria workers, women--women who love the children and wonder why a State would eliminate the school board--which by the way, has the largest number of women as school board members on the Houston Independent School Board District. There is no definable reason to take over a district that has a C rating for one school, an overall B plus, a Chinese immersion school, a Arabic immersion school, an art and professional school, virtual arts, and as well children performing after the pandemic. When I met with the parents at this meeting that was being held, they asked why. They were women. Madam Speaker, I stand with them. We will fight against the takeover, and I will listen to the women, the parents of the children of the Houston Independent School District.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her leadership. Hopefully, we have been able to share some very important thoughts. I thank her for presiding and leading us on this very important discussion. We have a Constitution. I hope that I will be holding the Constitution in my hand in a short while. Obviously, Article I is the Congress. We are to represent the people of this Nation. Article II is the executive branch. Article III are supposed to be unfettered, unbiased courts, the Federal courts. They come in a variety of shapes and sizes all over the region, all over the Nation. They are what we call Article III courts. Certainly, there are State courts, and there are county courts, and there are city courts, but the Federal courts are the place where we believe that there should be the infrastructure of justice, where I can come, where no place else, I might find justice. I can even be pro se. That means, without counsel. But the laws and the responsibility of the judges, clearly, are to make me feel that I will be receiving justice. So it saddens me, as a member of the Bar, and someone who, through law school, viewed the Federal judiciary in the highest esteem. I was an Earl Warren training fellow. Earl Warren, the Supreme Court Justice, Republican, appointed by Eisenhower, I recall, and who presided over the Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that opened the doors for many to be able to have an education that was not segregated, and many other cases that the Court presided over. But there was something unique that, I believe, that held our consciousness. We always felt that the courts would render truthful judgments, or that they would look for the truth, and that they would discern, between the plaintiff and the defendant, who was telling the truth; and they would rule in justice and the law for those who told the truth. I hold in my hand the Constitution that also includes the Declaration of Independence, where we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I loved what the Founding Fathers said: The power under the Constitution will always be in the people and it is entrusted for certain defined purposes. It is important to note that even though the men who have said these words were not perfect, the words epitomize who we are; that no matter who you are, what ``unempowerment'' you may have, you should have power in the courts. You should have power in this country, by the very essence of the Constitution. So I watched with intensity, as a Member of this body, and as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, all of the confirmation hearings where they were selecting a United States Supreme Court Justice. What struck me most of all, to the last two Justices before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is the questioning after questioning to ask them, was Roe v. Wade sound law? Was Roe v. Wade precedent? Was Roe v. Wade, for them, a standard of the whole question of precedent that is a basic premise, tenet, basic foundation of the justice that we look to have rendered; that we can count on the Supreme Court's decision; whether it is Brown v. Topeka Board of Education-- maybe that is not solid law, that you can no longer segregate, discriminate in education at all levels; break the chains of segregation in the one-story, one-room schoolhouse with no books, for the Colored children, the Negro children, the Black children, in that instance, which the South proceeded to try and go around by having these private schools. So, your whole life is around getting justice; and Roe v. Wade was to indicate a stop to back-alley abortions; women dying; being maligned and disgraced; maybe not able to have children ever again. We were able to perceive that that was really a medical decision, and it was a decision that a woman's faith, doctor, and family would help her make; that no one could police your body; that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land. Yet, in a matter of months--I thought it was just simply seconds-- puff went Roe v. Wade, even in spite of the testimony of the two Justices promoted to the Supreme Court by the former President of the United States that, over and over again, in answer to the question, they said, Roe v. Wade was precedent. That it was the law of the land. They were under oath, and they did not tell the truth because what happened is that when the Dobbs case came, they immediately jumped to their personal views, their personal beliefs, their personal dislikes, their personal cause and crusade, and ruled abortion, as defined by the Ninth Amendment, of which Roe v. Wade was based on, the right to privacy, unconstitutional. I don't even know how that could be. And States like Texas followed with the most heinous of abortion laws that you could ever imagine, criminalizing providers and criminalizing women; creating a havoc in our State; people having to flee across State lines because they could not get the honest and safe medical treatment needed, that was dictated by their physician, their healthcare provider; threatening healthcare providers; threatening Planned Parenthood; threatening clinics; misinterpreting medical procedures as abortions. I, frankly, believe this MAGA extremism is the very reason why the great tsunami that was expected in the 2022 election did not happen. They did not pay attention to, in 2021, 861 women died of maternal causes in the United States. In the U.S., two-thirds of those pregnancy-related deaths were preventable, and for every pregnancy- related death, there are 70 pregnancy-related near-death experiences. It is extremely important that we tell it like it is: Women fleeing to get healthcare; doctors being arrested; nurses being arrested, under law, because of Dodd; and, of course, women themselves being threatened. Let me just read some headlines that came about through this Dodd decision where the Justices would not adhere to the truth and the honesty of their testimony during confirmation hearings under oath where they said that Roe v. Wade was precedent. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled: ``Five women sued Texas over abortion access.'' [From BBC News, Mar. 9, 2023] Five Women Sue Texas Over Abortion Access (By Holly Honderich) Ms. Zurawski spent three days in intensive care, leaving the hospital after a week, the legal action says. The ordeal has made it harder for her to conceive in future, she said. The four other women had to travel outside Texas for an abortion. One of the plaintiffs, Ms. Miller, said: ``Healthcare should not be determined by some politician with no understanding of medicine or the critical role that abortion care plays in pregnancy. How is it that I can get an abortion for a dog but not for me?'' Two of the women's foetuses had conditions that meant they did not develop a skull, according to the lawsuit. These cases ``are just tip of the iceberg'', the Center for Reproductive Justice's Ms, Northup said. Their 91-page complaint asks for a ruling that clarifies Texas' law and its stance on ``medical emergencies'' for pregnant women facing grave health risks. ``With the threat of losing their medical licences, fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and up to 99 years in prison lingering over their heads, it is no wonder that doctors and hospitals are turning patients away--even patients in medical emergencies,'' the lawsuit reads. