Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for this institution that I have had the privilege of serving. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am very grateful for the extent of our jurisdiction that embraces the Constitution, and I believe justice is important. Mr. Speaker, I rise in great consternation, concern, and condemnation of the statement made by the Republican leadership that the Benghazi Committee is not for factfinding, it is not for recognizing the tragic loss of four Americans, but it is really to insult and degrade a public servant who happens to be a Presidential candidate. How tragic that we would engage in such tomfoolery. In spite of the Constitution and the Madison Papers, it talks about doing justice. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was engaged in impeachment proceedings, the investigation of Waco, investigation of antitrust issues, held a trial for a judge who acted improperly, a Federal judge. That is the factfinding role of this Nation. While we are fooling around with a committee that is there to do nothing but deal with political aggrandizing and we have not passed a Zadroga Act that helps our 9/11 first responders, I would only ask that we stop and end this committee because it is not doing justice as the United States calls us to do. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution gives us our guideposts. Why don't we follow it?

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her kindness. As well, let me thank the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, because we know the work that they have done. Mr. Speaker, let me just simply say that I am very disappointed that we are now settling for a CR that continues to have a sequester that cuts across and denies Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection, Secret Service, and leaves the American people vulnerable. So, the first order of business is that we are not doing what we are supposed to do in providing for the American people. Now we move to another unseemly legislative initiative that is attacking women's health. And what does that mean? We use it under the guise of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has any number of clinics in almost 50 States that deal with women's health, contraception, sexually transmitted disease; places where women who are impoverished can go when they cannot go anywhere else. In a hearing yesterday, someone was debating why they don't do mammograms. Women know that when we go to any doctor, the doctor refers mammograms. So this is a bad bill. It is against women's health. The sequester is bad. Vote down both bills. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 79. We are here again wasting valuable time on measures we know are having no real chance of survival beyond these debates. I strongly oppose this continued effort to drag women's health issues and women's rights through this political circus. At what point will the Majority step back and get regal about substantive and genuine legislation. The amount of legislative time we have wasted on these offensive messaging bills is ridiculous and must end. Our constituents deserve better. Our legislative and public service roles demand more. And as we approach yet another deadline for piecemeal fiscal fixes, we should be focused on passing a comprehensive and cost-savings budget. Yet, we are here today debating another measure that threatens millions of Americans' access to preventative care and could end up costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. However, we know H. Con. Res. 79 is not a serious attempt at passing real legislation. As such, it is simply being offered here today as a shameless political decoy to attack the legal rights of women. Politicians are continuing to try to sneak around the Constitution and four decades of Supreme Court precedent with sham laws that do nothing to improve women's health care and only make it more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain safe and legal abortion. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Any woman facing an unintended pregnancy needs to be able to make her own decisions and weigh all her options--and these laws take those options away. Texas has 268,580 square miles only second in size to the state of Alaska. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in deceptive terms and concern for women's health and safety. And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of women--but we know that's not really the case. If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are proposing yet another attempt to ban abortion. That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics. We must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues and fundamental constitutional rights. Undisputable, every woman has the constitutional right to make personal health care decisions so basic that it must be equally protected for all. Restricting access to women's reproductive health care providers makes it increasingly difficult--and sometimes impossible--for women who have decided to end a pregnancy to get the safe, legal, high- quality care they need. The result is not the elimination of abortions, but higher costs, longer delays, and extra steps for women seeking abortion care, and in the process punish women for their decision to exercise their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. History tells us that unsafe and late-term abortions did not cease to exist without adequate access to clinical service. Rather, the exact opposite--as we know limited and restricted access only leads to unsafe and dangerous practices. Today, countless women in states like Texas and Mississippi, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana--where state laws are already gravely impacting women's access to health care providers-- women are being forced to travel upwards of hundreds of miles or cross state lines to access their constitutional right to an abortion. These restrictions create sharp disparities in access to care that are troublingly reminiscent of the time before Roe v. Wade, when access depended on a woman's social status, where she lived or her ability to travel to another state. In an effort to undermine what they could not otherwise overturn, politicians are attempting to ``turn back the clock'' to the pre-Roe era by shuttering reproductive health care clinics and cutting off women's access to safe and legal abortion care. Yet, far too many women who cannot afford to travel elsewhere will face an impossible choice between carrying an unintended pregnancy to term or seeking drastic options outside the law. A right that only exists on paper is no right at all. Simply, restricting a women's right and access to legal abortion services discriminately endangers the lives of women. Congress should be doing everything it can to ensure that women have access to preventive care, not eliminating it. This is a legislative assault on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this country. Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation. For instance, the nearly 60,000 OB-GYN physicians and partners in women's health warn that this bill would scare providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate care to women, in a time where America desperately needs more ob-gyns participating in Medicaid programs. Physicians and experts in the field have long argued that these damaging measures serve no medical purpose, interfere in the doctor/ patient relationship, and do nothing to promote women's health. My colleagues should not be closing the door to health care services. Rather, my colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, and not restricting their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health services. I urge all Members to vote against the continued attack on women's health and rights.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a responsible Member of Congress concerned for the American people, today I voted for a continuing resolution that will take us to December 11, but that is not the responsible way to handle the business of this Nation. It is time now for this Congress to put aside partisanship and to begin to have the Republican leadership and Republicans to sit down with members of the Democratic Caucus and talk about a real funding bill. Yes, we have kept the doors open and provided for our employees, but we have undermined defense and the preparedness of our men and women. We have cut $1.7 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program, and we are barely hanging on for other necessary items. Yes, we have allowed for wildfire funding and disaster funding. Other items dealing with law enforcement and provisions for transportation and the environment are all cut by something called the sequester. