Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2901, the Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2014, which makes the provision of safe water and sanitation a stated goal of U.S. foreign assistance policy and requires the President, through the State Department, to develop and implement a strategy to further such efforts in developing countries. Safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene are among the most basic needs a person can have, yet 748 million people in the world do not have access to safe water; roughly 1/10 of the world's population. In countries such as Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger and Papua New Guinea, less than 50% of the population has access to safe water. More than 2.5 billion people in the world lack access to adequate sanitation, which is approximately 35 percent of the global population. The lack of clean water and basic sanitation facilities leaves millions trapped in a cycle of poverty and disease, costing the lives of around 500,000 children per year--dying from diarrhea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. The Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act will make better use of existing WASH (``Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene'') funds, strengthen accountability for WASH programs already underway, and ensure the greatest impact on communities worldwide without spending new money or creating new bureaucracy. For every $1 invested in WASH, $4 is returned in increased economic productivity, making WASH one of the most effective and efficient choices we can make for global child health, nutrition, resource conservation, women's empowerment and education. Specifically, H.R. 2901, the Water for the World Act, will: 1. Institutionalize existing capacity in the U.S. government to ensure WASH remains a political priority and expertise is available at USAID and State Department headquarters to guide strategic implementation of effective and sustainable WASH programs 2. Enhance criteria for choosing high-priority countries to ensure that limited funds are directed to the countries and communities most in need 3. Advance best practices of effective aid, such as improved monitoring and evaluation and a focus on leveraging non-Federal partnerships and funds 4. Improve the strategic approach to international safe water, sanitation, hygiene, and water resources management by providing smart guidance that builds off USAID's own strategy The bill before us today also provides for a Global Water Coordinator to be designated to oversee water, sanitation, and hygiene assistance, and to develop a complementary strategy to further the U.S. foreign assistance objective to provide affordable and equitable drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene in developing countries. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2901 will provide effective, long-term, sustainable impacts by improving coordination and oversight of safe water, sanitation, and hygiene projects and activities. By voting in support of this act, we have the power to improve the well-being, education, economic opportunity, safety and dignity of the 2.5 billion people in the world who live without a basic latrine every day. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the Water for the World Act to save lives, reduce poverty, and help drive economic growth by bringing safe drinking water and improved sanitation and hygiene to those most in need. Mr. Speaker, access to clean, potable water will be one of the world's most pressing problems over the next century and further contribute to instability within and between nations as is the case in the Darfur conflict. In the developing world, water-related diseases kill 5,000 children every day. Sick children miss nearly 300 million school days a year from water- related causes, and an estimated 320 million productive work days are lost to illness--with much of the burden carried by girls and women. Mr. Speaker, I agree with Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, Senator Paul Simon's successor and the lead Democratic sponsor of the Senate companion to H.R. 2901, that: Water access is no longer simply a global health and development issue; it is a mortal and long-term threat that is increasingly becoming a national security issue. The United States needs to do much more to ensure that global water access is protected and expanded. Passing H.R. 2901 is an essential first step in ensuring that global water access is protected and expanded. I urge all members to join me in supporting this important legislation and fitting memorial to the late great Senator from Illinois, Senator Paul Simon.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it has been a long day, and I believe the American people have seen the best of what America is in the vigorous debate and review of the future of this Nation. Yes, there were some positive aspects to the appropriations bill--the $5 billion in funding for Ebola treatment and the $2.2 billion for the rural development account which will help my constituents in Jacinto City, helping them rebuild a burned-down police station, which I hope to work on, and yes, the $18.1 billion for NASA, $363.7 million more than in 2014. But I believe that out of good conscience, I would not want to stand in support of again going backwards in allowing banks to be engaged in derivatives and having American taxpayers pay for their actions. I believe in opportunities and banks and investment, but not the derivative work that causes them to be able to have the taxpayers pay for their mistakes. Finally, I believe there is too much money in campaigns and politics; and now in this bill that will be signed by the President, $300,000 will be allowed to be given by one individual as opposed to the $97,000. Get money out of politics. Let's get back to legislating for the people, and we can all join together united for good legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record:

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege as well to come to the floor of the House and pay tribute to our outgoing chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Before I do that, however, I believe it is important to say to this body that our charge and responsibility is to ensure the governance of this Nation. As the appropriations omnibus unfolded, I believe the continuing resolution that has been put forward is evidence of the nonresponsibility and the nonthought of those who have the obligation to govern this Nation. I believe it is important to raise the question of where is the objectivity. The continuing resolution is to fund the Nation's homeland security. That means that we are saying to those who just lost their lives in Yemen, to the Americans who have been seen being beheaded by ISIL, to Boko Haram, al Shabaab, to al Qaeda, and many other franchise terrorists that America will stand bare and unprepared, that her national security will be in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that we speak against a continuing resolution that funds homeland security partially. Let me also say that I believe in this great Nation. I believe in the Constitution, and I fully realize that the executive order that was issued by the President dealing with the humanitarian relief and the discretion by agencies, prosecutorial discretion, is within the context of his authority under article II. I am fully aware that the President's executive order was well vetted by constitutional specialists, White House counsel, and the Department of Justice, objectively looking as to whether or not the President was making new law. In this executive order on immigration, no immigration status was conferred, no citizenship was conferred. The only thing that was determined in those executive orders is prosecutorial discretion on deporting individuals and deferring deportation. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the response is extreme. Not funding Homeland Security is extreme. I join with Secretary Johnson in standing against this discriminatory practice on an agency that is crucial to the security of airports and ports and the borders and protecting the American people. As I ask for a reconsideration, it allows me to speak of a lady who represents the best of the Constitution, and that is Chairwoman Fudge, who understood the quality of all and the importance of guiding this caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, around the issues of justice. Let me thank her for the considerations made during tragedies like Trayvon Martin, as we began with briefings and involvement in that case, and looked to support members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were fighting in their districts to bring about justice; her continued support of Members when the tragedies of Michael Brown and Eric Garner occurred, and many other incidents; her balance, as we all have, respecting and appreciating the service of law enforcement officers, including those whom we oversee on the Judiciary Committee: the DEA, the FBI, the ATF, and many others, but recognizing that the Constitution, as she so understands it, must be a document for all. Let me, particularly, thank Chairwoman Fudge for her dedicated commitment to the nutrition of children across America. She is almost like Shirley Chisholm, who came to the Agriculture Committee. People wondered what she would do there. But she understood, as a local elected official, that food stamps were not a handout, they were a hand-up. I thank her for that. And then to lay a marker for the issues of all Members, her understanding of the energy industry, particularly in States like Louisiana and Texas, where she encouraged Members to introduce the energy industry to the Congressional Black Caucus in terms of giving information. That is what we are: we learn, we get information. And then, of course, her commitment to having an international presence, that people would know that the Congressional Black Caucus cares about the international community. That is an important step. As we move forward in 2015, I wish the incoming chair much success. I think it is extremely important that we say thanks where appreciation is due, and I want to say, ``Thank you.'' Many people claim friendship, but I will say to you, Chairwoman Fudge, you have now gotten 40-plus new friends to your portfolio, and we will claim you as a friend because, as we worked together in this last Congress, as we worked with the United States President, President Barack Obama, as we worked with the Senate, as we worked with Federal agencies, as we worked with our community, you became a friend to us.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for his leadership as ranking member and formerly chair, and Mr. Hudson. Let me also acknowledge Mr. Richmond, who is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation Security. It is clear that this committee, Homeland Security overall, has worked together for the betterment of the national security of this Nation, and these legislative initiatives in particular. I remember distinctly the hearings, the collaboration with a number of groups, and so I rise today to speak on the transportation security bill regarding best practices to improve transparency with regard to technology acquisition programs, and for other purposes. The Transportation Security Administration, now under Homeland Security, is one of our vital organs that relates to the security of America. We only need look at special holidays throughout the Nation and throughout the year and realize how vital the aviation system is and how important it is to work together with the Transportation Security Administration, covering TSOs and certainly a large component of research and technology dealing with the security of our airports. This initiative is an important one. It is almost unspeakable to have this size of inventory, some $185 million in assessment, languishing in warehouses under the name of the Transportation Security Administration. Over the years as a ranking member and chairwoman on Transportation Security and now Border Security, likewise I have joined my colleagues in fighting for small businesses because there lies technology. So this initiative to open the doors for the idea of a multiyear technology investment plan and underutilized innovation opportunities that can be provided in this area of security I believe is very important, and then of course to insist that 16 percent not be the number that we rely upon in terms of investment and opportunity for minorities and small businesses. I support this initiative, and I must at this moment add my support for the legislation dealing with insisting on an aviation security advisory committee. I want to congratulate Mr. Thompson on that and indicate that the issue of aviation security matters needs collaboration. Let me finish by saying, as we experienced over the last year, a decision to add or take away what item you could bring through security--we found out that collaboration on this is crucial. So this is an important initiative, and I thank both the managers on the floor, and I support both of these initiatives and congratulate them for moving the security of America further.