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center conducted last year, 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, though the opinion poll found public support for the procedure fell as a pregnancy progressed. Texas' legislature, which is under Republican control, has been at the forefront of anti-abortion legislation, becoming the first state to enact a near-total ban. And the state will be home to another abortion battle soon: a Texas judge is expected to rule on a case about abortion pills this week. The Trump-appointed US District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will decide whether Mifepristone--one of the two drugs used in an abortion pill regime--can continue to be sold in the US. Five women who say they were denied abortions in Texas despite facing life-threatening health risks have sued the state over its abortion ban. Texas bars abortions except for medical emergencies, with doctors facing punishment of up to 99 years in jail. According to the lawsuit, doctors are refusing the procedure even in extreme cases out of fear of prosecution. In a statement, the office of Attorney General Ken Paxton said he would ``enforce the laws'' of the state. Mr, Paxton ``is committed to doing everything in his power to protect mothers, families, and unborn children'', the statement said. The Center for Reproductive Justice has filed the legal action on behalf of the five women--Ashley Brandt, Lauren Hall, Lauren Miller, Anna Zargarian and Amanda Zurawski--and two healthcare providers that are also plaintiffs. The pro-choice group said it is the first time pregnant women themselves have taken action against anti-abortion laws passed across the US since the Supreme Court last year removed constitutional protection for abortion rights. ``It is now dangerous to be pregnant in Texas,'' said Nancy Northup, the centre's president on Tuesday. With Ms. Northup outside the Texas Capitol in Austin on Tuesday, the plaintiffs--two pregnant--shared harrowing stories of their previous, lost pregnancies. According to the legal action, all were told that their foetuses would not survive, but were not given the option of an abortion, which they described as ``standard medical procedure'' throughout the country and in the state before Texas' ban came into effect. Ms. Zurawski, 35, said she had become pregnant after 18 months of fertility treatments. She had just entered her second trimester when she was told she had dilated prematurely and that the loss of her foetus, whom she and her husband had named Willow, was ``inevitable''. ``But even though we would, with complete certainty, lose Willow, my doctor could not intervene while her heart was still beating or until I was sick enough for the ethics board at the hospital to consider my life at risk,'' Ms. Zurawski said. For three days, trapped in a ``bizarre and avoidable hell'', Ms. Zurawski was forced to wait until her body entered sepsis--also known as blood poisoning--and doctors were allowed to perform an abortion, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, one of them could not get care until they got blood poisoning, when the doctor was willing to see them. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Washington Post: ``Woman says she carried dead fetus for 2 weeks after Texas abortion ban.'' [From the Washington Post, July 20, 2022] Woman Says She Carried Dead Fetus for 2 Weeks After Texas Abortion Ban (By Timothy Bella) Marlena Stell's happiness turned to heartbreak after she found out about 9\1/2\ weeks into her pregnancy that she had suffered a miscarriage. After she was told last year that the fetus did not have a heartbeat and she no longer had a viable pregnancy, the Texas woman asked her doctor to perform a dilation and curettage, or D and C--a standard procedure to remove the fetus following a miscarriage to help prevent infection or long- term health problems. Stell had the procedure after her first miscarriage in 2018 in Washington state, when she felt so much pain that she could not walk, and she wanted to go through with it again before trying again for a second child, she told The Washington Post. But Stell was even more devastated to learn that because the procedure is also used during abortions, which a Texas law had greatly restricted, the doctor did not want to perform a D and C. Stell would be forced to carry her dead fetus for two weeks before she could find a provider to give her the medical intervention that physicians had denied her. ``My doctor had said that since the heartbeat bill had just passed, she didn't want me to do a D and C. And she asked that I try to miscarry at home,'' said Stell, 42, of Conroe, Tex. ``It just was emotionally difficult walking around, knowing that I had a dead fetus inside.'' Stell, a beauty influencer with about 1.5 million YouTube subscribers, is sharing her story in the weeks after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade as a reminder that the restrictive abortion laws adopted by states such as Texas could affect those who have suffered miscarriages. ``People need to understand how these laws affect all women, even cases like mine,'' she said. ``I feel like it's very dangerous for government of any type to be intervening in a woman's care because there's multiple reasons of why she may need a procedure.'' Stell's story is an example of what physicians and patients could face when it comes to care for miscarriages and maternal health almost a month after the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. As The Post recently reported, doctors in multiple states say the standard of care for miscarriages, as well as ectopic pregnancies and other common complications, are being scrutinized, delayed, or even denied. In Texas--where Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) is suing the Biden administration over federal rules requiring abortions to be provided in medical emergencies to save the life of the mother--some doctors are reporting that pharmacists have begun questioning patients who they suspect could be using their miscarriage medications for abortions. ``It is traumatizing to stand in a pharmacy and have to tell them publicly that you are having a miscarriage, that there is not a heartbeat,'' Rashmi Kudesia, a fertility specialist in Houston, told The Post on Saturday. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists estimates that more than 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, the spontaneous demise of a fetus that commonly happen because of chromosomal abnormalities. The methods of treatment for miscarriage and abortion are the same. A miscarriage can be treated using a mix of drugs such as mifepristone and misoprostol, or through a D and C, which includes dilating the cervix and clearing tissue from the uterus. After her initial miscarriage in 2018, Stell and her husband had their first child, a daughter, in April 2020. When the couple moved from Washington state to Texas in 2021, they were trying to have a second child, Stell said, even though she knew she was at high risk because of her age, previous health problems and miscarriage. So when she found a doctor who specialized in high-risk pregnancies last summer, she was thrilled to find out that the early weeks of her pregnancy looked promising. ``I was about 7\1/2\ weeks pregnant, and everything looked great,'' Stell said. ``The doctor said there was some movements and fluttering, but everything with the pregnancy looked normal.'' Because she was at high risk, Stell was asked to come back about two weeks later for a follow-up appointment in late September 2021. Because coronavirus-related guidelines prevented her husband from accompanying her in the room, she planned to record on her cellphone what the doctor had to say about the ultrasound. ``I'm getting ready to record because I'm excited,'' Stell recalled. ``But as soon as she started the ultrasound, [the doctor] got really silent, and was just looking and looking and didn't see the fluttering or the movement or anything.'' Stell got the news she feared: She had lost the pregnancy. She was told she had a blighted ovum, which is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus but does not develop into an embryo. She was shocked to learn that the common procedure she got so easily in Washington state was anything but simply obtained in Texas. She said she was told she needed additional proof, or multiple ultrasounds, showing that her pregnancy was not viable before she could get a D and C. Nine days into carrying her dead fetus, the sorrow of her first miscarriage had returned. ``I felt like a walking coffin,'' she said, fighting through tears. ``You're just walking around knowing that you have something that you hoped was going to be a baby for you, and it's gone. And you're just walking around carrying it.'' Stell eventually found an abortion services provider in downtown Houston who would give her the D and C on Oct. 4, 2021. After she was met by antiabortion protesters, Stell opened up about the experience on her YouTube channel. While Stell, a cosmetic brand owner and CEO, usually talks about makeup education and other beauty and lifestyle content, the influencer's video on her miscarriage showed a different side. ``I get so angry that I was treated this way because of laws that were passed by men who have never been pregnant and never will be,'' Stell told her followers at the time. ``I'm frustrated, I'm angry, and I feel like the women here deserve better than that. It doesn't matter what side of the fence that you want to sit on, laws like this affect all women regardless of what situation you're in, and it's not right.'' When Roe was overturned last month, Stell said it was her duty to share her story with those who might have similar experiences. After Stell told her story to CNN this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among those to cite her as an example of how ``Republican politicians are risking women's health and safety.'' Stell said on Twitter this week that the experience almost 10 months ago is the reason she and her husband have decided that they would not try to have additional children in Texas. She told The Post that her two miscarriages put her at higher risk for a third. ``Our fear is that if I get pregnant and miscarry again that something will happen,'' she said. ``We just do not feel confident at all that we'll get the care that we need in Texas if something were to happen.'' If the miscarriage hadn't happened, Stell and her husband would have had a boy in May. They would have named him Milan. She thinks about what could have been when she reflects on her own story, and how she said she was made to feel as though she had done something wrong when she was already grieving. ``It's added trauma on top of trauma,'' she said. ``It's important to share this story so people know how these laws affect all women.''