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and we need to get busy starting next week and put forward an appropriations process that funds this government, responds to those who are in need, prepares our young men and women in the military, and as well restores that children's health insurance money. Shame on us. We need to do it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her leadership, and I thank the gentleman, Mr. Pitts, because in actuality this is not a debate on people's conscience and what you believe in. It is a debate and a question of the law. First of all, the underlying legislation that we have before us is likely to be ruled unconstitutional, and it is likely to be so because it meets the very four corners of why the Supreme Court ruled the Texas law to be unconstitutional, and I venture to say that this bill was a copy of the Texas law. In 2014 and 2015, the Texas legislators tried to stop reproductive healthcare clinics by requiring them to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements, leaving only seven clinics to provide health care, the same thing where they threatened the same kind of thing which would only leave 10 healthcare providers. Guess what, Madam Speaker; in 2014 and 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it unconstitutional and stopped the legislature in their tracks. That is what is going to happen to this legislation as well. Let me be very clear: Planned Parenthood does not engage in selling body parts. Yes, as under the law, they do deal with fetal tissue research, which has saved millions of lives. Under the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce. They do not do this. The reason I know that is there has been no Department of Justice investigation, no Health and Human Services investigation, and, in actuality, Mr. Daleiden, who is not the FBI and not the Department of Justice, has, in fact, engaged in a deleterious, dastardly, and deceitful investigation, even stealing--stealing--the ID of one of his fellow high school students. So I am against this bill, and I am against it for the good things that Planned Parenthood does. For example, in my State, there are 38 clinics; 150,000 young women are being served, 108,000 on contraceptives, and others are STI. Let me finish, Madam Speaker, by saying mammograms are not done in your doctor's office. You get a referral, and you go to a place where you can get a mammogram with a radiologist. If we would only discuss facts, we would know that the underlying bill should be opposed. I oppose it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Rule and the underlying bill. I strongly oppose this latest attempt by the Republican House majority to undermine women's rights. Despite its title, the Women's Public Health and Safety Act,'' H.R. 3495 is nothing more than the latest string of attacks on women's health. Instead of wasting time fueling politically-charged attacks on health care services for women, and attempting to roll back women's constitutionally protected rights, this House should be advancing legislation that will reform our broken immigration and criminal justice systems. And as we approach yet another deadline for piecemeal fiscal fixes, we should be focused on passing a comprehensive and cost-savings budget. Yet, we are here today debating a bill that threatens millions of American's access to preventative care and could end up costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars if enacted. However, we know this bill will not become law given the President's clear Statement of Administrative Policy issued yesterday to veto this measure. As such, HR 3495 is simply being offered here today as a shameless political decoy to attack the legal rights of women. If enacted, H.R. 3495 would give states unchecked power to exclude women's health care providers from participating in Medicaid. Hampering women's health and safety, this bill would enable states that are hostile to women's right to abortion, and to Planned Parenthood, to freely target women's health care providers for exclusion from Medicaid. The United States Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), that a woman's constitutional right to privacy includes her right to abortion. Since this landmark decision, abortion rates and risks have substantially declined, as have the number of teen and unwanted pregnancies. However, politicians continue to try to sneak around the Constitution and four decades of Supreme Court precedent with sham laws that do nothing to improve women's health care and only make it more difficult, if not impossible, to obtain safe and legal abortion. Restricting all access to reproductive and women's health services only exacerbates a woman's risk of an unintended pregnancy and fails to accomplish any meaningful overthrow of Roe v. Wade. In recent years, state policymakers have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion care under the guise of protecting women's health and safety. Fights here in Congress have been no different. In my state of Texas a law that would have cut off access to 75 percent of reproductive healthcare clinics in the state was challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2014 and 2015. On October 2, 2014, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that required that all reproductive healthcare clinics that provided the full range of services would be required to have a hospital-style surgery center building and staffing requirements. This requirement meant that only 7 clinics would be allowed to continue to provide a full spectrum of reproductive healthcare to women. Any woman facing an unintended pregnancy needs to be able to make her own decisions and weigh all her options--and these laws take those options away. Texas has 268,580 square miles, only second in size to the state of Alaska. The impact of the law in implementation would have ended access to reproductive services for millions of women in my state. In 2015, the State of Texas once again threatened women's access to reproductive health care when it attempted to shutter all but 10 healthcare providers in the state of Texas. The Supreme Court once again intervened on the behalf of Texas women to block the move to close clinics in my state. It seems every month we are faced with a new attack on women's access to reproductive health care, often couched in deceptive terms and concern for women's health and safety. And in fact we are here today supposedly to talk about the safety of women--But we know that's not really the case. If my colleagues were so concerned about women's health and safety, they would be promoting any one of the number of evidence-based proactive policies that improve women's health and well-being. Instead, they are proposing yet another attempt to ban abortion. That is their number one priority. This is certainly not about protecting women's health, it's about politics. We must separate the personal views of abortion from the legal issues and fundamental constitutional rights. Undisputable, every woman has the constitutional right to make personal health care decisions so basic that it must be equally protected for all. Yet, this bill provides an outright pathway to discriminate against poor and minority women. H.R. 3495 would give states broad discretion to exclude any person, institution, agency or entity that ``performs or participates in the performance of abortions'' from participating in Medicaid. According to policy experts and advocates, such as the ACLU and National Partnership for Women and Families, this extreme measure would mean that not only would all such women's health care providers be cut out of Medicaid, but states could also attempt to use it to eliminate a wide range of other health care providers, with serious and devastating consequences for low-income patients. Restricting access to women's reproductive health care providers makes it increasingly difficult--and sometimes impossible--for women who have decided to end a pregnancy to get the safe, legal, high- quality care they need. The result is not the elimination of abortions, but higher costs, longer delays, and extra steps for women seeking abortion care, and in the process punish women for their decision to exercise their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. History tells us that unsafe and late-term abortions did not cease to exist without adequate access to clinical service. Rather, the exact opposite--as we know limited and restricted access only leads to unsafe and dangerous practices. Today, countless women in states like Texas and Mississippi, Wisconsin, Alabama, Tennessee, and Louisiana--where state laws are already gravely impacting women's access to health care providers-- women are being forced to travel upwards of hundreds of miles or cross state lines to access their constitutional right to an abortion. These restrictions create sharp disparities in access to care that are troublingly reminiscent of the time before Roe v. Wade, when access depended on a woman's social status, where she lived or her ability to travel to another state. In an effort to undermine what they could not otherwise overturn, politicians are attempting to ``turn back the clock'' to the pre-Roe era by shuttering reproductive health care clinics and cutting off women's access to safe and legal abortion care. Yet, far too many women who cannot afford to travel elsewhere will face an impossible choice between carrying an unintended pregnancy to term or seeking drastic options outside the law. A right that only exists on paper is no right at all. Simply, restricting a women's right and access to legal abortion services discriminately endangers the lives of women. Congress should be doing everything it can to ensure that women have access to preventive care, not eliminating it. This is a legislative assault on all progressive health care, service, and advocacy organizations who aim to provide vital care and services to women and men across this country. Hundreds of thousands have already spoken up, including leading groups and communities such as the growing voice of our millennial generation. For instance, the nearly 60,000 OB-GYN physicians and partners in women's health warn that this bill would scare providers away from providing comprehensive, compassionate care to women, in a time where America desperately needs more ob-gyns participating in Medicaid programs. Physicians and experts in the field have long argued that these damaging measures serve no medical purpose, interfere in the doctor/ patient relationship, and do nothing to promote women's health. My colleagues should not be closing the door to health care services. Rather, my colleagues should be doing more to connect our youth and women to services that help them reduce their risk of unintended pregnancies and STD's, and improve their overall health through preventative screenings, education and planning, and not restricting their access to lawfully entitled family planning and private health services.