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we come to this season of joy, I am always committed to wishing all of my colleagues of this body, this government, and our people a happy holiday. We are on the brink of the release of a report that talks about issues of torture which America has stood against. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to communicate that any report of past practices which we abhor does not indicate our lack of respect for the men and women of the CIA, nor does it give excuse to any international provocateur or terrorist to do violence to their own people. This is a deliberative assessment of how we can go forward, how we can continue to protect this Nation, and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, it is important to protect our Nation. But we should not yield to those who will use this recklessly and violently to do terror around the world. Let me thank our marines who are on high alert. Let me also bring to the attention of my colleagues that tomorrow is Human Rights Day, and I hope that we will stand on this floor and promote the values of human rights. Again, Mr. Speaker, I challenge and charge those who would use this in a violent way: you are wrong, you are wrong, and you are wrong.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank him for holding this Special Order for a very dear friend to all of us, Ralph Hall. I guess my opening remarks would be that, if you took the greater percentage of all of us Members of the House of Representatives, everyone would rise up and say ``my good friend Ralph Hall'' and really mean it, for he was a good friend and is a good friend to all of us on both sides of the aisle. When I came to the United States Congress, I went to the Science Committee, and there was Ralph Hall, fighting for the issues that were not only impacting the Nation, but were impacting our great State. No one could doubt that Ralph Hall was a champion for Texas, a champion for the space exploration program. I used to love getting with him on the floor of the House and strategizing how we could continue to make sure that our human space exploration, our astronauts, and the great research that is done by NASA carries on. Certainly, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he was astutely concerned about the issues of energy, but also health care and many others. He loved his family, and he forever reminded me of a time when he came to Houston and he had to see his grandson, who is now grown, and I am sure one of Ralph's favorite grandsons, if you will--he loves his family--when he had to get a ride to the hospital where his grandson was, and of course we are so grateful that he recovered. He always tells everyone that I went 30 miles out of my way to take him to that hospital, and I can say to you I did it with joy. He was always grateful and thankful for friendship and kindness, and he was kind. And I must say that, if he didn't have a career in the United States Congress, he could be a stand-up comic because his timing was everything; his jokes were unique. I don't think they were written anywhere, and of course he was always saying them. Let me also say, since he has had such a long history, he reminded me of his friendship with the Honorable Barbara Jordan and his friendship with Mickey Leland, two of the predecessors of my particular district. And then I would offer to say the same remarks that were mentioned just earlier about how excited he was to be in Normandy for the 70th commemoration and have our own special iconic hero, Ralph Hall, who was honored by the French and honored by many. He was a regular hero and a dynamic hero as we went about the town. My hat is off to Ralph. I know that he will be well. I know that he knows that we love him. But, more importantly, let me salute him as a great American who has served his Nation with dignity and honor and respect and integrity, and who walks the pathway of a congressional person that respects the dignity and integrity of this House and, as well, the friendship of Democrats and Republicans because he calls everyone an American.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Rush, and I thank Mr. Pallone for convening this Special Order and all of the members of this committee and Members of this House of Representatives that have come on the floor today with joy. It is often said, ``It is not how long you serve, but how you serve.'' For John Dingell, that is not mutually exclusive. He served six decades, and he served it greatly and grandly and with distinction. I am reminded of a description of him as a 6-foot-3-inch distinguished gentleman, towering over witnesses, but having the biggest of hearts, coming from the best of legacies in his father that served 22 years, reminded of his commitment to the Clean Air Act, safe drinking water, the endangered species. John has always reminded us new ones, relatively speaking, that his greatest love was to provide affordable health care to every American. Decades after his father introduced such a bill, he never gave up. So I stand here today to thank you, John Dingell, for the Affordable Care Act. They call it many things--``ObamaCare''--but I am getting ready to call it ``DingellCare'' because you worked without ceasing. Thank you for your service to this Nation, where you stood in the shadows of World War II and stood as an American, willing to serve. I am grateful for the service that he has given and for his long years of service as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Let me conclude by saying that there is much more that all of us can say, but you can see so many Members have come to the floor. On a personal note, there are two items that I want to acknowledge: Thank you, John Dingell, for recognizing my voting rights--my opportunity to vote as an African American--and those of the thousands of millions that you helped in 1965. I will never forget your willingness to sacrifice personal political stature to do what is right. I also want to thank you so very much for being the kind of person on the floor of the House who asked about every Member. For every Member who came to your attention, you asked them how they were doing. I conclude with these remarks, his final words about the Civil Rights Act. He said that he was glad to vote for a bill that solved a problem that was eating at the soul and heart and liver of the country. Only John Dingell. John Dingell, I salute you as a great and a grand American. Thank you, Debbie Dingell. I will continue to look forward to your service. John, we are going to look forward to your service and, of course, to your long life here in this great country and in your great State of Michigan. Again, John, thank you so very much. Serving nearly six decades in the House of Representatives, John Dingell has earned the distinction of being both the longest-serving Member of Congress in U.S. history and one of the most influential legislators of all time. After serving his country in the Army during World War II, John was first elected to Congress in 1955--representing the people of southeastern Michigan in a seat previously held by his father. In Washington, John risked his seat to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, fought to pass Medicare in 1965, and penned legislation like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act that have kept millions of Americans healthy and preserved our natural beauty for future generations. But of all John's accomplishments, perhaps the most remarkable has been his tireless fight to guarantee quality, affordable health care for every American. Decades after his father first introduced a bill for comprehensive health care reform, John continued to introduce health care legislation at the beginning of every session. And as an original author of the Affordable Care Act, he helped give millions of families the peace of mind of knowing they won't lose everything if they get sick. One of the proudest moments in my career in the House was watching the distinguished gentleman from Michigan preside over debate on the rule for the Affordable Care Act. Today, the people of Michigan--and the American people--are better off because of John Dingell's service to this country. Ending a career that is among the most singular in congressional history, U.S. Rep. John Dingell--who helped pass, if not author, many of the most iconic legislative achievements of the last 60 years is, concluding a term of service to metro Detroit, Michigan and the nation unprecedented in its length and remarkable in its scope. John Dingell's length of service stretches back to before Alaska and Hawaii were states and his father, John Sr., sat in the seat for 22 years before him. Last June, he became the longest-serving member of Congress. John David Dingell, Jr., was 29 years old when the Detroit native was elected in a 1955 special election to serve out the remainder of his late father's term. Since then, he has cast tens of thousands of votes and played a role in everything from the Civil Rights Act and Medicare to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and, in 2010, the Affordable Care Act. Known throughout Washington as Big John--at 6-foot-3, he literally towered over many witnesses before his House Energy and Commerce Committee--John Dingell cut a distinctive figure in the Capitol. A progressive when it came to workers' rights, he is also a staunch defender of Michigan industries, including its automakers, and at times ran afoul of environmentalists. He counts as among his most important accomplishments the creation of the Detroit International Wildlife Refuge and the River Raisin Battlefield. In 1964, he voted for the Civil Rights Act. He called that vote the most important one he ever took--one that ``solved a problem that was eating at the soul and heart and liver of this country.'' John Dingell vastly expanded the scope of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's purview during his first stint as chairman--which lasted 1981-95--to the point where it was said it handled four out of every 10 bills in the House. By example, he had a photo of the Earth from space behind his desk and when anyone asked him to define the committee's jurisdiction, he would point to it. House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to say ``All politics is local'', but in John Dingell's case, all politics has always been personal. It is only when you have a personal relationship with someone that you establish trust, even when you're on opposite sides of an issue. Through 60 years of public service, John fought for what he believed in, and got things done through relationships and his deep respect for others. And there was no one he respected more than his constituents. He respected their hopes, their dreams, and their values. He has been relentless in his efforts to secure for them the right to live a decent middle-class life. He has always been a staunch advocate for health care for every American, and he has been a player on every significant piece of legislation that has helped make America a more just, fair, and free country for over half a century. It has been a privilege to walk the Halls of Congress with John Dingell. I have never known a person who has been a better champion of the American worker, and he deserves a great deal of credit for the resurgence of the iconic American automobile industry. The House and the American people are losing a great public servant. But John is gaining a well-deserved retirement, and I wish him many happy years with his family. John Dingell has always been more than Mr. Chairman to me. He has been Dean, the longest serving Member of Congress and one of the most effective in our history. There has never been a colleague I have admired more. Happy retirement, John, and thank you for your service.