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, is there freedom in this Nation? Because of the Texas abortion law, her wanted pregnancy became a medical nightmare. The truth had been taken away. ``Texas woman almost dies because she could not get an abortion.'' These are not willing activities. These are not persons who do not have loving relationships with children. These are not individuals who, in fact, are, if you will, persons who want to rush for an abortion. These are individuals who have had children, who have loving children at home, but have a right, with their medical provider, to deal with their medical procedure. It is important to take note of the fact that what happens in the courts can truly save lives or cause a loss of life. In addition to due process under the Fifth Amendment, equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment, and the right to privacy that this little book holds, the courts play a major role. I thank Congresswoman Lee for leading us in a discussion that challenges the question of truth, the question of unbiased, unfettered decisions, and the question of adherence to the Constitution. Right now, we are living in a land where the precedent of Roe v. Wade, the right to choose--I never call it the right to an abortion. It is the right to choose, and the medical procedure that you choose should never be limited. How sad that we have this litany of women, only a few of the thousands impacted because the court refused to adhere to justice and truth. We, as Members of Congress, need to be able to be the people's representatives, and we must find a way to bring dignity and truth and justice back to our courts. I, for one, will continue to work to make sure that this is a living document, the Constitution, and that those who are poor or not can find their way to a courthouse under Article III and find justice, freedom, righteousness, and the opportunity to live freely without discrimination in education, to have civil rights and voting rights, and to be able to have jurisdiction over your own body as a woman and to adhere again to a law by the Supreme Court that said, in Roe v. Wade, that women do have that choice. For me, it is the law of the land, and Dodd is a masquerading factor of bias and untruth. Mr. Speaker, I join my Congressional Progressive Caucus Colleagues here today to speak about the danger that is among us as a result of far-right rhetoric that has resulted in the take down of women's rights in America. Republicans have continuously proven that they want to police women's bodies and take away our reproductive freedoms. In the first week of the 118th Congress, extreme Republicans launched attacks on reproductive freedom, intruding on medical decision-making, and keeping their promise to criminalize abortion nationwide with no exceptions. Now a Texas Federal Judge is attempting to get rid of the much-needed abortion pill. Women's health is an issue that is very near to my heart. With reproductive rights being stripped from us, maternal mortality at an all-time high, and violence against women that has surged since the pandemic started, there is growing concern that women's health will continue to suffer on a massive scale. This attempt to remove medically necessary health care is a disgusting misuse of power and it extremely negligent. Maternal mortality is an issue that continues to plague the United States health care system. In 2020, 861 women died of maternal causes in the United States. In the U.S., two-thirds of those pregnancy related deaths are preventable and for every pregnancy-related death, there are 70 pregnancy-related near-death experiences. It's extremely important that we remove barriers in health care that may be contributing to these deaths. Maternal mortality is caused by several issues such as cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure, blood clots, and complications of labor and delivery. Maternal mortality is caused by several issues such as cardiovascular problems, high blood pressure, blood clots, and complications of labor and delivery. And Black Maternal mortality is a National Health crises. Women's health is an issue that is very near to my heart. With reproductive rights being stripped from us, maternal mortality at an all-time high, and violence against women that has surged since the pandemic started, there is growing concern that women's health will continue to suffer on a massive scale. I thank the Congressional Progressive Caucus colleagues for having me here today to talk about this important issue.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. How grateful I am to be on the floor with the distinguished gentleman from New York and, of course, our distinguished ranking member, who has really laid out the parameters of this legislation. I certainly acknowledge the manager of this underlying legislation and offer my thoughts, with a little bit of consternation. I cherish the Constitution and cherish the First Amendment. It is first for a reason: The Founding Fathers were wise enough, even with some of the failings of the Constitution, including the existence of slavery--but they were wise enough to understand that the core of democracy is, in fact, the freedom to express, the freedom to associate, the freedom to access, the freedom of religion. The First Amendment captures all of those elements. I am somewhat lost to connect this legislation to the protection of free speech. I do know that this is part of the unending obsession that my friends on the other side of the aisle have with Mr. Biden, President Biden, and his son. All investigations that are relevant and that are concerning the American people's integrity or national security are important, but how do you stretch this legislation to suggest that it is a question of free speech in the decisions being made to hold or not hold on purposes that may be business purposes, for all we know, Mr. Chair? It may not be free speech. I would say that there are many other instances that free speech has been stifled. We cannot discuss the history of African Americans through the misrepresentation of critical race theory. We are getting orders in our States like Texas to not engage in diversity, equity, and exclusiveness.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. This bill does not deal with free speech. This bill is a gotcha bill, and I ask my friends if we can, in a coordinated manner, discuss some of the important issues of the day that really need addressing. I know that we will do the debt ceiling in months to come, but I would argue that we should protect the First Amendment, give everybody a right to freedom of speech and freedom of what they hear. If they would join me on that, I would welcome their support in what true free speech is. We can hear, and we can speak. That is important.

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the ranking member and the chairman of the important Oversight and Reform Committee and the work that they do to ensure that government agencies work well. As they do so, I would expect that their efforts would meet all tests of credibility and, as well, the four corners of the Constitution. I have tried to study this legislation. However, it concerns me, again, because it would make it more difficult for Government agencies to share pertinent information with important stakeholders to keep our country safe. With no clear exceptions for national security, this legislation would add burdensome and unworkable reporting requirements and a 72- hour waiting period which could be detrimental to our democratic institutions during times when communication is necessary to protect our democracy. This bill is seeking to limit the lawful activities of Federal law enforcement agencies, and it is a threat to our national security. All of us stand on this floor and stand shoulder to shoulder with law enforcement. Our firefighters are here on the campus. We stand shoulder to shoulder with them. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, this legislation would not show our confidence in those who have to do the job. So I offer an amendment that provides a response to the section on severability that keeps the remaining portions of the act in place should a portion of the act or amendment made by the act be held to be unconstitutional. The insertion of such a severability clause in this bill is telling of the complete lack of faith, I believe, in the constitutional viability and credibility this entire bill aims to put forth. While the general purpose of the severability doctrine clause is used to direct courts on what to do with a statute or a part of it, if a provision is invalidated, Congress is actually discouraged from using express severability clauses given it is unnecessary due to the court's strong presumption in favor of any such need for severability. Moreover, Congress assumes its laws are constitutional. This should be constitutional. As such, the primary application of a severability clause is for the functionality of the statute and whether the surviving provisions are capable of functioning independently. This is not free speech. The majority is denying our Federal officers free speech to do their job to protect America. So the included general severability clause in H.R. 140 is not intended to provide clarity to the court on particular specific sections of this bill, but rather, it is an ill attempt to save a poorly written bill and one that steps on the First Amendment rights of our hardworking patriots--our Federal employees--because it is anticipated that this bill may be held unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. First of all, let me thank the gentleman from New York for his clarification. He was in the hearing. He heard the witness ask for relief. But I would say that gentleman did not ask to have, at the core of the relief, a legislative initiative rooted in far-right conspiracy theories despite the clear lack of evidence that any Biden administration official violated the First Amendment or censored Americans or social media platforms. We want to make sure that we are safe and have national security, but at the same time, how are we going to amend the Hatch Act and really shut down those who are involved in law enforcement and national security? We saw what happened on January 6. We need all of the communications and intelligence that we need, not only to protect our law enforcement but to protect the United States of America. My amendment is necessary, Mr. Chairman. It is necessary because the court's presumption is that the statute is constitutional. If there is a section that is found unconstitutional, the court will yield to this idea that they will look at it in a manner to discern what are the facts. My amendment simply says that to put this in the legislation, you are then going to have a guardrail against this bill being found unconstitutional. With that in mind, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment, which is a clear expression of the law. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Jackson Lee Amendment No. 6 which would strike Section 2, Subsection (e), the severability provision in H.R. 140--the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act. Subsection (e) of Section 2 in H.R. 140 ``provides a severability clause that keeps the remaining portions of the Act in place should a portion of the Act, or an amendment made by the Act, be held to be unconstitutional.'' The insertion of such a severability clause in this bill is telling of the complete lack of faith in the constitutional viability and credibility this entire bill aims to put forth. While the general purpose of the severability doctrine clause is used to direct courts on what to do with the statute or a part of it, if a provision is invalidated, Congress is actually discouraged from using express severability clauses given it is unnecessary due to the court's strong presumption in favor of any such need for severability. Moreover, Congress assumes its laws are constitutional. As such, the primary application of a severability clause is for the functionality of the statute and whether the surviving provisions are capable of functioning independently. To include a general severability clause in H.R. 140 is not intended to provide clarity to the courts on particular or specific sections of this bill, but rather it is an ill attempt to save a poorly written bill that is anticipated to be unconstitutional in part or in whole. Such a provision does not belong in this legislation and does not comport with traditional intended uses for such a doctrine typically preserved and carefully applied by courts (not legislators) in reviewing statutes in question as to unanticipated functionality or constitutionality concerns. The entire bill as written is problematic, and such a clause would not save it. For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues vote yes to the Jackson Lee amendment No. 6 to strike the severability clause of H.R. 140. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate International Women's Day and to recognize that there are many faiths in this Nation, but in some of our faith the Book of Proverbs talks about the virtuous woman. I would like to emphasize that theme in its broadness. The virtuousness of women across the land and around the world is to be able to acknowledge the very unique and specific duties and responsibilities and vulnerabilities that women have and to celebrate them in every aspect of life. Today, in America, women get up and go to work in blue-collar labor jobs for low hourly wages--from waitresses to bus drivers to working in the building trades to being in jobs that barely make ends meet--tough jobs--but giving them a better way of life. They have never refused their assignment. They are the caretakers. They are the loving moms. The little ones grab their legs and look to them for hope and survival. I pay tribute to those women, the everyday women, ordinary women doing extraordinary things. Thank you to America's women. Then I take to this podium to honor those women in conflict, the women protecting their children in Ukraine, fighting in the battles in uniform in the Ukrainian military. I honor those women who fell in battle. I honor those women who fell under the vicious bombing and brutality of Russia's desperate Vladimir Putin in this horrible war with Ukraine. I honor the women in Sudan. I honor the women from Pakistan to India. I honor the women in Syria and Turkiye in the midst of this horrible earthquake. I honor impoverished women, women who are barely surviving on the continent of Africa and South and Central America. I honor the migrant women who are struggling to give their family a better life. It is important that I recognize and honor the civil rights fighters. This weekend, we spent time honoring Bloody Sunday that our late colleague John Lewis reminded us of, the moment of fighting for voting rights. We know that Sister Boynton, Coretta Scott King, so many women--Viola Liuzzo--fought in the civil rights movement nonviolently and are no longer here with us by loss of life from natural causes but others who were simply murdered because they believed in civil rights. I am here to honor those in my own community. It is important to take note of Willie Bell Boone, Beulah Shepard, Etta Crockett, who is fighting for her life, but has been an enormous strength in our community, believing in not only civil rights but the process of voting and empowerment. I honor my grandmother Olive Jackson; my grandmother Vannie Bennett; my big grandmother Mrs. Sims. I honor--called big mother, of course--my mother, Ivalita Jackson; my Aunt Valrie Bennett, and my other close aunts, Sybil Gooden and Sarah Jackson. These women molded me and indicated that in spite of the segregated life you lived in, that all things are possible. It is important today, as we honor the international women suffering, fighting still for their freedom and their dignity, that we honor those who have fallen by way of age or disaster. We honor those in my own community in Houston. I honor my former women mayors, Kathy Whitmire and Annise Parker, in Houston, Texas, and recognize that women are still striving. On this day, I make a pronouncement that I want to take a hammer to the scourge of domestic violence with brutality and guns against women. I want to stop the scourge of human trafficking, where young girls and women are the largest victims. When we come to this podium to talk about International Women's Day, we must come with action and maybe even an iron fist that is, in fact, strong and nonviolent but with a commitment that we will stand for things that will draw us to make life better for these women who are there every single day. I want to make sure that I pay tribute to those who molded me outside of my home. Thank you to the teachers of America, some going unapplauded, some going unappreciated, some going uncompensated. Thank you to America's teachers. I could not be where I was or am today without public school education. Who was in it? It was our teachers. Madam Speaker, I say to you: International Women's Day is a day of honor and a day of action.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the ranking member of the committee and the chairman of the committee, and my colleague from the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Florida, because this is a thoughtful initiative dealing with a question that Congress must confront, and that is the AUMF in its totality. We have had it since 2001, and I believe that is an important discussion. I would like to distinguish, however, what I think is an area that does not warrant the removal of 900 of our troops. It is a tough area. It is an area in Syria where if you talk to Syrian Americans, Mr. Speaker, they want the people of Syria to be protected. In my meetings with the President of Syria so many years ago, I had hoped for a new vision with Syria. I had hoped for an ally with Syrians. Syrian Americans want democracy. In this instance, we are on the border in a very tough location, and I have to look at the humanitarian question. I have to look at the issue of the protection of women and children as well as the Kurds. The Kurds have no one but us, and the opposition has a strong ally as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I recognize the fact that we all want peace, but in this instance--also in the midst of the crisis of the earthquake--we knew the stories and heard the stories that the Syrians in that area were not getting help because of the conflict and fighting. That is tragic that we allow people to be desperate and need humanitarian aid because they cannot get the protection they need. It is important for the stability of that area, for the protection of women and children, and to save lives that at this time we do not withdraw our troops. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose the underlying legislation and to respect the gentleman for the discussion that I think we should have.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor where I am always reminded of the privileges of this Nation. That is why we fight so hard to end voter suppression, oppression, and the denial of the right to vote. This institution is the cradle of democracy. This past weekend we were in Selma, Alabama, where really the first start of democracy and the right to vote was reignited in the 20th century. As Nigeria, our ally and friend, begins to look at its national elections, I call upon the Nigerian diaspora to insist on democratic and safe elections and to be assured that the count is accurate and that the people's voices are counted. As the chair of the Nigerian Caucus in the United States Congress, I must insist that our ally gives the same rights and privileges that we fight for in the United States: the unfettered right to vote and for the vote to count. The fact is that the vote is your birthright and it is your voice. I hope that the Nigerian Government and all of those in the Nigerian diaspora will stand for democracy and the right to an unfettered vote in the Nigerian elections.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, I declared this year the year of the child. In the course of that moment, I have seen the abuse of children around the world. In Ukraine, Russia has stolen 700,000 children, all the way to the United States of America and the State of Texas, where the State education agency is attempting to take over the seventh-largest school district in the Nation, the Houston Independent School District, where the children have been performing at their very best, even in spite of the pandemic. There has been a law that was passed that suggested that if the schools had a number of years of what we call failing grades, then it would immediately throw them into the hands of the State agency that has no capability of running a school system; no capability of dealing with teachers and raising their salaries; no capability of dealing with parents, support staff, and excellent children and their performance. I am asking the U.S. Department of Education and President Biden to step in to protect school districts across America and to keep them from the political football that happens with Republican Governors who are attempting to make an example of these school districts. These children are brilliant. They can learn. They are majority- minority, and they can learn. I believe it is important that school districts be allowed to teach with the teachers' and parents' lead and not to be taken over by a board of managers that answers to no one.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from Illinois for their distinguished leadership of the CBC Special Order and to acknowledge our chairman, Steve Horsford, and the leadership to be able to acknowledge a very important moment. Mr. Speaker, this is a time that draws memories, it draws emotions, and it draws a lot of tears. I am very privileged and honored to have worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as a college student in a program called SCOPE. How fortunate I was in the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King to meet his foot soldiers, which included James Orange, Hosea Williams, Andy Young, Reverend Dr. Ralph Abernathy, and a young man by the name of Jesse Louis Jackson, who we are privileged and honored to be able to not only know but to have his wisdom and his brilliance in leadership even with us today. Amongst those great leaders was a young man as well by the name of John Lewis, who continued, in his admiration for Dr. King, his own journey and fight. He was in the Freedom Riders, beaten at that time, as fellow riders, who did not look like him, were beaten bloody and even lost their life. Many Americans don't recall that history. Some call it the second civil war and the aftermath the second reconstruction. There were many people who were willing to sacrifice their lives because of the right to vote--the right to vote, which was denied. The amazing aspect of their fight was that it was nonviolent. They trained extensively to suffer at lunch counters. They were spit upon, beaten, hit in the head, pulled off the stools. There were multiple movements that could contribute to this question of civil rights and voting rights. Many people were reminded of the ``I Am a Man'' campaign to try to bring dignity to garbage workers and sanitation workers that Dr. King fought for in Memphis, Tennessee, where he saw his untimely and brutal death. This weekend was a commemoration of Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday actually happened on March 7, 1965. Mr. Speaker, we are here on this day, the actual March 7, 1965. It was a group of nonviolent churchgoers, one might say, that walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge to be able to make a move from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery to show the State of Alabama and then-Governor Wallace, a raging segregationist, who later was reformed and reborn--to be able to say that they needed the right to vote or to show our President, our southern President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, that they needed the right to vote. It was that march that was bloody. John Lewis was beaten near death, and others were beaten. Preceding that, Jimmie Lee Jackson was shot dead. A little girl named Sheyann, who was 8 years old, was there this weekend. She was there, as we were all there, in memory of John Lewis, Martin King, Hosea Williams, many other foot soldiers, and the women that were involved as well from Alabama and the surrounding South. We gathered together, Members of Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, Cabinet officers, and the President of the United States, to say that Congress has not done its job. The demise of the Voting Rights Act started with the Shelby case in 2013 in Alabama. It was simply a case of a city council person trying to get and make sure that he had fairness with every person having a right to vote. Unfortunately, the case went up to the United States Supreme Court, and the arguments were shocking to most of us. It was: Why do we need this? We have thousands of African-American elected officials. Yes, they had been gained by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but it was clear that if you are able to get rid of polio because we have the polio vaccine, as one Justice said--as I recall, it was Justice Ginsburg--then why would you get rid of the polio vaccine just because you have been able to get rid of polio because of the vaccine? Why would you get rid of the Voting Rights Act, particularly section 5, just because you have found some progress? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that as we have seen the loss of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, we have not been able to reauthorize a simple bill that was four or five pages long that simply says that you have the right to vote unfettered. It doesn't have color in it. It indicates no person can be discriminated against. Yet, we have seen a mountain of discriminatory laws, voter suppression; purging; gerrymandering; not getting a drink of water; cutting out hours, if you will, with respect to voting, making sure that people who work night shifts can't vote, people who work hourly wages can't vote; no same-day registration. Here we are in 2023. Mr. Speaker, I would offer to say that we are long overdue with the Voting Rights Act. It is really crafted in the Constitution because the 15th Amendment said we have the right to vote unfettered without discrimination; the 14th Amendment, equal protection of the law; and, of course, the 13th Amendment, so personal to many of us of African descent and those who are the descendants of enslaved Africans. It was the 13th Amendment where the United States said for once that slavery was over. Voting rights capture the very essence of who we are as a democracy. To Selma, I thank you for being another cradle of democracy. For those marches of those individuals and children, Mr. Speaker, were utilized--it was a children's march that was utilized in order to ensure that we could vote. As a Member of the United States Congress and the Judiciary Committee, I have been part of a bipartisan reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It was in 2006, and it extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. We