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as our eyes turn toward New York both in terms of the Pope's visit last week and his call for us to address the mandatory needs of refugees around the world, in the last 24 hours, we heard from the President of Russia, Mr. Putin, and our President on Syria. I think it is important for this Congress to begin to look again at a man by the name of Assad, who is not only poisoning his own people, but bombing hospitals and ambulances and creating a situation of devastation. I think the President is correct that Assad must go, and there must be a reconciliation as to how that proceeds. To Mr. Putin, who has a stake in this area, through Syria, you have to come with the world family and begin to think of those who are suffering. We can work together, but Assad cannot stay. We must find a way for the good people of Syria to be able to return in peace and justice and equality. The United Nations must take a stand. We must come together in this Congress, working with the President and working with world leaders to restore tranquility and peace to this region with Assad gone and certainly ISIL done away with, if you will, to provide stability in the area.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for his very thoughtful statement and for leading us off today and setting the tone for the Congressional Black Caucus that we will never forget our icons, but we also know that to pay tribute is the highest honor for all of us because we are here because of all of them. I thank Mr. Butterfield for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield to Representative Charles Rangel, who does not need a long introduction. It is important to note that he has led on so many issues. He was not only the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but also a dear friend of Congressman Lou Stokes and one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus. If Congressman Rangel had not done what he did, we would not be here today. I am delighted to yield to him at this time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I am very privileged tonight to lead the Special Order of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Let me thank our chairman, Chairman G.K. Butterfield, for continuing this tradition and for his continued leadership, encouragement, and avocation for Members and for the stories of those who have been such leaders in our Nation and such major issues that we have been able to contribute to for the understanding of our colleagues. Let me also make mention of my colleagues, Congresswoman Kelly and Congressman Payne, who have led us on this Special Order for the Congressional Black Caucus. I thank them for their leadership and service. A very special thanks to those of you who are watching at home and have often watched at home and have followed the Congressional Black Caucus through social media, social network, and also know that our major issues of criminal justice reform, civil rights, the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, and many others have been to speak to the vulnerable. Tonight we again speak to you, but we speak of those heroes that we have lost over the last couple of months. Tonight we pay tribute to Amelia Boynton Robinson, Congressman Lou Stokes, and, of course, Julian Bond. Our Nation was built on the values of dealing with the issues of freedom, justice and equality, values and principles that were perfectly embodied by the service and sacrifices of these three leaders. Mr. Speaker, over the last week we have watched the Pope make his way through a number of American cities and use words that are music to the ears of Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Let me take just one of many citations that I will utilize to characterize these three individuals: ``The complexities of history,'' said Pope Francis, ``and the reality of human weakness notwithstanding, these men and women, for all their many differences and limitations, were able, by hard work and self- sacrifice, some at the cost of their lives, to build a better future.'' I would offer to say that Amelia Boynton Robinson, Congressman Lou Stokes, and Julian Bond, through the sacrifice of their individual families and their lives, were able to make a better future for us. We know the civil rights activist Amelia Boynton Robinson, 1965, was a leader of the Bloody Sunday march and personified the optimism, determination, and courage that are at the heart of the American spirit. She truly made our lives better. Known as the matriarch of our Nation's civil rights movement, Ms. Boynton Robinson fought courageously to ensure that every American citizen had the right to vote. Her drive to secure universal voting rights was amazing, and certainly she risked her life when she crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. In her words, her son said civil rights was her entire life. We now understand that Congressman Lou Stokes made an amazing and impactful statement legislatively and throughout his life. He was a consummate public servant, a trailblazer who broke down barriers for generations of African Americans. He was the first African American Congressman from Ohio who served 30 years. Representing a portion of Cleveland, he prioritized the advancement of our Nation's most vulnerable populations. He advocated for more funding of education, housing, development projects, access to health care. He was one of the fiercest advocates for public housing. Mr. Stokes was a major proponent and leader that asked the Housing and Urban Development to assess the poor, deleterious, horrible conditions that children were living in as housing impacted their health. In fact, just recently I presented my housing authority a lead poisoning grant which was instigated, was encouraged, was advocated for by Congressman Lou Stokes. He has saved thousands upon thousands of lives. I thank him for organizing the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, and I want to thank him personally for allowing me work for him as a staff member of the Select Committee on Assassinations, which he ultimately chaired. We thank him for his amazing service. He once said, ``I am going to keep on denouncing the inequities of this system, but I am going to work within it. To go outside the system would be to deny myself, to deny my own existence. I have beaten the system. I have proved it can be done. So have a lot of others.'' This is, of course, the kind of leader that Lou Stokes was. Our friend, Julian Bond, was a civil rights icon. He was a leader in the fight for equality, freedom, and equal justice and opportunity. He inspired generations of Americans to build a better future for all people. Julian Bond was considered the young one in the movement with Dr. Martin Luther King. He stood as not only an original, but a fierce advocate of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the founding president of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Elected to office, of course, he himself fought against discrimination. He was discriminated himself. When he was refused a seat in the Georgia State Legislature, it did not in any way demean or undermine his courage or inspiration. He went on to be seated and to do great things. Tonight we are privileged to be able to honor and pay tribute to these three heroes. We are called to follow the example they set, to fight to ensure that all Americans have access to equal opportunity so they will have a fair shot at economic prosperity, have the right to vote, be free from mass incarceration, and do the things that America bestows upon them. Again, these individuals, at the cost of their lives or their own futures, built a better future for us. With that, I am delighted to yield to the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. G.K. Butterfield, a former high superior court judge--I am calling him all kinds of names--but, in any event, a dynamic leader of the Congressional Black Caucus. Again, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we are so grateful for the special wisdom and insight that Mr. Rangel brings to all of what we do. I know that the late Lou Stokes, the late Amelia Boynton Robinson, and the late Julian Bond are grateful that they knew him and that he is here to tell his story. Even if he considers it embarrassing, I think it is a wonderful testimony for anybody who has said, ``I can't do it.'' We want him to keep telling us that wonderful statement over and over again. I thank him so very much for what he provides to the Congressional Black Caucus. I thank him for the kind words he mentioned of Representative Terri Sewell. I just say to Ms. Sewell, I don't know what kind of phone message that she had to the Vatican, but I repeat now the words of Pope Francis, as I yield to her. This is Pope Francis, as he spoke just a few days ago at that very podium: Here, too, I think of the march which Martin Luther King led from Selma to Montgomery 50 years ago as part of the campaign to fulfill his dream of full civil rights and political rights for African Americans. Representative Sewell, let me thank you for bringing and infusing life into the wonderful city of Selma, all the wonderful people there, including your dearly beloved mother and father, and having us walk with you every step of the way. As I yield to her, let me say that we should make a commitment right here today, as we make changes in leadership, that we commit ourselves to the restoration of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which she is leading on. It is my delight to yield to her at this time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think we can leave this evening with the words that Congresswoman Sewell has just said, and we thank her so very much, ``do our own work.'' That message should carry for whether we are Republicans or Democrats or Independents. Congresswoman Sewell, we look forward to doing our own work on the restoration of the Voting Rights Act, section 5, which you are leading and all of us have signed onto. We thank you so much for that eloquent statement and that statement of passion. Speaking of passion, it is my privilege to introduce a Member who has her own storied civil rights history, someone who has served as the Commissioner on the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and someone who has been in the trenches in civil rights, dealing with voting rights cases, dealing with the right to vote in her own District of Columbia. I think she will be the Florence Nightingale, she will be the champion battler; because I believe that this Delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, will be successful as we fight for the voting rights of the District through her leadership. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Congresswoman Plaskett, thank you so very much for laying the groundwork for those who now step into those footsteps, and you have done so with such leadership and certainly such passion. Thank you so very much. Mr. Speaker, what is my time remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my good friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for giving these three legends the vitality and vibrance of a personal story. And to just add to his coming to students at Howard University, I want you to know that, at the University of Virginia, where he was, he was the most popular professor with people standing in line because the students sensed his passion and commitment, but they sensed his realness. Thank you so very much for that very vibrant and informative presentation. Mr. Speaker, as I introduce this next gentleman, who has his own history, let me quote, again, as I indicated, Pope Francis from last week, which captures all of what we are saying tonight: to respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays to disregard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The gentleman that I am going to yield to, Mr. Bobby Scott, is a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, now the ranking member on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and has led his professional, at least his Congressional life, as I have known it, to be a champion for criminal justice reform, but, more importantly, has been one who has said to us over and over again that: We must do unto others as we would like them to do unto us. We must change this criminal justice system to have it be a fair monitoring of how we inspire and restore people's lives. I yield now to the gentleman from Virginia, Congressman Bobby Scott.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for citing, in particular, the case law that Julian Bond particularly generated from the horrific denial of his right to be seated. Let me also indicate the importance of members of the Congressional Black Caucus sharing the history of these icons, which I hope my colleagues will appreciate these giants, for many times the history is not remembered or it is not understood. Certainly, it is my privilege to now yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio, who has firsthand knowledge because she can say that she comes from the State of which Lou Stokes and Carl Stokes were native sons. She is, of course, an inspirational leader for her district in Columbus, but, more importantly, someone who brings a wealth of experience from her previous service in the Ohio State Legislature and someone who has a passion for the improvement of lives of all people. I believe, as Lou Stokes has said, she understands the value and importance of improving the health of African Americans and all Americans. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield to the gentlewoman from Columbus, Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Congresswoman Beatty, thank you for letting us know whose footsteps we walk in and for that celebratory statement. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), who has come with the expertise of a renowned and trained lawyer, one who is a collaborator.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me conclude by thanking the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and my colleagues. It is so important for the Congressional Black Caucus to be able to talk to America-- Representative Butterfield, Representative Rangel, Representative Sewell, Delegate Holmes Norton, Representative Bobby Scott, Representative Joyce Beatty, and, of course, Congresswoman Plaskett--to be able to give life to why we are here representing all of America. We have those special people that, without our voices, would not be able to be heard. I simply want to add these words of the Pope, again, to be able to remind everyone why these icons that we are speaking of tonight in the Congressional Black Caucus--46 of us, along with Senator Booker--have a vital role in this place. As the Pope indicated, I would encourage you to keep in mind all those people around us who are trapped in the cycle of poverty. They, too, need to be given hope. The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly on many fronts, especially in its causes. I know that Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem. That is the essence of Julian Bond, who never stopped giving; that is the essence of Amelia Boynton Robinson, who continued to fight for civil rights up until her death at the age of 104 on August 6, 2015; that is the essence of Congressman Lou Stokes, a legislative giant, the chairman of an appropriations subcommittee, a person who went to public housing and places where children were and told America that your children are dying because they are living in substandard housing, lead poisoning was killing them, which gave me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, to give a grant to my public housing just this past week on helping with lead poisoning. I worked for Lou Stokes, and I am very glad to note that, working for him, I can say, truly a gentleman, truly a leader. To this Congress, I beg of you, let us look at these icons and celebrate not only their lives, but commit to the passion and justice of their lives, and, as well, the words of Pope Francis that tell us to do unto others as we would like them to do unto us. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to again thank the members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in praise of Louis Stokes, one of the greatest and most respected Members ever to serve in this body, who died on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at his home near Cleveland, Ohio at the age of 90. It is not unusual in these days for commentators and politicians to talk of something called ``American Exceptionalism.'' But what is meant by the term? Mr. Speaker, one way to understand the term: America is exceptional because it produces and finds persons like Louis Stokes and affords them the opportunity to utilize their talents to the fullest in the service of their community and their country. Think about it: in what other nation does a little African American boy born in 1925 on the east side of Cleveland and raised in the Outhwaite Homes housing project by a mother who worked as a domestic go on to become a lawyer who argues and wins a landmark criminal justice reform case (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)) in the United States Supreme Court; become the first African American elected to Congress; is selected to chair the powerful Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Select Committee on Assassinations, and an Appropriations Subcommittee responsible for more than $90 billion annually in federal outlays? Yes, America is an exceptional nation and Louis Stokes was an exceptional human being. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes was born on February 23, 1925, in Cleveland, Ohio, to Charles and Louise Cinthy (nee Stone) Stokes. When he was three years old, his father, who worked in a laundromat, died leaving young Louis and his younger brother, Carl, to be raised by their mother, who worked as a domestic for affluent families in the wealthy Cleveland suburbs. Louis Stokes' maternal grandmother played a critical role in his life because she took care of the Stokes boys while their mother was at work and instilled in them ``the idea that work with your hands is the hard way of doing things'' and encouraged them over and over ``to learn to use their heads.'' Louis Stokes took the advice to heart so after attending Cleveland's Central High School and serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, he returned home to attend what is now Case Western Reserve University on the G.I. Bill at night while working during the day for the Veterans Administration and the Department of the Treasury. After graduating from college in two years where he excelled as a student, Louis Stokes was accepted for admission to Cleveland Marshall School of Law, from which he graduated in 1953; three years later, his brother Carl would also graduate from Cleveland Marshall School of Law and the two of them would go on to form the law firm of Stokes & Stokes specializing in the areas of civil rights and criminal law. In 1964, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), which established the principle of ``one person, one vote'' governing the reapportionment of legislative boundaries. The following year, working on behalf of the local branch of the NAACP, Louis Stokes led the legal challenge to the Ohio legislature's congressional redistricting, which had the effect of diluting African American voting strength in Cleveland. The challenge was unsuccessful in the federal district court but undeterred, Louis Stokes, joined by Charles Lucas, an African American Republican, successfully appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in an order handed down in 1967 ruled the redistricting plan unconstitutional and ordered it redrawn, resulting in the creation of Ohio's first majority-black district, the 21st Congressional District of Ohio. Ironically, Louis Stokes would defeat his one-time ally Charles Lucas to win that seat in November 1968, capturing 75% of the vote, the closest of his 15 successful elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. For the next 30 years, from 1969 to 1999, Congressman Stokes tirelessly fought for his constituents in Cleveland and for the best interests of the people of Ohio and the United States. Louis Stokes, a founding member and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus from 1972-74, was the epitome of a public servant. In his second term in Congress, he won appointment to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, where he served for 28 years, later becoming the second African American ``Cardinal'' in history when he was selected to chair the VA, HUD, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. Because of the esteem in which he was held by his colleagues and the leadership, Louis Stokes would also later be selected to Chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee charged with investigating the assassinations of President Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As Chairman of the House Ethics Committee and a person of unquestioned integrity, Louis Stokes oversaw the committee's investigation of the corruption scandal known as ABSCAM in 1979-80, which eventually led to convictions of a senator and six House members. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes perhaps is best known for the national attention he attracted in 1987 as a member of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran/(``Iran- Contra''), the scandal involving the illegal sale of military weapons to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran to generate money to fund the illegal contra war in Nicaragua. In response to the claim by Colonel Oliver North that he acted out of patriotism in engineering the illegal weapons sales and diverting the proceeds to fund the contras, a stern Louis Stokes lectured the misguided Colonel North on the rule of law, the true meaning of patriotism, and, in the process American exceptionalism: ``I suppose that what has been most disturbing to me about your testimony is the ugly part. In fact, it has been more than ugly. It has been chilling, and, in fact, frightening. I'm not just talking about your part in this, but the entire scenario, about government officials who plotted and conspired, who set up a straw man, a fall guy. Officials who lied, misrepresented and deceived. Officials who planned to superimpose upon our government a layer outside of our government, shrouded in secrecy and only accountable to the conspirators. ``Colonel, as I sit here this morning looking at you in your uniform, I cannot help but remember that I wore the uniform of this country in World War II in a segregated Army. I wore it as proudly as you do, even though our government required black and white soldiers in the same Army to live, sleep, eat and travel separate and apart, while fighting and dying for our country. But because of the rule of law, today's servicemen in America suffer no such indignity. ``My mother, a widow, raised two boys. She had an eighth-grade education. She was a domestic worker who scrubbed floors. One son became the first black mayor of a major American city. The other sits today as chairman of a House intelligence committee. Only in America, Col. North. Only in America. And while I admire your love for America, I hope that you will never forget that others too love America just as much as you do and that others will die for America, just as quick as you will.'' Louis Stokes never wavered in his belief that America could fulfill the promise of its Founders or his dedication to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, stating: ``I'm going to keep on denouncing the inequities of this system, but I'm going to work within it. To go outside the system would be to deny myself--to deny my own existence. I've beaten the system. I've proved it can be done--so have a lot of others. ``But the problem is that a black man has to be extra special to win in this system. Why should you have to be a super black to get someplace? That's what's wrong in the society. The ordinary black man doesn't have the same chance as the ordinary white man does.'' Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes' commitment to fairness and equal treatment started long before he was elected to Congress. As a lawyer for the NAACP, he brought anti-discrimination lawsuits, represented demonstrators arrested in antidiscrimination marches and sit-ins, and took the cases of poor persons charged with crimes. One of those criminal cases he took is known to every lawyer in America and appreciated by every person who cherishes the protections guaranteed by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I am speaking of the famous case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) won by Louis Stokes in which the Supreme Court held that a police officer could ``stop and frisk'' an individual only where he could articulate a reasonable basis that the person was, or was about to be, engaged in criminal activity. As a result of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer has the right to stop, frisk, and question an individual he reasonably suspects to be engaged in criminal activity, but cannot seize items from that person if the pat down of the suspect's outer clothing does not reveal any weapons posing a threat to the officer's safety. Because of Louis Stokes' exceptional advocacy in Terry v. Ohio, the right of every individual to secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was preserved while at the same not impeding the ability of law enforcement officers to perform their duties safely. Mr. Speaker, every citizen benefits from this ruling and communities that have a history of being harassed by law enforcement protected by the Constitution from arbitrary and abusive treatment by law enforcement. But the fight for a criminal justice system that respects the rights of all persons is not over. That is why I am proud to be the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations and a leader in the effort to reform the criminal justice system so that all persons receive fair and equal treatment regardless of their race, gender, religion, or national origin. Louis Stokes fought tirelessly to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment that ``no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'' It is a fight I am proud to continue today. Mr. Speaker, Louis Stokes will be mourned by friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle who had the privilege to serve alongside him. He was a mentor to me and I will always remember his commanding presence and cherish the assistance he provided me and the example he set for new Members to follow. My thoughts and prayers are with his Jay, Louis' beloved wife of 55 years; to his children, Shelly, Louis, Angela, and Lorene; his grandchildren; and the untold thousands of persons who touched and whose lives were touched by one of Cleveland's greatest sons. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Louis Stokes, an exceptional American, and the gentleman from Ohio who served in this chamber for three decades with honor, integrity, and distinction. [From cleveland.com] Lou Stokes Put Health Impacts of Substandard Housing on the National Agenda, and in Cleveland: Terry Allan, Dorr Dearborn and Dave Jacobs (Opinion) In this file photo from 2012, Timothy Benner, then 8, looks outside from his Maurice Avenuue home in Cleveland. After Timothy and some of his siblings tested positive for lead poisoning, traced to the soil around their home, their mother restricted their outdoor play time. U.S. Rep. Lou Stokes, who died earlier this month, championed national attention and funding to address the problem of lead poisoning in inner- city children. Recent stories and opinion pieces have eulogized the many accomplishments of the late U.S. Rep. Louis Stokes, from civil-rights champion to accomplished litigator, statesman and lawmaker. We believe that Louis Stokes should also be recognized as a national leader who clearly understood the connection between substandard housing and health, and acted to address the problem, at a time when very few did. Back in the 1980s, the scope and magnitude of the childhood lead-poisoning problem and its impact on our nation's children was not fully recognized or well understood. Subsequent efforts to increase blood screening in early childhood revealed that Greater Cleveland had among the highest rates of lead poisoning in the country, adding to the compounding disadvantages of children living in poverty in our community and across the United States. Some of us have vivid memories from 1991, when Congressman Stokes held up a Newsweek magazine cover story