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with a House Amendment to H.R. 3979, the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. This legislation authorizes $495.5 billion in discretionary spending for the base budget for the Department of Defense and $17.9 billion in discretionary spending for the defense-related activities of the Department of Energy in Fiscal Year 2015, totaling $513.4 billion, which is $31 billion less than authorized in Fiscal Year 2014. The legislation also authorizes $63.7 billion in Fiscal 2015 for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). I thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith and the members of the Armed Services Committee for their work on this important legislation. I especially wish to thank Chairman McKeon for his friendship and his service to the nation as he concludes his long and distinguished tenure as a member of the People's House. The National Defense Authorization Act's purpose is to address the threats our nation must deal with not just today, but into the future. This makes the work on this bill vital to our national interest and it should reflect our strong commitment to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Services receive the benefits and support that they deserve for their unwavering service to this great nation. This is the 53rd consecutive National Defense Authorization Act, which speaks to the long term commitment of the Congress and successive Administrations to provide for the defense of our nation. The bill encompasses a number of initiatives designed to confront sexual assault in the military, making more efficient the work of protecting America, addresses the mental health needs of men and women in the armed services, and extends economic opportunity to small minority and women owned businesses. There is much in the legislation before us that I strongly support. For example, the House-Senate agreement: 1. Significantly improves readiness by restoring $818 million in cuts made by House Republicans to the readiness accounts below what was requested by the President; 2. Supports a 1.0 percent pay raise for the troops for FY 2015, equal to the President's request; 3. Authorizes the awarding of the Purple Heart Medal to those killed domestically as a result of a foreign terrorist attack like the tragedies that occurred at Fort Hood in my home state of Texas; 4. Creates a flexible $1.3 billion Counter Terrorism Partnership Fund that supports partner nation operations and U.S. Building Partnership Capacity programs to combat terrorism in the Middle East and Africa and bring to heel notorious terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram; 5. The bill also addresses serious health and well-being challenges faced by our men and women in the armed services such as post-traumatic stress disorders by requiring the Department of Defense to report on improvements in the identification and treatment of mental health conditions and traumatic brain injury among members of the Armed Forces, as well as providing a person-to-person mental health assessment for active duty and selected reserve members each year and, through 2018, a person-to-person mental health screening once during each 180-day period in which a member is deployed; 6. Requires the establishment of a Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Military, eliminates the ``good soldier defense,'' which allows alleged attackers to avoid charges by showcasing a positive military record in court, and builds upon the provisions included in the FY 2012, FY 2013, and FY 2014 Defense Authorization bills that contained dozens of provisions, including stripping commanding officers of the unilateral authority to dismiss a finding by a court martial; prohibiting commanding officers from reducing guilty findings by a court martial to guilty of a lesser offense; and requiring that service members found guilty of sexual offenses, including rape or sexual assault, be dismissed or honorably discharged; 7. Authorizes $622 million for Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs, which is $349 million more than the President's request, a total that includes $350 million for Israel's ``Iron Dome'' short-range rocket defense system, which is $175 million more than the President's request; 8. Includes provisions to allow the Department of Defense to reprogram funds to carry out both the Syria train-and-equip program and the Iraq Train and Equip program to combat ISIL; and 9. Creates the National Commission on the Future of the U.S. Army, which will have four members appointed by the President and four appointed by Congress that is tasked to report back to Congress with recommendations for optimizing Army and National Guard Force Structure by February 1, 2016. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important lessons we learned from the long war in Iraq is the importance of military readiness which imposes on the Congress the obligation of ensuring that every woman and man sent into battle in defense of our nation must be properly trained and equipped. This is why I will not forget the troops killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan when their vehicles were attacked by ``improvised explosive devices.'' To ensure that the Armed Forces of the United States remains the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world, we must provide them the resources needed to adapt and meet any challenge they may face, from global military conflicts to an Ebola virus outbreak. I am also pleased that the bill includes authorization for awarding the Purple Heart Medal to those killed or wounded in domestic terrorist attacks, like the attack at Ft. Hood. The Army National Guard is a critical component of our national defense structure. The men and women of the National Guard serve our nation as a reserve force in times of military conflict and at home in responding public emergencies natural disasters. Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by the terrorist organization Boko Haram be addressed before it becomes become a problem of the level of ISIS to our national interests. For this reason I offered an amendment to the House version of this bill that was adopted as Section 1266, which would have required the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the nature and extent of the crimes against humanity committed by Boko Haram in Nigeria. I am disappointed that Section 1266 of the House bill was not included in the final version of the bill but I am pleased the legislation reauthorizes the Africom command and recognizes the importance of combating terrorist activity on the continent of Africa. Mr. Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is serious and real and the President has reached out to Congress to work with him to develop a unified and international response to meet the threat. For this reason I support the provision in the legislation authorizing $3.4 billion for sustaining U.S. personnel forward-deployed to the Middle East, providing enablers such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, replenishing munitions expended while conducting airstrikes against ISIL, and financing operations and maintenance costs for air, ground and naval operations to date. Specifically, I support the provision authorizing the President's $1.6 billion request to train and equip Iraqi security forces to re- build the capability and capacity of our Iraqi partners in the region so they can sustain the long-term fight to defeat ISIL and provide security and stability to the Iraqi people, so that large numbers of U.S. combat forces are not required. The $1.6 billion is being provided to fund a two-year program with robust oversight and notification requirements to support Peshmerga, Sunni tribes, and other forces beyond the traditional Iraqi Security Forces. The legislation also extends the McKeon Amendment, which I supported, that provides funding to train and equip moderate Syrian forces to combat ISIL. Mr. Speaker, it is important to emphasize that nothing in the legislation before authorizing the training and equipping of Iraqi and Syrian forces by U.S. advisors to combat ISIS derives from the 2002 Iraq AUMF. The decision to send American men and women into harm's way is the most consequential decision the Constitution vests in the President and the Congress. For this reason, the Constitution wisely divides the responsibility of deciding when to use military force to protect the nation and its interests between the President and the Congress, the representatives of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I remain strongly opposed to the deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces inside the territorial borders of Syria without a vote of Congress explicitly authorizing such action. Moreover, any vote regarding the authorization to use military force against Syria must be preceded by meaningful, substantive, and thoughtful dialogue and robust debate governed by a rule that affords Members of the House the opportunity to offer and debate amendments. I must stress that before any vote is held, Members of Congress must be apprised of all facts material to the decision and have access to relevant documentation, classified and otherwise, and afforded the opportunity to meet in small groups and in secure locations with senior members of the Administration's national security team who can answer detailed and pointed questions and provide requested information. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq taught this nation the importance of having accurate and reliable information when deciding whether to use military force and the painful costs in lives and treasure of acting precipitously. We cannot and dare not repeat that mistake. That is why it is essential that all Members of Congress have access to the relevant information and the responsible Administration officials before any vote to authorize the use of military force to defeat ISIS is scheduled. Mr. Speaker, the health and well-being of our men and women in uniform on and off the battlefield is of critical importance. The House version of the National Defense Authorization Act included an amendment I introduced authorizing an increase of $10 million in breast cancer research funding and directing the Department of Defense to identify specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). I am disappointed that the Jackson Lee Amendment was not included in the final version of the legislation because my amendment would save lives that may otherwise be lost. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer has been as brutal on women in the military as combat. More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011, and according to that same study, more are suspected. The Jackson Lee Amendment, however, provided funding for the additional research that is desperately needed since women are joining the Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to leadership. Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast cancer. Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their dependents are at risk as well. With a younger and generally healthier population, those in the military tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians-- including significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is a different story. Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer because life in the military can mean exposure to a witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of getting breast cancer. With the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely important that more funding be allocated for research for early detection, treatment, and cure of breast cancer, including TNBC. I will continue fighting until this objective is achieved. I strongly support the provisions in the legislation before us intended to combat the epidemic of sexual assaults in the military, including the elimination of the ``good soldier defense,'' which is defined as a consideration of general military character toward the probability of innocence in sexual assault prosecutions. Houston is home to one of the largest populations of military service members and their families in the nation. There are over 200,000 veterans of military service who live and work in Houston; more than 13,000 are veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan. Although some of a soldier's wounds are invisible to the naked eye they are still wounds that should be properly treated. Another important component of the legislation that I strongly support is are the provisions designed to increase the number of medical facilities and mental health professionals who are available to serve the active duty personnel and veterans. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me express again my appreciation to Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for their work in crafting a Defense Authorization bill that strives to enhance the readiness of our troops, provides for the care of our military personnel and their families, and authorizes the investments needed to keep our nation strong, safe, and respected in the world.