passed the P.L. 109-246, H.R. 9. It is well known that large numbers of Members of the House-- bipartisan--voted for the Voting Rights Act, and 98 Members of the Senate. This is the reauthorization. We also renamed it the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization. Ultimately, at a later time, we added the Honorable Barbara Jordan and a number of other Texans who were engaged in voting empowerment, and we did it in a bipartisan manner. It troubles me that we cannot come together and pass a voting rights bill that does nothing but allow Americans to vote. The Shelby case has dismantled the infrastructure of safe voting, constitutional privileges of equal protection of the law, and of course, the fear of voting-- people being arrested just for activating the right to vote, not being cautioned that they may not have had their registration right but put in jail--outright intimidation. It is important for us to be on the floor today to be able to reinforce and to extend a hand of friendship and partnership. Why can't we reauthorize this bill? Why can't the Senate accept the John Robert Lewis Voting Enhancement Act with a new formula dealing with section 4 that deals with the formula under section 5? I am pleading with our colleagues to do so. It is important, as I conclude my remarks, to recognize that voting is unfettered, and it is a choice of the American people. In this democracy--a two-party system most often, though there are other parties--we are either elected or unelected. That is the greatness of America. Over the years, we have accepted the peaceful transfer of power until that day, January 6, 2021. I hope we will never see that day again. That is no excuse for not passing the Voting Rights Act. It is no excuse for not recognizing that the importance of the Voting Rights Act is wrapped up in the history of African Americans, even though voting is for everyone. It is wrapped up in our basic history of not being counted as a whole person in the Constitution. As slaves, we were never able to even muster that sacred right to vote. Landed people voted; unlanded did not. White women didn't have the right to vote, and unlanded people did not have the right to vote, if I might use that term. Over the years, things changed. A brief moment of reconstruction that was just like a blink of an eye--barely even saw it. Then we went into the darkness of Jim Crowism and the viciousness of the Klan, which lasted into the 20th century. I would think with that kind of history, America, which is the greatest country in the world and has overcome so much, would want to be that bright and shining city on the hill, to be able to show the world what democracy really is and what voting really is, that you can oppress people at one point and lift them up at another point. You can oppress the descendants of enslaved Africans. You can oppress slaves. You can do it into the 1800s and into the 1900s. Yet, you can do better. Mr. Speaker, I would also say that we must not be afraid of the kind of words that make us a great country. Let us not be afraid of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness. When has that ever hurt anyone? It only says that all of us, whether you are a person of faith or otherwise--I say all of God's children, but if you are not, it says all Americans, patriots, have every right to be in this country with all the benefits of the Constitution. I do believe in the Declaration of Independence, that we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Let me also say to you, as we look at this idea of voting, African Americans and others, Americans, have fought in every war. We have been in every war from the Revolutionary War. We have shed blood in every single war and conflict alongside our brothers who don't look like us. Mr. Speaker, in my final words, we have not been able to study slavery the way we should have. We did have Juneteenth. I hope that we will have the whole Nation celebrating Juneteenth, a Federal holiday that acknowledges the time of slavery and late time of release out of Texas 2 years later. What we have not done is we have not passed H.R. 40, a simple bill, just a commission to study slavery and develop reparation proposals. What would that be? Just an analysis of the economic, social, psychological, health, and educational impact of slavery in this Nation and why the trajectory shows that the indicia of how African Americans are today in America is related to the connection of slavery. Every discipline will show that our numbers are down. We should not be judged by--wealthy this person and wealthy that person. You need to look at the respective communities, rural and urban, and you will find Black people without healthcare, large numbers; without wealth, large numbers; without psychological, scientific, and sociological analysis. We can do something and bring this country together. Mr. Speaker, I believe that reparations and the legislation of H.R. 40, an executive order that the President could do tomorrow, would be a healing, restoring, and repairing time in our life. Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by citing Harriet Tubman, one of the greatest generals we ever had, who freed many slaves, risked her life to go back to get those who were not free. She was part of the Underground Railroad, and it keeps me going. Just like the words of John Lewis: Never give up, never give in, never give out. In the framework of freeing the slaves, if you hear the dogs, keep on going. If you see the lights, keep on going. If you hear the noise, keep on going. Mr. Speaker, if you want a taste of freedom, we need to keep on going. That is America. I hope tonight that my colleagues and those who are viewing us will keep on going, for freedom is before us, and we need to keep on going. Mr. Speaker, I have said it once and I will continue to say it until it gets done: we have to pass the Voting Rights Act, which corrects the damage done in recent years to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and commits the national government to protecting the right of all Americans to vote free from discrimination and without injustices that previously prevented them from exercising this most fundamental right of citizenship. We cannot have free and fair elections without this essential legislation. In the 58 years since its passage on this day in 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 and administrative policies. Mr. Speaker, for most of the past 56 years, support for the Voting Rights Act and protecting, preserving, and expanding the right to vote of all Americans has been an issue that Americans have supported in overwhelming numbers across the nation. On July 9, 1965, the House passed the Voting Rights Act by a 333-85 vote, with Democrats voting 221-61 and Republicans 112-24. The House later approved the VRA conference report on August 3 by a 328-74 vote (Democrats 217-54, Republicans 111-20). The Senate passed the VRA on August 4 by a 79-18 vote, with Democrats voting 49-17 and Republicans 30-1 and this landmark legislation, P.L. 89-10, was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson as on August 6, 1965. Five years later, on June 22, 1970, the VRA was renewed for five years as Public Law 91-285, passing the House by a vote of 272-132 and the Senate by a vote of 64-12. Five years after that, on June 4, 1975, Congress extended the VRA for seven years, enacting Public Law 94-73, with majorities of 341-70 in the House and 77-12 in the Senate, and on June 29, 1982, a Republican- controlled Senate joined with a Democratic House to pass Public Law 97-205, extending the VRA for 10 years, with the vote in the Senate of 85-8 and the vote in the House of 389-24. Ten years later, the bipartisan Voting Rights Language Assistance Act was passed as Public Law 102-344 on August 26, 1992. And on July 27, 2006, the Voting Rights Act was extended for 25 years when the Congress passed Public Law 109-246 (H.R. 9), the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006. The vote for H.R. 9 was 390-33 in the House and 98-0 in the Senate. Every extension of the Voting Rights Act was signed into law by a Republican President, from Richard Nixon to Gerald Ford to Ronald Reagan to George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush. This chain of bipartisan support for voting rights stood solid and unbreakable until the Supreme Court's horrendous decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). Between 1982 and June 25, 2013, Section 5 of the VRA stopped more than 1,000 discriminatory voting changes in their tracks, including 107 discriminatory changes in Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was a member of this Committee in 2006 when, led by Republican Chairman James Sensenbrenner, it compiled a 15,000 page record documenting the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act, and especially its Section 5 preclearance provisions, and reported favorably H.R. 9, the legislation reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for 25 years, which in turned passed the House by an overwhelming 390- 33 vote and passed the Senate by a unanimous 98-0 vote. I was never prouder to be an American and a Member of Congress than I was the day I attended White House signing ceremony where President George W. Bush signed the bill into law. So, it really should not have been necessary and urgent for us to be here, as the Voting Rights Act was authorized until 2031. 