on threats posed to children by lead paint, passionately advocating for the voiceless in our society while educating the community about this silent epidemic. He wanted all of us to understand the debilitating consequences of childhood lead exposure in the home environment and its impact on the life trajectory of these vulnerable kids. Congressman Stokes turned that message into action, by using his formidiable legislative acumen to establish the first Healthy Homes program in the country within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. When he recognized in 1998 that young infants in his district were suffering from sometimes fatal lung bleeding associated with water-damaged, moldy homes, he asked HUD to address the impact of inner-city homes on children's health. He understood that houses are systems, and that independently addressing lead paint problems, moisture intrusion and mold, injury risks and other housing hazards was inefficient and costly. He also had the vision to recognize that treating children at the hospital, only to release them back into the same substandard home that made them sick, created a vicious circle with major public health consequences. He knew these homes needed to be fixed. The HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control had shown interest in applying the experience of lead-poisoning prevention to include other health hazards in the home, such as plumbing problems and leaky basements, but lacked the authority. Through his vision, the Congressman invited us and others to testify at the House Subcommittee on HUD appropriations to see what could be done. Lou Stokes convinced his fellow committee members to provide the very first appropriation of $10 million to HUD for `Healthy Homes' prevention programs in low-income housing. His legacy has resulted in millions of homes that are safer and healthier as a direct result of that investment in our children. Since that time, the HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes has provided more than $175 million in competitively awarded grants to communities across the nation to investigate and address health hazards in homes. The asthma home-visit program in Cleveland that decreases the hospitalization rate of children with asthma, highlighted in The Plain Dealer in June, is a direct outgrowth of Congressman Stokes' work. In 2012, HUD created the Louis Stokes Healthy Homes Award and presented the first one to him at the City Club of Cleveland. When he received the award, he pointed out that much has been achieved and that much more remains to be done. He also said that he really didn't know what all the fuss was about, as he was just a kid who grew up in public housing, who wanted to do the right thing for our children. He was an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in praise of Julian Bond, one of the leading lights of the Civil Rights Movement, who died on Saturday, August 15, 2015, at the age of 75. While Julian lost his battle to the illness that claimed his life, it is the struggle for civil rights and human dignity he helped to win that he will forever remembered and revered. Horace Julian Bond was born January 14, 1940 in Nashville, Tennessee to Julia Agnes and Horace Mann Bond. Julian's father was the first African-American President of Lincoln University of Pennsylvania, the same institution attended by Thurgood Marshall and Langston Hughes who would both go on to make substantial contributions to the Civil Rights Movement and the advancement of African-Americans. Julian's father later became president of Atlanta University and Julian decided to attend Morehouse College, one of the leading black colleges in the nation. Julian Bond, who came from a long line of educators, determined at an early age to put his journalistic and organizing talents in service of the cause of civil rights and racial equality. While a student at Morehouse College, Julian helped found The Pegasus, a literary magazine, and led nonviolent student protests against segregation in Atlanta parks, restaurants, and movie theaters. Mr. Speaker, today it is difficult to imagine there once was a time in our country when blacks and whites could not eat together in public restaurants, use the same public restrooms, stay at the same hotels, or attend the same schools. Julian Bond answered the call to action and put his studies on hold to devote all of his energies and efforts to ending segregation and racial discrimination. Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual these days for us to think of a champion as someone who receives the highest accolades in sports. Julian Bond was a champion of the people. His success is measured not in the numbers of trophies, medals, ribbons, and championship banners, but in the number of doors and opportunities he helped to open for those who had been neglected, marginalized, and disenfranchised. Julian Bond knew that to bring about non-violent social change it was necessary to organize so he co-founded the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC, which organized and mobilized the participation of students and young people in the Civil Rights Movement, conceived the Freedom Rides that challenged the practice of racial segregation in interstate transportation and the Mississippi Freedom Summer project that undertook the dangerous work of helping African Americans register to vote in the state most committed to maintaining White supremacy by any means necessary. SNCC was not the first leadership role history and circumstance would call upon Julian Bond to assume; nor would it be the last. In 1965, after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Julian Bond was elected to represent the residents of the 32nd district in Georgia House of Representatives. But on January 10, 1966, his white colleagues in the Georgia House voted 184-12 not to seat him because he had publicly expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War. Julian Bond challenged the refusal of the Georgia House to seat him and took his case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in the unanimous decision of Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116 (1966), that expressing opposition to the Vietnam War was speech protected by the First Amendment and directed that he be seated as a duly elected member of the state legislature. Julian Bond would go on to serve three more terms in the George House, where he co-founded the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus, and six terms in the Georgia State Senate. In 1971, Julian Bond co-founded and served as president of the Southern Poverty Law Center that tracks the actions of hate groups to better inform and prepare communities about the dangers these groups pose. Julian Bond consistently identified issues of civil inequality and provided solutions by gathering groups of community leaders, professionals, and educators to protect what the laws and policies would not, our basic civil rights. In 1998, Julian Bond's commitment to justice and equality led him to answer the call to serve and accept the position of Chairman of the NAACP, a post he held until 2010. Julian Bond was able to bring the earnest fight to achieve equality into the modern era as he watched African-Americans achieve the highest awards in their professions and continued to break down barriers. In November 2008, Julian Bond witnessed the election of the first African American President of the United States, a feat thought impossible just a decade earlier. Mr. Speaker, because of trailblazers like Julian Bond millions of Americans gained access to opportunities previously denied to members of their communities. Julian Bond spent 5 years with SNCC, 8 years as president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, 12 years as the president of NAACP, 20 years as a state representative, and 75 years an unwavering champion of civil rights for all people, including the LGBT community. My thoughts and prayers are with Julian's beloved wife Pamela, his children and grandchildren; and the untold millions of persons whose lives were touched by one of America's greatest sons. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to observe a moment of silence in memory of Julian Bond, a tireless and eloquent voice for justice, equality, and human dignity who did so much to close the gap between the promise of America's founding ideals and the reality of people's lives. Civil Rights Giant Julian Bond Never Stopped Giving (Posted By Edna Kane-Williams on August 31, 2015) President Obama described him as a ``hero'' who ``helped changed this country for the better.'' The Rev. Jesse Jackson called him a ``leader with strength, character.'' NAACP Chairman Roslyn Brock said he ``inspired a generation of civil rights leaders.'' Teresa Sullivan, president of the University of Virginia, where he taught history for many years, called him a beloved retired professor who ``shaped the course of history through his life and work.'' How ever you choose to describe Julian Bond, one thing is for sure: He taught us all how to stand for what we believe. And he believed in freedom, justice and equality. For me, one of the most remarkable attributes of this civil rights giant is the fact that he never stopped giving. Even at the time of his brief illness and death on Aug. 15 at the age of 75, he was still serving faithfully as chairman emeritus on the NAACP board. Even after he retired from the professorship at the University of Virginia, he continued to mentor and remained a role model for students and others. A writer, poet, television commentator, lecturer and college teacher--and as a former politician--Julian Bond was one of those rare people whose work became legendary while