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive Overreach On Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.'' As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided: No provision of the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch of the Government to exempt, by Executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of circumventing the objectives of this statute shall be null and void and without legal effect. Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows. The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .'' Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury: It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet death. Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in remedying the many deficiencies of the original bill. As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 seeks to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status. The amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition: 1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;'' 2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses at trial''; and 3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.'' The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken on that date by President Obama to address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide,'' indeed the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad'' as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona V. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities. Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama has not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Here are a just a few examples of executive action taken by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. 6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years. Mr. Speaker, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration laws. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. And as shown by the success of H.R. 17, the bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation. This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles announced earlier this year by House Republicans. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together. It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream. These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for far too long for their chance. We can and should seize this historic opportunity pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same time preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws in an effective and humane manner. If congressional Republicans, who have refused to debate comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the President for signature. The President has shown responsible leadership. The next step is up to congressional Republicans. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a sense of moral indignation that we would want to block parents from loving their children, children from loving their parents, and deporting persons who have no reason to criminally act in this Nation. I join with the President in saying let us keep families and deport felons. That is a discretion that is given by the law to allow Presidents to take care and ensure that the laws are enforced properly. This legislation is wrongheaded and misdirected. Allow me to say that this November 20 executive order is now being retroactively judged by this Congress. That is not the Congress' responsibility. The Congress, if they desire to do so, as they have done on many occasions, is to bring this to the judicial courts. But if they do so, they will find that the law has dictated that courts grant without much interest in deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with fault. The President, through his executive order, is making an administrative decision in terms of how laws are prosecuted. Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed a lawsuit against the executive actions announced by the President on November 20. Much to my surprise--and, of course, with great joy--the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have already issued a decision, dismissing such a complaint. It did so in 1997 when Governor George W. Bush was arguing that the Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated article I, and the court rejected Texas' argument that the Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Specifically, the court said: ``We are not aware of and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are constitutionally adequate.'' Why? Because there is an interpretation of the law and an administrative component of the law. Likewise, in Heckler v. Chaney, the Court said: ``An agency's decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.'' The President of the United States is not exercising discretion of executive order. He is instructing and giving guidance to administrative agencies who will make decisions accordingly to the framework of making sure that those who are felons are out but families are not. If you want to stop human trafficking, if you want to have a conscience in this Nation, if you want to protect the vulnerable, if you want to keep young people who are bright-eyed simply to serve in the United States military----

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his kindness. Mr. Speaker, if you want to recognize those individuals who have come here to do what is right and if you want to stop the siege of human trafficking, as I have said, where Houston is the epicenter of such, where we see it every day, where people are out of the shadows, if you want to do that, then you will vote against this misdirected law and you will read the constitutional dictates--first from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, then from the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States--and understand that the President has the executive authority to do just what he has done, to be a moral keeper and to give discretion to the law. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule governing debate of H.R. 5759, the so-called ``Preventing Executive Overreach On Immigration Act,'' and the underlying bill. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill because it is nothing more than the Republican majority's latest partisan attack on the President and another diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the challenge posed by the nation's broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5759, which by all appearances was hastily introduced on November 20, 2014, without evident deliberation for the ostensible purpose of establishing a retroactive ``rule of construction clarifying the limitations on executive authority to provide certain forms of immigration relief.'' As originally drafted and introduced the bill provided: No provision of the United States Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or other Federal law shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch of the Government to exempt, by Executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of persons unlawfully present in the United States from removal under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act). Any action by the executive branch with the purpose of circumventing the objectives of this statute shall be null and void and without legal effect. Although the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, upon which I have served throughout my ten terms in Congress, no hearing or markup of the bill was ever held. And it shows. The most obvious and fatal flaw in the bill as introduced and considered by the Rules Committee is its attempt to dictate to the federal judiciary how the Constitution is to be interpreted--``No provision of the United States Constitution . . . shall be interpreted or applied to authorize the executive branch . . .'' Mr. Speaker, it has been settled law for 211 years, since 1803, when the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison that the federal courts, and ultimately, the Supreme Court are the arbiters when it comes to interpreting the Constitution and the laws. As Chief Justice John Marshall stated in Marbury: ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.'' Had regular order been followed and this ill-conceived bill been subject to hearing and markup this fatal deficiency would have been revealed and made plain and the bill likely would have died a quiet death. Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5759 was so poorly conceived and drafted, it would have embarrassed the Republican leadership to bring the bill to floor in its original form so the bill was amended in the Rules Committee, which made in order an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that tries--but does not succeed--in remedying the many deficiencies of the original bill. As amended and reported by the Rules Committee, H.R. 5759 seeks to prohibit the executive branch from exempting or deferring from deportation any immigrants considered to be unlawfully present in the United States under U.S. immigration law, and to prohibit the administration from treating those immigrants as if they were lawfully present or had lawful immigration status. The amended bill now includes three exceptions to this prohibition: 1. ``to the extent prohibited by the Constitution:'' 2. ``upon the request of Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies, for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be tried for crimes or to be witnesses at trial''; and 3. ``for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.'' The amended bill seeks to make November 20, 2014 the effective date of these prohibitions--thereby retroactively blocking the executive actions taken on that date by President Obama to address our broken immigration system by providing smarter enforcement at the border, prioritize deporting felons--not families--and allowing certain undocumented immigrants, including the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents, who pass a criminal background check and pay taxes to temporarily stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation. Mr. Speaker, let me briefly discuss why the executive actions taken by President Obama are reasonable, responsible, and within his constitutional authority. Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President, the nation's Chief Executive, ``shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' In addition to establishing the President's obligation to execute the law, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Take Care Clause as ensuring presidential control over those who execute and enforce the law and the authority to decide how best to enforce the laws. See, e.g., Arizona v. United States; Bowsher v. Synar; Buckley v. Valeo; Printz v. United States; Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB. Every law enforcement agency, including the agencies that enforce immigration laws, has ``prosecutorial discretion''--the power to decide whom to investigate, arrest, detain, charge, and prosecute. Agencies, including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), may develop discretionary policies specific to the laws they are charged with enforcing, the population they serve, and the problems they face so that they can prioritize resources to meet mission critical enforcement goals. Executive authority to take action is thus ``fairly wide'', indeed the federal government's discretion is extremely ``broad''; as the Supreme Court held in the recent case of Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2499 (2012), an opinion written Justice Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice Roberts: ``Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal.'' (emphasis added) (citations omitted). The Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, also strongly suggests that the executive branch's discretion in matters of deportation may be exercised on an individual basis, or it may be used to protect entire classes of individuals such as ``[u]nauthorized workers trying to support their families'' or immigrants who originate from countries torn apart by internal conflicts: ``Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation's foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.'' Mr. Speaker, in exercising his broad discretion in the area of removal proceedings, President Obama has acted responsibly and reasonably in determining the circumstances in which it makes sense to pursue removal and when it does not. In exercising this broad discretion, President Obama has not done anything that is novel or unprecedented. Here are just a few examples of executive action taken by several presidents, both Republican and Democratic, on issues affecting immigrants over the past 35 years: 1. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter exercised parole authority to allow Cubans to enter the U.S., and about 123,000 ``Mariel Cubans'' were paroled into the U.S. by 1981. 2. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan used executive action in 1987 to allow 200,000 Nicaraguans facing deportation to apply for relief from expulsion and work authorization. 3. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order that granted Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) to certain nationals of the People's Republic of China who were in the United States. 4. In 1992, the Bush administration granted DED to certain nationals of El Salvador. 5. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued an executive order granting DED to certain Haitians who had arrived in the United States before Dec. 31, 1995. 6. In 2010 the Obama administration began a policy of granting parole to the spouses, parents, and children of military members. Mr. Speaker, because of the President's leadership and far-sighted executive action, 594,000 undocumented immigrants in my home state of Texas are eligible for deferred action. If these immigrants are able to remain united with their families and receive a temporary work permit, it would lead to a $338 million increase in tax revenues, over five years. Mr. Speaker, the President's laudable executive actions are a welcome development but not a substitute modernizing the nation's immigration laws. Only Congress can do that. America's borders are dynamic, with constantly evolving security challenges. Border security must be undertaken in a manner that allows actors to use pragmatism and common sense. And as shown by the success of H.R. 17, the bipartisan ``Border Security Results Act, which I helped to write and introduced along with the senior leaders of the House Homeland Security Committee, we can do this without putting the nation at risk or rejecting our national heritage as a welcoming and generous nation. This legislation has been incorporated in H.R. 15, the bipartisan ``Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,'' legislation which reflects nearly all of the core principles announced earlier this year by House Republicans. As a nation of immigrants, the United States has set the example for the world as to what can be achieved when people of diverse backgrounds, cultures, and experiences come together. It is now time to open the golden symbolized by Lady Liberty's lamp to the immigrant community of today so they can participate fully in the American Dream. These loyal and law-abiding persons have been waiting patiently for far too long for their chance. We can and should seize this historic opportunity to pass legislation to ensure that we have in place adequate systems and resources to secure our borders while at the same time preserving America's character as the most open and welcoming country in the history of the world and to reap the hundreds of billions of dollars in economic productivity that will result from comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama has acted boldly, responsibly, and compassionately in exercising his constitutional authority to enforce the immigration laws in an effective and humane manner. If congressional Republicans, who have refused to debate comprehensive immigration reform legislation for more than 500 days, disapprove of the lawful actions taken by the President, an alternative course of action is readily available to them: pass a bill and send it to the President for signature. The President has shown responsible leadership. The next step is up to congressional Republicans. I urge all Members to join me in opposing the rule and the underlying bill. Just yesterday, the State of Texas and a number of other States filed a lawsuit challenging the executive actions announced by the President on November 20. The lawsuit, which will be known as Texas v. United States of America, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Much to my surprise, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to have already issued a decision dismissing the Complaint. In the case of Texas v. United States--sound similar?--the Fifth Circuit in 1997 dismissed a lawsuit by then Governor George W. Bush arguing that the Federal Government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution--the Naturalization Clause. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Texas's argument that the Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In rejecting the Naturalization Clause argument, the Fifth Circuit wrote that ``A judicial action presents a nonjusticiable political question not amenable to judicial resolution where there is . . . a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.'' In this case, the Court stated plainly that ``We are not aware of and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are constitutionally adequate.'' Of course the President lawsuit challenges the enforcement actions of the President, not of Congress, but the broader point is the same. In rejecting the statutory claim brought by Texas, the Court cited the Administrative Procedure Act and Heckler v. Chaney--the Supreme Court's leading case on the non-reviewability of agency decisions not to take enforcement actions--for the proposition that ``An agency's decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard against which to judge the agency's exercise of discretion.'' At a time when illegal border crossings was at its peak--1.5 million returns each year in 1996 and 1997--the Court stated: ``We reject out- of-hand the State's contention that the federal defendants' alleged systemic failure to control immigration is so extreme as to constitute a reviewable abdication of duty. The State does not contend that federal defendants are doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws or that they have consciously decided to abdicate their enforcement responsibilities. Real or perceived inadequate enforcement of immigration laws does not constitute a reviewable abdication of duty.'' During this President's tenure, well over 2 million people have been formally removed from this country. Prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry after removal have increased exponentially. And even if 5 million people come forward and receive temporary protection from removal through DACA and the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program, there will still be well over 6 million undocumented immigrants who have received no such protection. With funds to deport no more than 400,000 people each year I assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the President is in no danger of ``doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws'' and that he had not ``consciously decided to abdicate [his] enforcement responsibilities.'' The argument that the President has declared that he will no longer enforce our immigration laws is offensive to the 34,000 people-- including thousands of women and children--who are sitting in detention centers today waiting for their day in court. It is also frivolous. The lawsuit filed yesterday will fail and this bill never will become law. Rather, the President's actions will soon take effect and will bring a small measure of sanity to our broken immigration system.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, briefly on the floor of the House today I mentioned how many times I voted for the defense authorization bill and appreciated the underlying principles in that legislation, which is to wholly support the United States military and their families. Today, unfortunately, layered down with poisonous pills on the floor of the House, the majority did not give this Congress the opportunity to debate the questions of war and peace. So I ask my colleagues and the leadership to let us debate this issue next week, or come back, or, as we begin 2015. Whenever we put our sons and daughters in harm's way, it is extremely important to do so. Let me change to another topic very quickly and acknowledge and give my sympathy to the Garner family and indicate that I am going to begin an assessment of the criminal justice system that includes a review of training for our law enforcement across America that will include the utilization of stop-and-frisk citations so that racial profiling can stop, and it will be an overview of the grand jury system, which is obviously broken. My sympathy, again, to the Brown family, to the Garner family, Sean Bell, Trayvon Martin, Robbie Tolan, and many, many others. Mr. Speaker, let me finally say this Congress cannot turn its head away from a broken criminal justice system.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R 5683, the ``Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims Against the United States Act.'' I support the bill because it amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1500 to remove the prohibition depriving the United States Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over any civil action against the United States pending in, or on appeal from, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) in cases in which the plaintiff also has pending in another federal court a civil action that includes a claim against the United States arising from the same set of operative facts. Under current law, the Court of Federal Claims is prohibited from exercising jurisdiction over any claim in which the plaintiff has pending in any other federal court a lawsuit against the United States arising out of the same incident even if the lawsuit in the CFC seeks different relief. When combined with other jurisdictional limits on the Court of Federal Claims and the court's statute of limitations, this prohibition forces plaintiffs to pick and choose among potentially meritorious claims against the United States and leads to plaintiffs being denied relief for unlawful government actions. As Justice Sotomayor has observed, this jurisdictional bar imposes an unfair burden on plaintiffs by forcing them to ``choose either to forgo relief in the district court or to file first in the district court and risk the expiration of the statute of limitations on their claims in the CFC.'' The Administrative Conference of the United States has identified several examples of potentially meritorious claims against the United States that have been adversely affected by the jurisdictional prohibition contained in Section 1500: 1. A federal employee who sued the government in district court under both the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her Equal Pay Act claim was transferred to the CFC and was dismissed under Section 1500; 2. Property owners who sued in the CFC, claiming the government had taken their property without just compensation. Their claim was dismissed because they had previously sued in district court on a tort theory; 3. A local government that was sued by the United States in district court over taxation of certain federal office buildings filed a counterclaim against the United States for the taxes it believed it was owed. The counterclaims were transferred to the CFC and dismissed under Section 1500; and 4. An Indian tribe that sued in the CFC for breach of trust. Its claims were dismissed because it sued on similar claims in district court on the same day. Mr. Speaker, the bill before remedies the deficiency in Section 1500 by striking the jurisdictional bar and replacing it with a presumptive stay provision. Under the presumptive stay provision, a plaintiff could file and maintain actions arising out of a single incident in both the CFC and the district court at the same time, but the action that was filed second would be stayed until the first action is no longer pending. The stay could be lifted by the agreement of the parties or upon a finding by a judge that the stay is not in the interest of justice. This presumptive stay provision provides judges with flexibility to manage potentially duplicative litigation against the United States in a manner that is consistent with modern judicial practice. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5683, the Ensuring Access to Justice for Claims Against the United States Act, eliminates wasteful obstacles to justice and inefficient use of scarce judicial resources while at the same time protecting plaintiffs' ability to seek complete relief when actions of the federal government violate their legal rights. I support this legislation and urge all members to join me in voting for H.R. 5683.