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. The current conservative Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or refuses to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote, free of discriminatory hurdles and obstacles. It was predicted at the time by me and other defenders of the precious right to vote that the Supreme Court's misguided and naive decision would usher in a wave of state and local initiatives intended to suppress and nullify the rights of black Americans, persons of color, young adults, and marginalized communities to exercise the most basic act in the political process: voting. As we have seen in recent elections, this prediction has tragically come to pass. To increase transparency and to ensure there is time for effective remedial action, the Voting Rights Act should be strengthened by adding a new section that requires each State and subdivision to identify all new laws, regulations, or policies that include voting qualifications or prerequisites to voting covered by the Act and ensure that no covered practice is implemented unless it has been precleared. It is useful, Mr. Speaker, to recount how we arrived at this day. The reason it is important to review this history is so that we always remember the true and fundamental purpose of the Voting Rights Act, and that was to protect and empower black Americans, who had for two centuries been exploited, victimized, persecuted, scapegoated, cheated, and treated with both benign and malignant neglect all because they were excluded from participating in the political process and the making of decisions that affected their lives. It is interesting to note the absence of the current frantic efforts to disenfranchise black voters and other person of color had no antecedent in 1994, when unexpectedly Republicans won the House majority for the first time in 40 years and majorities in several state legislatures across the country. Nor did it happen in the after of the 2010 elections when Republicans recaptured the House majority after holding the White House for two consecutive terms. What accounts for the lack of vote suppression action then and the desperate actions we see now? I believe the answer is clear and simple: 29 years ago in 1994, and as recent as 13 years ago in 2010, conservative Republicans still believed they could compete for democratic political power fair and square and that ideas and principles could attract majority support. With the demographic changes and generational replacement taking place in America, the maturation and coming of age of the beneficiaries of the Great Society, and the rise of what social and political scientist call the ``Obama Coalition,'' they no longer believe that. They now hold it as an article of faith that they cannot win if they do not cheat; instead of taking their ideas and arguments to the voters, they have opted to change the rules so they can handpick the voters. They have disenfranchised voters, but voters have continuously overcome those efforts. Black voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin braved a deadly pandemic to exercise their right to vote in an act of political self-defense against the most corrupt, incompetent, indifferent, and racist administration since the end of the Civil War. In so doing, they vindicated and made prophetic the words of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the greatest legislative strategist and tactician of our lifetime, who saw clearly the need and power for good of the Voting Rights Act: ``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.'' Fifty-eight years ago today, in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' ``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to Montgomery. Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to bring it even closer to its founding ideals. The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to vote. On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to Montgomery in support of the right to vote. ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American. No one who witnessed the violence and brutally suffered by the foot soldiers for justice who gathered at the Edmund Pettus Bridge will ever forget it; the images are deeply seared in the American memory and experience. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was critical to preventing brazen voter discrimination violations that historically left millions of African Americans disenfranchised. In 1940, for example, there were less than 30,000 African Americans registered to vote in Texas and only about 3% of African Americans living in the South were registered to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence were the major causes of these racially discriminatory results. After passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, which prohibited these discriminatory practices, registration and electoral participation steadily increased to the point that by 2012, more than 1.2 million African Americans living in Texas were registered to vote. In 1964, the year before the Voting Rights Act became law, of there were approximately 300 African Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, African Americans held elective office anywhere in the South. Because of the Voting Rights Act, in 2007 there were more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 46 members of Congress, the largest number ever. Mr. Speaker, the Voting Rights Act opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Hispanic public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including more than 275 at the state or federal level, 32 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. We must all do our part to preserve this most important legislation because it was earned with the sacrifices and the lives of our ancestors. The right to vote is a ``powerful instrument that can break down the walls of injustice'' and must be protected against attack from all enemies, foreign and domestic, using all the legal tools at our disposal. I look forward to the discussion of these matters with our witnesses.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, for those of us who have had the privilege of serving in the United States Congress for a period of time, going through any number of Speakers and majorities, what we are doing this evening in the midst of the needs of the American people is deja vu. Let me say that the Congressional Review Act process, which we debated just a few hours ago, would have added a 60-day review period on crucial, lifesaving executive orders that would have been necessary or have been necessary to save lives and to improve the quality of life of the American people--in this instance, rulemaking. It is obstructionist. It was passed, the Congressional Review Act-- obstruction--some 60-day review period, adding a Senate vote, a House vote, a veto, and coming back again when American lives are in jeopardy for healthcare, for the environment, for labor laws, any number of things, for criminal justice reform, any number of rules that would create a better pathway for Americans. Now, we come with the REIN IN Act. I am positive that we did the REIN IN Act some years ago. It sounds very familiar. This one deals with allegedly providing some pathway for dealing effectively with inflation. I would hope my colleagues would be as interested in raising the debt ceiling, which will stop the bleeding of the American people and busting their wallets open because we have refused to pay our bills. This seems to ignore the work that President Biden has done to cut everyday costs for working families, bring global supply chains back in, alleviating debt for students and veterans, and fighting climate change. This part of their larger plan to cut Medicare, Social Security, and other crucial programs are in this bill. Eliminating the language that we did with my amendment further helps to ensure that improper and ambiguous congressional interference in executive orders as sought through this legislation is appropriately curtailed. The executive orders that are well vetted by the President of the United States that have helped populations that have been in trouble, that have brought about a reckoning of police reform, these executive orders would not be interfered with under the pretense of trying to suggest an inflationary impact. Why not applaud the work that President Biden has done, as I said, with alleviating the debt of students and veterans, of which there are those now fighting this in the Supreme Court, the work he has done on climate change, and the work we have all done--Democrats and the President--to preserve Medicare, Social Security, and other critical programs? I ask my colleagues to support Jackson Lee amendment No. 6 to stop the interference that has no benefit and impact on any inflationary uptick. What we need to do is work together to provide a budget, to be able to overview the budget, and to be able to come together to raise the debt ceiling to pay America's bills. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support amendment No. 6, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, this is deja vu. I know the intent of this legislation, the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation Act. What I would say is my amendment clearly wants to take away destructive interference in the work that the executive has to do through vetting their executive orders by not insisting on extra baggage that would not in any way provide any relief to inflation. What will provide relief to inflation would be to ensure that the debt of students is reduced, that veterans are protected, that Medicare and Social Security are protected, and that the debt ceiling is raised. My amendment, by eliminating the language, further helps to ensure that improper and ambiguous congressional interference with executive orders, as sought through this legislation, is appropriately curtailed because the more you delay constructive executive orders to help the American people, the more you undermine the relief of the American people and help to bring down inflation. Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 347, the Reduce Exacerbated Inflation Negatively Impacting the Nation or REIN In Act, an unnecessary, ambiguous and improper reporting bill that undermines the important steps President Biden has taken to cut everyday costs for working families. H.R. 347 would require the Administration to publish the inflationary impact of executive orders that are projected to have an annual budgetary effect of at least $1 billion. While I stand in strong opposition to this measure, I have offered five amendments, four of which were made in order, to H.R. 347 in order to help address the some of ambiguity and unnecessary oversight of presidential executive orders this bill unfortunately puts forth. Jackson Lee Amendment #5 restricts the bill to only cover Executive Orders as listed in Sec. 2 (d)(2)(A) (emergency assistance) and (B) (national security or treaties). The Jackson Lee Amendment #5 would change the legislation to make only those executive orders that qualify as emergency assistance and national security or treaties to go through mandatory inflation forecasting, instead of requiring that all executive orders outside of the scope of emergency assistance or national security or treaties go through mandatory inflation forecasts. Jackson Lee Amendment #6 inserts into Sec. 2 (a) line 10 ``or'' after ``inflations'' and Strikes Sec. (a) lines 11-14, to clarify and make consistent with economic policy on inflationary impacts and effects. Jackson Lee Amendment #6 would eliminate some of the ambiguous and extraneous language in this bill. Jackson Lee Amendment #7 adds at the end of section 2(d) the definition to ``significant impact'' in Sec. 2 (a), which states as follows: ``The term ``significant impact on inflation'' means an Executive order was estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a year.'' Jackson Lee Amendment #7 would define significant impact in regard to the increase or decrease of the Consumer Price Index. It is important that Significant Impact to the Consumer Price Index of inflation is specified to eliminate ambiguity in the application of the term ``significant''. In keeping in line with nationally recognized standards for what is deemed to be ``significant'' in the context of inflation, many economists agree that an increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a year is considered to be a significant impact on the Consumer Price Index over a year. Jackson Lee Amendment #8 adds at the end of section 2(d), (4) ``The term ``quantifiable inflationary impact'' means an Executive order was estimated to increase or decrease Consumer Price Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a year.'' The Jackson Lee Amendment #8 would specify the meaning and application of what quantifiable inflationary impact is to eliminate ambiguity and uncertainty in its contextual use for the purpose of this legislation. And so again, keeping in line with nationally recognized standards, many economists agree that a ``quantifiable inflationary impact'' is deemed to occur when there is an increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index inflation by at least 1% percentage point over the course of a year. While H.R. 347 is a clear overreach and would impose improper and onerous restrictions upon the Executive Branch, the Jackson Lee Amendments will be offered to this body as mere attempted to help ensure that the inappropriate limitations as proscribed by this legislation are curtailed in its effort to limit the authority of the Executive orders. The ability of the Executive Branch to carry out its Executive Orders without improper or overbearing congressional restrictions on such actions is of utmost importance to our Democracy and the continued growth and betterment of our country. And while executive orders are not expressly addressed in the U.S. Constitution and no statute grants the President the general power to issue them, executive orders have always been accepted as an inherent and necessary aspect of presidential power and function of our government since its inception. The legislation, however, oversteps the boundaries of our nation's governmental functions by attempting to override critically important and vital actions our democracy needs and has historically accepted as an inherent facet of separate functioning branches of our government. Imposing such broad and ambiguous oversight of executive orders as proposed by H.R. 347 would only serve as an unnecessary and improper restriction on the powers of the Presidential executive orders, while also perpetuating a waste of government resources and further hindering American economic growth. As such, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this onerous and unnecessary bill. Madam Chair, I ask for support of the Jackson Lee amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 30, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against this measure. H.J. Res. 30 would nullify a Department of Labor rule concerning the fiduciary duties with respect to employee benefit plans. Under the rule issued on December 1, 2022, plan fiduciaries may consider climate change and other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when they make investment decisions and when they exercise shareholder rights, including voting on shareholder resolutions and board nominations. One of my greatest joys as a Member of Congress is the opportunity to work on behalf of the people of the United States of America, to ensure that every voice is heard, and every right is upheld. In addition, the future of the American People relies heavily on thoughtful investments in key areas that include ESG as this is the backbone of our environment and the state of livelihoods of our growing communities. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, fiduciaries of private pension plans must act in the interest of plan participants, including when making investment decisions. If participants want to invest their employee benefits into environmental, social, and governance factors, the government should not be against it just because it goes against a particular party's interests. The rule ``Financial Factors in Selecting Plan Investments,'' issued on November 13, 2020, required fiduciaries to make investment decisions based solely on ``pecuniary factors.'' That rule included a ``tiebreaker'' standard, under which fiduciaries could consider other benefits when ``alternative investment options are economically indistinguishable.'' The 2022 rule clarified how plan fiduciaries may consider climate change and other environmental, social, or governance (commonly referred to as ESG) factors when making investment decisions. Under the new regulation, fiduciaries may consider ``the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors,'' but investment decisions ``may not subordinate the interests of the participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income or financial benefits under the plan to other objectives and may not sacrifice investment return or take on additional investment risk.'' This bill establishes the disapproval of the final rule ``Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.'' The world is seeing more climate related disasters than ever before. These disasters are greatly impacting the way that the public prepares their finances for potential strains. In 2017 Hurricane Harvey ravaged many communities in my home state and devastated the livelihoods of many working-class Americans. Many of my constituents experienced economic hardships that are still being felt today. With an increase in natural disasters, we must protect the American public and provide them with opportunities to invest in their needs. This point serves to acknowledge the importance we must put into our people and communities as things change and we continue to progress into the future. Strategic and thoughtful investments in our people, environments, and livelihoods should be of utmost importance. In essence, our future is dependent on how we invest in the now. The American people want a future, and we can provide that by thoughtfully planning through our strategic investments in the American people of all backgrounds and the diverse environments in which we aim to thrive in for decades to come.