he was still doing it. In fact, the Library of Congress once called him a ``living legend.'' And because of the magnitude of his work, he leaves many treasures that will simply keep on giving. UVA, where his papers are housed, has announced its goal to establish a Julian Bond Professorship in Civil Rights and Social Justice, which ``will continue Bond's scholarly legacy.'' There will certainly be many more designations in honor of his life's work. And surely some will rise, seeking to follow in his footsteps. Mr. Bond believed in young people's ability to take the civil rights and social justice baton and run with it. Earlier this year, he told a group of Howard University students, ``I think you know what the problems are. You know what the solutions are, and I'm sure we will be glad to help. But don't depend on us to tell you what to do. Just go out and do it.'' Well, he left an amazing road map. From his pioneering civil rights work as a cofounder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to all of his work and contributions thereafter, Julian Bond was a model for anyone who aims to make an impact and leave the world a better place. In that regard, he was a role model for us all. What a life. What a legacy. Amelia Boynton was born on August 18, 1911, in Savannah, Georgia. Her early activism included holding black voter registration drives in Selma, Boynton spent her first two years of college at Georgia State College (now Savannah State University), then transferred to the Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) in Alabama. She graduated from Tuskegee with a home economics degree before further pursuing her education at Tennessee State University, Virginia State University and Temple University. In the 1930's, Boynton Robinson began her activist career by registering African Americans to vote. In 1964, she ran for Congress to represent Alabama. She was the first woman to have run for this Democratic seat, and although she did not win, she received 10% of votes. As the civil rights movement picked up, Boynton asked Martin Luther King Jr., who had witnessed her arrest in January 1965 for seeking to register Black voters, to visit Selma and empower the community. King accepted, and joined Boynton Robinson and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in planning the march from Selma to Montgomery on March 17th, 1965. As approximately 600 marchers walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were confronted by 200 state troopers and Alabama policemen, who shot teargas and beat the non-violent protesters. This horrific event came to be known as Bloody Sunday. At least 17 protesters were sent to the hospital, including Boynton Robinson. A picture of her unconscious body lying on the ground after an officer shot tear gas into her throat spread through every news media outlet across the globe, and quickly became a symbol for race relations in the United States at the time. The Selma to Montgomery march was a pivotal demonstration in the civil rights movement, leading to future victories such as the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Amelia Boynton Robinson was an incredible activist, leader, and woman, and is remembered for her courage and strength throughout the civil rights movement. She worked for equality for all until her last day on this earth. [From the Two-Way, Aug. 26, 2015] (By Bill Chappell) Amelia Boynton Robinson, Survivor of `Bloody Sunday,' Dies at 104 Amelia Boynton Robinson, who went from being beaten on a bridge in Selma, Ala., in 1965 to being pushed across the bridge in a wheelchair alongside the president of the United States, has died at age 104. Her daughter, Germaine Bowser, confirmed to Troy Public Radio's Kyle Gassiott that Boynton Robinson died early Wednesday morning. She had been hospitalized after suffering several strokes this summer. Born in Savannah, Ga., Boynton Robinson was a pioneer in the voting rights movement who took part in the event that came to be known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' when she and other activists were attacked by state troopers as they tried to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Along with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., Boynton Robinson held hands with President Obama as the men walked across the bridge this past March, marking the 50th anniversary of the march in Selma. The Montgomery Advertiser reports: ``Boynton Robinson asked Martin Luther King Jr. to come to Selma to mobilize the local community in the civil rights movement. She worked with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and helped plan the Selma to Montgomery march. Her role in the event was recaptured in the movie ``Selma,'' where she was portrayed by actress Lorraine Toussaint. She was invited as a guest of honor to attend the signing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson.'' Boynton Robinson also ``made history in 1964 as the first African-American to run for Congress in Alabama,'' Alabama Public Radio reported earlier this year, when the civil rights legend attended Obama's 2015 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. She was the guest of Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama's first elected African-American congresswoman. general leave Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order. What a grand opportunity to cite these great Americans: Amelia Boynton Robinson, Congressman Lou Stokes, and Julian Bond.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2786, the ``Cross-Border Rail Security Act of 2015,'' which directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to report to Congress on its inspection of high-risk shipments entering the United States by rail. Specifically, H.R. 2786 requires the CBP to report on the following matters related to homeland security: the number of high-risk rail shipments annually entering the country; the status of radiation detection units at each border rail crossing; and an assessment of whether additional radiation detection equipment is necessary. The bill also requires CBP to develop a plan for ensuring that all relevant CBP personnel receive adequate training and guidance on the proper use of CBP's Automated Targeting System for such shipments, and in the use of appropriate radiation detection equipment for shipment examination, and requirements for recording examination results. H.R. 2786 bill also requires the General Accountability Office to periodically audit CBP operations at rail crossings on borders to ensure rail shipments are targeted, examined, and the examination results are well documented. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for our nation and for my congressional district, which is centered in Houston, Texas. Houston has been the hub of railroad hub of Texas since the 1880s and is known as the place ``where 17 railroads meet the sea.'' It is also the ``the energy capital of the world.'' Freight from the Houston area goes by railroad to destinations all over the United States, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York City, Charleston, and Savannah. Over 1 billion tons of freight travels through Houston area each year; no other state comes close to the level of trade the metropolitan Houston region experiences. One billion tons of freight leaves the Houston area each year, nearly two/ thirds of which (645 million tons) involve goods come from foreign sources. The top foreign freight origination point for the City of Houston is Mexico. Mexico supplies over 50% of all international freight in the Houston area. Europe and Canada are Houston's second largest foreign freight trading partners, accounting for over 27% of international freight in the Houston area. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting H.R. 2786 because the safety of rail transit is critical to the security of the homeland and strength of our economy.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2835, ``Border Jobs for Veterans Act of 2015.'' which would guarantee more jobs for our many deserving veterans. This bill requires the Homeland Security Department to prioritize the hiring of U.S. veterans as Custom and Border Protection (CBP) officers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the unemployment rate for our veterans is 7.2%, which is roughly 573,000 unemployed veterans nationally. A study commissioned by the Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration found that in 2008, delays at POEs at the U.S.- Mexico border cost the U.S. economy 26,000 jobs, $600 million in lost tax revenue, and $5.8 billion in lost economic output. According to CBP, 2,000 additional CBPOs will lead to the creation of approximately 66,000 new jobs and increase the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the U.S. by up to $4 billion. The bill will ensure that: CBP officials will be at recruiting events and jobs fairs for armed service members; Partnerships are fostered between military bases in regions where CBP Officers work; Opportunities for the expedited hiring of certain service members with qualifications needed by CBP are prioritized; and Transfers of relevant background investigations and security clearances are streamlined to facilitate transitions from military life to employment at the CBP. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 76, the ``Helping to Encourage Real Opportunity for Veterans Transitioning from Battlespace to Workplace Act of 2015,'' the HEROS Act, which is very similar to spirit to the bill before the House. Studies have shown that more than 80% of veterans transitioning from military service to the civilian sector regard employer-provided Veterans support programs as ``critical'' or ``important'' to their success. The ``HERO Transitioning from Battlespace to Workplace Act of 2014'' addressed these problems by providing strong incentives for employers to hire, retain, and employ veterans in positions that take maximum advantage of their skills and experience. Nearly 90% of veterans believe they have the general skills needed to land their ideal job such as problem solving, leadership, ethics, and time management and most believe they possess specific marketable skills, such as information technology, health care, mechanical, and aviation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will find common ground on really responding to a great concern that I think all Americans should be concerned about. Although this bill is called the RAPID Act, were it to become law, in the present form, a permit or license for a project would be deemed approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90 to 120 days. That is a short period of time for complex regulatory structures that deal with complex industries. An industry that I represent in Houston, Texas, the energy industry, has complex needs and, as well, complex impacts and consequences if we do not deal with the agencies responsible, if the DOE, for example, does not do its due diligence. Now, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. These particular permits are done sooner than 90 to 120 days. But what this bill says is, if the agency is engaged in a very complex deliberative thought process, then, if they reach that deadline and they still have not finished, they are then, if you will, throwing to the side all of the safety issues and issues dealing with the protection of the American people under the bus. My amendment strikes the provision, deeming approved any project for which an agency does not meet the deadlines contained in the bill. I can appreciate some of the frustrations through the review process by the National Environmental Policy Act, but the cure is not this bill. If a Federal agency has failed to approve or disapprove a project or make the required finding, we are in trouble. Babies are in trouble with formula. Senior citizens are in trouble with various pharmaceuticals. They are in trouble. And then, if we run up against the deadline, there is no response. Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the complexity of the issues, as I said, warrant us to do so. In other words, what this bill is saying is: To heck with reason and good judgment. We do not care. To heck with protecting the American people. We do not care. As I listened intently and intensely to the Pope's words yesterday, I offer this quote: Moses provided us with a good synthesis of your work. You are asked to protect--and speaking to us--by means of the law, the image, and likeness fashioned by God on every human face. This bill smacks in the face of that instruction. I believe that this amendment is worthy of passing. Mr. Chair, if H.R. 348, the so-called RAPID Act, were to become law in its present form, a permit or license for project would be ``deemed'' approved if the reviewing agency does not issue the requested permit or license within 90-120 days. My amendment strikes the provision deeming approved any project for which agency does not meet deadlines contained in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate some of the frustrations expressed by many of our friends across the aisle when it comes to review process mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). But the cure they propose in H.R. 348 is an example of a medicine that is worse than the disease. Under H.R. 348, if a federal agency fails to approve or disapprove the project or make the required finding of the termination within the applicable deadline, which is either 90 days or 120 days, depending on the situation, then the project is automatically deemed approved by such agency. This creates a set of unintended consequences. First, as an agency is up against that deadline and legitimate work is yet to be completed, it is likely to disapprove the project simply because the issues have not been vetted. Second, frequently there are times when it is the case that the complexity of issues that need to be resolved necessitates a longer review period, rather than an arbitrary limit. So if H.R. 348 were to become law the most likely outcome is that federal agencies would be required to make decisions based on incomplete information, or information that may not be available within the stringent deadlines, and to deny applications that otherwise would have been approved, but for lack of sufficient review time. In other words, fewer projects would be approved, not more. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 348 ostensibly seeks to make a minor procedure adjustment to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In reality, however, H.R. 348 would radically transform the NEPA review process, and not for the better either. For more than 40 years, NEPA has been the law of the land and has provided a remarkably effective framework for all types of projects (not just construction projects) that require federal approval pursuant to a federal law, such as the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, I urge all Members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am so glad my colleague mentioned the question of jobs. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I am very glad my colleague mentioned jobs because none of us here are fighting against jobs. In fact, I happen to be supporting the full employment legislation that my good friend, Congressman John Conyers, has offered and I have joined. We are not here speaking against jobs. We are speaking for the American people. We are trying to explain the complexity of the permitting process. Whether it is for drilling, whether it is to deal with construction, whether it is to deal with complex environmental issues that have to be addressed impacting the American people or, for example, whether it is dealing with the Volkswagen company that saw fit to do the technology to undermine viable rules that the American automobile industry was complying with, definitely impacting jobs, I would have hoped that we would have had a process of permitting or a process of determining whether the Volkswagen company was violating these rules that were here to help the issue of pollution and other issues here, but also undermining the jobs of our own American companies. Let me say that the Jackson Lee amendment, in essence, is to suggest that there is a lot of complexity that my friends on the other side of the aisle with the RAPID Act--the very name of it suggests that we are throwing judgment to the wind. All we want to do is to move forward, even if they are ill. And we don't want the taxpayer dollars that have asked these workers in these agencies who have the expertise from the DOE, to the FDA and beyond-- Food and Drug Administration, Department of Energy--to protect us. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment, by eliminating the 90 to 120, deeming it approved in the midst of a crisis when it is not fit to be approved, is an amendment that this body should pass. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment because I am here to protect the American people and to do justly, as has been given to us in a wonderful message yesterday by Pope Francis. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, although we have been debating for a long period of time, let me say to my colleagues to remind them--and I see my good friend, Chairman Goodlatte, on the floor--that this legislation amends the National Environmental Policy Act with good intentions. However, what this bill will do is actually strip out critical input from Federal, State, local agencies, and the public, jeopardizing both the environment and public safety--let me repeat that--jeopardizing the American people, environment, and public safety. The bill sets new, tight deadlines for environmental review, permitting, and licensing decisions and simply, as I said earlier, throws wisdom and good judgment to the wind. I serve as a senior member on the Homeland Security Committee. And so I rise today with my amendment that improves the bill and helps to protect the homeland by carving a limiting exception for construction projects that could be potential targets for terrorist acts, such as chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, and other critical infrastructure. Let me offer the comments of the Congressional Budget Office. They have no basis for estimating the number of construction projects that could be expedited or the savings that would be realized in this bill. Of course, those who support it use that as their main Rock of Gibraltar, if you will, their main point of argument that this is a good bill. A good bill in the face of terrorism? Director Comey has indicated that he has determined that there are ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist cells operating in all 50 States. Yet, we want to expedite this process when it is determining issues dealing with our national security to a certain extent. This issue deals with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit said shall account for the potential environmental impacts of acts of terrorism in its environmental review process. Are you going to rush them along? The NRC has also imposed stringent antiterrorism requirements on its licenses through 10 CFR section 73, which outlines security requirements for the physical protection of nuclear plants and materials. The Jackson Lee amendment covers nuclear power plants and, as well, chemical facilities to not rush the process to protect the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.