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership, and the manager. Many of us, Mr. Speaker, have come to the floor of the House time and time again and supported our troops, supported their families, wanted them to have increased dollars in their compensation; but today I come with a heavy heart that issues of war and peace are in this bill, the authorization bill, and we have not had the time to debate this in front of the American people. Sending young men and women in the midst of a storm in war where they may lose their life, and yet this majority refuses to give us hours of time to show the American people what the commitment is, I raise a question. And then, of course, a bill that attacks the constitutional authority of the President of the United States in an immigration bill that is closed in falsehoods because the President is not going beyond the law; he is not changing the law. He has the authority to use his executive power for humanitarian relief, and he is saving the parents of children who are citizens. This is a wrong rule, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the manager, Mr. Levin, for his kindness, as well as the manager for the majority, Mr. Crenshaw, and Mr. Van Hollen, and the many others who, along with myself, cosponsored this legislation. It is very moving to have a moment of family on the floor of the House as I listen to Members recount their individual stories of those in their families and those of us who encounter our constituents with wonderful, beautiful children, many of whom fit squarely in this relief that is being given. As I watched two twins grow up who are prized and special in our community, I could just imagine what their mother and their late father would say about this opportunity. This legislation, H.R. 647, squarely answers our concerns. I want to get to two points that I think are so important. We hear it all the time: it seems as if these are rich people trying to get money, but they are not. They may be working families and middle class families, and to be able to not deny them eligibility for Medicaid when there are severe health issues that many of these young people and children face, and also for them to be able to have SSI, which is sometimes a lifeline, to be able to put aside this savings that will help them in education and transportation--I hear it so often, training for employment; any of us who have dealt with Goodwill and seen what Goodwill does with young people whose parents bring them there--yet they need other ways of being able to respond, and they should not be denied higher education. This bill allows the savings to be part of the higher education efforts that these parents want for their children, and sometimes the ability for independence with primary residence, what it says is that these young people, as they grow, have developmental possibilities and opportunities, and that there are no throwaway children, there are no throwaway young people.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. There are no throwaway young people, and we should not throw them away. I agree with my colleagues who have mentioned items that we would hope would be reframed, if you will, impacting workers' conditions and rights, provisions that may, in fact, impact Medicare. None of us who have committed ourselves to the strength of Medicare want to see that undermined. But I will say that the goodness of this legislation for my neighbors and my constituents whom I personally know, individuals whom I personally know--this is a lifeline. I am very glad to speak on H.R. 647 for the lifeline that it provides for people who deserve it, and they do not in any way have the need or the desire to see the opportunities for their children and their young people be determined only by the limitations of their ability to provide for them. This is an account. It is more than a savings account. It is a lifeline account to help give every American, no matter who they are, this equal opportunity and particularly those with disabilities.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Let me express my appreciation to the author of this bill, Mr. Kinzinger, and to the managers on the bill, as well as, in particular, to thank the ranking member, the chairman, and, of course, the manager today. Thank you for your leadership. I associate myself with Congressman Engel's remarks about leaving a space for affirmation of the Russian people but to make it very clear that we condemn the actions of Mr. Putin. Maybe calling him that is even too polite. Remember the days of Gorbachev when we understood that there was an open Russia, there was a Russia who was committed to working for world peace, standing on their own principles and values and history, not denying their strength, but yet working collaboratively in a civilized way. What happened to that Russia? What happened to the Russia that was supposed to be shown to the world during the Olympics? What happened to the Russia that believed in its great history and was prepared to stand alongside of all world leaders to make a better place? The taking over, the dominance, the literal invasion of Crimea was intolerable and an unacceptable action by a nation that calls itself ``standing civilized with other nations.'' The horrific tragedy of Malaysian Airlines and what many of us viewed around the world as we watched bodies being unattended and thugs not allowing persons to come and see to those bodies, how long they languished in those fields. So I think it is important to ask the question of Mr. Putin: What has happened to the Russia that we have known? I would say that this resolution condemns the actions of the government and the leadership of the government, but not the Russian people. I look forward to legislation coming forward that we all will debate on how we interact with the Russian people and provide the freedom of press and the freedom of speech and the opportunities for them. Mr. Speaker, as I conclude my remarks, I would be remiss not to be able to acknowledge Mr. Faleomavaega, who has an excellent bill on the floor, H. Res. 714, but to be able to say to him, I consider him a great American and a representative of his community and his region and all that he has done to turn our attention to south China, east China, and the Asian Pacific region. We are grateful for what he has done and grateful for his service. I thank him very much and wish for the continued support of his legislation and his service to this country. Let me also say that I support S. 2673, the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act, and look forward to its passage. Again, in conclusion, I hope that this legislation, the underlying legislation, is a statement on behalf of America, of what we mean and what we stand for.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in this season of reflection for many across the Nation, I will take a moment, first of all, to speak to my constituent Zeph to remind him that I have always supported the human dignity of all persons, and I will never fail to do so. I thank him for his warm embrace of those values and our commitment that we will continue to work together, which brings me to my concern of an ailing American who has continuously been held in Cuba. I ask today on the floor of the House for the leadership of this government to continue to work diligently in the efforts to return Alan Gross to his family. I hope that we will join together, Republicans and Democrats, to work for his release and his return. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that I do not speak of the conditions of such, the reasons for such; just an American who is in failing health whom we need to work to bring home. I think that is the kind of spirit of mercy that I would like to continue to speak of as we try to work our way through the understanding of the President's action on the executive order regarding immigration. It follows the directive of the Speaker of the House, who said: A comprehensive approach to immigration reform is long overdue; and I am confident that the President, myself, and others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all. Spoken by Speaker Boehner in 2012. Now, as we approach the new year, 2015, 3 years later, there has not been one vote on the floor of the House to bring mercy or relief to those who have been languishing in the shadows--not opening the borders, Mr. Speaker, but to really provide a framework for those who are here in the United States, almost as if there was a temporary pardon. This is not, as the Judiciary Committee pounded over and over again yesterday, a change in the law. This is a work within the confines of the law under article II executive powers of the President and the language to take care. It is actually a recognition to frame, if you will, the interpretation that is given to laws of the land-- might I say, civil laws as well. Because in a civil law, there is punishment; under immigration laws, you can be deported, a civil penalty. So the President has said, in an executive order narrowly confined and reviewed by legal counsel and constitutional experts, supported by 136 scholars, that said that the President is within his rights to stop deportation of store owners and childcare workers and high-tech workers, and particularly the parents of children who are, in fact, citizen children of legal permanent residents. It is important for the American people to understand, there is no illegality here. There is no runaway Presidency here. There is an understanding that those who have status--not immigration status, not pathway to citizenship, but a temporary reprieve--almost like a pardon, yet it is more temporary, those children who have been deferred, all he did was to say that it should be 3 years and not 2 years. He has asked that the ICE officers be made, if you will, equal to other Federal law enforcement officers. I celebrate that. That is exciting. Let me quickly say this, Mr. Speaker. I want to travel in the pathway of Reverend Dr. Sharon Stanley-Rea about immigration reform. Her words are, as I paraphrase them: We should choose our values for people over politics, community safety over partisan strategies, family unity and welcome over fear of foreigners, and humanitarian compassion for children and families above rhetoric and rancor. Let me finally, Mr. Speaker, say that I want to, again, as I move to another topic, thank and compliment the protesters that were peaceful regarding the issue of Ferguson. I ask for people to understand these young people. I went out in Houston in the march and applauded them for the peacefulness of their protests. Now they are asking for us as legislators and policymakers to make a difference in their lives. I publicly say on the floor of the House they will not be forgotten. I want AJ to know, who is an intern in my office from St. Louis, shot in gang fights, that he will not be forgotten. The work that he is doing will be remembered. I ask the National Association of Chiefs of Police to join us in a discussion on how we best walk through these concerns. There are many legislative initiatives, but it has to be a combination of law enforcement, policymakers, civil rights leaders. And to our police unions, let me say there are none of us that have not worked and stood alongside of you. I want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 5550, that I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure that funding is not used by local communities through their various traffic stops to fund their communities. Let's make a difference on Ferguson, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of Trayvon Martin's tragic death, the Nation waits. Young people wait. I could give a long litany. But certainly Michael Brown has galvanized us from north to south, from east to west. I stand with the young men, among many others, of the St. Louis Rams and the young people that I have seen taking to the streets nonviolently, peacefully. Today I rise to thank them and to applaud them as Americans deserving of honor and respect. But they wait. So I believe that it is important that we work with those who are assigned and in uniform to protect and serve. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I have stood alongside law enforcement, but now it is important that we realize that the system is not cracked but broken. There must be a complete overhaul of the training of local police in the nooks and crannies of America. There must be a reform of the system which provides the funding to local jurisdictions simply by traffic stops and foot citations. That is what geared Officer Wilson in the wrong direction. And finally, Mr. Speaker, there must be training to protect officers but to know when to use deadly force. Deadly force was not warranted; it was not required in the life and the loss of Michael Brown. There must be solutions, Mr. Speaker, for those young people that are out in the streets protesting. We cannot have a lopsided justice system.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, and I am very pleased to come from a city where so many celebrated and commemorated the progress and challenges involved. I want to thank the Thomas Street clinic. I have visited there and seen the treatment that is given. As well, I thank the AIDS Foundation, which has always been on the front lines providing information and resources. I also want to thank the Montrose Clinic. World AIDS Day, started in 1988, is an enormously important day. I remember being here as a civilian in the United States Senate when the Ryan White Act was introduced by Senator Kennedy and the distinguished Senator from Utah. So we are here today to say we have not done all that we need to do. PEPFAR has cared for millions around the world through the work that we have done here in the United States Congress. Deaths have declined, but yet HIV/AIDS and transmission from mothers to infants still exists. It is important to continue the work. We should not ignore the success or challenges. I am very glad to work with organizations in my district, and I hope that funding in the omnibus or the appropriations process is not diminished in fighting to eliminate HIV/AIDS in our lifetime. I thank all of those who have sacrificed and lost their lives. Mr. Speaker, World AIDS Day affords us an opportunity to reflect on our progress in fight against the global AIDS pandemic and to rededicate ourselves to ending the disease once and for all. We have come a long way since the first World AIDS Day in 1988 by dramatically expanding investments in HIV/AIDS prevention, care, treatment, and research. Strong advocacy has paved the way for the Ryan White Act, the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS Initiative, growing investments in NIH research, and an end to the ban on federal funds for syringe exchange. Beyond our borders, our efforts have extended care to millions in the developing world, through increased resources for PEPFAR and the Global Fund. Our investments have saved lives--preventing millions of new HIV cases, expanding access to improved treatments, and enabling medical advances that help HIV/AIDS patients live longer and healthier. Here and across the globe, AIDS deaths are on the decline, and studies are pointing the way to new approaches to limit the spread of the disease, with treatment as prevention. While our efforts have grown, we still only reach half of all people eligible for HIV treatment; and more must be done. Working together, we must continue to strengthen--not weaken--our national and international efforts to combat AIDS and other infectious diseases. We must work to achieve the Obama Administration's goal of an AIDS- free generation. We must honor the memory of those we have lost and act on our hope, optimism, and determination to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We must continue to work with programs and clinics, like the Harris County Hospital District (HCHD), who are treating and caring for patients with HIV/AIDS. In 1989, HCHD opened Thomas Street Health Center, the first free- standing facility dedicated to outpatient HIV/AIDS care in the nation. The center has become the cornerstone of all HIV/AIDS care available to Harris County residents. The Thomas Street Health Center has dedicated their services to about 25 percent of Harris County's HIV/AIDS. Annually, the health center, along with HCHD, serves 4,463 unique patients for about 37,000 patients' visits. We will continue to fight a tough fight against HIV and AIDS. We will continue to strengthen and support centers like Thomas Street Health Center who work diligently with HIV/AIDS patients. Our focus on HIV/AIDS prevention and awareness will be to ensure all of our friends, relatives and children live healthy and full lives.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Allow me to add my appreciation for the continued leadership of my friend and colleague from New York and to thank the previous speakers. We all associate ourselves with the passion, the commitment, the determination that has been expressed. Let me, as I stand, acknowledge that I am particularly pleased to be associated with distinguished legislators. Many people in this Nation have their particular roles as pastors and as civil rights leaders. In a meeting held right before the Thanksgiving holiday, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were reminded of the giant role that they have played over the years in combining passion with legislation, hearings with pain. As early as the 1990s, we held hearings on the questions of excessive force, as well as of the issues of racial profiling along the highways of America; of the issue of excessive sentencing in the crack cocaine disparities; of the issue of dealing with the overincarceration of minorities and the overfilling of jails. Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to plead to my colleagues. We are legislators, and we cannot legislate without the partnership of Republicans, so I stand as a Democrat and as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus that has always been cited as the conscience of America to say that we need to walk in step on the conspicuous Achilles heels of America, that is the criminal justice system. As we stand here today, every one of us has applauded a police officer, has mourned at their passing in the line of duty, has given them awards, has stood alongside of them--every one of us. Certainly, I will not take a backseat to anyone on my respect for law enforcement across the gamut. I recognize that they are here to protect and serve, and I think it is very crucial that our friends in law enforcement recognize the work that members of the Congressional Black Caucus have done, if not individually, then collectively. Let me say that I also admire the young St. Louis Rams players who raised their hands to be able to share in the dignity of those young, peaceful protesters. If we don't affirm nonviolence, then who will? I think everyone--law enforcement and others--who agree or disagree should recognize young people like the ones in Houston, Texas. ``Don't shoot.'' That does not in any way denigrate or disrespect our law enforcement officers. For just a few minutes, I want to speak about that aspect and how we see the justice system. To my colleagues, this is 2,500 pages. Those documents issued by the DA in St. Louis County were 10,000 pages. I am continuing to grow this stack. It is clear that what happened in the grand jury system, for many who don't know that system, is that those individuals are appointed by a judge. A single judge says, ``Who do I know in the community? Let me see if I can appoint 12 of them.'' In St. Louis County, it took nine to indict. If you listen to New York State Chief Judge Sol Wachtler, who famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, when I served on the municipal court, there were many probable cause hearings that we held, and there were many efforts by police officers to get a warrant, to be able to go when they thought there was suspicion of a crime. We worked with law enforcement officers. In fact, the data says, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 Federal cases. In 2010, which is the most recent year for which we have data, grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11. That is Federal. That is not the State system in Missouri, but I assure you it is comparable. So what happened in Missouri as it relates to the criminal justice system? First of all, a grand jury system is not a jury of your peers. A grand jury indictment is not a conviction. It would not have meant, if there was an indictment, that the officer in question was convicted. It would simply mean that we would transition to the jury system, and we would be able to address the question of Michael Brown's rights, for Michael Brown was protected under the Constitution. The First Amendment not only talks about freedom of religion and speech, it talks about the right of association and the right of movement. Michael Brown, an 18-year-old ``big boy,'' as his mom and dad lovingly called him, had a right to move, had a right to move on the streets of America. But he was denied that right. He was denied that right with seven shots. So there has to be a question. No one would deny that there is a reason to have a full trial, and the question would be: Why didn't the St. Louis district attorney act like many other district attorneys? I know there are some who are in that role here on this floor tonight, which is presenting a case, and let the jury ultimately decide. And the facts in the grand jury evidenced that a question remains. Let me say these two points as I close. I am a supporter of the executive order of the President for body cams, and there are many legislative initiatives that include that, but we need a broad view of what we are going to do in this situation. As I indicated to you, a grand jury is something different from a trial, a petit jury or a trial by your peers. So I would say that what happened in St. Louis was not the way that the process usually goes. Mr. McCulloch threw this on the grand jurors. And you needed nine--nine. Unfortunately, the configuration of that jury made it very unclear that there was not going to be an indictment. So today I think it is very important that we address several questions. We need to look at the grand jury system here across the Nation. We need to look at it in the name of Sean Bell; Amadou Diallo; Eric Garner; Robbie Tolan, in my community, where the police officer was not indicted; Trayvon Martin, a civilian; Michael Brown; and the 12-year-old boy. We need to look at it from the perspective of why isn't community-oriented policing used? Why wasn't it used in Ferguson? Under the Urban Justice Act, which I have introduced, it says that communities that rely heavily on fines and other means of funding their government, their Federal funding should be diminished accordingly if their whole base of living and funding is just to stop people along the streets. I said racial profiling; the expanding of civilian review boards; the increasing of diversity, which is being tried, unfortunately a little late in Ferguson; the use of conservatorships, of taking over police departments until they get it right; and last but certainly not least, educational reformation in teaching our young boys, our minority boys, along with things like My Brother's Keeper. To my colleagues today, this is only the beginning. And I believe, as Martin King said: Where do we go from here? It is imperative that legislation join with compassion, that it not only be Democrats or members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but we want partners, Republicans who realize that the criminal justice system, as it penetrates into local communities, must be enhanced, changed, and reformed. How long can we tolerate the shooting down of our children in streets? And it has nothing to do with one's respect or lack of respect for law enforcement, from the very high levels of the FBI, DEA, and ATF, to our local constables and sheriffs and police officers. So tonight my question is: Where do we go from here? The question is a reformation of the grand jury system. And I would almost say that a special prosecutor should have been the route in Missouri, and I would hope that we would look to legislative fixes with our colleagues to make America better. The Congressional Black Caucus will not be silenced. Those of us who serve on the respective jurisdictional committees will not be silenced. We will not be silenced because America is better than this, a country that we love. Where do we go from here? We must fix it, and fix it now.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Jeffries for his leadership, and I thank the Speaker, I am sorry that we were walking across the floor, and we may not publicly say it, but we thank you for your clarification, and to my good friend on the Judiciary Committee, Judge Gohmert, who has engaged in the issues of the criminal justice system. We are grateful for your knowledge on these issues. I want to leave two points behind as we clarify how we can move forward and recognize crises, but yet not be overcome by such. Might I thank the former mayor of New York for his provocativeness, but say that I disagree with some of the interpretation of why officers are in the African American community. A statistic does say, in fact, that over 2005 to 2012, a white police officer used deadly force against an African American person almost two times every week. That does not have to be because we know there are broader ways of addressing these questions, so let me say to you why there is such ire about what happened to Michael Brown. As I started out in my remarks about the grand jury system, it is one that raises the fact question, and if the fact question is not answered, why were his hands up? Why was he shot these many times? Then you go to a jury of your peers. It is a criminal justice system that no matter what color, creed, race, or religion you are, abiding by the Constitution, you can clearly say a question has been raised, and justice needs to answer that question. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are asking for, a simple justice that allows everyone to stand at the table of opportunity, equality, and rightness. So I would make the argument tonight that we have laid out a roadmap with a number of suggestions, whether it is cameras--supporting the President's request for money--whether it is legislation dealing with the utilization of tickets and citations, stopping people from moving, whether or not it is My Brother's Keeper, I believe that the Judiciary Committee, along with our colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, can raise up the specter of the Constitution and no matter who we are, we can look at those young men in St. Louis who raised their hands, applaud them for their work, applaud law enforcement officers who are engaged in community-oriented policing, and make a purposeful commitment that we will follow in the pathway of nonviolence and use the tools that our Constitution has given us to make our criminal justice system work for all of us, whether we are poor, whether we are rich, whether in unique communities, or whether we are Big Mike. We are going to say to Mr. Brown and we are going to say to Mike's mother that justice is going to come, not respecting whether or not we stand on one side or another, one race or another, because we are going to do right. I have faith in the Constitution, and I have faith in this Congress. For the very reason that Judge Gohmert yielded us the time to finish our words, I know that we will be engaged, Republicans and Democrats, with the Congressional Black Caucus in a pathway forward to make America rise to our higher angels and to the Constitution that we so love. Thank you, Mr. Jeffries, for your leadership. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for convening this very timely Special Order on one of major challenges facing our nation: how can we best rise from the ashes of the miscarriages of justice in Ferguson, Missouri and restore the trust and confidence of all Americans in the fairness and impartiality of the criminal justice system. That trust and confidence does not exist today among large segments of our population in the wake of the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed teenager who died after absorbing six gunshots from a Ferguson, Missouri police officer even though he posed no imminent threat, was not resisting arrest, and was observed by numerous witness to be holding his hands up, the universal sign of surrender. Compounding this unreasonable and excessive use of lethal force was the failure--some might say refusal--of the local prosecutor to obtain an indictment of any kind against the officer who killed Michael Brown. The strength and foundation of democratic government rests upon the consent and confidence of the governed. Similarly, effective enforcement of the law and administration of justice requires the confidence of the community that the law will be enforced impartially and that all persons are treated equally without regard to race or ethnicity or religion or national origin. While most police officers take this responsibility seriously and strive to treat all persons equally and with respect, their efforts are too often undermined by some of their colleagues who abuse the enormous trust and confidence placed in them. Remedial action should be taken with respect to officers whose conduct has been determined, after an adjudicatory proceeding, to violate applicable legal standards. In recent months, the nation has been repeatedly shocked by the killings of unarmed African Americans, mainly young African American males, by persons claiming, despite substantial and credible evidence to the contrary, that the use of lethal force was justified. The tragic killing of Michael Brown is just one of the worst examples. In August of this year in Staten Island, unarmed Eric Garner, an asthmatic 43-year-old father of six and grandparent, died from an unlawful chokehold administered by a New York Police Department officer who suspected Mr. Garner of selling an untaxed pack of cigarettes. And closer to home my constituents in the 18th Congressional District of Texas and I all remember the outrageous case involving young Robbie Tolan, who was shot and seriously injured by a white Bellaire Police Department officer while in the driveway of his home, 15 to 20 feet away from the officer, had committed no crime, and whose innocence had been affirmed to the officer by his mother and father. Let me state at the outset that as a Member of Congress and member of the bar that I hold the rule of law sacred. I have always supported law enforcement and have always recognized the value and importance of prosecutors seeking justice and defense attorneys fighting to protect the rights of the accused. I also revere the grand jury process, which on the federal level at least, has been one of the bulwarks safeguarding the public and the accused since the ratification of the 5th in 1791. I do not fault the decision to impanel a grand jury to investigate the killing of Michael Brown; on the contrary, a grand jury investigation was the proper way to proceed. Like many others, however, I have two main concerns regarding the way the grand jury investigation was conducted. First, the failure of the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, Robert McCulloch, to recuse himself and seek the appointment of a Special Counsel was a grave mistake. Not just because his father was a St. Louis policeman killed in the line of duty by a black man when he was 12. Not just because his brother, nephew and cousin all served with the St. Louis police and that his mother worked as a clerk for the force for 20 years. And not just because Mr. McCulloch would have joined the police force too, but he lost a leg in high school due to cancer. Mr. McCulloch's credibility and reputation for fairness has been at low ebb among African Americans in St. Louis County since his handling of the notorious ``Jack-in-the-Box'' shooting in June 2000, in which two officers approached a stopped car carrying two unarmed African American men from the front and fired 21 shots, killing Earl Murray and Ronald Beasley. In the ensuing investigation, Mr. McCulloch put the case to a grand jury which declined to indict the officers, and McCulloch said he agreed with the decision. The story presented by Mr. McCulloch's office to the grand jury was that Murray's car moved toward the two officers, who then fired out of self-defense. The two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury and both men told jurors that Murray's car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. However, a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse. The officers involved in the shooting did not testify truthfully to the grand jury, yet Prosecutor McCulloch stated publicly that he agreed with the decision not to indict. The second major flaw was that the manner in which the grand jury investigation was conducted impeded rather than facilitated the search for truth that is the province of a petit jury. The purpose of a grand jury is two-fold: to make the threshold determination as to whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it. Once this minimal showing has been made, it is for the petit jury to determine whether the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt each essential element of the offense. In discharging its duty, the grand jury looks to, and is dependent upon, the prosecutor for an orderly and coherent presentation of evidence establishing probable cause and for guidance as to the law and in making sense of the evidence and testimony. That did not happen in this case. Instead, the prosecution did not present any indictment that the grand jury could evaluate against the evidence to determine whether to return a ``true bill'' and did not make any recommendation regarding charges that could or should be lodged. It is common wisdom that a grand jury historically has functioned as a tool of the prosecution, so much so that is frequently noted that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to ``indict a ham sandwich.'' This is not an exaggeration. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in only 11 cases. So the failure of the Ferguson Grand Jury to return an indictment exacerbated the lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system, especially among African Americans, not just in Ferguson, Missouri but all across the country because to many it sends the signal that the lives of African American males have less value that do others. It should be noted that according to the FBI's most recent accounts of ``justifiable homicide,'' in the seven years between 2005 and 2012, a white police officer used deadly force against an African American person almost two times every week. Of those African American persons killed, 18 percent, or nearly one in every five, was under 21 years of age. In contrast, only 8.7 percent of white persons killed by police officers were younger than 21. In 2012, Houston had an African American population of 23.7 percent. That same year, African Americans accounted for 48% percent of victims killed by the police. Chicago was even worse with a whopping 91% of police killings involving an African American victim, nearly three times their percentage of the city's population. For New York, the comparable figures were 87% and 28.36 percent. Across the country, in 2012 there were 739 justifiable homicide shootings by police and citizens and of these, 313 of the victims (42.35%) were African American. This cannot and must not continue. That is why I am renewing my request to Attorney General Holder that the Justice Department consider bringing federal charges so that those responsible for the killing of Michael Brown are held accountable. I am also calling upon the Department of Justice to exercise the authority conferred by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which gives the Department's Civil Rights Division authority to investigate state and local law enforcement agencies that it believes have unconstitutional policies or engage in unconstitutional patterns or practices of conduct. The law is intended to address systemic issues, rather than individual complaints. As Americans we must demand that the law is applied fairly and equally to all persons in the courtroom and on the street. Achieving this goal is the best way to honor the memory of Michael Brown.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first year or the second year or the third year of the administration. In actuality, we are going towards the end of the term of this administration. From my perspective as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security Committee and the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on the Committee on the Judiciary, every single year, this administration has extended its hand of collaboration to this Congress to intervene in the desperate lives of those who have been stolen from their children, deported, or families that have been disunited, if you will, wanting to be reunited. I stand with the President tonight as he gives his message to America that we are a humanitarian country and that ``under my constitutional authority, as can be documented by scholars across this Nation, I have the authority to be merciful to give humanitarian relief,'' citing the U.S. v. Arizona case in 2012, when Justice Roberts said that the President has the authority for humanitarian relief. Every difficult decision, unfortunately, in this Nation, from freeing the slaves to making the armies or the militaries integrated, took courage from Presidents. Lyndon Baines Johnson had courage when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Mr. President, you are doing the right thing. I stand with you on exercising your executive authority. We need mercy for these people who are desperate.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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